The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About032106 CC Agenda In compliance with the Americans vvith 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 ",II 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 21,2006 -7:00 PM 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. Next in Order: Ordinance: 06-04 Resolution: 06-25 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Roberts Prelude Music: The Andrews Sisters Invocation: Pastor Gary Nelson of Calvary Chapel of Temecula Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Washington ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts PRESENTA TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS Presentation of Sponsorship Checks to students travelinq to Sister Citv Netherlands Certificates of Achievement to the Ladv Hoops Basketball Team 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 minute (5) 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 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of February 14, 2006; 2.2 Approve the minutes of February 28, 2006. 3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Citv Treasurer's Report as of Januarv 31. 2006 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 2006. 2 5 Police Department OTS Seatbelt Mini Grant Fundinq RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Increase estimated General Fund Grant Revenue by $24,256; 5.2 Appropriate $24,256 from General Fund Grant Revenue to the Police Department. 6 Resolution Chanqinq the Time of Planninq Commission Meetinqs RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION 7 Second Amendment to the Professional Services Aqreement for Geotechnical and Materials Testinq Services with EnGEN Corporation for Various Capital Improvement Proiects for FY2005-2006 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Professional Services Agreement with EnGEN Corporation in the amount of $25,000.00 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 8 Western Bvpass Corridor - Phase I Aliqnment Studv. Proiect No. PW05-10 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve an agreement with URS Corporation to provide professional engineering services by doing a specific alignment study and determination for the Western Bypass Corridor - Phase I Alignment Study - Project PW05-10 - in an amount not to exceed $265,180.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $26,518.00, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. 3 9 Award the Construction Contract for Project No. PW06-01 - Slurrv Seal Project FY2005- 2006. Redhawk Area RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Award a construction contract for Project No. PW06-01- Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006 - Redhawk Area - to All American Asphalt in the amount of $563,690.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 9.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $56,369.05, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 10 Award the Construction Contract for Project No. PW06-02 - CitYWide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Award a construction contract for Project No. PW06-02 - Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 - to S. Parker Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $ 95,257.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $ 9,525.75, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 11 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract Pechanqa Parkwav Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements - Wolf Vallev Creek Channel - Staqe 2. Project No. PW99-11 CH RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Accept the Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements Project - Wolf Valley Creek Channel- Stage 2 - Project No. PW99-11 CH as complete; 11.2 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; 11.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 12 Completion and Acceptance of the Construction Contract for the Rancho California Road Bridqe Wideninq over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek Project - Project No. PW99-18 - 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; 4 12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 13 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract Traffic Siqnallnstallation at Route 79 South and County Glen Wav - Project No. PW04-09 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the Traffic Signal Installation Project at Route 79 South and Country Glen Way - Project No. PW04-09 - as complete; 13.2 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; 13.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 14 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road- Project No. PW05-04 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road - Project No. PW05-04. 15 Acceptance of Quitclaim Deeds - Vail Ranch Parks and Open Space RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept the six Quitclaim Deeds for Vail Ranch Parks and Open Space and authorize the City Clerk to record the documents. ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 06-01 Resolution: No. CSD 06-04 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD 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. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 16 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the minutes of February 28, 2006. 17 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract - Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Liqhtinq. Project No. PW04-06CSD RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Accept the Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting Project - Project No. PW04-06CSD - as complete; 17.2 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; and 6 17.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 18 Retrofit Existinq Plav Areas at Loma Linda Parks RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve the agreement with Miracle Playground Sales in the amount of $116,613.00 plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $11 ,661.30 to retrofit playground equipment at Loma Linda Parks. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 28,2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 7 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 06-01 Resolution: No. RDA 06-03 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Edwards, Comerchero, Roberts, Washington, Naggar RDA 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. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 19 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the minutes of February 28, 2006. RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 28,2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 8 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 20 Appeal of Planninq Commission Approval of Planninq Application Nos. PA04-0490 throuqh PA04-0492 for site development and construction of 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site located at the northeastern corner of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04-0491, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04-0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS, 96 TRI-PLEX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR-PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE COUNCIL BUSINESS 21 Planninq Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Appoint an applicant to serve an un-expired term on the Planning Commission through June 15, 2008. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 9 ~ CIlCJ:lP" [2 ~ ~.~ el rD g. rD P" ~ rD g rD 0" g. o' >0 CIl 9 rD S' 8 . rD rD n::l >-3 ::S ~ po >0 S ..... ~ ............ g. 0 .....p:l (1) ....., 0' <<: () g. ;J> 9 .....~ ::l ...... rD ro ..... Q1:l po () PJ t""" ..... CIl .... .... ..... po 0 PJ ..... PJ_ ::l Q1:l ~ N CIl ~ rD <<: rD po .... ::l () Zp"~CIl () rD ~ 0 0 0 -< 0""" ~ ,g PJ 0' >0 g. ~....CIlrD ;: ...... p....O\n ..... ~ ~ CIl P" S'..... P" ;J> (;1 Q~ t'l S ;: (I> orD....o ~ (j g ::l<<:PO""" Q1:lrDFr>-3 N ~. Q CIl ::s el tJ::j rD !:l po ~g ::l .....~ PJ S ~ ~ ~~ ~ g. CIlrD (I> :;:: ::s >-3[() ~ ~ <:) ;:s .... ~ :;:: ~ "S~ rD P"P"&Pi' N- -. V;.(1) p:l "" Co; -.. 2 ~ ~. <<: l::::..... >% ~ El~ PJ ::l """. 8 P" >-3 () "" ;:s ~~. CIl ~ >:l..~ P" o PJ rD 0 "" ~ ~. (T;;) P"' Snlsg So s. ~ Ci(J (j ~~ rD Sf l:l~' .... >0 ::s' .... '" ~'t., ...... po CIl ..... 0 >-3 .... ~ ~ ~ CIl::lP"2.. !:l -.~ ~ ~ () P" rDPO .~ ~ () ~ ':-'l. rD S () .... ~ ~~ rD P" t""" ..... (I> (I> CIl ::lpoPJg ~ ~ ~ ~ CIl ~ ~ ..... rS~;J> a gj ~ ::l ;:g ~ g~ Z ....>0 ~ ..... :;:: P" P" ..... ~ ro ~El ~ ~ rD rD 0 0 CIl 0::r:;:S .... .... ::l 0 ..... s- . ~ g; >-< ~ rDCIl>oPO !:l <:) ~ o.~ s,[.~g ::::: ~ ~ ..... g; I:"l .... - ........p" ~ (I> 0.00 f1l o 00 po o rD rD ;:s 00 CIl ~ po .... !:l ~ " ~~ ~ 8 g ~ == '" '" ... '" '" I:"l ......PJ-<() :E r;~ :--SrDo '-< 2.0 porD~S g ....::lg>o s-~ (1)ct ~ " CIlPJO"g;. .'" go -. >-< ~ '" ::r g::l ~ S ~~ ~ ~" OQ' ~ [ rD fl o...g" p"......&g cr" ~ (6 M~~cn ("l " ~. ::I- o S ;J> Q1:l po .'" H1(j ~ .... ::l ("l ~ ~~ PJrDrD~ !f ~ ::l CIl PJ ~ SrD "'" ~ g." tJ::j8'~81 . 0. +s~a ~ ~CJ:lP"::S rD [2~~:~ ~ rD g. rD P"'~. ::lrDO"....O >0 1il" 8 rD P" S' 8 . rD rD ~ n::l ~~. ~ e:. 'E. S g. 0 ~~ (1) l"'"\' ....., o () P" Q 9 S' 2.. rD .....C1Q po () .... po ..... ..... M li o. CIl po 0 po N .... ::l Q1:l ~ rD ..... ::l ~rD<<: ::l po- Z[~~ CIl po rD .... 0 ....., -< 0.... ~ () po 0' >0 P" () 0 ~....CIlrD ;: ,g p....O\n P" S'..... ~ ~ ...... ;J>(;1Q~ ..... ;: (I> CIl _(1) I-t 0 P" o po""" ~ [) S ::l <<: ~...., N Q Q1:lrDrDrD ~ Q rD ::S ~ tJ::j S ::l !:l ~g 1il" ....... p:l (1) ~ & enn ~ ~ (I> ~ ~ ~ ~ ........,[2.. ~ <:) ;:s 'S; ~ P"P"&po ~. ~ ~ ~ 1;j- -. ~. ~ po S' -.. 2 ~ ~ po l:::: () >% =- El~ () P""'" 0 "" ~. ;:s ~ ~. ::S () po rD ::l ~ ~ >:l..~ ..... o-<po~ ~ 5" (T;;) CIl ~~ P"' ,grDSpo S. Ci(J (j P" ......::S~S- Sf '" ~ l:l~ ~'t., rD Vi. 0 - ~ .... p"::lP"~ !:l -~ ~ ~ CIl S rD..... ~ ~. ~ rD g. t"""g ~ (I> ~ ;::. () ~ .... ~ () ::lpoPOn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rD a (I> (I> CIl -.... S ~ Ef ;:s () -.:: ~ NSZ CIl ....>0 ~ ~ ..... :;:: ~ :::: g<< ..... P" ..... ~ ..... ~ ~El ::l rDOO~ ~ S' 0::r:;:S 1=f M =:i 0 ...... So ~ . ~ g; ::l rD CIl >0 ::l !:l po P" po ::: o.z .... S .....CIl 0 ::::: g; I:"l ~ >0 po ::l ~ ..... - .... ~ 0.00 po 8 rD P" gj f/.J 00 g,:;:s ~ CIl ~ po rD !:l ~ " ::S 8 q;;; ;: '" [= g; '" I:"l rD po ~ () :E r;~ FS.(I)8 porD~S 5' 2.0 .... g g >0 '" g.~ " rDCIl ...... .'" ~ -. >-< en cr ...... ~ '" ::r q po po CIl '" ~.?2 ::l CIl P" ~ ~" ~. ~ [S .("l 0.1r Q1:l rD <:T ~ (6 P"ro&::l ("l " l"'"\' p:l p:l fit ~. ::I- " ;J>Q1:l l:::: po .'" o '" ("l ~ ,...,s ~ (ij::l ~'" po rD .~ .::l CIl po ~ ~ ~ Ell ~ SrD 0 C> ~ tJ::j8'~81 .., .P"o. +s~a ~ CIl CJ:lP"'::S [2 ~ .....~ PJ rD g. rD g.~ .... rD g rD 0" .... o' >0 tI.I )-"t (1) ::r...... 8 . ::l rD rD ::l ~ n::l~::S ~ e:. 'E. S ..... 0 ..... po rD g. ....., 0' <<: () g. n ~ ...... ~ ::l ::l ...... rD el ..... Q1:l po () q PJ .... t""" ~: PJ 0 PJ ..... CIl- ~C1Q ~N PJ ~ rD <<: rD .... ::l () ZP"~CIl () rD ~ 0 0 0 ,g -< 0""" ~ po 0' >0 g. ...... ~....CIlrD ;: ..... P....O\n CIl P" S' ~ ~ ::r S ;J> (;1 Q~' t'l ......rD.... ;: (I> rD g<<:PJo ~ [) ::l .... Q1:lrD~""" t'-i ~ CIl po rD >-3 Q ~ ::S....tJ::jrD !:l ~g .....~ po S ~ ~ g. ~rD (I> :;:: ~~ ::S ....>-3rD() ~ ~ <:) ;:s rD P"P"&2.. ~ () "S~ ::S Vi. (1) ~ p:l >% 1;j- :::.; 2 ~ ..... PJ <<: l:::: S' ~ El~ CIl 8 P" >-3 () "" ~ ;:s ~~. P"' ~~ P" o po rD 0 ~ ~ -. (I> rD S n; po ::l S. ~ (j ~~ .... >0 ? ~ Sf ~ l:l~ CIl ir-~>-38 '" ~'t., ~ ~ () !:l ~ -~ ~ ~ () P"'::lP"...... ~ ~. rD S () rD po =: CIl rD P"' t""" 0. (I> ~ ~~ CIl ::l PJ po ::l ~ ~ ~ .~ ..... ~ ~ ::l r S ~Q1:l !:l gj ~ -.: ~ ....>o<<:n "" NSZ 1=f ~ .... ~ ~ :::: P"' ..... ~ po ~El g<< .... rD 0 0 .... ~ S' ?\::r:::S ::l ...... S- 8' (tiCllO<<: () g; >-< !:l a o.::i B; po P" >0 0 ~ ::: S >6' ~ ::l ::::: ..... g; I:"l f1l _ .... P" ~ o.f/.J po8rDrD gj f/.J o 00 CIl ~ po .... ~ ~ e s:::S ::S 9 q ~ '" g; c. :Ii '" I:"l rD PJ ~ () :E r;~ FSrDo i 2.0 el g S-,g _'"l (D vt \1Q ~ ::r- .'" ~ -. >-< Cf) . c:r tI.I ~ tn.:::r g~~~ '" ~~ ~ ~ "" ..... ~.[ rD .("l ~g" ~......&::l cr" ~ (6 n- (1) fit ("l " ;J> Jci ~ po q.. ::l- e .'" o '" '""g ~ (ti ::l ("l ~ ~~ porDpo~ " ~ ::l CIl .., ~~SrD "'" 0 .., g." tJ::jo~81 . 0. +S~a ~ ~CJ:lP"::s rD ~ 2 ~ ..... ~ po ~""rDg.rD .... rD P" '-' . ::l .... 0 rD 1il" 8 0" P" ..... >0 . ~ rD ::l .... 0 n::l ~~. ~ ~ e:. 'E. s g. 0 g;~ Pl g. ....., ~ 9 .....~ rD ::l ...... ..... Q1:l PJ () ..... PJ .... t""" ~. ::t po 0 po N' ..... ::l ::l Q1:l ~ rD ",- ~rD<<: ::l g. '" "PO ZrD510 () rD .... 0 ....., () -< .... ~ 0 Po 0' >0 P" ,g ~...."'rD ;: p....O).n ~ ...... P"'" ~...... ~ ..... t'l '" ;J> (;1 Q~ (I> P" ;: ~ orD~O ~ ~ [) ::l <<: ~ ....., t'-i ~ Q ::l Q1:lrDrD>-3 1il" ::seltdrD !:l ~g ..... ~ Po ~ ~ ~. ~ Po ~ """. (I> :;:: ::l .... '" ~ ~ P" p;"() ~ <:) ;:s "S~ ....>-3rD~ ~ () """. -. ~ P"P"&...... ~ 1;j- -.. ~ .... rD Po >% ~ El~ ~D ",'<<: ~ S' ::s ~ P" >-3 () "" ~ ~~ ~ ~. ..... ~ '" () PJ rD 0 ~ -. (I> P" o -< Po ::l ~ (j ~~ P" SrDS~ ~ l:l~ ~ ... ~'t., rD >0 ::s' PJ '" .... s:. &~ '" ~0>-3S- ~ ~ ~ "'::lP"...... ~ ~ P" rDPJ ~~ () S () l' O. ~ (I> ~ () ~ ~ rD g g"PJg ~ ~ ~ ~ '" gj ~ '" rS~~ a -.:: ~ ..... ..... :;:: ~ :::: ::l ....>o~po ~ <:) El ~ S' g~ Z P" ::r ...... ...... ~ ':"', (Ooo~ s- . () 0::r:::S rD ::l 0 ..... ~ <:) ~ .... fij '" >0 ::l !:l ~ g; >-< g' S ::r. '" 0 ::::: ..... 0.'"' >0 PJ ::l ~ g; ~ ~ - .... P" ~ gj .... PJ8rDrD 0.00 rD ~ o f/.J '" ~ PJ .... !:l f/.J Ell:::S ::s 9 q ~ ;: " '" $].= rD PJ ~ () g; '" I:"l FSrDO :E r;~ p:l (t) ~ s '-< 2.0 ....::lg>o 0 _"l (1)ct ~ '" ::r' 0"'" " _. >-< ~PJPJi:l" .'" ~ '" ::r ~ ::l '" S ~ N::! '" >-;." ..... ~ [rD ~ ~ c:g- ~ ro &::l .fl cr" ~ ~ ....PJ~1il" ("l " ;J> Q1:l PJ ::I- ~. .'" o _ ~ .... ::l ""0 PJrDrD~ ("l ~ ~'" ::l '" S rD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 83 0 '" " tJ::jO~O .... .P"o. +s~a ~ '" ....CJ:lP"::S po [2 ~ ~.~ (;1 rD g. rD P" rD g rD 0" g. o' >0 ~ 9 ~ rD S' .... 0 n::l>-3::S ~ ~ po >0 S ..... ...... .... 0 ..... Pi' rD P" ....., 0' <<: () g. n 8 .....~ ::l ...... rD 'PJ ..... Q1:l po () '" po .... l' ~. '" ..... PJ 0 po N' rD ",- ::lQ1:l ~ ~ rD <<: rD po .... ::l () ZP"~'" () rD rD 0 0 0 -< .... 0 ....., ,g PJ 0' >0 g. ~ ~...."'rD ...... p....O\n ;:: ..... '" ~ Et- ~ [ ;J> .... ..... t'l ......~ 0~ ;: ::l 8<<: ~g, ~ .... Q1:lrDrD>-3 N '" ::S el tJ::j rD PJ !:l ::l ..... ~ PJ S ~ ~ & en(t) ::S p<;"() ~ ....>-3rD~ P"P"&...... rD tn. (1) p:l ~ ~ ::S <<: l::::..... .~ ..... PJ ::l "!:S '" () P" >-3 () "" P" () PJ rD 0 ~ ~ 1=f o -< PJ ::l SrDS~ ;0- S. .... >0 ::S . Sf '" ...... PJ !'> ~ ~. 0 >-3 .... 8 p"::lP"2.. !:l rD S () rD PJ ~ '" rD P" l' S' '" ::lpoPJQ1:l ~ ..... -.... S ~ a NS ::l ....>o<<:n 5<< Z 1=f P" ..... ~ PJ ~ 0::r:::S rD 0 0 '" .... M =' 0 ~. s- g; ::l ~ rD",>orD !:l o.z ffi~~ 8 ::::: g; I:"l o.f/.J ~ ~ f/.J o 00 PJ 8 rD 1=f " @:::S '" ~ PJ .... !:l '" g; 0.= ::S 8 q PJ ;: :E 2.1:"l rD po po () ~ ~ ......S-<8 :-- rD g 2.0 PJrD~S " ->oj ....::l::l>O .'" ::r- rD 1il" Q1:l ...... ~ _. >-< en . cr Vi' ~ '" ::r '" ~~ qpoPJP" ~ ~(O PJ ::l '" S .("l o..g' OQ' ~ [ rD cr' P"ro&::l ("l " ~ (6 ~. ::I- o S l"'"\' p.1 p:l fit .'" ;J>Q1:l l:::: PJ ("l ~ >+>S po~@'::l ~ ~'" ~ e; @ ::l '" po ~ 0 () ~ ~::pSrD .., ::r" . 0. tJ::jo~81 +s~a .~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ (I> (j ~ ~g (I> ~ <:) ;:s :;:: () ~ ~ El~ ;:s .... e..~ ;:sO (I> Ci(J (j l:l -. ~~ _<2 ~. "" (I> ~ ~ ~ (1). (I> :::l () .... :;:: ~El . 8 ~ ~ (I> ;:s ~ Q ~~ "S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~~ ~'t., g.~ .... ~ ~ ~ ;:g ~ ~ ~ ::: ..... ~ ~CJ:lP"::S~ [2 ~ >:t.. el rD g. rD P" ~ rD ::l rD 0" .... o' >0 ur I-t l:T ...... .... . ::l ~ rD ::l 0 n::l>-3::S ~ ~ po >0 S ..... ...... .... 0 ...... PJ (1) ::T ....., 0' <<: () .... >-3 .... .....::: P" ::l ::l ...... rD ~ ..... Q1:l PJ () 0 PJ .... t-< >:t.' PJ 0 PJ ..... .... ::l Q1:l ~ N ",- ~ rD <<: rD po .... ::l () Zp"~CIl () rD ~ 0 0 0 -< 0""" ~ ,g po 0' >0 g. ~...."'rD ...... p....O\n ;:: ..... . ~ '" ::r' ;....... ~ ;J> (;1 Q~ t'l ;: 0 orD;;lO ~ ::l <<: ~....., .... Q1:lrDrD>-3 N '" ::s el tJ::j rD !:l ~ ..... ~ PJ S ~ g. "'rD ~ p;"() ~ ~ ....>-3rD~ P"P"&Pi' Vi. (1) p:l "" ::s <<: l::::..... >% PJ ::l ..... () P" >-3 () "" '" P" () PJ rD 0 0\ ~ 1=f o -< PJ ::l So ,grDp~ S. .... ...... ::s po Sf ~ '" ~. 0 >-3 S- ~ !:l () p"::lP"Pi' ~ () S () rD .... rD rD P" t-< ..... '" ::lPJPJg ~ '" ..... rS~>-3 a NSIZ ::l ....>0 g<< 1=f P" o' ~ ~ ~ ?"~~ .... rD ::l 0 ...... s- '" >-3 8' @' ",.g Sl !:l o.z ~ S g: '" 0 ::::: g; I:"l >0 PJ ::l - .... ~ o.f/.J f1l PJ 8 rD 1=f f/.J o 00 " ~~ '" ~ po .... !:l '" ::s 8 q f'i ;: g; :E ~~ :!.PJ~() :--SrDo 5' 2.0 porDg:S ....::l >0 '" s-~ (I) l"'"\' OQ .......... " '" ..... .'" ~ -. >-< "'PJO"~ ~ '" ::r ~~ q ::l PJ ~ '" PJ '" S ~ . " OQ' ~ [ rD .("l a" c:g- P"ro&::l ("l ~ ~ (6 .... po po1il" q. .Y' o S ;J>~ l:::: po ("l ~ ,...,s @'::l !f ~~ po rD PJ ~. ~ ::l '" "'" 0 ~::t'SrD .., " " tJ::jo~81 ?"o. +s~a ~ ~ S- .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I> (j ~. ~g (I> :;:: Cl ::s ;:: () N- -. Co; -.. El~ ;:s ..... ~::s- -. (I> ~(j l:l~ ~ _<.2 ~. -,., (I> ~ ~ ~ gj ~ ..... ~ ~El . () <:) ~ ~ gj ~ Q ~~ ~.~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~~ ~'t., ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -.: ~ ~ :::: ~ S' ::: ..... f/.J " '" g; :E g " .'" ~ ~ .("l ("l ~. ("l " * ~ '" ~ cr' " ::l- .'" ~ ~ o .... ~ po (;1 >0 .... o ~ ~ o ....., ;J> .... ..... ~ PJ ",- PJ () () o ,g ...... ..... '" P" S rD ::l .... '" po ::l ~ ~ ::S ..... '" P" P" rD .... '" ~ () () rD '" '" NSo:! g'< ~ 0::r:::S g; .... o.~ gj I:"l 0.00 o f/.J s:::S n. = '" I:"l r;~ 2.0 ~"j ::r. -. >-< '" ::r ~?2 . " ~g" ~ ~ " ~~ ~'" ej ~ g." . 0. ..... ::l 1=f .... ~ .... f1l '" CJ:lP"::S [2~a:~ rDg.(J).....<.... ::l rD 0".... o' ~ 8 ~ 1=f S' n::l>-3::S e:. >0 rD :=;.. ..... Pl ~ P" 0' <<: () L!o .... ..... ~ g ::l ::l ...... ..... Q1:l PJ () PJ ...... ..... .... ,..... PJ 0 PJ ..... ::l Q1:l N ~~~g ZP"~'" rD ~ 0 0 -< 0""" PJ 0' >0 g. ~.... '" rD p....O>.n ::r ::r...... ;J>r6Q~ .......(1) I-t 0 g<<:PJ....., aqrDFr>-3 ::seltJ::jrD .....~ po S rt en'(\) P" ?\" () ....>-3rD~ P"P"&Pi' ...... (\) l'\~ '" <<: i=-..... po ...... ::l () P" >-3 () 8 ~. f;l g SrDs~ >0 ::S. po iro>-32 p"::lP"Pi' !:oj rD.... ~ g. t""" S' ::lPJPOQ1:l _....s~;J> .... >0 .... P" ..... ~ ..... rD 0 0 po .... ::l 0 ::l rD "'>0 Po g;g:",o p>opo::l - .... po 8 rD 1=f '" ~ PJ .... ::S 9 q PJ rD po po () l::::!:oj-<() _ prDo p:l (1) ~S ....::lE>O o Ei! "''00( :::: ~PJO"~ .... .... PJ po ..... '" S OQ' ~ [ rD p"......&::l l"'"\' (1) 1"\, r-t- po ~ '" ;J>Q1:l l:::: PJ ~ .... ..... PJ rD rD ..... ::l '" po ~ ~ SrD tJ::j8'~81 +Sp-.a ~ ;: ~ t'l ;: ~ N !:l ~ ~ ~ >% "" ~ Sf !:l ~ ~ ~ ~ So !:l ::::: ~ ; ~ s. '" ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I> [) ~. ~g (I> ~ <:) ;:s :;:: () N- -. Co; -.. El~ ;:s ..... ~~ -. (I> ~ (j l:l -. ~~ -~ ~. (I> ~ ~ ~ gj ~ ..... ~ ~El . () <:) ~ ~ gj ~ Q ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~D ~ ~. ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -.:: ~ ~ ;:: ~ S' ~ ..... ~ ~CJ:lP"::S ~ 0 po ..... ~ el ~gn;g.rD rD P" '-' . rD g ~ [g. 8. >0 ~ ::l rD rD ::l .... 0 n::l ~~. ~ ~ e:. 'E. S g. 0 g;~ ~ g. ...., ~ .... S'~ rD ::l ...... ..... Q1:l PJ () '" po....l'~: '" ..... PJ 0 po ..... () ::l Q1:l ~~ po ",- ~rD<<: ::l ~ Z[~~ rD .... 0 ....., () -< 0.... ~ 0 PJ 0' >0 P" ,g ~...."'rD ;: p....O).n ~ ...... ~ ..... p"" ::1"....... '" ;J> (;1 Q~ (I> P" ;: S orDpjo ~ (j rD ::l <<: ~ ...., N ~ Q ::l Q1:lrDrD>-3 1il" ::s el tJ::j rD !:l ~g ~ .....~ PJ S ~ ~. ~ .... '" rD ~ (I> ~ ~ P" ~ () ~ <:) ;:s "S~ ....>-3rD~ :;:: () -. ::s P"P"&...... ~ 1;j- -.. ~ rD _. (l) p:l >% ~ El~ ~D CJ:) '-< e....... ::s ......::l ;:s ..... ~ P" >-3 () "" """. ~.;s- ~ ~. ..... ~ '" () po rD 0 "" ~ -. (T;;) P" o -< PJ ::l So ~ (j ~~ P" SrDS~ S. ~ rD >0 ::s . po Sf ~ l:l~' ~'t., .... ) ft.~ '" ~0>-3S- !:l ~ ~ ~ "'::lP"...... ~ ~ ~ 8 P" rDPJ ~.~ S () l' p. ~. rD g g"pog ~ ~ ~ '" ~ (I> (I> -.: ~ '" rS~'--< !:l ::l () ~ ~ ..... "" ..... ~ ::l .... >0 rD ~ <:) El ~ ~ g~ Z P" P" ..... ~. ~ ~ rD rD 0 0 ..... S- . () 0::r:::S .... .... ::l 0 Q <:) ::: rD"'>O !:l ~ g; ~ 8' S g: '" 0 ::::: ~ ..... o.z S- >0 PJ ::l '" I:"l - .... P" ~ gj 5.00 (;1 PJ8rDrD ~ o f/.J '" ~ PJ .... !:l f/.J ~~ ::s .... q PJ ;: " ::l PJ () '" rD PJ -< () g; Si-l"'j FSrDo :E r;~ PJrD~S g e.-o (;1gg'E. _"':I '" ..... ::r- oo . 0-. en " _. >-< g~~s .'" ~ '" ::r ~ N!;j '" ~" OQ' ~ [ rD ~ C:g- p"......&g .("l <:T ~ (6 .... ~ ~ '" ("l ~ " ;J> aq po ~. .'" o a ~ .... ::l """0 porDrD~ ("l ~ ~s ::l '" S !f ~ ~ rD "" 0 () 1: tJ::j8'~81 .., rOo + S.~ a '-< o '" " Y' ~ .~ ("l ~. ("l 1f "'" f/.J " '" g; :E ~ '" ~ cr " .~ ~ ~ o >; "'So:! :5<-< ~ 0~~ o.z g; I:"l 0.00 o 00 ~~ ~-~ 2.0 g.",~ -. >-< '" ::r ~~ ~" o.i'f ,'OJ >; , g o '" ""'S- ~'" i:l i3l g.~ . 0. [~ .....rD 2.::S <' 0 rD ~ '" IS: PJ ...... ::l ..... ~[ 88 g.g. rD PJ n::l ~.~ o 0 .....,PJ >-3() rD P" S ::.c! rD ::l () 0 ::: ......0' p .... P" ..... '" Fr ~ ..... () PJ .... ..... o ::l 8 [ '" rD <<: o ~ PJ g. ...... rD .... rD '" PJ ::l ~ .g >0 (;1 () ..... ~ P" ..... '" () o ::l q ..... 0" ::: r;:t. o ::l '" 8 ~ ~ ......rD .,., .... rD rD :><i '" P" >0 ..... rD 0" () ..... ........ . '" PJ Q1:l .... rD ~ () o S S ..... 9 g .... .... o P" ..... '" PJ g. ro @' '" .... o @' PJ () P" g. rD S >0 8 (ti' '" '" ..... o ::l PJ ...... ..... '" ? P" o ::l rD '" 9" ..... ::l .... ~ ..... 9 ~ ..... '" () ..... >0 ...... ..... -~ PJ ::l ~ O"rD<d ~81<; ?\"'....rD ("[) f""t-~. & en 8. e:. S' ::l ::;~~ ("[) (t) ...... PJ PJ g. S ~ g. ~ Q1:l rD ~ g. Q. .0- (i) p. ~>-3~ rD rD ::l O"S'" rD rD 0 rD () ....., ::l ::: g. >0 Pi' rD ...... ~ t"""n ,,"",. p:l ...... ~~~ o 8~""" Q1:l0>-3 rD 0 rD g.>o S rD '" rD .... 0\ () 0' 5'2.. .... PJ g. Q..... .... ;;l ::l rD~() rD rD 0 'nl tJ::j g PJ PJ .... .... '" 1:'t ~ ?\"' '" ~- O"~ PJ ..... ......::l ......Q1:l ~n PJ 0 S ~ . P" >-3::.c! p"::l rD 0 1'0 PJ ::l ~g: '" ~PJ o 8 o 0 ~ S PJ>o .... ...... (1) tn. PJ S qrD ~ g rD '" ~p:l ~[ ~ ;: ~ t'l ;: ~ N !:l ~ ~ <::l >% "" 0\ So Sf !:l ~ ~ "" ~ S- !:l ::::: ~ !:l ;: ~ s. '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I> [) ~. ~g (I> :;:: <:) ;s :;:: ~ ~-:. El <:) ;:s"'" >:l..~ -. (I> ~(j ~ . -. ~~ _<.2 ~. -,., (I> ~ ~ ~ (I> (I> ;:s () ..... :;:: ~El . ~ ~ gj ~ Q ~""-:l ..::::..~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~~ ~'t., ~ ~ ;::. .... ~ ~ ~ ;:g ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... f/.J " '" g; :E '-< o '" " .?' ~ S1 ("l ~. ("l ~ ~ " ~ cr" " ::I- .?' ~ ~ o ..., NSo:! 5'-< :L; ",.,."'" . g;;:S o.~ g; 00 0.00 o s:::s !:l.= 2.1:"l ~ ~ 2.0 -'"I .,.. _. >-< '" .,. N~ '"";;,,, -.,. 0." '" ..., << g o a ""0 ~~ g." . 0. 8 ~ ::l (D g. ::S 0"0 ~ ~ .... ...... o' ~ ~ ~ '" ?;" ....rD o .... .... 0 P".... rD P" ..... PJ 2.::l ..... ?;" n; >- '" '" p:l f1. ::l '" ~s- .... ::l o .... g.n rD 0 n~ ..... P" ~~ o PJ .....,.... >-3 p. rD ::l S rD rD N () 0' s~ PJ ::r . rD .... ~ rD ~ ..... () ~ ..... o ::l .... o g. rD '" rD <<: o ~ ::l Q1:l S. ...... rD f'ti '" PJ ::l ~ ~ >0 r/ () ..... ~ P" rD .... '" CJ:l f!.P" >;">rD .... rD rD ~ '" P" >0 ..... rD 0" () ..... .... .... '" PJ ~ .p.l .... () o S S ..... .... S rD ::l .... .... o P" rD .... PJ g. ...... rD f'ti '" .... o .... rD PJ () P" g. rD S >0 .... o rt' '" '" ..... o ::l PJ ...... ..... '" .P P" o ::l rD '" 9' ..... ::l f'ti aq .... ..... 9' ~ ..... '" () ..... >0 ...... S' _rD ~ ~ ~~~ o () rD o 0 "g So' PJ 'E. S' .... ..... rD rg..::s PJ S ~. qrDP" ~ g.... rD '" P" ~p:l(tl ::l ::l () Q1:l ~..... 0" rD p. PJ ....., N '" 8' rD ?;"....::l ~fiten 0" ..... 0 e:.::l....., ......PJ.... (ti~::r' p:l Vi.(\) S g-'n ~ P...... ::l~~ ~oo P"ro""" ~ PJ >-3 rD~rD O"g.S rD rD rD rD >-3 () ::l rD ~ 'E.SPJ ~ rD ..... ..... 8 ::l ::l ...... () Q1:lPJo .... t"""::l oPJ~ ~~PJ 1=f~2. .... 0 PJ O'.g p. .... '" ::l .... 0\ Q1:l Ef S';J> rD Q '" ([) I-t g? <<: PJ '" rD ~.... p.l rD ~ ~ 1J:j.... . PJ '" n [0 PJ &() PJ P" ~~ rD PJ S a. . ::l >-3~ P"o r,::l PJ P" ~~ ~ ;: ~ t'l ;: ~ t'-i !:l ~ ~ <:::l >% "" CI';l. ... ~ !:l ~ ~ a ~ s- !:l ::::: ~ !:l ;: ~ s. '" ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ =- ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ t;;. ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ (I> (j ~. ~g (I> ~ <:) ;:s :;:: ~. 1;j-- El~ ;:s ~ ~(I> ~ (j l:l~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I> (I> ;:s () ..... :;:: ~El 8 ~ ~ gj ~ Q ~~ 'S; ~- ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ ~'t., ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -.: ~ ~ ;: ~ S' ~ ::: ..... ITEM NO.1 ITEM NO.2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 14, 2006 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:30 P.M. and its regular meeting commenced at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, was convened. Present: 5 Council Members: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, and Roberts Absent: o Council Members: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Flutists Joshua Jurkosky, Loren Prudhomme, and Emily Raese. INVOCATION The invocation was given by City Manager Nelson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Council Member Naggar. PRESENTA TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS Mayor Roberts thanked Mrs. Eve Craig for providing him with an oversized gavel. Transportation Uniform Mitiqation Fee (TUMF) Presentation By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Rick Bishop, Executive Director of the Western Riverside Council of Governments, provided an update on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), noting the following: D That because of the newness of this program, the Executive Committee, two years ago, requested and directed a comprehensive program review within two years of program initiation to ensure the system developed is the system that is needed to accommodate future growth D That this process has been completed D That to date this program has collected about $235 million; that fees from new developments are being collected at a rate of $2 million a week; that more than $400 million have been programmed by partner agencies (RCTC, RTA, and cities) - nearly 100 projects and that 54 of these projects are in the process D That a new growth forecast has been developed ($1 billion cost); that the cost assumptions for this program had to be revised ($721 million cost); that the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is now in place ($64 million cost) D That the Nexus Study is required by State law R:\Minutes\021406 D That one adjustment was made to the fee calculation for the program - construction cost index to $5+ billion to be consistent with the Nexus Study findings D That since inception, the TUMF has increased approximately $600.00 per dwelling unit and that the median home value has increased approximately $174,000 during the same period D That a number of policy revisions were made to the program by the Executive Committee regarding the following: o Exemptions - adding not for profit, private schools - will not be retroactive - schools that paid the TUMF within the last year - would be recommended for Executive Committee decision; senior housing exemption was originally considered but because true senior housing would fall under the existing exemptions for affordable housing; low-income exemption - State Code defines low-income housing; o Non-residential development fees be phased over an additional three-year period - original phasing program is close to being over; full fees will go into effect July 3, 2006 - phasing in the increase o Add a new Class B category (Office Space) - maintain a 1/3 cap on those fees in addition to Class A until July 2007 o That the revisions will be effective July 3, 2006 In closing, Mr. Bishop relayed the Committee's desire to receive Council input as to how often comprehensive reviews of this program should be completed, noting that State law requires it every five years and the Executive Committee required it in two years and that the Executive Committee has recommended timing future updates consistent with the update of SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan and Growth Forecast (three- or four-year basis). PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Readdressing traffic circulation, Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula, thanked City Manager Nelson and Public Works Director Hughes for the recent traffic study but noted that most of the streets reflected in the report were designed and do function as collector streets and that Calle Pina Colada is a residential street and requested at study of the area of discussion in order to come up with some solution whether it be opening streets/building new streets/etc. B. Mr. Jan Austin, Temecula, representing the Board of Directors of Meadowview, read a letter into the record, serving as a formal opposition to the opening of Kahwea Road and the extension of North General Kearney Road and requesting that these closures be more permanent with a wall, trail, and landscaping at Kahwea and possibly a community park in the area of North General Kearney. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Council Member Comerchero wished his wife and the community a Happy Valentine's Day. Referencing the successful Fitness in Temecula (F.I.T.) Program, Council Member Comerchero commented on plans to explore a culminating event at the end of the program, providing another incentive such as a City-sponsored 5K11 OK Run for the fall. Mr. Comerchero advised the residents that a dog park will be located at the Margarita Community Park. R:\Minutes\021406 2 B. Mayor Pro Tem Washington as well wished his wife a Happy Valentine's Day. Mr. Washington thanked Council Member Edwards for her efforts associated with the informative workshop on Robbery Prevention and commended Mr. Rick Bishop on his efforts related to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. C. Referencing the Robbery Prevention Workshop, Council Member Edwards reiterated that the City is a safe environment from a banking standpoint and noted that such informative workshops will be provided to the banking community on a more regular basis. Keeping the community apprised of the status of the USS Ronald Reagan, Mrs. Edwards advised the crew are currently at sea and read a letter into the record, expressing the crew's appreciation for the City declaring December 13, 2005, USS Ronald Reagan Day by way a proclamation. D. Mayor Roberts shared that on February 4, 2005, his wife and he celebrated their 45'h wedding anniversary and wished her a Happy Valentine's Day. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1 .1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 Annual Propertv Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the City of Temecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with Chubb Insurance Company, Landmark American Insurance Company for the period of February 26, 2006 through February 26, 2007, in the amount of $189,146. R:\Minutes\021406 3 4 Citv Treasurer's Report as of December 31. 2005 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2005. 5 Third Operatinq Memorandum to the Recorded Development Aqreement between Wolf Creek Development. LLC Successor in Interest to Sop Murdv and the Citv of Temecula RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Third Operating Memorandum to the Recorded Development Agreement between Wolf Creek Development, LLC Successor in Interest to Sop Murdy and the City of Temecula; 5.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the Third Operating Memorandum. 6 Parcel Map 31603. Located at the North West Corner of Via Industria and Roick Drive RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve Parcel Map 31603 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval. 6.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for agreement. 7 Parcel Map 33545. Located at the South East Corner of State Route 79 South and Butterfield Staqe Road RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 33545 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 7.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement; 7.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. 8 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for the 7th Annual Temecula Car Show & Old Town Cruise Event (Old Town Front Street. between Moreno Road and Second Street. and other related streets) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes\021406 4 RESOLUTION NO. 06-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR THE 7TH ANNUAL TEMECULA CAR SHOW EVENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT 9 2005 Transportation Enhancement (TEl Discretionarv Funds - Local Match Funds and Timelv Implementation RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE COMMITMENT OF LOCAL MATCHING FUNDS AND THE TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT (TE) PROJECT KNOWN AS THE WINCHESTER ROAD/STATE ROUTE 79 NORTH CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT 10 Consultant Services Aqreement for Traffic Enqineerinq Desiqn Services for Pechanqa Parkwav Phase II Street Improvements - Project No. PW99-11 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve an agreement with JMD in an amount not to exceed $19,000 to provide traffic signal design services for the Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements, Project No. PW99-11, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve extra work not to exceed the contingency amount of $1 ,900, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. (Pulled off calendar.) 11 Amendment NO.2 for Consultinq Services. French Vallev Parkwav/I-15 Overcrossinq and Interchanqe Improvements - Project No. PW02-11 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Amendment NO.2 to the agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers in an amount not to exceed $21,630.00 to provide the necessary design services to finalize the Project Report (PR), Environmental Documents (ED), and to complete the design (Plans, Specifications & Estimate) for the French Valley Parkway/I-15, Phase 1, southbound off-ramp to Jefferson Avenue, the widening of the southbound off-ramp at Winchester Road, and adding an auxiliary lane; 11.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment to the agreement. R:\Minutes\021406 5 12 Traffic Siqnal and Interconnect Upqrades - 79 South. Winchester Road. and the Redhawk Area - Project No. PW05-12 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve a contract with DBX, Inc. in the amount of $122,116 for the Traffic Signal and Interconnect Upgrades for 79 South, Winchester Road, and the Redhawk Area, Project No. PW05-12, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve an amount not to exceed the contingency amount of $12,211.60, which is equal to 10% of the contingency amount of the contract. 13 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Staqe Road - Project No. PW02-14 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage Road, Project No. PW02-14. 14 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for the Bridqe Barrier Rail Replacement - Project No. PW01-09 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Accept the project, Bridge Barrier Rail Replacement, Project No. PW01-09 as complete; and 14.2 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; 14.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 15 Completion and Acceptance of the Pavement Rehabilitation Proqram FY2005/06 - Ynez Road - Project No. PW04-12 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept the construction of the Pavement Rehab Program FY 2005/06 - Ynez Road, Project No. PW04-12, as complete and; 15.2 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; 15.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. R:\Minutes\021406 6 16 Completion and Acceptance of the Slurry Seal Project - FY2004/2005 - Project No. PW04-16 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Accept the construction of the Slurry Seal Project - FY 2004/2005, Project No. PW04-16, as complete and; 16.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount, and; 16.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 17 Authorize the Citv Manaqer to Approve or Modifv Rental Aqreement RECOMMENDATION 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE OR MODIFY LEASES AND RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 41910 MAIN STREET 18 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 06-01 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 06-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO 8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206, TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Washington moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9 and 11-18 (Item NO.1 0 was pulled from the agenda). Council Member Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\021406 7 At 7:37 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:48 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 22 Roripauqh Ranch General Plan Amendment. Specific Plan Amendment. and Development Aqreement Amendment RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PLANNING AREA 33B OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L) TO OPEN SPACE (OS), GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD (PA06-0009) (APN 964- 460-003) 22.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 06-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0341 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2) TO AMEND THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PLANNING AREA 33B FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) TO ACCOMMODATE PARK AND RIDE AND TRAIL HEAD USES, AND TO RELOCATE THE PARK AND RIDE FACILITY FROM PLANNING AREA 11 TO PLANNING AREA 33B, GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 22.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 06-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.1.6 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO IMPROVEMENTS AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE THRESHOLDS RELATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION IN TRACT 29353, LOCATED IN THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD (PA05-0404) R:\Minutes\021406 8 22.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM APPROVED WITH THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0076) REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF THE PARK AND RIDE FACILITY FROM PLANNING AREA 11 TO PLANNING AREA 33B, GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD Planning Director Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material) and in response to the City Council Members, Public Works Director Hughes and Planning Director Ubnoske noted the following: D That relocating the park and ride facility would not create a change with respect to traffic patterns D That Butterfield Stage Road is currently under construction; that the Community Facilities District will reimburse the developer for portions of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road; that the developer will be permitted a certain number of permits without Butterfield Stage Road being completed but the recommendation will not change any of the permit thresholds of the original Development Agreement; that no permits may be issued until the approval of the bonds. At this time, the public hearing was opened. For the record, City Clerk Jones referenced a letter that was received by Planning Director U bnoske. Mr. Mathew Fagan, representing the applicant, requested support of the proposed changes. There being no additional public input, the public hearing was closed. Because the proposed request will be consistent with the City's Growth Management Plan, Council Member Naggar expressed his support the request. Viewing the proposed recommendation as an important component in creating a trail head in order to obtain access to the City's open space, Mayor Pro Tem Washington thanked Council Member Naggar on his efforts associated with this matter. MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation no. 22.1 and 22.4. Mayor Pro Tem Washington seconded the motion. The electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 06-02. MOTION: Council Member Edwards moved to approve staff recommendation no. 22.2. Mayor Pro Tem Washington seconded the motion. The electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\021406 9 City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 06-03. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Washington moved to approve staff recommendation no. 22.3. Council Member Edwards seconded the motion. The electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comment. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no actions to report from Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT At 8:02 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session with the regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:\Minutes\021406 10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 28, 2006 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:15 P.M. and its regular meeting commenced at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, was convened. Present: 5 Council Members: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, and Roberts Absent: o Council Members: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Pianist Bob Bozonelos. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Felicia Brown of Imani Church of God in Christ. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Cub Scout Pack No. 148 - Den 5. PRESENTA TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS Can Do Dav Proclamation Mayor Roberts, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula proclaimed March 3, 2006, as Can-Do Day. Mr. Perry Peters thanked the City Council and staff for its acknowledgement. Temecula Achievement Proqram (Youth Patch Proqram) By way of PowerPoint Presentation, City Clerk Jones provided a brief update regarding the Temecula Achievement Program (TAP) and reviewed the requirements for the program. City Clerk Jones stated that the above-mentioned requirements would be geared toward the younger youth of the community. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mr. Ike Pachecho, representing Pack No. 148-Den 5, thanked the Temecula City Council for its ongoing support to the local Boy Scouts of America Program and presented the City Council with a card of appreciation. R:\Minutes\022806 B. Referencing his concern with traffic on Calle Pina Colada, Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula, requested equal access for all public streets and requested that a traffic study be performed with regard to Meadowview and Calle Pina Colada. C. Ms. Diana Broderick, Temecula, spoke regarding closed streets and requested that the City Council honor the recommendation of the General Plan Advisory Committee to open all closed roads. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Pro Tem Washington congratulated all the winners of the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce's 40th, including the Citizen of the Year, Mr.Bob Brown. Referencing Juvenile Diabetes, Mayor Pro Tem Washington advised that on Saturday, May 20, Wilson Creek will be hosting a Walk to Cure Diabetes; that a corporate cocktail reception will be hosted at Wilson Creek on Thursday, March 2, 2006, and that the public would be welcome. B. Council Member Comerchero sent his thoughts and prayers to Mr. Bob Morris, who was recently hospitalized with pneumonia. C. Council Member Edwards congratulated Ms. Joan Sparkman for receiving the Life Time Achievement Award, Mr. Dennis Frank who received Chairman Choice Award, and Mr. Bob Brown for receiving Citizen of the Year award. D. Mayor Roberts informed the audience that he had an opportunity to attend a United States Post Office Ceremony to rename the local post office to the Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building. For the youth in the audience, Mayor Roberts informed them of a YMCA Youth and Government Program he had attended in Sacramento, California. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1 .1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 24, 2006. R:\Minutes\022806 2 3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 First Amendment to contract with SC Siqns RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Contract with SC Signs for public notice sign services in the amount of $35,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 5 Authorize Temporary Street Closure of Third Street between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek for the Annual Old Town Blueqrass Festival event scheduled for March 18 and 19. 2006. and Deleqate Authoritv to Issue a Special Events/Street Closures Permit to the Director of Public Works/Citv Enqineer RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF THIRD STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK FOR THE ANNUAL OLD TOWN BLUEGRASS FESTIVAL EVENT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 18 AND 19,2006 AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES 6 TUMF Improvement Credit and Reimbursement Aqreements between the Citv of Temecula. the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). and Ashbv. USA (Roripauqh Ranch Development) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the TUMF Improvement Credit and Reimbursement Agreements between the City of Temecula, WRCOG, and Ashby USA for the Roripaugh Ranch Development in substantially the same format; 6.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the final Agreements. R:\Minutes\022806 3 7 First Amendment to Professional Services Aqreement for Bridqe Inspections - Roripauqh Ranch Loop Road over Lonq Vallev Wash RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for Bridge Inspections of the Roripaugh Ranch Loop Road Bridge over Long Valley Wash with T.Y. Lin International in the amount of $79,120.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 8 First Amendment to Professional Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Services Aqreement for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the First Amendment to the annual professional services agreement for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 with PELA for landscape plan check and inspection services in the amount of $25,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 9 First Amendment to Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Annual Citywide Routine Maintenance Contract RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Annual Citywide Routine Maintenance Contract with Becker Engineering for an amount of $100,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 10 Amendment NO.2 for Consultinq Services. State Route 79 South Medians between 1-15 and Butterfield Staqe Road - Project No. PW02-14 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve Amendment NO.2 to the agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to exceed $25,610.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 11 Purchase of a City Utility Vehicle with Aerial Lift RECOMMENDATION: 11 .1 Authorize the purchase of a City Utility Vehicle with a 45 foot aerial lift from Altec Industries, Inc. in the amount of $118,298.73; 11.2 Approve a capital asset allocation of $38,298.73 in the Vehicle Internal Service Fund. R:\Minutes\022806 4 12 Resolution of Support - AB 1871 & AB 1989 (At the request of Council Member Naqqar) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1871 (BENOIT) & ASSEMBLY BILL 1989 (GARCIA) WHICH BOTH PROPOSE IMPROVING INTERACTIONS BETWEEN WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHERE A LIFE MAY BE AT STAKE 13 Resolution of Support - requestinq the opportunity to meet and confer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Conqressional Deleqates reqardinq anv proposal bv the Soboba Tribe to expand Casino operations and its impacts on the City of Temecula (At the request of Mavor Roberts) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) AND CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATES REGARDING ANY PROPOSAL BY THE SOBOBA TRIBE TO EXPAND CASINO OPERATIONS AND ITS IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF TEMECULA 14 Resolution of Support-University of California Riverside (UCR) Efforts to Create a Medical School (at the request of Mavor Pro Tem Washinqton) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE (UCR) TO ESTABLISH A FULL MEDICAL SCHOOL R:\Minutes\022806 5 15 Approval of the 2005-06 Mid-Year Budqet Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 15.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 16 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 06-02 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 06-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0341 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2) TO AMEND THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PLANNING AREA 33B FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) TO ACCOMMODATE PARK AND RIDE AND TRAIL HEAD USES, AND TO RELOCATE THE PARK AND RIDE FACILITY FROM PLANNING AREA 11 TO PLANNING AREA 33B, GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD R:\Minutes\022806 6 17 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 06-03 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 06-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.1.6 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO IMPROVEMENTS AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE THRESHOLDS RELATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION IN TRACT 29353, LOCATED IN THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION PA05-0404) MOTION: Council Member Jeff Comerchero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Council Member Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:35 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and as the Temecula Public Finance Authority. At 7:48 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING Due to potential conflicts with her employer, Council Member Edwards abstained from Item No. 29. 29 Relocation Plan for the Civic Center Project RECOMMENDATION 29.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA PROJECT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON 29.2 Approve an appropriation of $14,000 to the Civic Center Relocation Project Budget from the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance. Director of Housing and Redevelopment Meyer provided a staff report (of written record). At this time, the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers, it was closed. Council Member Washington relayed his satisfaction with the method in which the 12 tenants were provided financial assistance for relocation. R:\Minutes\022806 7 MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation. Council Member Washington seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception Council Member Edwards who abstained. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson commended staff on its efforts with regard to the Roripaugh CFD. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no actions to report from Closed Session but noted that any final action with regard to Real Estate matters would occur in open session. 30 Economic Development Department Monthlv Report 31 Planninq Department Monthlv Report 32 Police Department Monthlv Report 33 Buildinq and Safetv Department Monthlv Report 34 Public Works Department Monthlv Report ADJOURNMENT At 8:06 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session with the regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:\Minutes\022806 8 ITEM NO.3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager pt.r- IJI2. ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: March 21, 2006 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant Jada Yonker, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. Attachments: Resolution and List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALIFORNIA, 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 reviewed by the City Manager's Office, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $7,103,928.76. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21" day of March, 2006. Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, MMC Citry Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City ofTemecula at a meeting thereof, held on the 21" day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk 'oF TEMECULA ST OF DEMANDS 02/23/2006 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03/02/2006 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03/09/2006 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 02/23/2006 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 03/09/2006 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 03/21/06 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 196 210 280 300 320 330 340 460 473 475 476 001 165 190 192 193 194 196 280 300 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA LOW /MOD - 20% SET ASIDE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICELEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKEPARKMAINT. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS F1JND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND GENERAL FUND RDA LOW /MOD - 20% SET ASIDE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICELEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKEPARKMAINT. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES $ $ $ 3,247,192.80 49,105.67 315,801.89 235.49 81,483.12 2,884.15 9,430.11 1,961,167.59 12,471.04 199,829.66 48,499.16 5,903.67 29,346.92 315,777.92 2,125.00 2,500.00 1,37500 $ $ 561,322.36 11,321.52 158,310.30 207.44 9,975.06 1,596.88 1,116.28 5,759.97 2,028.50 44,672.97 6,901.34 15,586.95 1,450,837.79 1,166,821.18 3,667,470.22 410,416.75 408,382.82 7.103,928.76 6,285,129.19 818,799.57 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 7.103,928.76 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 643 02/23/2006 000444 I NSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 21,600.41 21,600.41 644 02/23/2006 000283 I NSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 85.421.66 85.421.66 645 02/23/2006 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 20,751.02 20,751.02 SOLUTION 646 02/23/2006 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 110,212.80 110,212.80 RETIREMENT) 647 02/23/2006 000389 US C M WEST (OBRA), OBRA - Project Retirement Payment 2,864.54 2,864.54 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 105715 02/23/2006 001985 A E P (ASSOC OF ENVIRO PROF) Regist:Sprg CEQA Wrkshp:3/9:KL 50.00 50.00 105716 02/23/2006 004765 ACTIVE NETWORK INC, THE RefundAChesnut:Get a Great Headshot 150.00 Refund:P.Basurto:The Frog Prince 70.00 Refund:D.Mayllen:CPR/First Aid Combo 55.00 Refund:H.Marrs:The Frog Prince 20.00 Refund: M. KuUpua:The Frog Prince 20.00 Refund:C.Hernandez:The Frog Prince 20.00 Refund:C.Watson:The Frog Prince 20.00 355.00 105717 02/23/2006 003679 AEI CASC ENGINEERING NPDES plan check/inspection svcs 661.97 661.97 105718 02/23/2006 009010 ALEXANDER PACIFIC Tem. Middle School elect repairs:TCSD 390.00 390.00 105719 02/23/2006 008595 AMERICAN INTL GROUP INC Worker's Comp - February 2006 94,511.00 94,511.00 105720 02/23/2006 004446 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL Membership: Gregory J. Butler 235.00 235.00 105721 02/23/2006 008279 AMERICOMP INFOSYSTEMS INC Polycom Conference Phone: Police 404.06 404.06 105722 02/23/2006 004787 AMERIMARK DIRECT Recycling calendar prgm awrds/materials 617.63 617.63 105723 02/23/2006 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp help PPE 2/4 Kasparian 655.20 Temp help PPE 2/4 Shelton 368.55 1,023.75 105724 02/23/2006 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN Membership: Mark Levis 80925362 46.00 46.00 CALIF Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105725 02/23/2006 005623 BAIRD, LESLIE Refund: JW Tumbles-Baton Twirling 55.00 55.00 105726 02/23/2006 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS R & R Catch Basin Iid:Felix Vadez 4,220.00 4,220.00 INC 105727 02/23/2006 009731 BERGMAN, BRIAN Refund: Security Depst: CRC 150.00 150.00 105728 02/23/2006 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS TCSD instructor earnings 840.00 840.00 105729 02/23/2006 009505 BRAY, LISA Refund: Tiny Tots-Terrific 3's 64.00 64.00 105730 02/23/2006 000128 BROWN & BROWN OF CALIF INC Insurance policy:Mclaughlin Bldg 363.00 363.00 105731 02/23/2006 006908 C C & COMPANY INC Spring Egg Hunt Costumes: TCSD 366.35 EntertainmentVolunteer Recognition 212.50 578.85 105732 02/23/2006 009067 CALIF BANK & TRUST Rei Retention EsIW Edge Devel:T.Library 96,298.09 96,298.09 105733 02/23/2006 000638 CALIF DEPT OF CONSERVATION 20064th Qtr pmt:strong motion 6,019.00 6,019.00 105734 02/23/2006 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE- Dec 05 DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 1,015.00 1,015.00 ACCTING 105735 02/23/2006 003979 CALVARY CHAPEL OF MURRIETA Choir for Christmas in Old Town 150.00 150.00 105736 02/23/2006 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD 50.79 Helium & tank rental for Team PACE 50.79 101.58 105737 02/23/2006 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Mar copiers lease:T.MuseumlFrnt Rec 203.58 INC Mar copiers lease:CRC/Aquatics 178.86 Mar copiers lease:Fire Stn 12 69.96 452.40 105738 02/23/2006 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS Regist:Women's Conf:3/21 :SW/SUDB 297.00 297.00 105739 02/23/2006 009729 CASHMAN, CHERIE Refund: Tiny Tots - Fab 4 & 5's 64.00 64.00 105740 02/23/2006 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refreshments: Team PACE mtg 84.73 84.73 105741 02/23/2006 003997 COAST RECREATION INC Playground equip parts:TCSD 337.60 337.60 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105742 02/23/2006 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 150.00 150.00 105743 02/23/2006 001193 COMP U SA INC Computer supplies:USB portlSpkr/DVD 267.18 267.18 105744 02/23/2006 007820 CROWTHER, MYRNA Refund: Security Depst: CRC 465.00 465.00 105745 02/23/2006 003272 DAISYWHEEL RIBBON Plotter Ribbon & Ink:GIS Division 1,914.81 COMPANY INC Plotter Ribbon & Ink:GIS Division 249.72 2,164.53 105746 02/23/2006 007865 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL Multi-purpose truck mntc svcs:PW mntc 187.44 187.44 105747 02/23/2006 009727 DIX, RUSSELL Refund: Security Depst: TCC 150.00 150.00 105748 02/23/2006 009733 DIZZY FRIZZY INC. Refund: Eng. Depst:43195 Ave de Sn Ps 995.00 995.00 105749 02/23/2006 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: Traffic 53.81 INC Fuel for City vehicles:Code Enforcement 29.00 82.81 105750 02/23/2006 003754 DOWNTOWN Subscription: Downtown Idea-Planning 208.50 208.50 105751 02/23/2006 009728 DRAUGHON, TAMMY Refund: The Frog Prince-Missoula 20.00 20.00 105752 02/23/2006 003223 EDAW INC Dec Biological svcs:Lng Cnyn Basin 2,835.75 2,835.75 105753 02/23/2006 005880 EDGE DEVELOPMENT INC. Jan Prgss Pmt:Public Library 866,682.80 866,682.80 105754 02/23/2006 009730 FABRITIUS, TESSA Refund: The Frog Prince- Missoula 25.00 25.00 105755 02/23/2006 000165 FEDERALEXPRESSINC Feb 2-7 Express mail services 175.83 175.83 105756 02/23/2006 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Lot Book Report: Main 75.00 75.00 COMPANY 105757 02/23/2006 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Support Pmt Case #452379267=$75.00 164.16 164.16 105758 02/23/2006 009732 G M R I, INC. Refund: Eng.Depst:41649 Margarita Rd 995.00 995.00 105759 02/23/2006 008247 GEDDIE, DYANA Refund: Tiny Tots- Terrific 3's 64.00 64.00 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105760 02/23/2006 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office supplies: Land Devel 634.88 INC Office Supplies: Fire prev/medics/stn 461.39 Office Supplies: Citymgr 403.56 Office Supplies: Planning 389.28 Office Supplies: Bldg & Safety 197.64 Office Supplies: RDAlLow Mod 166.45 Office Supplies: Info System 67.73 Office Supplies: Records Mgmt 65.20 Office Supplies: CRC 62.26 Office Supplies: Museum/Chapel 24.28 2.472.67 105761 02/23/2006 004125 GRAYDON, KEN Cowboy poetry for E.S. Gardner Event 250.00 250.00 105762 02/23/2006 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies:Fire Medics/Stn 650.22 650.22 105763 02/23/2006 001135 HEAL THPOINTE MEDICAL Jan Pre-employment physicals 570.00 570.00 GROUP INC 105764 02/23/2006 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Support Payment 18.41 18.41 105765 02/23/2006 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 312.48 Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 249.98 562.46 105766 02/23/2006 009557 HUSKY AIR, INC. Res Imp Prgm: Matuzak, Jeff 1,000.00 1,000.00 105767 02/23/2006 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 10,216.98 10,216.98 303355 105768 02/23/2006 009734 IN-N-OUT BURGERS Refund: Eng. Depst:30697 Hghwy 79 S. 995.00 995.00 105769 02/23/2006 001123 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION Street striping supplies:PW Mntc 73.30 73.30 GROUP 105770 02/23/2006 009693 INLAND VALLEY CLASSICAL Ticket sales:Evening of Romance 2/11-12 790.16 790.16 BALLET 105771 02/23/2006 003296 INTL CODE COUNCIL Membership: A.Elmo:San Diego Chpt 50.00 50.00 105772 02/23/2006 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD instructor earnings 222.60 222.60 105773 02/23/2006 009480 JOHNSON, DEE STRICKLAND, Cowboy poetrylsinging ESG event 700.00 700.00 BUCKSHOT DOT Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105774 02/23/2006 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES Dec-Feb Engineering Plan Ck Svcs 6,790.00 6,790.00 105775 02/23/2006 009536 KELLER, TAM MY Refund:Photography-Basics of Digital 75.00 75.00 105776 02/23/2006 002789 KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES INC Temp help PPE 12/18 Zimel 65.25 65.25 105777 02/23/2006 000945 L P S COM PUTER SERVICE City Hall printer repair svcs 260.00 260.00 GROUP 105778 02/23/2006 008499 LASSLEY, SHIRLEY Refund: The Frog Prince- Missoula 20.00 20.00 105779 02/23/2006 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 2006 Membership: Agency 175.00 175.00 105780 02/23/2006 005963 LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES Regist:Zoning/Land Use:3/23:Staff 927.00 Regist:Zoning/Land Use:3/23:Staff 618.00 1,545.00 105781 02/23/2006 006897 LORY, SUSAN, J. TCSD instructor earnings 605.50 TCSD instructor earnings 539.00 TCSD instructor earnings 508.20 TCSD instructor earnings 500.50 TCSD instructor earnings 453.60 TCSD instructor earnings 453.60 TCSD instructor earnings 390.60 TCSD instructor earnings 346.50 TCSD instructor earnings 269.50 TCSD instructor earnings 269.50 4,336.50 105782 02/23/2006 004697 LOWES Duraplex glass for Radar Trailer 51.47 51.47 105783 02/23/2006 000394 MAINTENANCE regist:Plan Interpretation 3/14 (7) PW 175.00 175.00 SUPERINTENDENTS 105784 02/23/2006 004141 MAINTEX INC custodial supplies: City Hall 148.76 148.76 105785 02/23/2006 004068 MANALlLI, AILEEN TCSD Instructor Earnings 334.25 TCSD Instructor Earnings 322.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 196.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 180.25 TCSD Instructor Earnings 84.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 28.00 1,144.50 105786 02/23/2006 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL Htl:Planner's Inst.3/22-24/06 323D9BLBO 176.09 176.09 PageS apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105787 02/23/2006 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL Htl:Planner's Inst.3/22-24/06 323D9BG70 176.09 176.09 105788 02/23/2006 009064 MIDWEST FOLDING PRODUCTS 26 tables for Community Theater 3,295.79 3,295.79 CORP 105789 02/23/2006 008091 MILLMORE'S WAX CREW City vehicle detailing services: CIP 75.00 City vehicle detailing services: TCSD 65.00 140.00 105790 02/23/2006 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS business cards: T. Hudson 116.96 business cards: M.Alm 116.96 business cards: C. Washington 116.96 business cards: H. Linton 44.39 395.27 105791 02/23/2006 001892 MOBILE MODULAR Feb modular bldg rental:Fire Stn 92 832.40 832.40 105792 02/23/2006 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANV Res Imprv Prgm: Blake, Phil and Diane 4,155.00 Res Imprv Prgm: Elder, Cindy 2,392.00 6,547.00 105793 02/23/2006 007811 NEWELL, HOLL V Refund: Tiny Tots-Terrific 3's 64.00 64.00 105794 02/23/2006 009337 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC 12/23-1/19106 dsgn svc:bridge fencing 4,328.00 4,328.00 105795 02/23/2006 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 754.80 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 543.04 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 370.02 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 311.10 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 191.39 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 179.85 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 101.60 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 34.27 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 18.23 2,504.30 105796 02/23/2006 004389 OUT OF THE ORDINARV Fire Prey team building 3/1/06 1,450.00 1,450.00 105797 02/23/2006 006723 OZBUN, CVNDI Refund:Kinder Kitchen 16.00 16.00 105798 02/23/2006 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC Jan temp inspection svcs: R. Henderson 10,293.60 10,293.60 105799 02/23/2006 005656 PAPA mbrshp/registr:PAPA Sems:5/10 & 9/27/06 165.00 165.00 105800 02/23/2006 009712 P S JOBS LLC Aug recruitment ads: Planning/TCSD 198.00 Oct recruitment ad: Planning 99.00 297.00 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105801 02/23/2006 009742 PALMILLA PROFESSIONAL refund: Eng Deposit/Palmilla Prof Bldg 995.00 995.00 BUILDING 105802 02/23/2006 006812 PAPAGOLOS, GUS Reimb:Risk Mgr Assn Conf 2/08-10/06 520.73 520.73 105803 02/23/2006 003218 PELA Jan Idscp inspections: P.B. Sports 1,755.00 Jan Idscp plan ck svcs: Maint Fac Expan 247.50 Jan Idscp plan ck svcs: P.B. Sports 225.00 ~a_~ I~s_cp_ plan ck svcs: R.C. Rd 180.00 2,407.50 105804 02/23/2006 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 288.55 288.55 PROGRAM 105805 02/23/2006 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 239,48 239,48 105806 02/23/2006 008264 PFISTER, DESRIE Refund: Security Deposit/CRC 150.00 150.00 105807 02/23/2006 009739 PIERCE, JULIE refund:The Frog Prince/Cartooning w/Bigfoot 80.00 80.00 105808 02/23/2006 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Dec Dsgn Svcs: P.B. Sports Complex 8,140.01 8,140.01 105809 02/23/2006 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Jan 01-06-65006-0 Community Theater 11.70 11.70 105810 02/23/2006 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF Urban Design: M.Peters 3/1 0/06 300.00 300.00 CALIF 105811 02/23/2006 006483 RICHARDS, TYREOSHA I. TCSD Instructor Eamings 220.50 TCSD Instructor Eamings 210.00 430.50 105812 02/23/2006 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & recording fees/Res Imprv Prgm: Delaney 27.00 27.00 RECORDER 105813 02/23/2006 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC troubleshoot/repair dishwasher @ CRC 807.85 807.85 105814 02/23/2006 005119 ROCKHURST UNIV CONTINUING Public Speaking: K.Lecomte 3/14/06 249.00 249.00 EDUC 105815 02/23/2006 009740 SAENZ, ANNETTE refund: The Frog Prince 20.00 20.00 105816 02/23/2006 008693 SALAZAR, DONALD (SWD 000053) Support Payment 283.50 283.50 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 02/23/2006 2033o23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105817 02/23/2006 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment Case #DF099118 25.00 25.00 105818 02/23/2006 001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN Sprvsrs Acad:Oct-Nov KN/GF/RT/ERISR 3,000.00 CTR supervisor training:D.West 3/21/06 135.00 supervisor training:S.Rsk 3/21/06 135.00 supervisor training:C.Kitzerow 3/21/06 135.00 3,405.00 105819 02/23/2006 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment Acct # 581095025 12.50 12.50 105820 02/23/2006 009741 SCHAEFER, LISA refund: Tiny Tots-Terrific 3's 64.00 64.00 105821 02/23/2006 004562 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CORP. add'l Dec plan check services: Fire Prey 974.00 974.00 105822 02/23/2006 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Pmt LO File #2005033893 150.00 150.00 105823 02/23/2006 004609 SHREDFORCEINC Feb doc. shredding services: Rcrds Mgmt 110.00 Feb doc. shredding services: PD 32.50 Feb doc. shredding services: CRC 22.50 165.00 105824 02/23/2006 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Jan 2-00-397-5059 various mtrs 6,750.31 Feb 2-25-393-4681 TES Pool 721.19 7,471.50 105825 02/23/2006 000926 SO CALIF EDISON site electrical drawing:Wolf Creek Fire 78.05 78.05 105826 02/23/2006 005786 SPRINT 12/15/05-01/14/06 phone charges/equip 7,571.01 7,571.01 105827 02/23/2006 007273 STUMPS PRINTING COMPANY '06 Father-Daughter Date Night balloons 136.21 136.21 INC 105828 02/23/2006 006465 TEMECULAAUTO REPAIR City vehicle repair/maint svcs: Code Enf 303.03 City vehicle repair/maint svcs: Code Enf 177.50 City vehicle repair/maint svcs: Code Enf 97.27 City vehicle repair/maint svcs: Code Enf 71.49 649.29 105829 02/23/2006 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY Sister City Plaque:Mayor of Daisen 100.21 100.21 105830 02/23/2006 004274 TEM ECULA VALLEY SECURITY locksmith svcs: CRC 191.80 191.80 CENTR 105831 02/23/2006 004875 TEMECULA VALLEY TIME TCSD Instructor Eamings 210.00 MACHINE TCSD Instructor Eamings 140.00 350.00 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 02/23/2006 2,33,23PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105832 02/23/2006 009738 TillMAN, CHERYL refund:The Frog Prince 20.00 20.00 105833 02/23/2006 008022 TRITON RISK MANAGEMENT Risk Management Consulting 477.50 477.50 105834 02/23/2006 004435 US CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, 2006 City Membership Dues 4,967.00 4,967.00 THE 105835 02/23/2006 007118 US TElPACIFIC CORPORATION Feb Internet IP Addresses Block 932.71 932.71 105836 02/23/2006 008517 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF 2/2/06-3/1/06 fence rental: Main St 26.40 26.40 CALIF. 105837 02/23/2006 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 222.15 222.15 105838 02/23/2006 004368 VAll COOPER & ASSOCIATES Jan temp inspection svcs: G. Berg 16,742.02 16,742.02 INC 105839 02/23/2006 004261 VERIZON Feb xxx-0073 general usage 217.14 Feb xxx-1473 P.O. Storefront Stn 77.53 Feb xxx-5473 Moraga Rd 31.85 Feb xxx-8573 general usage 28.40 354.92 105840 02/23/2006 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Internet svcs: xx2527 P.O. DSL 42.70 42.70 105841 02/23/2006 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Feb long distance phone svcs 776.09 776.09 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 1.450,837.79 Page:9 apChkLst 02/23/2006 2033o23PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 132 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,450,837.79 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 648 02/27/2006 005460 U S BANK CFD 88-12 Debt Service 311,039.84 311,039.84 105842 03/02/2006 002038 ACTION POOL & SPA SUPPLY Pool sanitizing chemicals 68.85 68.85 105843 03/02/2006 004064 ADELPHIA 2/22-3/21 high speed internet svcs M N 46.95 46.95 105844 03/02/2006 009760 AMARO, CRIST AL Refund: Miss Sue's-Parent & Me 75.00 75.00 105845 03/02/2006 000936 AM ERICAN RED CROSS Lifeguard training supplies:Aquatics 1,705.00 1,705.00 105846 03/02/2006 004446 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL Membership: Scott Harvey 306039 245.00 245.00 105847 03/02/2006 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp help PPE 2/11 Kasparian 655.20 Temp help PPE 2/11 Shelton 516.38 1,171.58 105848 03/02/2006 005946 AYERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY '06 Spring Egg Hunt Supplies 645.00 645.00 105849 03/02/2006 009667 BAKER, CRAIG Refund:Ovrpmt of Special Event Insurance 5.19 5.19 105850 03/02/2006 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS Nighthawk Pass storm drain repairs 7,340.00 INC Citywide asphalt repairs marked by PW 6,825.00 14,165.00 105851 03/02/2006 004829 BOB WILSON INC Feb 06 State lobbyist svcs 3,500.00 3,500.00 105852 03/02/2006 009756 BRISCOE, MARY Refund: Security Deposit: TCC 150.00 150.00 105853 03/02/2006 005889 BROWN, PASCALE Reimb: CSM FO Conf:2/21-24:Palm Sprg 75.57 75.57 105854 03/02/2006 008780 BYROM-DAVEY INC Dec 05 prgss:Wolf Crk Sprts Cmplx 15,345.36 Rei Stop Notice: United Rentals r:.rw 14,669.08 Retention Dec 05:Wolf Crk Sprts Cmplx -767.26 Stop Notice: United Rentals r:.rw -14,669.08 14,578.10 105855 03/02/2006 004311 CAL CUSTOM DESIGN & Custom storage unit: Planning 3,491.96 3,491.96 WOODWORKS 105856 03/02/2006 005321 CALIF ASSOC OF CODE Membership: Misty L. Clark 75.00 75.00 ENFORCE.. Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105857 03/02/2006 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE- Fingerprinting Id Svcs:Police/Hr 4,385.00 4,385.00 ACCTING 105858 03/02/2006 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium and tank rental: Team PACE 98.81 Helium and tank rental: Team PACE 50.79 149.60 105859 03/02/2006 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Mar Copier Lease: Cre/City Fac. 1,908.32 1,908.32 INC 105860 03/02/2006 009749 CARAVELL!, DENISE Reimb:Dealing w/difficult People:2/22 48.31 48.31 105861 03/02/2006 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS Regist: Admin Assist Cf:4/10:BO/LN 390.00 390.00 105862 03/02/2006 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refreshments:Father/Daughter Date Night 2,062.95 2,062.95 105863 03/02/2006 001249 CENTRE FOR ORG Mgmt Academy:Beth Gutierrez 1,850.00 1,850.00 EFFECTIVENESS 105864 03/02/2006 003628 CHUYS RESTAURANT Refreshments: Battalion yrly mtg 181.67 181.67 105865 03/02/2006 004210 CIRCUIT CITY Sony Digital Camera/Camcorder 755.20 Sony Cybershot Digital Camera 215.49 970.69 105866 03/02/2006 005447 CLEMENTS, BRIAN Reimb: ICC Certification fees 60.00 60.00 105867 03/02/2006 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Repair panic button in Cashier's office 80.00 80.00 105868 03/02/2006 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEM ET Install Lights/Sirens on new Fire 890.76 Add't equip to install light bar:Fire 81.46 972.22 105869 03/02/2006 003986 COZAD & FOX INC Eng design: Pauba Rd wtrline:Library 2,160.00 2,160.00 105870 03/02/2006 006954 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC Plumbing repairs @ CRC 390.00 Plumbing repair @ 6th street Old Town 160.00 550.00 105871 03/02/2006 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Mar Lease Charges: Police Storefront 2,558.27 2,558.27 105872 03/02/2006 009571 DAVID SILVERMAN & ASSOC.INC Depst:LED Light for Veterans Memorial 250.00 250.00 105873 03/02/2006 009758 DICIANNI, AMANDA Refund: Prenatal Yoga Plus 50.00 50.00 105874 03/02/2006 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK Jan 06 special events premiums 243.65 243.65 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105875 03/02/2006 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 1,344.11 INC Fuel for City vehicles: PW Mntc 1,197.02 Fuel for City vehicles:Trff/CIP/Land 462.28 Fuel for City vehicles: Bldg & Safety 422.03 Fuel for City vehicles:Planning/Police 290.10 Fuel for City vehicles: CIP 126.21 Fuel for City vehicles:B&S/Recd Mgmt 42.42 3,884.17 105876 03/02/2006 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION Supplies for graffiti removal 103.47 Supplies for graffiti removal 41.51 144.98 105877 03/02/2006 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS Plaques for departing Police Staff 256.01 256.01 INC 105878 03/02/2006 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 Diego Dr Ldscp 263.40 263.40 DIST 105879 03/02/2006 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Feb Idscp mntc:Sports Parks 42,912.29 Feb Idscp mntc:South Slopes 32,834.98 Feb Idscp mntc:North Slopes 24,155.34 Feb Idscp mntc:Medians 9,735.12 Feb Idscp mntc:City Facilities 7,779.64 Jan Idscp impr: R. Reagan Spts Prk 4,350.00 Jan Idscp impr: Vail Ranch Medians 1,975.00 Jan Idscp impr: CRC Tuti renovation 1,775.00 Jan Idscp impr: Country Glen Way 999.00 Jan Idscp impr: Medians 991.05 Jan Idscp impr: Slope planting 900.00 Jan Idscp impr: Pavillion Point 825.00 Jan Idscp impr: Temeku Hills 750.00 Jan Idscp impr: Medians 715.12 Jan Idscp impr: Medians 650.00 Jan Idscp impr: Slope Irrigation repairs 270.11 Jan Idscp impr: behind Carpenter 225.00 Jan Idscp impr: Slope Irrigation repairs 194.04 Jan Idscp impr: Sprts Prks 151.15 132,187.84 105880 03/02/2006 000478 FAST SIGNS R.Reagan Spts Prk Ballfield sign 74.23 74.23 105881 03/02/2006 000165 FEDERALEXPRESSINC Feb 8-13 Express mail services 247.09 247.09 105882 03/02/2006 000206 FEDEX KINKOS INC Stationery paper/mise supplies 363.06 363.06 105883 03/02/2006 004000 FENCING BY ACREY INC Res Imp Prgm: Garcia, Christina 3,679.00 3,679.00 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105884 03/02/2006 008834 FIRE PROTECTION 2 Books:lnspection/Code 6th Ed 51.67 51.67 PUBLICATIONS 1 05885 03/02/2006 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 007287 UNITED AIRLINES DU Air:LCC Planners:DH/EP:3/22-24 487.38 007274 FORGE, THE DU Refreshments: Commissioners Mtg 366.30 001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN DU Regist: Comm. Skills/Cust. Svc:Fisk 150.00 CTR 009750 UNIVERSITY OF CALIF, JM RegistCollaborative region:1/27 125.00 RIVERSIDE 007409 OLD TOWN DINING LLC DU Refreshments:Commissioners Mtg 59.40 007029 BLACK ANGUS DU Refreshments: Dept Structure Mtg 36.22 1,224.30 105886 03/02/2006 004944 FULLCOURT PRESS Business License Certificates 413.57 413.57 105887 03/02/2006 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC Printer toner supplies:Citywide 868.01 868.01 105888 03/02/2006 004514 G T S I CORP Computer supplies:4- 12V Car Adapters 430.87 430.87 105889 03/02/2006 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office Supplies:B&S/TCSD 498.52 498.52 INC 105890 03/02/2006 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT Express Mail Service:Fire Prevention 25.78 25.78 105891 03/02/2006 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC Ovrchged ticket fee:Bring on the Brass 17.50 17.50 SOCIETY 105892 03/02/2006 008361 GRAPE STOMPERS SQ DANCE TCSD instructor earnings 340.20 CLUB TCSD instructor earnings 147.00 487.20 105893 03/02/2006 000520 H D L COREN & CONE INC Jan-Mar 06 Property tax consulting 3,600.00 3,600.00 105894 03/02/2006 001135 HEAL THPOINTE MEDICAL JanlFeb Pre-employment physicals 135.00 135.00 GROUP INC 105895 03/02/2006 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD Computer supplies:Adapters/RAM 4,815.50 Computer supplies:HP Procurve Switch 434.23 Computer supplies:Adapters/CPE 3Y 304.36 5,554.09 105896 03/02/2006 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE Hardware supplies:Old Town 674.43 Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 62.50 736.93 105897 03/02/2006 004406 IGOE & COMPANY INC Jan/Feb 06 flex benefit plan pmt 710.00 710.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105898 03/02/2006 004833 IMPERIAL PAVING COMPANY INC Front Street asphalt repairs 28,685.00 R.Calif/Meadows Prkwy asphalt repairs 13,882.00 42,567.00 105899 03/02/2006 001123 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION Street striping supplies:PW Mntc 87.68 87.68 GROUP 105900 03/02/2006 006713 INTEGRATED MEDIA SYSTEMS Emerg. repairs for Council media system 472.50 472.50 105901 03/02/2006 009393 J M DIAZ INC Jan 06 design svcs: R.Cal median 5,709.14 Nov ttifc Signal design:Jefferson Ave 2,006.58 Nov ttifc Signal design:Jefferson Ave 1,876.20 Jan ttifc Signal design:Jefferson Ave 210.00 Jan ttifc Signal design:Jefferson Ave 140.00 9,941.92 105902 03/02/2006 001405 KIWANIS CLUB OF RANCHO- Refund: Security Deposit: CRC 150.00 150.00 105903 03/02/2006 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC Aquatic supplies:Calibration Readings 83.45 Aquatic supplies:Test Cell 32.40 Aquatic supplies: Buffer/Reagent 28.40 Aquatic supplies:Gasket-Lens 23.86 168.11 105904 03/02/2006 009757 KUSOGLU, TONIE Refund: Father/Daughter Date Night 20.00 20.00 105905 03/02/2006 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Prolaser Iii Hand Radar Antennas 649.14 Prolaser Iii Hand Radar Gun:Police 263.92 913.06 105906 03/02/2006 000945 L P S COM PUTER SERVICE Printer repair: LJ 4550 135.00 135.00 GROUP 105907 03/02/2006 006744 LAMAR CORPORATION, THE Feb billboard chg-out:Old Town 330.00 330.00 105908 03/02/2006 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 06 Membership: Agency 100.00 100.00 105909 03/02/2006 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD instructor earnings 556.50 TCSD instructor earnings 406.00 TCSD instructor earnings 371.00 1,333.50 105910 03/02/2006 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE Jan HR legal svcs for TE060-#00001 78.00 78.00 105911 03/02/2006 002634 L1TELlNES INC Floodlight for Hatveston Flag Pole 377.13 377.13 105912 03/02/2006 004087 LOWES INC Theater scene shop cabinets/hardware 106.54 Credit: Sale Tax Exempt -7.18 99.36 PageS apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105913 03/02/2006 006182 M C M CONSTRUCTION, INC. reI. retention:R.C. Bridge Widening 428,087.94 Reimb:Traffic Signal Repairs/R.C.Bridge 1,195.44 429,283.38 105914 03/02/2006 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS misc. signs, hardware & supplies:PW 797.35 797.35 105915 03/02/2006 004141 MAINTEX INC custodial supplies: Old Town 492.16 492.16 105916 03/02/2006 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY temp help w/e 02/12 DH/JD/JH 2,951.84 2,951.84 SERVICES 105917 03/02/2006 004307 MARINE BIOCHEMISTS Feb water maint:Harveston Lake/Dck Pnd 4,855.00 4,855.00 105918 03/02/2006 002693 MA TROS, ANDREA TCSD Instructor Eamings 168.00 168.00 105919 03/02/2006 004894 MICHAEL BRANDMAN Dec Eng Svcs: Pech.Pkwy Ph Ii Imprv. 2,134.32 2,134.32 ASSOCIATES 105920 03/02/2006 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS qty 8000 envelopes: Finance 464.47 business cards: J. O'Grady 192.13 Business Cards: R. Gilliland/D. Adamiak 161.36 business cards: N. Mansilla 88.79 business cards: D. Schuma 44.39 endorsement self-inking stamp: Finance 20.47 971.61 105921 03/02/2006 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY Res Imprv Prgm: Williams/Mockbee 6,639.00 6,639.00 105922 03/02/2006 002257 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS drinking fountain parts: var. City parks 442.00 442.00 105923 03/02/2006 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION NFPA-13 Fire Sprinkler: L.Bahr 1,345.00 1,345.00 ASSN 105924 03/02/2006 009570 o C B REPROGRAPHICS dup. blueprints: pavement rehab/Diaz Rd 368.51 Dup. Blueprints: Pech. Pkwy Street Imprv 155.16 Dup. Blueprints: Pech. Pkwy Street Imprv 126.07 Dup. Blueprints: Pech. Pkwy Street Imprv 96.98 Dup. Blueprints: Pavement Rehab/Diaz Rd 61.96 808.68 105925 03/02/2006 003382 O'GRADY, JAMES B. Reimb: C.C.M.F. Membership Dues 150.00 150.00 105926 03/02/2006 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies: Tcsd 159.23 DIV Office Supplies For City Projects:Police 141.91 301.14 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105927 03/02/2006 008570 OFFICE MAX Ergonomic Desk Supplies: Rda 2,095.53 1 Desk Extender Comer Sleeve:Cip Div 110.66 credit: chair returned/RDA -682.06 1,524.13 105928 03/02/2006 006721 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY Office Supplies: Finance 317.56 office supplies: Finance 216.97 Office supplies for Code Enforcement 32.89 567.42 105929 03/02/2006 003852 ON TRAC OVERHEAD DOOR CO Res ImprvPrgm: Rubio, Leobardo & Silvina 984.00 984.00 INC 105930 03/02/2006 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY '06 Volunteer Recognition Prgm Supplies 163.23 INC recreation supplies: High Hopes Prgm 160.99 Recreation Supplies: C. Museum 122.09 '06 Volunteer Recognition Prgm Supplies 64.75 511.06 105931 03/02/2006 002297 OVERLAND PACIFIC & CUTLER Jan consulting svcs: Civic Center 1,323.75 1,323.75 INC 105932 03/02/2006 003218 PELA Jan plan check svcs: Planning 8,280.00 Aug/Sep Idscp inspect svcs:Win.Rd widen 1,980.00 Dec plan ck svcs:Pech. Pkwy medians 585.00 10,845.00 105933 03/02/2006 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 234.95 234.95 105934 03/02/2006 009717 PSOMAS Annual Admin Services: Wolf Creek 2,500.00 Annual Admin Services: Crowne Hill 2,125.00 Annual Admin Services: Cfd 88-12 1,500.00 Annual Admin Services: Harveston Ii 1,375.00 Annual Admin Services: Cfd 88-12 1,250.00 8,750.00 105935 03/02/2006 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST- San-53/Habitat For Humanity Prjt (Pujol) 150.00 150.00 FEES 105936 03/02/2006 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Various Water Meters 9,994.83 Various Water Meters 1,347.44 Feb 01-04-47210-0 T.E.S. Pool 484.07 Feb 01-04-74088-3 Margarita Rd 225.63 Feb 01-04-10033-2 Margarita Rd 172.55 Feb 01 -08-38009-0 Fire Stn 92 51.83 12,276.35 105937 03/02/2006 005370 RASBAND, SABRINA Refund: photography class 145.00 145.00 105938 03/02/2006 009762 REDHAWK COMMUNITY utility reimb/Redhawk madian islands pmt 3,640.00 3,640.00 ASSOCIATION Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105939 03/02/2006 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING light for CRC pool 153.87 electrical supplies: TCC 114.56 electrical supplies: various park sites 114.30 382.73 105940 03/02/2006 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF Tentative Parcel Map: Habitat/Humanity 45.00 45.00 CALIF 105941 03/02/2006 003742 REHAB FINANCIAL RDA loan services 750.00 750.00 CORPORATION 105942 03/02/2006 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO Jan radio rental & maint: Police 684.00 684.00 TECHNOLOGY 105943 03/02/2006 000357 RIVERSIDE CO imprv plnslvar track maps within City 66.00 66.00 TRANSPORTATION 105944 03/02/2006 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF Oct-Dee '05 vector control services 337.29 337.29 105945 03/02/2006 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC Deposit: materials/gates: Harveston Park 2,600.00 2,600.00 105946 03/02/2006 001097 ROADLlNE PRODUCTS INC stencil equip parts/supplies: PW Maint 1,775.41 1,775.41 105947 03/02/2006 005119 ROCKHURST UNIV CONTINUING effective prjt mgmt: C.K/H.L. 3127/06 390.00 390.00 EDUC 105948 03/02/2006 009759 RODRIGUEZ, SUSANA refund: Creative Beginnings for 42.00 42.00 105949 03/02/2006 009754 RUPERT, LYNNE W. refund: security deposit/CRC 400.00 400.00 105950 03/02/2006 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD Instructor Eamings 855.40 TCSD Instructor Eamings 822.50 1,677.90 105951 03/02/2006 001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN "Effective Presentations":5/2 K. 135.00 CTR "Succeeding/lnterviews" 4/4 D.West 135.00 "Succeeding/lnterviews": 4/4 H. Litton 135.00 405.00 105952 03/02/2006 009621 SCOTTSDALE COMMERCE LLC, Jan-Mar off-site storage for City 3,000.00 3,000.00 DBA STORAGE EXPRESS TEM EC 105953 03/02/2006 000645 SMART & FINAL INC recreation supplies: High Hope Prgm recreation supplies: M PSC recreation supplies: TCC Teen Program Supplies 383.66 200.35 175.89 111.63 871.53 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105954 03/02/2006 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Jan 2-19-999-9442 various mtrs 1,352.61 Feb 2-02-351-4946 MPSC 826.45 Feb 2-27-615-1750 Fire Stn 73 665.74 Feb 2-18-937-3152 T. Museum 644.39 Feb 2-23-365-5992 Fire Stn 92 368.92 Feb 2-11-007-0455 6th Street 299.14 Feb 2-22-891-0550 various mtrs 297.51 Feb 2-20-817-9929 Police Storefront Stn 260.36 Feb 2-27-632-3565 Camino Piedra Rojo 211.20 Feb 2-21-911-7892 S. Side Prk Lot 137.76 Feb 2-27-287-5527 various mtrs 96.87 Feb 2-19-171-8568 Wedding Chapel 89.92 Feb 2-21-981-4720 Hwy 79 68.97 Feb 2-14-204-1615 Front St Radio 31.22 Feb 2-27-371-8494 Offsite Rcrds Storage 18.30 5,369.36 105955 03/02/2006 001212 SO CALI F GAS COM P ANY Feb 091-024-9300-5 CRC 3,137.62 Feb 095-167-7907-2 Fire Stn 84 382.53 Feb 101-525-0950-0 TCC 185.90 3,706.05 105956 03/02/2006 009752 SOKAGAKKAIINTERNATIONAL refund: security deposit/CRC 150.00 150.00 USA 105957 03/02/2006 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY emissions fee: Roripaugh Fire Stn 81.89 annual operating fees: Roripaugh Fire 65.13 147.02 105958 03/02/2006 005786 SPRINT Feb Acct Level Chrgs 32.31 32.31 105959 03/02/2006 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET carpet cleaning: City Hall 2.400.00 CLEANING carpet cleaning: Maint Fac 800.00 3,200.00 105960 03/02/2006 009755 TAGLE, ELENA refund: security deposit/CRC 150.00 150.00 105961 03/02/2006 009761 TEMECULA VALLEY MASTER FY 05/06 Community Service Funding 1,500.00 1,500.00 CHORALE 105962 03/02/2006 009761 TEMECULA VALLEY MASTER Celebration of Singing 1016 & 10/15/05 332.99 332.99 CHORALE 105963 03/02/2006 009753 THORSON, CAM ERONE refund: Fine Art Fun 70.00 70.00 105964 03/02/2006 004576 TRINITY WORKPLACE LEARNING '06 Fire emerg training network 3,799.67 3,799.67 Page:9 apChkLst Final Check List 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid 105965 03/02/2006 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS GYM TCSD Instructor Earnings 495.60 INC TCSD Instructor Earnings 256.20 TCSD Instructor Earnings 165.20 TCSD Instructor Earnings 165.20 TCSD Instructor Earnings 82.60 TCSD Instructor Earnings 31.50 105966 03/02/2006 004981 UNISOURCE SCREENING & 2/1-15/06 background screening svcs 111.00 105967 03/02/2006 004261 VERIZON Feb xxx-0074 general usage 270.16 Feb xxx-2016 reverse 911 108.89 Feb xxx -3526 Fire Alatlll 85.24 Feb xxx -3564 Alarm 56.84 Feb xxx-5275 PD DSL 29.36 Feb xxx-3984 Naggar 28.68 Feb xxx-2676 general usage 28.40 Feb xxx-6084 general usage 27.43 105968 03/02/2006 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Internet svcs: xx9549/Police Storefront 42.70 105969 03/02/2006 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Feb long distance phone svcs 8.63 Page: 10 Check Total 105970 03/02/2006 009751 WELLS, MEGAN refund: picnic shelter/Marg. Community 60.00 105971 03/02/2006 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC Tree Trimming Services: Var. City Loc. 4,699.50 Tree Trimming Services: Rancho Vista Rd 90.00 105972 03/02/2006 009378 WESTERN RIM CONTRACTORS Jan Prgs Pmt #4:Maint Fac Expan/Field Op 52,899.30 INC 105973 03/02/2006 003434 Z E P MANUFACTURING maintenance supplies: PW Maint Div 368.15 COMPANY Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 1,196.30 111.00 635.00 42.70 8.63 60.00 4,789.50 52,899.30 368.15 1,166,821.18 Page:10 apChkLst 03/02/2006 1,50,30PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 133 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,166,821.18 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 649 03/09/2006 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM PERS Health Admin Cost Payment 69,742.08 Blue Shield HMO Payment 0.00 69,742.08 650 03/09/2006 000444 I NSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 18,892.40 18,892.40 651 03/09/2006 000283 I NSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 75,089.93 75,089.93 652 03/09/2006 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 22,044.92 22,044.92 SOLUTION 653 03/09/2006 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 109,460.83 109,460.83 RETIREMENT) 654 03/09/2006 000389 US C M WEST (OBRA), OBRA - Project Retirement Payment 2,974.98 2,974.98 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 655 03/09/2006 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Child Care Reimbursement Payment 8,924.03 Child Care Reimbursement Payment 0.00 8,924.03 105974 03/09/2006 004594 2 HOT ACTIVEWEAR Sprts prgm prizes:Guildan 3,834.41 Sprts Prgm Prizes:Holloway Crosswinds 526.14 4,360.55 105975 03/09/2006 003552 AFLAC AFLAC Cancer Payment 2,418.40 2,418.40 105976 03/09/2006 004973 ABACHERLI, L1NDI TCSD instructor earnings 600.00 600.00 105977 03/09/2006 002038 ACTION POOL & SPA SUPPLY Pool sanitizing chemicals 137.70 137.70 105978 03/09/2006 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT Chair rental:Old Twn Christmas 44.30 44.30 105979 03/09/2006 004240 AM ERICAN FORENSIC NURSES Mar Stand-by DUI Drug & Alcohol 600.00 Jan DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 385.00 Jan DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 245.00 Credit: 461061 sib Billed to Perris -35.00 1,195.00 105980 03/09/2006 007996 AM ERICAN WEST LANDSCAPE Rei retention: Pechanga Prkwy wall 13,067.08 13,067.08 INC 105981 03/09/2006 009775 ANTASH, SHIRLEY Refund: Fit Fun & Fab M PSC 22.50 22.50 105982 03/09/2006 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp help PPE 2/18 Kasparian 655.20 Temp help PPE 2/18 Shelton 546.00 1,201.20 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105983 03/09/2006 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled wtr svcs @ City Hall 432.17 Bottled wtr svcs@ Mntc Fac. 367.08 Bottled wtr svcs @ CRC 67.33 Bottled wtr svcs@ C.Museum 40.54 Bottled wtr svcs @ City Hall 39.86 Bottled wtr svcs@ T.Museum 28.49 Bottled wtr svcs @ Skate Park 17.23 Bottled wtr svcs @ TCC 10.79 1,003.49 105984 03/09/2006 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY Team pace comm ittee sh irts 49.57 49.57 105985 03/09/2006 006209 ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S Regist:Ann'l Conf:4/23-26:Gilliland 415.00 415.00 105986 03/09/2006 004757 AUTO MALL COLLISION CENTER Stn 84 medic squad auto body repairs 3,589.52 Stn 84 medic squad auto body repairs 860.47 4.449.99 105987 03/09/2006 008879 BAKER, HOLLY Refund: Fairytale Princess Dance class 55.00 55.00 105988 03/09/2006 002381 BEAUDOIN, LINDA Retirement Medical Payment 650.74 650.74 105989 03/09/2006 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS TCSD instructor earnings 498.75 Entertainment: Family Fun Night 200.00 698.75 105990 03/09/2006 004829 BOB WILSON INC March 06 State lobbyist svcs 3,500.00 3,500.00 105991 03/09/2006 003222 BROCKMEIER, CAROL Retirement Medical Payment 650.74 650.74 105992 03/09/2006 000128 BROWN & BROWN OF CALIF INC Insurance policy renewal:DIC 77,850.70 Insurance policy renewal: Property 65,600.00 Insurance policy renewal:DIC 45,395.00 188,845.70 105993 03/09/2006 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials for Feb 06 3.489.30 3.489.30 105994 03/09/2006 000413 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME Permit Application:PW04-13 Margarita 4,000.00 4,000.00 105995 03/09/2006 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE- Jan DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 1,085.00 1,085.00 ACCTING 105996 03/09/2006 000398 CALIF MUNI TREASURERS ASSN Regist: Ann'l Conf:4/26-28:Grance 415.00 415.00 105997 03/09/2006 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION 2- CPRS volunteer award nominees 130.00 130.00 SOC Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 105998 03/09/2006 005338 CALIFORNIA RETAIL SURVEY '06 CA Retail Survey for Eco Devel 178.40 178.40 105999 03/09/2006 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD 32.46 32.46 106000 03/09/2006 009779 CAMERON, CATHERINE Refund: Cardio Kickboxing -M PSC 20.00 20.00 106001 03/09/2006 008644 CANTRELL, ROGER, AlA, AICP Jan Architect:plan review consulting 4,189.00 4,189.00 106002 03/09/2006 002266 CARRIAGE MOTORS COMPANY Refund: Eng Depst:28971 Old Twn 995.00 995.00 106003 03/09/2006 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refreshments:City Mgrs business mtg 118.41 118.41 106004 03/09/2006 009539 CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES Jan Outside plan check svcs: Fire Prevo 2,690.35 2,690.35 106005 03/09/2006 005417 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY First aid supplies: PW Mntc 238.00 238.00 106006 03/09/2006 009773 CLACK, KEN Refund: Eng Depst:29890 Via Norte 995.00 995.00 106007 03/09/2006 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 150.00 150.00 106008 03/09/2006 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Lithium batteries: Wedding Chapel 112.33 112.33 106009 03/09/2006 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEM ET Emerg. vehicle equip: Fire Chief's 5,193.26 5,193.26 106010 03/09/2006 009735 CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE Jan Security Guard: Birdsall Sprts Cmplx 1,776.50 SERVIC Dec Security Guard: Birdsall Sprts Cmplx 1,639.50 3.416.00 106011 03/09/2006 003986 COZAD & FOX INC Dec-Jan design:Pechanga Prkwy 10,720.00 10,720.00 106012 03/09/2006 006954 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC Plumbing repairs @ Fire Stn 84 1,016.92 Plumbing repairs @ Fire Stn 84 257.27 Plumbing repairs @ Fire Stn 84 136.95 Plumbing repairs: Sprts Park 95.00 1,506.14 106013 03/09/2006 001393 DATA TICKET INC Jan parking citation processing svcs 515.22 515.22 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106014 03/09/2006 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Portable Restroom:Riverton Prk 57.16 SRVCS Portable Restroom:Vail Ranch Prk 57.16 Portable Restroom:Veterans Prk 57.16 Portable Restroom:Lg Cnyn Prk 57.16 228.64 106015 03/09/2006 004417 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY Children Museum supplies 943.68 943.68 106016 03/09/2006 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles:TCSD 1,008.81 INC Fuel for City vehicles:PW Mntc 819.85 Fuel for City vehicles:CIP/Lnd/NPDES 359.38 Fuel for City vehicles: Bldg & Safety 266.80 Fuel for City vehicles:PlanninglPolice 152.48 Fuel for City vehicles: Traffic 62.30 Fuel for City vehicles:Code Enforce 42.43 Fuel for City vehicles:PW Trailblazer 39.64 Fuel for City vehicles:CIP 22.35 2,774.04 106017 03/09/2006 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION Supplies for graffiti removal 119.82 119.82 106018 03/09/2006 002981 DYNA M ED CPR Latex gloves/Face Masks: TCSD 199.28 199.28 106019 03/09/2006 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Jan Idscp impr: Slope Areas 2,099.58 2,099.58 106020 03/09/2006 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Lot Book Report: Vidal 75.00 COMPANY Lot Book Report: Dibernardo 75.00 150.00 Page:4 apChkLst 03/09/2006 U4,01PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank, union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106021 03/09/2006 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER AMERICAN PLANNING GT Regist:APA Cf:4/22-26:Staff/Comm. ASSOCIATION HYATT RR Hotel:RCTC Conf:2/6-9:Wshgtn DC 3,050.00 903.13 HILTON RR Hotel:US Mayors Conf:1/25-28 871.14 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS AE Regist:Educ Wk:2/28-3/3:Staff 750.00 HILTON GT Hotel:Urban Land Conf:2/15-17 619.06 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS AE Regist:Educ Wk:2/28-3/3:MH/AE 550.00 SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL RR Regist:Sister Cities Conf:7/13-15 525.00 AM ERICAN AIRLINES RR Air:Sister Cities Conf:7/13-15 505.18 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES GT Air:APAAnnl Cf:4/22-26:DWIDH 428.40 VEGA GROUP, THE GT Regist:APA tours:4/22-26:RG/JT 360.00 AMERICAN AIRLINES RR Air:3/11-3/15:Washington 298.60 JETBLUE AIRWAYS JC Air:NLC Conf:3/11-15:Wshgtn CORPORATION 278.60 TOXCO INC. HP 5 pk Recycle Big Green Boxes 266.00 SHERATON HOTEL RR Hotel:YMCA VIP Day:2/16-17 245.91 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES RR Air:YMCA VIP Day:2/16-17 235.10 WORKFLOW .COM, LLC GY Go Red for Women wrist bands 182.58 SHERATON HOTEL RR Hotel:SCAG Mtg:3/1/06:LA 181.26 EXPEDIA.COM HP Air:Waste Wrkshp:Smith:2/28 152.62 B N I PUBLICATIONS INC AE Publication:Study Guide:Elect. 115.20 LINDBERGH PARKING SAN RR Ptkg:US Mayors Conf:1/25-28 DIEGO PASADENA INN RR Hotel:LCC Mgrs Conf:2/1-2:Spkr 114.00 101.91 CATERERS CAFE GT Refreshments: Civic Ctr Mtg 77.70 ONTARIO AIRPORT RR Ptkg:RCTC Conf:2/6-9:Wshgtn DC 60.00 BLACK ANGUS GY Refreshments:Ttifc Comm Mtg 51.33 PENFOLD'S CAFE GR Refreshments:Budget Mtg 51.05 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE GT Publication:Awd Winning P~t 49.35 SPRINT GR Treo Cellphone case 43.09 PAT & OSCARS RESTAURANT HP Refreshments:Library design mtg 38.69 PageS apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total RESTOCKIT.COM AE Office Supplies:Ear Cushions 38.25 ONTARIO AIRPORT RR Ptkg:YMCA VIP Day:2/16-17 30.00 SUPERSHUTTLE RR Shuttle:YMCA VIP Day:2/16-17 26.00 SHERATON HOTEL RR Boarding PassYMCA Day:2116-17 5.00 HYATT GR Reverse:Htl regist cancellation fee -50.00 11,154.15 106022 03/09/2006 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Support Pmt Case #573332729=$78.83 153.83 153.83 106023 03/09/2006 004178 FREEDOM SIGNS Facade Sign Prgm: Euro Deli 2,181.94 2,181.94 106024 03/09/2006 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Feb Office Supplies:Theater 1,032.19 INC Jan Office Supplies:Theater 873.93 Feb Office Supplies:Planning 611.01 Feb Office Supplies:Land/CIP 477.55 Feb Office Supplies: Bldg & Safety 357.46 Feb Office Supplies:EcoDev/CM 309.28 Feb Office Supplies:TCSD 308.87 Feb Office Supplies:Records Mgmt 194.18 Feb Office Supplies: Fire Prev/Stn 84 180.04 Feb Office Supplies:Finance 142.31 Feb Office Supplies:Central Svcs 108.93 Feb Office Supplies:City Clerk 73.70 Feb Office Supplies:M PSC 52.14 Feb Office Supplies: Info System 28.76 Feb Office supplies:HR 28.39 Feb Office Supplies:CRC 12.15 4,790.89 106025 03/09/2006 004053 HABITAT WEST INC Feb Biological Svcs:Lg Canyon Basin 216.67 216.67 106026 03/09/2006 007643 HAERR, DENISE Netherlands student sponsorship prgm 2,200.00 2,200.00 106027 03/09/2006 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies:City Hall/Prks 880.49 Hardware supplies:MPSC 92.17 Hardware supplies:PW Mntc/Ttifc 88.92 Hardware supplies:Fire Stn/Medic 83.73 Hardware supplies: City Hall 73.24 Hardware supplies: Museums 48.14 Hardware supplies: TCC 45.28 Hardware supplies:Old Town 39.18 Hardware supplies:Bldg & Safety 16.33 Hardware supplies:PW Mntc/Ttifc 612.35 Hardware supplies: CRC 151.47 2,131.30 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106028 03/09/2006 001135 HEAL THPOINTE MEDICAL Feb Pre-employment physicals 120.00 120.00 GROUP INC 106029 03/09/2006 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD Computer equip: HP LaserJet 914.80 914.80 106030 03/09/2006 002107 HIGHMARK INC Voluntary Supp Life Insurance Payment 760.50 760.50 106031 03/09/2006 009777 HILTON, JAMES Refund: Oil/Acrylic Painting TCC 66.20 66.20 106032 03/09/2006 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Support Payment 12.28 12.28 106033 03/09/2006 009774 HOLTMAN, STEVEN Refund:Cite 1578/1579/1580/1584 250.00 250.00 106034 03/09/2006 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 11,268.68 11,268.68 303355 106035 03/09/2006 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY Feb Pool sanitizing chemicals 1,816.92 1,816.92 INC 106036 03/09/2006 000501 INTL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL Regist:Ann'l Conf:5/14-18:4-Staff 1,780.00 1,780.00 106037 03/09/2006 006766 INTL RIGHT OF WAY Membership: Carol Chiodo 142975 205.00 205.00 ASSOC(IRWA) 106038 03/09/2006 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD instructor earnings 298.20 298.20 106039 03/09/2006 004884 J & W REDWOOD LUM BER CO Old Town misc. supplies:PW Mntc 48.53 48.53 INC 106040 03/09/2006 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC CRC pool pump repairs 6,092.24 CRC - CPN pool repairs 1,955.00 8,047.24 106041 03/09/2006 008715 KRAMER FIRM INC PA06-0026 planning architect review svcs 2,000.00 2,000.00 106042 03/09/2006 007188 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORP. AED training books & supplies:Fire 30.71 30.71 106043 03/09/2006 001690 LAUTZENHISERS STATIONERY Permanent City Record Books 1,293.56 1,293.56 INC 106044 03/09/2006 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD instructor earnings 91.00 91.00 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106045 03/09/2006 009686 LECHUSZA, ALAN Lecture stipend for radio exhibit 200.00 200.00 106046 03/09/2006 008892 LIBERTY COLLISION CENTER INC CM vehicle vandalism repairs 1,119.84 1,119.84 106047 03/09/2006 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Feb Paramedic Medical Supplies 4,885.58 4,885.58 106048 03/09/2006 008383 L1M & NASCIMENTO Jan design svcs: Margarita undercrossing 4,311.82 4,311.82 ENGINEERING 106049 03/09/2006 009778 LIND, ANNE Refund: Sr. Excursions-Dam/Museum 10.00 10.00 106050 03/09/2006 006897 LORY, SUSAN, J. TCSD instructor earnings 218.40 218.40 106051 03/09/2006 008610 M C R STAMPS entertainment: High Hopes Prgm 3/3/06 25.00 25.00 106052 03/09/2006 004141 MAINTEX INC custodial supplies: City Hall 417.96 custodial supplies: var park sites 258.60 custodial supplies: Var Park Sites 115.29 custodial supplies returned: City Hall -610.94 180.91 106053 03/09/2006 004068 MANALlLI, AILEEN TCSD Instructor Earnings 49.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 26.25 TCSD Instructor Earnings 7.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 7.00 89.25 106054 03/09/2006 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY temp help w/e 02/19 JD/JH!DH 2,754.21 2,754.21 SERVICES 106055 03/09/2006 003800 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING business relocation expense 5,619.15 5,619.15 106056 03/09/2006 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS Bluegrass Festival Marketing & Promotions 1,500.00 reimb expenses: Bluegrass Festival 113.06 1,613.06 106057 03/09/2006 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Met Life Dental Insurance Payment 8,536.86 8,536.86 106058 03/09/2006 007210 MIDORI GARDENS Jan Idscp maint svcs: Neighborhood Parks 48.401.61 Irrigation repairs: Redhawk Park "F" 186.30 48,587.91 106059 03/09/2006 007669 MILES, KATRINA TCSD Instructor Earnings 507.50 507.50 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106060 03/09/2006 008091 MILLMORE'S WAX CREW City vehicles detailing services: PW 125.00 City vehicles detailing services: PW 100.00 City vehicles detailing services: TCSD 75.00 300.00 106061 03/09/2006 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES Mar EOC Stn Satellite Phone SVcs 71.89 71.89 LP 106062 03/09/2006 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY Res Imprv Prgm: Westbrook, Donelle 3,635.63 Res Imprv Prgm: Coats, Diane 1,028.75 4,664.38 106063 03/09/2006 007011 MORRIS MYERS MAINTENANCE Feb maint svcs:park r.r Jpicnic shelters 5,354.00 5,354.00 106064 03/09/2006 003039 MURRIETA VALLEY HIGH H.S. choir petiotlllance:Old Town Holiday 150.00 150.00 SCHOOL 106065 03/09/2006 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Mar "on-hold" phone music:City Hall 124.41 124.41 106066 03/09/2006 000233 NELSON, SHAWN reimb: Feb internet svcs 44.95 44.95 106067 03/09/2006 008528 NICHOLS, MELBURG & ROSETTO Jan Consulting:Civic Center Complex 17,295.00 17,295.00 106068 03/09/2006 009419 NORTH AM ERICAN TITLE Title reports:Diaz Realignment PW95-27 997.60 997.60 COMPANY 106069 03/09/2006 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS office supplies: Planning 48.38 48.38 DIV 106070 03/09/2006 006721 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY office supplies: Rnance 226.29 226.29 106071 03/09/2006 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 228.90 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 150.49 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 66.89 446.28 106072 03/09/2006 008491 OPTI-FORMS INC refund:eng depositl42520 Rio Nedo 995.00 995.00 106073 03/09/2006 002800 PACIFIC STRIPING INC FY 05/06 Street Striping Program PW05-02 109,509.26 FY 05/06 add'l Street Striping 32,976.60 142.485.86 106074 03/09/2006 004088 PALA MESA RESORT Deposit: Rental/Catering Svcs:12/09/06 1,000.00 1,000.00 106075 03/09/2006 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 288.55 288.55 PROGRAM Page:9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106076 03/09/2006 009783 PINA, ERNIE refund: Senior Excursion/Diamond Valley 10.00 10.00 106077 03/09/2006 001999 PITNEY BOWES Pitney Bowes Postage meter rental 05/06 269.11 Mar-Jun postage meter rental: Stn 84 83.24 352.35 106078 03/09/2006 009161 POLETTI, GUSTAVO TCSD Instructor Eamings 696.94 696.94 106079 03/09/2006 002354 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS Rtness & Health Guides: F.I.T. Prgm 430.53 430.53 106080 03/09/2006 005820 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC PrePaid Legal Services Payment 385.65 385.65 106081 03/09/2006 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COM PANY 3/14/06-3/12/07 subscr: City Mgr Dept 165.37 165.37 INC 106082 03/09/2006 002483 PRO TECH SERVICES-PARTS replace flow switch @ T.E.S. Pool 229.51 229.51 DEPOT 106083 03/09/2006 003697 PROJECT DESIGN 12/5-01/8/06 Prof Svcs: 79S Medians 9,884.09 9,884.09 CONSULTANTS 106084 03/09/2006 001364 R C P BLOCK & BRICK INC maintenance supplies: var. park sites 36.85 36.85 106085 03/09/2006 004318 R J BULLARD CONSTRUCTION Release retention: Bridge Barrier Rail 24,381.29 24,381.29 INC 106086 03/09/2006 000728 RAMSEY BACKFLOW & parks backflow testing/repairs: TCSD 725.00 PLUMBING slopes backflow testing/repair: TCSD 523.00 1,248.00 106087 03/09/2006 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PRK ASSN Apr-Jun Business PkAssn dues:Diaz Rd 1,948.77 Apr-Jun Business PkAssn dues:City Hall 1,417.29 Apr-Jun Business PkAssn dues:Adj Prop 1,169.26 4,535.32 106088 03/09/2006 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST- Inspection deposit: Pauba Rd Street 9,193.85 9,193.85 FEES 106089 03/09/2006 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Feb 01-08-92010-0 Sports Complex 674.75 Feb water services: Fire Stn 84 228.97 Feb 01-23-01625-2 Crowne Hill Dr 120,41 1,024.13 106090 03/09/2006 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN City vehicle maintlrepairs svcs: 102.95 102.95 MERCURY 106091 03/09/2006 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL pre-emergent herbicides:Citywide R-O-W's 11,055.00 MANAGEMENT Citywide trash & debris pick-up in R-O-W 3,000.00 14,055.00 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106092 03/09/2006 004498 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC Jan add'l on-call traffic signal maint 5,012.00 5,012.00 106093 03/09/2006 009781 RHODES,IRVEN refund: Senior Excursion/Diamond Valley 10.00 10.00 106094 03/09/2006 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON Jan 2006 legal services 88,903.76 88,903.76 106095 03/09/2006 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR Jan '06 parking citation assessments 1,164.50 1,164.50 106096 03/09/2006 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONTROL encroachment permit fees:Multi- Trail Sys 3,000.00 3,000.00 106097 03/09/2006 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 11/1 0/05-12/07/05:law enforcement 1,012,720.67 12/8/05-01/4/06:lawenforcement 983,106.79 1,995,827.46 106098 03/09/2006 005406 RIVERSIDE CO TRAIN OFF. ASSN S-403 Info Officer: M. Horton 5/23-26/06 55.00 55.00 106099 03/09/2006 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF renew permit: CRC 446.00 446.00 106100 03/09/2006 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC HVAC control sys: Community Theater 1,705.00 1,705.00 106101 03/09/2006 000271 ROBERT BEIN WM FROST & Dec Prof Svcs: 1-15/79S Ult. Interchange 19,170.97 19,170.97 ASSOC 106102 03/09/2006 009563 RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS reimb: Prevention 3A 1/29/06-214106 741.61 741.61 106103 03/09/2006 009770 ROJAS, PETER Refund: Citation 44493 dismissed 25.00 25.00 106104 03/09/2006 004598 S T KARCHITECTURE INC Jan dsgn svcs: Wolf Creek Fire Stn 6,237.35 Jan dsgn svcs: Roripaugh Rre Stn 1,179.75 7.417.10 106105 03/09/2006 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment 1,043.19 1,043.19 106106 03/09/2006 008693 SALAZAR, DONALD (SWD 000053) Support Payment 283.50 283.50 106107 03/09/2006 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment Case # DF099118 25.00 25.00 106108 03/09/2006 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment Acct # 581095025 12.50 12.50 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106109 03/09/2006 000793 SCANTRON FPC CORPORATION 20,000 Scantron Inspection Request Forms 1,489.50 1,489.50 106110 03/09/2006 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment LO File # 2005033893 150.00 150.00 106111 03/09/2006 007342 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER Jan '06 legal services payment 4,583.55 4,583.55 LLP 106112 03/09/2006 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 24"X24" sign: Harveston Comm. Park 135.72 135.72 106113 03/09/2006 000751 SKILLPATH INC Managing Emotions Sem: L. Stiles 4/27/06 149.00 Managing Emotions Sem: S.Rossini 4/27 149.00 298.00 106114 03/09/2006 000645 SMART & FINAL INC special event supplies: TCSD 399.11 399.11 106115 03/09/2006 003477 SM ITH, BARBARA reimb: Waste Reduction Wkshp 2/27-28 327.69 327.69 106116 03/09/2006 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Feb 2-00-397-5042 City Hall 6,423.80 Feb 2-02-502-8077 Maint Fac 1,493.51 Feb 2-00-397-5067 various mtrs 1,094.30 9,011.61 106117 03/09/2006 001212 SO CALI F GAS COM P ANY Feb 091-085-1632-0 T.E.S. Pool 3,840.35 Feb 101-525-1560-6 Fire Stn 73 474.68 Feb 026-671-2909-8 Community Theater 379.25 Feb 133-040-7373-0 Maint Fac 171.82 Feb 196-025-0344-3 C. Museum 121,44 Feb 181-383-8881-6 T. Museum 112.52 5,100.06 106118 03/09/2006 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL pest control services: City facilities 361.00 INC eest control services: Community 90.00 pest control services: Fire Stn 84 80.00 pest control services: Fire Stn 92 42.00 573.00 106119 03/09/2006 004163 SPORTS CHALET wtrlspr TCSD Sport League supplies 2,360.32 2,360.32 106120 03/09/2006 007762 STANDARD OF OREGON Mandatory Life Insurance Payment 2,668.75 2,668.75 106121 03/09/2006 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS office supplies: T. Museum 52.74 52.74 ADVANTAGE 106122 03/09/2006 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS Feb transcription svcs: Police 4,529.76 4,529.76 TRANSCRIPTION Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 13 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106123 03/09/2006 004247 STERICYCLE INC Feb med. waste disposal svcs: Paramedics 114.14 114.14 106124 03/09/2006 009771 SULLENS, LADONNA reimb: class A driver license 85.00 85.00 106125 03/09/2006 004221 SUSAN G KOMEN INLAND Contribution in Eunice Doyle memory 50.00 50.00 VALLEY 106126 03/09/2006 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS office supplies: PW Dept 257.35 special event supplies: M PSC 174.93 recreation supplies: C. Museum 66.70 recreation supplies: C. Museum 37.54 536.52 106127 03/09/2006 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Union Dues Payment 4,570.00 4,570.00 106128 03/09/2006 006465 TEMECULAAUTO REPAIR City vehicle repair/maint svcs: Code Enf 1,975.74 City vehicle repair/maint svcs: Code Enf 178.61 2,154.35 106129 03/09/2006 000168 TEM ECULA FLOWER CORRAL sunshine fund 139.97 139.97 106130 03/09/2006 009150 TEMECULA GLASS & MIRROR Res Imprv Prgm: Hornisch, Robert & Erika 4,163.90 4,163.90 INC 106131 03/09/2006 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY TCSD SmtlFall Sports League Awards 648.60 Father/Daughter Date Night Awards 43.64 nametags: Gilliland/Adamiak 18.86 711.10 106132 03/09/2006 000515 TEM ECULA VALLEY CHAM BER 3rd Qtr Sponsorship Funds 37,000.00 37,000.00 OF 106133 03/09/2006 007340 TEMECULA VALLEY FIRE EQUIP. Fire Extinguisher Maint Svc:T.E.S. Pool 15.00 15.00 CO 106134 03/09/2006 004274 TEM ECULA VALLEY SECURITY locksmith services: Old Town 12.27 12.27 CENTR 106135 03/09/2006 000316 THORNHILL, GARY reimb: Urban Land Institute 2/15-17/06 95.44 95.44 106136 03/09/2006 009785 TIMBERLINE CONSTRUCTION refund: eng deposit/40517 Margarita Rd 995.00 995.00 INC 106137 03/09/2006 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION Jan prgs pmt# 11: Roripaugh Fire Stn 322,533.99 322,533.99 INC 106138 03/09/2006 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE INC traffic control devices for street maint 873.85 maintenance supplies for PW Maint 434.77 1,308.62 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 14 03/09/2006 U4,01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 106139 03/09/2006 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 222.15 222.15 106140 03/09/2006 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA Long Term Disability Payment 7,900.68 7,900.68 106141 03/09/2006 009706 VANDA KING ENTERTAINMENT Upright piano dolly: MPSC 166.55 166.55 106142 03/09/2006 004261 VERIZON Feb xxx-989? general usage 90.06 90.06 106143 03/09/2006 009784 VIERNES-STIER, SUZETTE refund: Prenatal Yoga Plus 50.00 50.00 106144 03/09/2006 009782 WELLS, AILEEN refund: Senior ExcursionlWhale Watching 50.00 50.00 106145 03/09/2006 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 1/16-31/06 Citywide Tree Trimming Svcs 13,057.00 13,057.00 106146 03/09/2006 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL Feb 2006 TUM F payment 114,121.84 114,121.84 OF 106147 03/09/2006 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Feb 2006 MSHCP payment 51,577.80 51,577.80 106148 03/09/2006 008122 WUEBBEN, MARCI refund:Cartooning 95.00 95.00 106149 03/09/2006 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL reimb:RDA presentationlCPRS Banquet 216.34 216.34 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 3,667,470.22 Page:14 apChkLst 03/09/2006 U4,01PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 15 183 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 3,667,470.22 Page:15 ITEM NO.4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager 1#('" /JIL 9~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of January 31,2006 PREPARED BY: Karin A. Grance, Revenue Manager Shannon Buckley, Accountant RECOMMENDATION: January 31, 2006. That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of January 31,2006. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of January 31,2006 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary January 31, 2006 City ctTemecula 43200 6usirtess Park [);rve PO 60x9033 Temecula, CA, 92590 (951)694-6430 Reporting period 01/01/2006-01/3112006 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1)SyrnRer<5.4U02a ReportVer.5.00 RunDate:03!07!2000-15:59 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments January 31, 2006 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYSCFD 03-04-1 AD 03-04-1 First American Treasury 43,837.39 43,837.39 43,837.39 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-04-2 AD 03-04-2 First American Treasury 21,971.71 21,971.71 21,971.71 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-04-3 AD 03-04-3 First American Treasury 100,115.16 100,115.16 100,115.16 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-04-5 AD 03-04-5 First American Treasury 09/01/2005 32,173.49 32,173.49 32,173.49 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 01-2-1 CFD 01-2-1 First American Treasury 984,038.96 984,038.96 984,038.96 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 01-2-2 CFD 01-2-2 First American Treasury 564,245.74 564,245.74 564,245.74 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 01-2-3 CFD 01-2-3 First American Treasury 7,780.83 7,780.83 7,780.83 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 01-2-4 CFD 01-2-4 First American Treasury 135,412.58 135,412.58 135,412.58 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 01-2-5 CFD 01-2-5 First American Treasury 2,874,953.35 2,874,953.35 2,874,953.35 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-1 CFD 03-03-1 First American Treasury 1,701,261.01 1,701,261.01 1,701,261.01 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-03-11 CFD 03-03-11 First American Treasury 10,253.27 10,253.27 10,253.27 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-03-2 CFD 03-03-2 First American Treasury 106.48 106.48 106.48 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-03-3 CFD 03-03-3 First American Treasury 16.98 16.98 16.98 3.890 3.837 3.890 SYSCFD 03-03-6 CFD 03-03-6 First American Treasury 0.02 0.02 0.02 3.890 3.837 3.890 SYSCFD 03-03-6 CFD 03-03-7 First American Treasury 825.80 825.80 825.80 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-03-9 CFD 03-03-9 First American Treasury 3,041.93 3,041.93 3,041.93 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-06-0 CFD 03-06-0 First American Treasury 01/01/2006 191,927.51 191,927.51 191,927.51 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-06-1 CFD 03-06-1 First American Treasury 3,142.93 3,142.93 3,142.93 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-06-2 CFD 03-06-2 First American Treasury 347,863.74 347,863.74 347,863.74 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-06-3 CFD 03-06-3 First American Treasury 3,938,550.21 3,938,550.21 3,938,550.21 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-1 CFD 03-1-1 First American Treasury 588,314.34 588,314.34 588,314.34 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-10 CFD 03-1-10 First American Treasury 950.08 950.08 950.08 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-13 CFD 03-1-13 First American Treasury 08/31/2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-16 CFD 03-1-16 First American Treasury 08/31/2005 225,513.45 225,513.45 225,513.45 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-2 CFD 03-1-2 First American Treasury 82.50 82.50 82.50 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-21 CFD 03-1-21 First American Treasury 08/31/2005 3,376,825.27 3,376,825.27 3,376,825.27 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-3 CFD 03-1-3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.340 3.294 3.340 SYSCFD 03-1-5 CFD 03-1-5 First American Treasury 4.26 4.26 4.26 3.760 3.708 3.760 SYSCFD 03-1-6 CFD 03-1-6 First American Treasury 760.23 760.23 760.23 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 03-1-8 CFD 03-1-8 First American Treasury 521,640.91 521,640.91 521,640.91 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 88-12-1 CFD 88-12-1 First American Treasury 48,461.41 48,461.41 48,461.41 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 88-12-3 CFD 88-12-3 First American Treasury 662,664.87 662,664.87 662,664.87 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSCFD 88-12-5 CFD 88-12-5 First American Treasury 2.13 2.13 2.13 3.760 3.708 3.760 SYSRDA TABS-1 RDA TABs-1 First American Treasury 688,952.61 688,952.61 688,952.61 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSRDA TABS-3 RDA TABs-3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.300 2.268 2.300 SYSTCSD COPS-1 TCSD COPs-1 First American Treasury 299.37 299.37 299.37 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSTCSD COPS-2 TCSD COPs-2 First American Treasury 0.65 0.65 0.65 3.860 3.807 3.860 SYSRDA TABS-2 RDA TABs-2 MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.190 2.160 2.190 Portfolio TEME CP Run Dale 03/07/2006-1559 PM (PRF _PM2) SymRepl 6.41.202a ReportVer.5.00 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments January 31, 2006 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Subtotal and Average 14,276,989.34 17,075,992.17 17,075,992.17 17,075,992.17 3.807 3.860 Local Agency Investment Funds SYSCFD 03-03-10 CFD 03-03-10 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,790,505.10 3,790,505.10 3,790,505.10 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCFD 03-03-12 CFD 03-03-12 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 10,356,313.00 10,356,313.00 10,356,313.00 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCFD 03-03-4 CFD 03-03-4 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 12.68 12.68 12.68 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCFD 03-03-8 CFD 03-03-8 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 4,453,986.44 4,453,986.44 4,453,986.44 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCFD 03-1-11 CFD 03-1-11 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,327,322.59 1,327,322.59 1,327,322.59 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCFD 03-1-7 CFD 03-1-7 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 992,096.81 992,096.81 992,096.81 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCFD 03-1-9 CFD 03-1-9 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 6,161.65 6,161.65 6,161.65 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 24,716,641.88 24,656,384.66 24,716,641.88 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 2,015,367.43 2,010,454.12 2,015,367.43 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSRDA TABS-4 RDA TABs-4 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.967 2.926 2.967 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,708,276.42 1,704,111.78 1,708,276.42 3.955 3.901 3.955 SYSTCSD COPS-3 TCSD COPs-3 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.324 3.278 3.324 --- Subtotal and Average 48,552,720.09 49,366,684.00 49,297,348.83 49,366,684.00 3.901 3.955 Federal Agency Callable Securities 31339YG09 01004 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/24/2003 1,000,000.00 988,440.00 1,000,000.00 2.250 2.219 2.250 173 07/24/2006 31339YXP2 01005 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/14/2003 2,000,000.00 1,976,880.00 2,000,000.00 2.500 2.466 2.500 194 08114/2006 3133X55G9 01014 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/08/2004 3,050,000.00 2,956,609.00 3,050,000.00 3.100 3.058 3.101 706 01/08/2008 3133X52S6 01015 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/07/2004 2,965,000.00 2,868,637.50 2,965,000.00 3.000 2.960 3.001 705 01/07/2008 3133X55H7 01016 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/29/2004 3,000,000.00 2,903,430.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 2.960 3.001 695 12/28/2007 3133X55H7 01017 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/29/2004 1,000,000.00 967,810.00 1,000,000.00 3.000 2.960 3.001 695 12/28/2007 3133X5DV7 01018 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/14/2004 1,000,000.00 970,000.00 1,000,000.00 3.150 3.108 3.151 712 01/14/2008 3133X5GE2 01019 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/15/2004 2,000,000.00 1,936,880.00 2,000,000.00 3.070 3.029 3.071 713 01/15/2008 3133X5K49 01020 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/16/2004 1,000,000.00 969,380.00 1,000,000.00 3.125 3.083 3.126 714 01/16/2008 3133X50F8 01021 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/22/2004 2,000,000.00 1,933,760.00 2,000,000.00 3.000 2.960 3.001 720 01/22/2008 3133X5ZL5 01022 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/30/2004 2,000,000.00 1,952,500.00 2,000,000.00 3.520 3.473 3.521 728 01/30/2008 3133XAY84 01026 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/23/2005 1,000,000.00 989,060.00 999,750.00 3.850 3.810 3.863 415 03123/2007 3133XAZ91 01027 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/28/2005 1,000,000.00 990,940.00 999,750.00 3.785 3.750 3.802 330 12/28/2006 3133XBY66 01029 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/15/2005 2,000,000.00 1,986,260.00 2,000,000.00 4.000 3.781 3.833 317 12/15/2006 3133XCMC4 01032 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/31/2005 3,000,000.00 2,970,930.00 2,997,360.00 4.250 4.238 4.296 553 08108/2007 3133XCY31 01033 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/14/2005 960,000.00 952,800.00 960,000.00 4.380 4.320 4.380 590 09/14/2007 3133XD2G5 01034 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/21/2005 3,000,000.00 2,975,640.00 2,998,125.00 4.375 4.347 4.407 688 12/21/2007 3133XD302 01035 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/28/2005 620,000.00 615,542.20 620,000.00 4.400 4.340 4.400 604 09/28/2007 3133XD3RO 01036 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/28/2005 2,000,000.00 1,983,120.00 2,000,000.00 4.500 4.438 4.500 786 03128/2008 3133XD6F3 01038 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/28/2005 1,000,000.00 989,690.00 1,000,000.00 4.230 4.174 4.232 695 12/28/2007 3133XD6D8 01039 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/29/2005 1,000,000.00 990,630.00 1,000,000.00 4.140 4.086 4.143 513 06129/2007 3133XDA84 01040 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/28/2005 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1,000,000.00 4.200 4.147 4.204 330 12/28/2006 Portfolio TEME CP Run Dale 03/07/2006-1559 PM (PRF _PM2) SymRepl 6.41.202a City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Page 4 Portfolio Details - Investments January 31, 2006 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Callable Securities 3133XDAB7 01041 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/29/2005 1,000,000.00 993,750.00 1,000,000.00 4.120 4.068 4.124 331 12/2912006 3133XDBWO 01043 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/12/2005 1,000,000.00 993,130.00 1,000,000.00 4.050 3.995 4.050 253 10/1212006 3133XDBQ3 01044 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/14/2005 1,000,000.00 996,250.00 1,000,000.00 4.250 4.196 4.255 343 01/1012007 3133XDBX8 01045 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/12/2005 1,000,000.00 991,250.00 1,000,000.00 4.150 4.097 4.154 345 01/1212007 3133XDB67 01046 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/12/2005 1,000,000.00 991,880.00 999,375.00 4.150 4.136 4.193 435 04/12/2007 3133XDKQ3 01047 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/09/2005 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1,000,000.00 4.500 4.443 4.505 373 02109/2007 3133XEG94 01053 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/26/2006 1,000,000.00 998,130.00 1,000,000.00 4.750 4.685 4.750 359 01/26/2007 3128XILW5 01002 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 06130/2003 1,000,000.00 989,290.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 149 06130/2006 3128X3SM6 01025 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/07/2005 1,000,000.00 984,500.00 998,000.00 3.750 3.784 3.837 548 08103/2007 3128X36R9 01030 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp OS/24/2005 1,000,000.00 986,070.00 1,000,000.00 4.050 3.993 4.048 600 09/24/2007 3128X4NU1 01042 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 10/18/2005 1,000,000.00 992,790.00 1,000,000.00 4.375 4.315 4.375 624 10/18/2007 3136F6M63 01028 Federal National Mtg Assn 04/05/2005 1,000,000.00 990,310.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 428 04/05/2007 --- Subtotal and Average 49,490,585.81 49,595,000.00 48,765,048.70 49,587,360.00 3.606 3.656 550 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 31331 SYN7 01031 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/01/2005 1,000,000.00 986,880.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 3.768 3.820 485 06101/2007 31331 S5Y5 01037 Federal Farm Credit Bank 09/16/2005 1,000,000.00 990,000.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.947 4.002 439 04/16/2007 3133XAW37 01024 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/28/2005 1,000,000.00 999,060.00 1,000,000.00 3.300 3.255 3.300 27 02128/2006 3133XDLW9 01048 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/10/2005 2,000,000.00 1,997,500.00 2,000,000.00 4.200 4.142 4.200 98 05110/2006 3133XDMX6 01049 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/15/2005 2,000,000.00 1,995,620.00 2,000,000.00 4.250 4.192 4.250 103 05115/2006 3133XE2VO 01050 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/29/2005 1,000,000.00 999,060.00 1,000,000.00 4.625 4.562 4.625 240 09/29/2006 3133XE5U9 01051 Federal Home Loan Bank 12130/2005 1,000,000.00 999,380.00 1,000,000.00 4.500 4.438 4.500 149 06130/2006 3133XE7H6 01052 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/29/2005 1,000,000.00 999,060.00 1,000,000.00 4.650 4.586 4.650 240 09/29/2006 --- Subtotal and Average 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 9,966,560.00 10,000,000.00 4.122 4.180 198 Investment Contracts SYSCFD 03-1-4 CFD 03-1-4 American International Group M 04/28/2004 863,900.00 863,900.00 863,900.00 4.830 4.764 4.830 10,073 08131/2033 SYSCFD 03-03-5 CFD 03-03-5 IXIS Funding Corp 07/28/2004 2,171,120.00 2,171,120.00 2,171,120.00 3.000 2.959 3.000 10,438 08131/2034 SYSCFD 88-12-2 CFD 88-12-2 IXIS Funding Corp 07/24/1998 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.430 5.499 5.575 4,230 09/01/2017 SYSCFD 88-12-4 CFD 88-12-4 IXIS Funding Corp 07/24/1998 1,531,468.76 1,531,468.76 1,531,468.76 5.430 5.509 5.585 4,230 09/01/2017 --- Subtotal and Average 5,066,488.76 5,066,488.76 5,066,488.76 5,066,488.76 4.288 4.348 7,887 Total and Average 129,706,727.37 131,104,164.93 130,171,438.46 131,096,524.93 3.809 3.862 528 Run Dale 03/07/2006-1559 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF _PM2) SymRepl 6.41.202a City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash January 31, 2006 Page 5 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Retention Escrow Account SYSRJ NOBLE RJ NOBLE Bank of Sacramento 104,408.14 104,408.14 104,408.14 1.250 1.233 1.250 SYSBARNHART1 BARNHART 1 California Bank & Trust 919,062.52 919,062.52 919,062.52 2.250 2.219 2.250 SYS EDGE DEVELO EDGE DEV1 California Bank & Trust 08/04/2005 283,723.62 283,723.62 283,723.62 1.250 1.233 1.250 SYSRIV CONST 1 RIV CONST 1 Community National Bank 151,770.31 151,770.31 151,770.31 2.350 2.318 2.350 Passbook/Checking Accounts SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2005 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 0.000 0.000 SYSFlex Ck Acct Flex Ck Acct Union Bank of California 07/01/2005 14,806.88 14,806.88 14,806.88 0.000 0.000 SYSGen Ck Acct Gen CkAcct Union Bank of California 07/01/2005 915,111.35 915,111.35 915,111.35 0.000 0.000 OLD TOWN CK ACC OLD TO\NN CHK Union Bank of California 01/01/2006 29,142.78 29,142.78 29,142.78 0.000 0.000 SYSParking Ck Parking Ck Union Bank of California 07/01/2005 5,738.00 5,738.00 5,738.00 0.000 0.000 Average Balance 0.00 Total Cash and Investmentss 129,706,727.37 133,529,628.53 132,596,902.06 133,521,988.53 3.809 3.862 528 Run Dale 03/07/2006-1559 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF _PM2) SymRepl 6.41.202a Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through January 2006 Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $ 33,441,555.08 101 STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND 186,414.22 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 9,583,893.43 150 AB 2766 FUND 288,964.20 165 RDA DEV LOW/MOD 20% SET ASIDE 11,286,740.08 170 MEASURE A FUND 4,952,590.12 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 1,491,995.58 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 158,816.14 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 238,676.33 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 66,803.31 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 33,280.46 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 463,436.28 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 18,733,527.11 271 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON IMPROVEMENT FUND 2,887,776.57 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 6,225,757.54 274 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER IMPROVEMENT FUND 70,819.47 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 18,614,925.54 276 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,938,550.21 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 1,990,664.84 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,382,080.32 310 VEHICLES FUND 623,015.46 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 898,927.57 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 232,858.25 340 F ACILITlES 137,656.44 380 RDA 2002 TABS DEBT SERVICE 2,508,839.53 390 TCSD 2001 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 1,285.21 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,887,178.37 470 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,709,575.64 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,794,739.83 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 206,675.22 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,988,813.53 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 570,070.18 Grand Total: $ 132,596,902.06 ITEM NO.5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~f'" IJIL 9g CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mitch Aim, Chief of Police DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Police Department OTS Seatbelt Mini Grant Funding PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Increase estimated General Fund Grant Revenue by $24,256. 2. Appropriate $24,256 from General Fund Grant Revenue to the Police Department. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has been active in seeking grant funding to participate in the Office of Traffic Safety Click it or Ticket Mini-Grant program for seatbelt enforcement. The goal of the grant is to increase seat belt use statewide to 93% in 2006 through the combined efforts of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and local law enforcement. The strategy is to focus public information and enforcement on persons who fail to use seat belts during the May 2006 Buckle Up America/Operation ABC National Mobilization. Recently the City received $24,256 in grant funding from the Office of Traffic Safety to participate in this program per grant agreement I N63312. The mini-grant offsets overtime and reporting costs for seat belt enforcement during a three-week (May 15 through June 4, 2006) mobilization period that includes the Memorial Day Holiday. The City will be reimbursed for overtime hours for Sergeants, Officers and Community Service Officers to complete seatbelt enforcement operations during the grant mobilization period. FISCAL IMPACT: General Fund grant revenues will be increased by $24,256 and will offset the appropriation of $24,256 in the Police Department budget for overtime (Account number 001-170-503-5280.) ITEM NO.6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~ IJIZ Lf CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Resolution Changing the Time of Planning Commission Meetings RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ 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, at it's meeting of March 1, 2006, voted unanimously to change the meeting time from 6:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The original time change to 6:30 p.m. was to accommodate the schedule offormer Commission Matthewson, who is no longer on the Planning Commission. It was further felt that changing the time to 6:00 p.m. would enable the Planning Commissioners more time to consider important Planning issues. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 06-_ RESOLUTION NO. 06- 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 HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-02, establishing the Temecula Municipal Code on February 13, 1990; Section 2. Title 2, Section 2.06.080, requires that the City Council shall establish meeting schedules for each commission by resolution. Section 3. The City Council previously adopted its resolution establishing the first and third Wednesday of each month, from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Section 4. That the Planning Commission has determined, that altering its meeting time to begin at 6:00 p.m. 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 more time to consider important planning items. Section 5. Regular meeting will continue to be held on the first and third Wednesday of each month. The meetings shall be held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Section 6. The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time and location for a meeting. 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 this 21 st day of March , 2006. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 21stday of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk ITEM NO.7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager JM.r- Bf2 tf CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services with EnGEN Corporation for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY2005-2006 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Laura Bragg, Project Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Professional Services Agreement with EnGEN Corporation in the amount of $25,000.00 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2004, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2004- 2005 Professional Services Agreement with EnGEN Corporation in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services to be utilized on projects that are approved in the Capital Improvement Program. On June 14, 2005, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Professional Services Agreement with EnGEN Corporation in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services to be utilized on projects for various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2005-2006. Since the First Amendment for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Professional Services Agreement for survey services with EnGEN Corporation was approved, a number of geotechnical and material testing services have been required and completed. Amendment NO.2 is necessary to continue the miscellaneous geotechnical and material testing services required for the various Capital Improvement Projects. FISCAL IMPACT: The total contract including Amendment NO.2 is $145,000.00 This amount includes the original contract limit of $60,000, Amendment NO.1 amount of $60,000.00 and Amendment NO.2 amount of $25,000.00. The Consultant will continue to submit cost proposals for each survey service request. Once a scope of service and schedule of fees are negotiated, funds are allocated for the corresponding project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under this agreement unless directed otherwise by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No.2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO ANNUAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND EnGEN CORPORATION THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of, March 21, 2006 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and EnGEN Corporation ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On June 22, 2004 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Professional Geotechnical/Material Testing Services for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 ("Agreement") in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00). B. The Agreement was amend on June 14, 2005 for additional Professional Geotechnical/Material Testing Services for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00). The parties now desire to increase the payment for services in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000.00) and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 5 a Pavment of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B for services described in Section B of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this- reference as though set forth in full. The Second Amendment amount shall not exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000.00) for additional professional engineering and construction survey services for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 and the First Amendment amount in the sum of: Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00) for additional professional engineering construction survey services for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 for a total contract amount, of One Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($145,000.00). 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 R:\Agreements\Masters\Annual Masters\2005,-2006\Engen Corp 2005-2006 Amend 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT EnGEN Corporation 25759 Jefferson Ave. Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 834-9000 Osbjorn Bartene, President H. Wayne Baimbridge, CEO/CFO (Two Signatures Required For Corporations) ITEM NO.8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager J4f" iJll ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Western Bypass Corridor - Phase I Alignment Study, Project PW05-1 0 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve an agreement with URS Corporation to provide professional engineering services by doing a specific alignment study and determination for the Western Bypass Corridor - Phase I Alignment Study, Project PW05-1 0 in an amount not to exceed $265,180.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $26,518.00, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. BACKGROUND: The project is as described in the approved Capital improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2006 to 2010. When completed the Western Bypass will provide a four lane roadway adjacent to the foothills on the west side of the City connecting 79 South to Cherry Street or another northerly terminus. The Western Bypass is classified as a major highway (100' right of way, 80' curb to curb) on the City of Temecula's current Circulation Element. This project must be coordinated with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), and Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The Consultant shall review any existing reserved or proposed roadway corridors and provide comments and recommendations on at least three alignment alternatives incorporating the existing reservations, if possible. The Consultant will also provide Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimates for each alternative. The cost estimates will include, but are not limited to, the following: design, preliminary environmental assessment, right-of-way impacts, and construction. In addition, the Consultant will provide at least three focused alternatives at the north end of the project along with an at grade and bridge alternative crossing at Rancho California Road. The Consultant will coordinate with any and all existing studies in the area of the project. Finally, the Consultant will comment on all alignments and recommend a "preferred alignment" to the City and provide a justification/rational for its choice and for not choosing the other alternatives. After the preferred alignment is agreed upon, the Consultant will provide the City a complete set of 40 scaled street plans showing both horizontal and vertical alignments for the entire Western Bypass Corridor. FISCAL IMPACT: The Western Bypass Corridor - Phase I, Project PW05-10, is a Capital Improvement Project funded through Community Facilities District (Proposed), TUMF, and Redevelopment Agency funds. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-165-628-5802 for the study amount of $265,180.00 plus the contingency amount of $26,518.00 for a total study cost of $291,698.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Location 2. Project Description 3. Agreement J--; ~ ~ u o ..... t; ~. d ~ .... ~ 00 S3 ll-< , ~ o t:l ~ o u 00 00 ~ ~ f:1 00 ~ <l ;l E=< .... u " '0' ~ ---------- , on 00 w ~ ~ i ~ CENT~DR ~N z~ "~ t::: .~ ei ~ l::l t; ~ o ~ ~ ;:: F::: .... u " '-~ o .... ll-o .... .... .... 0-, 0 '" t-"5~ ~ g ~ op:::..o p::: 0 s ,,- " rtj~t;; - > " CIl'.::i3= 80" O('j;..cl ~ oo~ ~~o .~ o~ u;:;;:.... ,,_ell ..00:..... ~ 8 ~ 00:'" .g::;;f .- ""' '" 8 0 l1~So " .- CI.l.Q~ -"0:"0 "<'oOJ S'i'iB $l"fr ] 5 g 0]8 <E-S" o 0 o:S >:El..t:l5 o .t::~ :: ~.~ 0: - '-0 ""0 g.~ I .~ l-llJ") "gog >."'C"l '" 00... ~~t8 -g~5~ o ._ '" ;"'+->1d~ " 0: ... 0: 0: " ..... 0 ~ g"E 0 ~ :> 'S .~ r..S bB.a ~ "'0:<>;"0 +->:.c;<L>\U ~E~.;3 .t:l 0 - 00 '" 0: . 0: H -..-1. '1j.C 0"'0 0::$ Il) o Q 0 +-> 0: "0 '" p:::]", .S g 6'~' 1fj +->J;::: "";3 5h-S<E '" _O"u.: ::lO"'" "'tj (jo~ag ;;; Eo< ii:l o ii:l ll-o .... 1';1 CIl ~ ll-o I ~ o ~ o u CIl CIl <>; >: l!:I ~ ~ a; = ~~ .101 Q.. ~ '1:: ~;. ~ Q VJ ,'}..( 4) ll-oQ " "0 .- '" ..... '" " " 1J - 0: o '" " ~ OJ '':: " ~ ... o .~ 8 ""' o 0: o .., " ~ 0: o " "0 0: '" g; .- '" " "0 gii .- '" '" " " 00 0 C"l t;. ~ ",OJ ~-~ ~ ~ C"l 0 ~ '@ 11 ~ 0-5 " " 3"0 .......e I " '" .8 1'1 oS.~ i3= ...- .....u .~ 2 0 :e "S i3 ~~t; .-: ~ -t;.S I:l ... .,ll-o ~'S ... ~~ ... " Q<LJ g p:; " <J:1 .() " CIl " "0 .- '" - '" " .. ] ~ o Eo< "0 <5 .s 'i'i " 5 ~ .s "0 g 0: o .- 1;J ;:l " .~ " " > 8 .s ~ ~ .~ g .....'" " <-f " ~ E ~" Il<~ .;; ~ o U ~ " " .~ ;l e !j;ll< ~ - w ~ ~E-< " o '<l ~-a ~ ~ Uu 00000 00000 000000\0 0\" \.0" 0" 0" \.0" o NOO('<"} \0 Mt"-OOV.. '" ~ ~ WVtWY:l-Yl 000 000 ~ 00..000 "'" ~ 0\ '-0'" 0'" E ~ ~ ~ g & ~ 0\" "" "" "" o .... , '" o o '" '" o , 00 o o '" 00 o , r-- o o '" r-- o . '" o o '" o '" 0 o 0 .A 0'" o 0 o .... '" "" o 0 o 0 liI'J ~ ~ v -; - ........ ~ a A N ~ " ~ .s "" "" "" B 'oC ~ g f 0 "+=I .~ .);1 g ;g 'S ~ 0" " o 0 ';;:';;:U 00 00 00 co" 00 00 '" "" "" 00 00 '" r-- \O~ 1.(')" 00 r-- on r-- '" "" 51,-", "fij tJ o 0 AE-< o o '" 0' '" on o ~ "" "" " '" o ... 8 '" , - " :5' 'S '" '" " .- g A ,;;: g) ~ '0 o '" o ~ <<-0 ~ .~ ~ ~ ""UE-< B .~ Q ~ U "" :;;: ~ ~f'< 0'(; ., " """ t .~ g .~ rn o 0 0 0 o 000 o \0 l:- ('<") 0" \0" Vi" c.,f o ("f) l- ........ o v t- N ..n \0" ("01" ~ w Vt (fl W '" 00 '" " " " bO ,;;: if v p.. ;; .- "!JEt ~~ AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES WESTERN BYPASS - PHASE I ALIGNMENT STUDY PROJECT NO. PW05-10 THIS AGREEMENT is (Jlade and effective as of March 21,2006, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and URS Corporation, Nevada Corporation (dba: URS Corporation Americas) ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on March 21, 2006, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than March 21, 2007, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all time faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and prac;tices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. 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. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet web site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Consultant 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, Consultant 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. 5. PAYMENT. 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, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the scope of work to be performed, payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Two Hundred Sixty Five Thousand One Hundred Eighty and No Cents ($265,180.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City 1 R:\CJP\PROJECTS\PWOS\PWOS-10 Western Bypass Phase lI\Agreemenls\ConsultanI.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dol Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement or twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth 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 consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. 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 consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the 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 Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4., 7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default unless cured by Consultant within 10 days and can terminate this, Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of tiille, 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. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- 2 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PWOS\PW05-10 Western Bypass Phase IAAgreements\Consultant.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dot fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the Citywithoutthe permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmleSS the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in conhection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liabilityform No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non~owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. 3 R:\C1P\PROJECTS\PW05\PW05-10 Western Bypass Phase lI\Agreements\Consultan!.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dot b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: One million dollars ($1 ,000,000) per occurrence for .bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1 ,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) , The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by . the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,. officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Anyfailure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW05\PW05-10 Western Bypass Phase lI\Agreements\Consultant.Prof Srvcs URS030706.dot (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceotabilitv of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraae. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed bya person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. ' 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant 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 Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 5 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW05\PW05-10 Western Bypass Phase lI\Agreemenls\Consultant.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dot b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cOoperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (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. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: URS Corporation 1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108 Attention: Sunnie House, Vice President 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant 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 district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attomeyfees and litigation expenses for the relief wanted. 6 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW05\PWOS-10 Western Bypass Phase Il\A..greements\Consultant.Prof Srvcs URS 03Q706.dot 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the CityofTemecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of T emecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 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. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 7 R\CIP\PROJECTS\PWQ5\PWOS-10 Western Bypass Phase IlIAgreements\Consullant.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dol IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, .City Attorney CONSULTANT URS Corporation 2020 First Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 835-6886 (714) 667-7147 Fax Steven Brinigar, Vice President Paul Ryan, Vice President (Two Signatures of Corporate Officers Required For Corporations) 8 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\f>WQ5\PW05.1Q Western Bypass Phase lI\Agreements\Consultant.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dot EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED 9 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW05\PW05-10 Western Bypass Phase lI\Agreemenls\ConsuftanI.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dot Scope of SelVices Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Scope of Work The Westem Bypass Corridor is a planned four-lane major highway that is included in the City of Temecula's current circulation element. The objective of this Alignment Study is to define and adopt a specific plan for the Westem Bypass so that development surrounding the corridor can proceed in a planned and orderly manner. Adoption of a preferred Westem Bypass alignment will also allow the City of T emecula to properly assess development proposals as they are submitted to the City and maintain appropriate space for this critical north-south transportation facility on the west side Temecula. The focus of the Alignment Study will be to identify constraints within the corridor (physical, resource and legal constraints), develop altemative alignments for the Westem Bypass, evaluate the conceptual altemative alignments and to identify a preferred alignment. Once a preferred alignment is chosen, the geometries of that alignment will be refined and established horizontally and vertically for use by the City of Temecula as a blueprint for the facility's Mure development and implementation. Task 1 . Data Collection and Review Subtask 1.1 - Existing Data Sources Engineering: URS will collect and review available data relating to the Westem Bypass corridor alignment including, as appropriate: .. Mapping of the project area and aerial photographs. .. Previous studies such as traffic studies and corridor studies .. Land use planning proposals and development plans. .. Utility information, including both existing and planned facilities. .. Geotechnical, geological and soils information, if relevant. .. Pertinent storm water and drainage information. Environmental: URS will perform a record search at the Eastem Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) in Riverside County to identify previously recorded sites and previous surveys that have been conducted within a one-half mile radius (one-mile wide corridor) of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor alignment. Site locations will be plotted on the 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangles for the project area and the number and types of sites present in the project area will be summarized in the text. If a site has been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) this will also be noted. In addition to the above, URS will review web- based databases for historic properties listed in the NRHP, CRHR, NHL or CHL. The record search will identify no more than 50 previously recorded sites and 75 previous surveys in the one-mile wide corridor of the proposed Western Bypass. Specific site and survey information will not be discussed nor tabulated in the constraints analysis report. This phase of research will not include a review of: Sanborn Fire Insurance Rate Maps, historic newspapers, historic journals or other similar documents, nor will it entail visiting historic societies, or performing interviews of persons with knowledge of traditional places or historic properties in this area. Additionally, potential historic building and structures identified by the windshield survey will not be documented on State Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. Subtask 1.2 - Geometric Design Standards The URS will prepare, develop and document a set of geometric deSign standards for the primary geometric elements of the project, including references to appropriate standards where relevant. The standards will include the following: .. Design speed Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Page 1. of 6 Scope of Services " Lane and shoulder widths II Horizontal curvature .. Superelevation, if applicable .. Grades and "K" values for vertical curves .. Comer sight distance at intersections .. Stopping sight distance Task 2 "Aerial Photography and Mapping Subtask 2.1 - Aerial Photography and Topographical Mapping Aerial photograph and topographic mapping at 2' contour intervals (100 feet beyond proposed right-of-way) and field surveying to identify existing topographical features (including all critical points) will be provided. The URS Team will also tie out any and all survey monuments that may be disturbed by the worK. URS Team will provide aerial photographs with the appropriate stereo overlap suitable for the production of a topographic map at the scale of 1"=40' and a contour interval of 1-foot and 2-foot depending on the terrain. This level of resolution will provide the necessary detail for the alignment study and provide sullability for use in the subsequent design phase. The proposed photoscale will be at 1"=300' for 1-foot contour areas and 1"= 400' for 2-foot contoured areas with and estimated 19 stereomodels covering the proposed study area. Aerial control will consist of 14 ground targets to be set in the field and tied to NAD83 Zone 6 Horizontal Datum and NAVD88 vertical datum. Existing City benchmar!<s and or suitable NGS monuments will be utilized for the aerial control networ!<. The topographic mapping will be compiled in Autocad 2000 .DWG file format per the City's CAD standards. A DTMlbreakline file will be produced for use in the proposed alignment study to better support site design efforts and volume calculations. This task is estimated to be completed within 3 to 4 wor!<ing weeks from flight date for topographic mapping. Subtask 2.2 - Field Survey Street centerline and centerline stationing will be established to the accuracy of one-tenth (0.10) fool. Establish temporary benchmar!<s required for the wor!<, and provide all elevations, dimensions, and other measurements necessary to establish proper lines and grade. URS Team will also survey and tie into existing centerline monumentation along the proposed alignments. Existing record maps and street improvement plans for adjacent connecting streets will be utilized for this effort, in support of the field survey. Establish temporary benchmar!<s in conjunction with the aerial control network established for the topographic mapping of the alignment study area. Proposed alignment centerline stationing will subsequently be tied to the overall study area control network along with the existing centerline monumentation. Stationing of the proposed alignments will be overlaid onto the site design data derived from the aerial topographic contours and DTM data to provide elevations dimensional data as needed. Within this site design configuration the ability to access profiie, cross section and volume calculation data will a!low the refinement of each of the proposed alignments. This task is estimated to be completed within 3 working weeks. Portion of this task will overlap with task 2.1. ' Westem Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Page 2 of 6 Scope of Services Task 3 - Constraints Analysis Subtask 3.1 - Environmental Constraints A preliminary environmental constraints analysis will be prepared to assess potential environmental constraints associated with each respective alignment alternative (up to two). The purpose of the environmental constraints analysis will be to document the existing physical and natural characteristics for key environmental disciplines affecting the proposed project corridor and associated alternative alignments. Existing environmental conditions within the project corridor will be compared against altemative alignments to identify potentially sensitive areas, issues and constraints. Ultimately, the environmental factors identified will provide the basis for a comparison and evaluation of proposed alignments within the corridor. Existing environmental documentation will be used to describe the natural arid physical conditions within the project corridor. This includes review of the environmental-related documentation associated with the City of Temecula's General Plan. Data collection efforts will be augmented, as appropriate. through utilization of existing databases, field reconnaissance and correspondence with the appropriate agencies. This potentially could include the Califomia Department of Fish and Game, Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An environmental constraints map will be produced to visually identify potential issue areas that could affect recommendations regarding implementation of each respective corridor alignment. The constraints map will allow comparisons of each alignment based on the potential environmental impacts. The key environmental disciplines that will be addressed in the environmental constraints analysis are listed below: " Biological Resources " Cultural Resources " Hazardous Wastes and Materials Other environmental factors that will be considered qualitatively ,for each respective alternative alignments include land use and recreation, visual/aesthetics, noise, hydrology and floodplains and socioeconomic/community impacts. The environmental constraints analysis will characterize existing water resource conditions within the study corridor, including potential wetlands and waters subject regulation by the ACOE. The proposed project has the potential to directly impact Murrieta Creek and potential associated tributaries, which parallels project area to the east. Conclusions on biological impacts will'be based on collection and review of existing data and site reconnaissance of the proposed corridor. Information on previously recorded cultural resource surveys will also be summarized in the constraints report, but this information will not be tabulated. Information that will be summarized includes the size and type of survey performed (linear vs block; intensive vs reconnaissance). Survey data for the one-mile wide corridor will be plotted on the 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangles for the project to determine the percentage of area that has been previously surveyed within and immediately adjacent to the APE Subtask 3.2 - Geotechnical Constraints Geotechnical considerations will consist of the following: " Collecting and reviewing published Itterature and available geotechnical data · Performing an aerial photograph analysis using available aerial photographs " Conducting a field reconnaissance by a geologist · Identifying key geologic/geotechnical constraints for the alignments Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Page 3 of 6 Scope of Services Sources of published data to be reviewed include the United States Geological Survey, the California Geological Survey and the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. We will also use any unpublished information available in our in-house files and library. We will obtain logs of test borings and foundation plans that may be available for existing bridges in the project area. An aerial photograph analysis will be performed to evaluate the site geomorphology, history of development and the presence of potential geologic hazards (i.e., fault lineaments and slope instability). The field reconnaissance would concentrate on confirming, supplementing or updating the results of the data review and aerial photograph analysis. Task 4 . Site Reconnaissance URS will perform a reconnaissance of the altemative alignments identifying the following: · Existing land use and current site access. · Surface evidence of utilities or other underground facilities. ., Surface evidence of ground conditions relevant to the anticipated construction activities. · Visual observations of any local traffic circulation patterns and pedestrian routes. · ,Major drainage features including locations and approximate sizes of watercourses. · Major geotechnical and geological features including identification of ground conditions Site reconnaissance will be performed for biology, cultural resources, traffic engineering and geology. It is assumed that 2 staff will be required for 3 days to perform the bio reconnaissance level surveys. The geotechnical survey will require 1 staff for 2 days. The traffic engineering field work will require 2 staff for 3 days. No surveys will be conducted for hazardous wastes and materials. Delineations of wetland or waters, protocol surveys or detailed mapping of habitats or threatened and endangered species locations will not be conducted as part of this contract. A reconnaissanceiwindshield survey will be performed to identify potential historic buildings and structures within one-half-mile of the centerline of the proposed bypass. Adverse affects to historic properties can include changes in the view shed, increased noise and vibration and increased dust and a one-half-mile wide corridor is generally considered the environmental footprint for these types of affects. Dig~al photographs and brief notes on these properties will be taken. This scope and cost does not include performing an intensive pedestrian survey. An intensive pedestrian survey of undeveloped portions of the project APE would be performed after the APE is finalized and approved. Task 5 - Conceptual Alignments Up to two conceptual alignments will be developed and compared against the constraints identified in Task 4. This work will be developed on existing aerial photos. In some cases, the conceptual alternatives may consist of alignments from various segments within the corridor study, in other words mixing and matching of pieces of the alignment concepts are expected to define portions of the alternatives. Between Rancho California Road and State Route 79 South, existing development plans and alignment concepts for the Westem Bypass prepared by others will be considered and incorporated, as appropriate. In the northem section of the corridor, near the westerly extensions of Cherry and Date Streets, the terminus of the Western Bypass will be the focus of the alignment studies in this area. Up to three northem termini altematives will be developed to a conceptual level. The location, of the intersection of the Western Bypass and Rancho California Road will be considered as both a co'nventional arterial intersection and as a potentially grade-separated crossing. Impacts associated with the conceptual alignments will be evaluated and compared in a matrix so that the relative merits and impacts of the alignment altematives can be considered against each other. Order of magn~ude cost estimates will be developed for each conceptual alignment altemative. Elements that are anticipated to be differentiating factors among the alignment alternatives include the following: · Geometries · Geotechnical · Circulation Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Page 4 of 6 Scope of Services " Environmental " Utilities " Cost " Land Use URS will coordinate closely with the City of T emecula in evaluating the proposed conceptual alignment altematives. A preferred alignment altemative will be identified in this task. The reasons for selecting the preferred alignment will be clearly documented. In addition, the reasons for eliminating certain alignment options will also be documented. Task 6 - Preferred Alignment Aller agreement on the preferred alignment, the geometries of that alignment will be developed to a level necessary to make appropriate planning decisions along the corridor. Once the geometries of the preferred alignment is identified and set, any deviations in that alignment to meet site development needs and other events emerging in the City will be considered beyond lhe scope of lhis wor!< and will be performed upon approval of additional budget and scope of wor!<. The preferred alignment will be calculated and lied to the coordinate system and vertical datum of the aerial topographic mapping. Subtask 6.1 - Typical Cross Section Typical cross sections for the Westem Bypass and new intersecting roadways will be prepared. The typical cross sections will show lane and shoulder widths, medians, sidewalks, parkways, graded areas and right of way locations. Typical cross sections are anticipated for: " Westem Bypass " First Street " Vincent Moraga Drive " Rancho California Road " Avenida Alvarado (for intersection geometry only) " Cherry Street Subtask 6.2 _ Horizontal Layouts The master horizontal alignment will be prepared at a scale of 1 inch = 40 feet on rolled plots (up to 12 sheets) based upon the preferred conceptual design. The preliminary engineering will identify geometric features such as mainline stationing, curve radii, bearings and distances, approximate grading limits, associated right of way locations, major structure facilities and other distinguishing features ofthe preferred alignment. At the intersections of the Western Bypass and east,west streets, agreed upon intersection templates will be used. For example, at the intersections of First StreeUWestem Bypass and Vincent MoragalWestern Bypass, we may decide to use a three-legged intersection with duallell turns and dedicated right turn pockets on and off the intersecting street. This methodology will provide an appropriately conservative footprint for the intersection, without requiring detailed traffic analyses ofthe intersections at this time. Other intersections such as Rancho California, Alvarado, Rio Nedo, Calle Patron and possibly Cherry Street and/or Date Street will be treated similarly. Subtask 6.3 - Preliminary Profiles A vertical alignment profile for the preferred conceptual design will be prepared at a horizontal scale of 1 inch = 40 feet and a vertical scale of 1 inch = 4 feet on rolled plots (up to 12 sheets). The preliminary engineering will ,identify geometric features such as grades, vertical curve lengths, design speeds, major structure crossings, vertical clearance requirements, existing ground line and other controlling factors related to the profile. Western Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Page 5 of 6 Scope of Services Task 7 . Conceptual Design Report URS will prepare a Conceptual Design Report summanzlng the findings, conclusions and , recommendations of the alignment study. The report will include: · Description and findings of the site reconnaissance, 10 Design standards chosen for the facility 10 A qualitative description of traffic circulation relative to the Westem Bypass. · Identification of the geologic, hydrologic, geometric and environmental constraints. A confidential map showing the locations of previously recorded sites and previous surveys will be prepared to help guide selection of a preferred altemative. This scope and cost does not include preparation of a technical report. This scope does not include consultation with state, federal or tribal agencies. ' · The need, for and locations of bridges and major retaining wall structures. · Description of the various anematives considered during the alignment study. 10 An order of magnitude cost estimate for each alignment altemative. 10 Recommendation of a preferred alignment. The report will be submitted in draft form for the City's review. After consideration of comments and agreement on necessary revisions, the Conceptual Design Report will be finalized and resubmitted as a final document. The final submittal will include one original hardcopy version of ' the report and the preliminary engineering plans of the preferred altemative geometric altemative. In addition, the report and plans will be submitted electronically on a CD. Task 8 - Project Management URS will lead development of the alignment study in close coordination with City of Temecula staff. Subtask 8.1 URS will attend monthly coordination meetings with City of Temecula. Up to 4 meetings have been budgeted. Project manager and project engineer will attend all meetings. In addition, URS team will attend up to 4 meetings with stakeholders. The primary stakeholders are: · Riverside County Water Conservation and FloQd Control District (RCFC&WCD) " Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD) 10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · Developers within the corridor II City of Murrieta · URS will provide minutes of meeting for each of the above meetings in a timely manner. Subtask 8.2 URS will provide overall project management for this project. Specifically, this subtask will include: · Prepare project schedule '" Prepare monthly invoicing and progress report 10 Management of staff and subconsultants. Westem Bypass Corridor Alignment Study Page 6 of 6 , . . ! ~ ~~i iJn 801 Eel! . . . E , . ~ ~: ~i 81 -ilii z' , i ~l 81 .....1 , $) ~ ! i ~I goi <j i 8' '1 ,,! ~~, ! ~l " ,; ~l ~ :::!;! ~j ~ ~ ~! ~f' --j t:d ~! :I, ii ....~i ~I~ i~ ~ :~ .!~ '~ '~ i~ !~ t:1~ tilg :~ t .~._._-' 1>; ,. c:i'<> .'- ~i 8! , ,~ ,~ !~ ;~ is :~ ~~ :~ i~ 1 '~ i! ,~ '. '~ ,~ !-E. il ;.g ',.... . . ,~ Ii i~ :! 'CIl i! 's :~ 0 :,l :,;ti ,~i~ _ .t ~ :,'!;. t!.i: :~ i~ !C) ;!!2;,; '" ...18 ,c .... ~i~ :~ , -~~T-:"T~"-l~~ ~ , ;) ilL ill.. - ,~ !~ ~ i~ ~ ~ 1i !iii S "" Sl <i; c: ,c c: 16 ~!~~!::;;~~ '~ i~ ~ I~ ~ ~ S ;.... ~ !~ ~ Sl !:~!i!F! f!!!!~!~ ;c: '. I,'~ ~ ~ ,'E! :iii8 '1:';0 '" i ,:l!!: ig> 'g, j ii, 1,,[ i j~ ::: ~.l,'~._ '" !,; ~ !~ ''5. t!<C f lli}- ... iN 'I: '::;; (!. ,C'J ~ :~ ~ , .., , ~ll. i:r~T !I I II ~ :~ f i~ t. :-i !;: ;2: ~ :~ ~ :~ ,. N ! ~ . ~ [ I. ; . . ~ ~ . . . E E ~ ~ o 5- ~ . " ,II> II) ~ ~ !~ :~ ~ ;'1: ,'I::"l:: ilL 11..... ',~. !~ ~ - ila ii -~ i~ :~ i i ! f.:: gj f:l i~ :il .., :~ i~ !~ i~ ,0 :: :~ :~ is :e :~ :~ ," w ,C) iN ..; ,toi ____',n___.,"__ " ;~ .... i. . ~ ... I~ fD ~ ~ ,,., ~ .... ;:;::<.> c:;::.: ;r lit ~ if ~ ~ . i' ... 18 8 8 ~ t. ~ . ~ "" ;;; ;:;: ~ i~ ~ ~ ! ~ i!i ! ~ ... ,N '" oil . " . 11 ~.. I$. i '" E jj ! :31 ~ 1 ,e " ~ .. i i~ i ~ .. io[ 8 ; !i~6~ ~ ~!l~~ ~ '" '8 2 ~ rr: ! iB ~ ~ :! g;.... "! '" O'l u iori '" .,; . . _c_~+-~t+~T ~i~!t:j~l~i~l~ ! ~ !~ ti ~ . . ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ :~ ~ i~ ,~ I~ ~ ~ ,... i;:.::;:::: i I~ ~ ~ i Ii ! .! , i~ '" ::l !i '. L~ Ie ','.~ tl In :~ .15 let g :,!~ i,~. 'lll ~ &. ~e ~ i~ ~i l,'i i !i ~ r- ... in: 0. >.., ~ i~ \::;; ?l ;;; i~ :~ i~ ~ :~ :~ ~ ~ !~ :~ ,~ ~ !~ :~ '~ ~ li '!.! i :~ 1::1 0 0 'i . It: 6, ;~ :11 la: '.!:! !j ;,[ !& '~ l-,,~ ~ ;8 '01 i~ ~ 1~ :,:.~ !~ ,....", i.... l~ i~ !~ I~ ",i.~ :.. 'i i~ i;,:: ~~ :~ :!:. -!; i~ i~ '. il ,I- :; i iO .. !li' ~ :11 ~. !e 0 iij i i~ ~ II ~ ,0:: ~ :~ ~ '. ,0 Ii i:E iE '" ii 11: ie le e i& i,,~.t I! i~ i~ ." !,,~. :0. i~ !~ ~ r~ :~ ~ :~ -1;~~~-~;-r;-1g~-~;l~~~- ~ !,'~ l ' , ' . . > I > . ! . g ~ . . . :~ :~ !~ ,~ :..: I. '''' '''' ,u.,;u- q 1 :i ~ ! i-----' . . ~ . '" . ~~ "" e. .. i~ .0 ~ . i' EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 10 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW05\PW05-10 Western Bypass Phase ll\Agreements\Consultanl.Prof Srvcs URS 030706.dol VI VI w VI VI w o ~ w VI VI w VI VI w VI VI ~w "~ll) .. w 0 '"- 1>.0 ",_w m ~ 0 E .5 In .." - " :: 1i- == ~ ~ 10. w w o VI N w ,. o f:! VI .... z w '" z " ::; '" " o o ii! '" o ~:5 z VI::> 0 ~O t: 1D~ !E zl!! 1;1 "'u. w t!:!O ~ f3~ (J) 3:u ~ "'. VlO ;'!z !!!~ f;lg f- '" ~ " f- ~! f- ~~ I-::; ~ ::> !:; ::> ~ o iii f- '" e> z w - w .. - w .. '" - '" .. - z ii! .. ~~ ~'" - 00<> VI VI VI VI VI N ":N~ ., w ., ~~~ 0" .. 000 ~ 0 ~ "0" ~ 0 ~ ~ lIl) ~ ~v~ 11)'" ~ 000 "''''''' "''''''' ::>::>::> ~ 'ii '" " C . C ~ u .!! '0 (J ~ il Gl -E: Q '> CIJ- & III ~.o s' 'g ~ 00 :I I'll :::J C C'I) C 0 <> 0(1) 'iij ;:; m ~ ~ 1;j U =~~ 8 ~ ~ ~ .S!! g oolle> ~:::~ 000 8 :g g .,jM~ t:; ., VI VI o o VI .. .. o ~ VI N o ~~u f . '" " c . .~, ~ c " '. .E ~ ~17u i ~ 8 ~ :g ~ 8 ji ~ ~ 51.i ~ ~i t : I~I~ 11'l1 f J! IE''''~Bi 1'~~5'~lf:::J ... C .- iii 0 fI) .8 ca f ~ € ~II ii~5 ~ ~ 0 ~ S?:!2 ~ III (ll 0 .!! 15 c(::2: I- u. () .... .... N ~ N c-i N N c.c o - ~ lO' ., VI VI o o VI .. .. o ~ VI N o g ~ g VI" VI IncO~ w ., ., VI VI" ~...,. ~ 000 000 o 0 .. .. ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 000 N N .. ~ ~ ; lIl) <ot ~ 000 '" '" '" " ::> ::> .!! I~ c '" II c f ~ c o (J ~ . c '" II c f ~ c o (J I ~ ~ ~ ill! c .. o c ~8 1:: 5 CD '2 hi .~ ~ c . we> _ N <"l n r? o :1l N .; ~ ~ ~ g r--:~ti .. ww., ~ o VI VI w :! ~ o 000 o 000 o o .. 000 o .. 000 000 N .. VI VI 0.. .. N N .. VI ~ ~ ~ VI co IX) ~ 000 '" " ::> VI '" " " ::> ::> . u c . . .!! . c c o g '" . '" '" II c I 'iii ~ c c ~ ~ " ~ .2! q;.a .5 ~ l. I~ (U U 8 ~ g n 'i 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ P E ~ f CQ !~,~ ~ <I~ 0 'iii-O lilf ~ 5 B 2 C C "I;; 000 (J" J: .. _ N 11).0 wi: m ~ ~ ~ Ilifi:~:: tit........ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0, 0, 0, 0, 00,0, 0 00 VI VI 000 ~ to ~ 0, 0 0 0 o 00,0 0, 0, II) (I) N ~ co ~ o 0 VI CI) ~ ..,. ~ ~ rg ~ ~ ..,. ~ ~ ~ 0, 0, 0, 0, '" VI"' "" " ::>::> ::> . c o ~ " ~ VI . 1: 5 E g s'~ ! f "'I ~ e ~ ~ j ~ 'i 0 S ~ t: 5 15 .- ~I'r .~ ~ __1.5 0 .... G.1- J: Q. _ N VI It) u) u) u) 00<> VI VI VI WNCJ!. ~~~ ., ., ., VI 0 VI ;!: en ~ ~ "It ;!: ~ '<t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CIl;I ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ fi: <0 ~ N "':" . M ~ ~ ~ .. N VI ~ ~ ::> ::> ~ c . E < ;;: " e i .. ii ~ . "' "Il< I ~I g " " G .,.l cr: "Si-a"Q ~ G) CD ::s .: 00 U) 'ii1iiiii ~Iflf ~. B B c c o 0 ."" g "'. " o " c 00 u: _ N ....,..: ,..: " ~ . '" & = o i . u 5 (J 000 0 ;;~i~ N vt..,. ..."" o VI .~ ~ VI VI ~ ~ VI VI l!l o VI 0.. VI ~, .. o VI .. o ~ o :.'! VI o ~ N o ~ VI o <I ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ o VI "''''''' "" " ::>::>::> c .!! ~ .. c E " '" " c . 1; . E '~ . c . '" 1j . 2 .. c o ~ . "E E " '" " < . ~ < . E ~ . c . '" o li 'S .... E ~I.g en ,2t!' lll'" 0:: I iil I: D..:J ::s fij ~ 0 . '" oll ~ :I: en J:i...l ~I.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J: 0 g N N D:l a:i cd 00 ITEM NO.9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~~ IJIl 98 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Award the Construction Contract for Project No. PW06-01 Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk Area PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a construction contract for Project No. PW06-01 , Slurry Seal Project FY 2005- 2006, Redhawk Area, to All American Asphalt in the amount of $563,690.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 2. Authorize the City Managerto approve change orders nol!o exceed the contingency amount of $56,369.05, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW06-01, Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk Area. The project involves surface cleaning and crack sealing designated roadways, applying Type II Rubberized Emulsion - Aggregate Slurry (REAS) and replacing striping and pavement delineation. This will inhibit the infiltration of water into the road structural section and prolong the service of the pavement. Four (4) bids were received and publicly opened on Tuesday, February 21,2006. The results were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. All American Asphalt American Asphalt South, Inc. Pavement Coatings Company Roy Allan Slurry Seal $ 563,690.50 $ 572,540.89 $ 693,215.09 $ 845,573.25 A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found All American Asphalt to be the lowest responsible bidder. All American Asphalt has extensive experience in the application of slurry seal and has successfully completed similar projects in the City as well as other city agencies. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $571,000.00. The specifications allow thirty-five (35) working days for the completion of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department, Maintenance Division, Routine Street Maintenance Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Operating Budget Account No. 001- 164-601-5402. The total project cost is $620,059.55, which includes the contract amount of $563,690.50 plus 10% contingency of $56,369.05. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Location Map CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW06-01 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 21st day of March, 2006, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and All American Asphalt, 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. PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA, 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. PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. 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. PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA. 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 specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. CONTRACT C-1 R:\CIPIPROJECTS\PW06\PW06-01 Slurry Seal Project FY2005-06\AgreementsIConstruction Conb"actdoc 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. PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA 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: FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS and FIFTY CENTS ($563,690.50), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed thirty five (35) 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 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 CONTRACT C-2R:ICIP\PROJECTS\PW06IPW06-01 Slurry Seal Project FY2005-06\Agreemenls\Construction Contractdoc 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. 7. 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. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, CONTRACTOR shall give written notice to CITY. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, CONTRACTOR shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to CITY. CONTRACTOR'S failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute CONTRACTOR'S waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against CITY. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. CONTRACT C-J R:\C!P\PROJECTSIPW06\PW06-01 Sluny Seal ProjectFY2005-06\Agreements\Conslruction Conlract.doc 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. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. 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 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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, ir)cluding without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACT C4 R:\CIPlPROJECTSlPW06\PW06-01 Slurry Seal Project FY200S.06\AgreementsIConstrucfion Contraetdoc 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 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. 21. 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. 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 T emecula 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 CONTRACT C-5 R:\CIPIPROJECTSlPW06\PW06-01 Sluny Seal Project FY2005-06\Agretlments\Construction Conlracldoc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR All American Asphalt P.O. Box 2229 Corona, CA 92878-2229 (951) 736-7600 Dan Sisemore, President Print Name and Title (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk CONTRACT C-G R:\CIPIPROJECTS\PW06\PW()6..{I1 Slurry Seal Project FY2005-06\AgreementsIConslruction Conlractdoc EXHIBIT D AREA MAP PROJECT NO. PW06"01 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005"2006 REDHAWKAREA fo.~~Of>,Oe..'PNS~ E",",\ I,. "a' DCily ===. Streets to be Slurry Sealed - Streets A o 365 730 -- 1,460 >190 2,920 F,d r.'gis'kelli\arcmap...PflljlslunyJ<:dflawlunayra.nuod ITEM NO.1 0 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~ iJll ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Award the Construction Contract for Project No. PW06-02 Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer William Becerra, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a construction contract for Project No. PW06-02, Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006, to S. Parker Engineering, lnc in the amount of $ 95,257.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 2. Authorize the City Managerto approve change orders nol!o exceed the contingency amount of $ 9,525.75, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW06-02, Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006. This annual Concrete Repair project will repair various damaged concrete facilities maintained by the City. The Public Works Maintenance Division surveyed, addressed and compiled a list of damaged sidewalks, curb & gutter, cross gutters, spandrels, driveway approaches, access ramps, and under sidewalk drains. Those needing immediate repair are included in this project. (3) bids were received and publicly opened on Tuesday, February 21, 2006. The results were as follows: 1. 2. 3. S. Parker Engineering, Inc. Grand Pacific Contractors, lnc Dorado and Dorado Construction $ 95,257.50 $141,412.80 $160,157.00 A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found S. Parker Engineering, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder. S. Parker Engineering, Inc. has extensive experience with concrete removal and replacement and has successfully completed similar projects for the City and other municipalities. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $112,000.00. The specifications allow twenty (20) working days for the completion of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Maintenance Division FY 2005-2006 Budget for Routine Street Maintenance, Account No. 001-164-601-5402. The total project cost is $ 104,783.25, which includes the contract amount of$ 95,257.50 plus 10% contingency of $ 9,525.75. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW06-02 CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS FY 2005-2006 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 21st day of March, 2006, 2006 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY', and S. Parker Engineering, 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. PW06- 02, CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS FY 2005-2006, 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. PW06-02, CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS FY 2005-2006. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. 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. PW06-02, CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS FY 2005-2006. 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 specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. C-1 R\CIP\PROJECTS\PW06\PW06:02 Citywide Concrete FY 2005:06\Agreements\Construclon Contract.docConstruction 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. PW06-02, CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS FY 2005-2006 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: NINETY FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN DOLLARS and FIFTY CENTS ($95,257.50), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed twenty (20) 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 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 C-2 R;ICIP\PROJECTSIPWOOIPWOO-1l2 Citywide Concrete FY 2005-00IAgreements\Construction Contract,docConstruction Contract made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a onecyear 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. 7. 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. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, CONTRACTOR shall give written notice to CITY. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, CONTRACTOR shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to CITY. CONTRACTOR'S failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute CONTRACTOR'S waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against CITY. 8. 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. 9. 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:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW06IPW06-02 Citywide Concrete FY 2005.06\AgreementsIConstruction Contract,docConstruction Contrect 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. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. 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 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW06IPW06-02 Citywide Concrete FY 2005-06\AgreementslConstruction Contract.docConstruction Contract 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 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 Tille I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21. 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. 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 T emecula 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:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW06IPW06-02 Citywide Concrete FY 2005-06\AgreementslConstruction Contract,docConstruction Contract IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR S. Parker Engineering, Inc. 10059 Whippoorwill Ave. Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 962-8137 Steve T. Parker, President Linda Parker, SecretarylTreasurer (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk " C"6 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW06\PW06~2 Citywide Concrete FY 2005"06\Agreements\Construction Contract.docConstruction Contract ITEM NO. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager V 1112- ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Completion and Accceptance of Construction Contract Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements Wolf Valley Creek Channel - Stage 2 Project No. PW99-11CH PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Steven Beswick, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the project, Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements, Wolf Valley Creek Channel- Stage 2, Project No. PW99-11CH 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 April 20, 2004 City Council approved the Wolf Valley Creek Infrastructure Funding and Acquisition Agreement between the City, the County of Riverside, and Wolf Creek Development, LLC. Language in this agreement required that the City be the contracting entity for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Improvements if AD159 funds were to be used to fund the proposed improvements. The improvements included in this project will ultimately be owned and operated by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC). As the developer of the Wolf Creek Development, Standard Pacific Homes (SPH) initiated the solicitation of bids for the planned improvement pursuant to the Wolf Creek CFD acquisition agreement. Subsequent to the approval of the County agreement the City took over finalizing the bid package. On June 22, 2004 the City Council awarded a construction contract in the amount of $2,940,768.42 to Road Builders, Inc. of Murrieta, California for construction of Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements [Wolf Valley Creek Channel (WVCC)- Stage 2], Project No. PW99-11 CH. During the course of construction, the City successfully obtained the resource agency permits needed to allow construction of the downstream confluence of the Wolf Valley Creek Channel at Temecula Creek, also known as WVCC - Stage 1. ltwas imperative thatthe storm drain channel be completed as soon as possible due to the upcoming winter season; therefore a City Council approved change order added this work to Road Builder's original contract. Including the down stream confluence, contract change orders totaling $2,174,940.98 were approved for following items of work: D Construction of the final downstream section (approx 725 feet) of WVCC - Stage 1 Storm Drain Improvements which outlets into Temecula Creek. D Removals of alluvial soils and re-compaction of the existing dirt channel including erosion control along the easterly, non-paved side of Pechanga Parkway from Loma Linda Road to Deer Hollow Way. D Paved maintenance road along the northeasterly side of the WVCC - Stage 2 from Loma Linda Road to Deer Hollow Way. D Misc. storm drain and stormceptor improvements along Pechanga Parkway associated with Wolf Creek and WVCC Stages 1 & 2. D Increases due to contract item adjustments for WVCC Stages 1 & 2. The final construction cost is $5,115,709.40 which includes the contract award amount of $2,940,768.42 plus additional items of work in the amount of $2,174,940.98. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and RCFC. The construction retention for this project will be released pursuant to the provisions in Public Contract Code section 7107. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements (Wolf Valley Creek Channel- Stage 2) was funded by County of Riverside AD-159 and the Wolf Creek Community Facilities District (CFD). The total construction cost of the project was $5,115,709.40. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 925B9-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. . ' 3. The Nature of Interes1 is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to Road Builders, Inc" 38040 Borel Road, Murrieta, California 9256310 perform the following work of improvement: PROJECT NO. PW99-11CH PECHANGA PARKWAY PHASE liB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS WOLF VALLEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 2 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 21. 2006. That upon said contract the Hartford Fire Insurance Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. , The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the Ci1y of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT NO. PW99-11 CH PECHANGA PARKWAY PHASE liB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS WOLF VALLEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 2 6. The location of said property is: Channel Improvements located east of Pechanga Parkway Loma Linda Road and Deer Hollow Way within a drainage easement, Temecula, California Dated at Temecula, California, this 21th day of March 2006. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under ,penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 21th day of March 2006. ' City of T emecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk R:\C1P\P~OJECTS\PW99\99.11CH wvcc Stage 2\COMPLETIQN NOTICE Road Builders, Inc..doc l BOND NO. 72BCSDU0720 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND FOR PROJECT NO. PW99-11CH PECHANGA PARKWA Y PHASE liB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (WOLF VALLEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 2) KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: ROAD BUILDERS, INC., 38040 BOREL ROAD, MURRIETA, CA 92563 NAMe AND ADDReSS CONTRACTOR'S a CORPORATION (flU In whether e C<Jtpororton. P8l/n9rship or IIldMdVaI) . hereinafter called Principal, and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ONE POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 220, 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 TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR.~~----~-- DOLLARS and NO/100S-----~-~eENTS ($217.494.00- ) In lawful money of the United Slates, 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, successolS,and assigns, jointly and severall);', 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 22"d day of June, 2004, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW99-11CH,. PECHANGA PARKWAY PHASE liB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (WOL.F VAL.LEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 2). . WHEREAS,said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of ~ (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said Job, by the OWNER, against all defeots 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 30th day of November, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the final estimate on said Job purtluant to the Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship In the execution of said work, and the carrylng OUt of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obfigation shall remain In full force and vIrtue, otherwise this Inetrument 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 attorneys fees Incurred by MAINTENANCE. SOlID M.1~IPlPROJEllT_11CHWVCC Slag. 2IRoad SUIIder> F"mal A1r""'vIl & Rei.." / the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and Included in any Judgment rendered. . The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees ihat no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the teons of the Contract, or to the work to be psrfonned thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, sha,llln Elny way affect Its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extenelon of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the Specifications. Signed and sealed this 6TH day of (Seal) HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY :~~~'m. ~ VALERIE M. PEARCE (Name) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT (Tltle ) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. 11101'$01'\, Cily AUomey MAINTENANCe BOND MARCH ,2006. By; Brenda K. Martins (Neme) Corporate Secretary (Trtle) By: (Name) (TItle) Mo3l;\c!I'IPROJECTSIPW99\99.11OH WICC Sllve 2I1<0od BuIIde..l'lnoI Affida1ll1 & R_ " . CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSB AOKNOWLEDGMENT State of Calffomla County of SAN DIEGO }ss, On MAR 0 6 2006 ...... before me, ~UDREY RODRIGUEZ. NOTARY PUBLIC HII!M.Mlf.... ofOllowee.t..'\MM Dot, HotIIyP\lllG") VALERIE H. peE ~.)oI ., EI personany known 10 me o proved 10 me on the basis 01 satisfactory evidence personally appeared r~:IL~.:a:tci~~~~.:s~;~~Il<.m, fl""""" AUDREY ,{8IJI1IGllEZ "'7'''''"''"", C"M'~ #'63';"26 ....... ,.~t . ,!\,,\';~' "-.>: . . ' . -:;_{~, 0 (,"Jt~-,',",),:'-,.,',,",':'~',,' N,h11:G.tt>i,'PdB,I,.\C.(,I{,:', w,dR NIAw ""', .>"-.-..c,,,,~,,~,\ .- . '"'" t:'iY~ \--ic~>:"~,:~~,:r SAi-JIJIEGOCO!J\'$P( ~ ~; ~"'fftJ.,',:':),"'",.-'!:;::/ ~~. ~Com, lT1,i,~~gk.n ~,::<ip,",re SJ l ',:...~.~:...~.~~ -- "'-'."'''''1. . ", _.,.,.,<"1'\ ~ ...?Z';~>;.'"" A:t.'~~;Vli::'<"\.:--?,I':'>.:7 i'~.IGl;'\~Ci~~~~~1IilIil 10 be the person(i!I whose name16) IsI.lOe subscribed 10 the Within Inswment and acknowledged 10 me thai JilsheJm!iii executed the same In Dlherlmil6' authorized capacltyQes), and thai by DlherlllllilliK slgnaturefl!) on the Instrumenlthe person(lQ, or Ihe enlity upon behalf of which the person(l) aoled, executed the Instrument. OPTIONAL . TIKwgh the /nroJrnaUon below Is noIl8ljlirod by law, . may""",,, taluable ;.".,.... R1I}1ng on.the _18JlfiCourd pmvent hauduferrt ntmova1 and reattachment of this fonn to lUJothsrdocument. Description of Attached Document TItle or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Slgner(s) Other Than Named Above: ' capaclty(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: . o Indlv/dllal o Corporate Officer - nUe(e): o Parlner - 0 Umlled 0 General o Attorney-In-Fact , 0 Tnlstee o Guilrtllan or Conservator o Other: Signer Is Representing: . ilea NlWonIf NoWy ANooIdon f I&so Dt SotoAVI'j P.o. 8Ol(2402. OhI\IIWolth, 0.-.91.18-1402 f lII'VIW,f\ll1oneJnotary.OllI Prod. No.!i807 R.order. oilIlbI-frN 1??OO-8,...7 CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ~~~~~~=A~~=A=A~A~_~A~A~_~A~'~'~'~'~'~'~ ~ State of California County of _~. 1/ V 6 L4 On HOA.Lk q j.200(q before Date f) . personally appeared 1:::Y\...l) } ss. .. me, Q l,,-Jll Q 9-~ E .) Name ,1nd ~t1e of Officer (e.g., ~Jane Doe, Notary Public") V"lrf 0.. ~Q-^--+IW:;- Name(s) of Slgner(s) Ii'-~~-'I' '. No~',14'16'74 , ' ary Public .. GallfOlll/Q f , :-MvCQ~~~~. o personally known to me N proved to me on the basis of ,saYll\actory evidence fube the person~ whose nam~are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged ti;' e that he~they executed the same in his r heir authorized capacity~, and that by hi er eir signature~ on the instrument the personM, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed the instrument. Place Notary Seal Above Though the informaUon below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attache~~;;r' ";)Wol' I \ 1JR.. ' Title or Type of Documenl: . ;;.r-reVVlec~~ r-'\ l~ worts ~t.J- HCL~^--\"e'y,a.\'\tL -F15Y' ~,oju:i- o. PvJCf1-lIc..-H ' DocumentDate:~A ('..LA v, ~DOv , Number of Pages: +W 0 , Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: U Q l-e.....r i.e.. , ~.. j:) ~ J1JC-L Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: o Individual o Corporate Officer - TItle(s): o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General o Attorney in Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator o Other: Top of thumb here Signer's Name: o Individual o Corporate Officer - T1t1e(s): o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General o Attorney In Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator o Other: RIGHTTHUMBPAINT OF SIGNER RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: . @2004 National NotalY Association. 9350 De Sote Ave., P.O. Box 2402 . Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Item No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1,800-876-17827 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Direct Inquiries/Claims to: THE HARTFORD BOND, T-4 P.O. BOX 2103, 690 ASYLUM AVENUE HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115 call: 888-266-3488 or lax: 860-757-5835 Agency Code: 72-160200 ?POWER OF ATTORNEY CD Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws afthe State of Connecticut CD Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Indiana D Hartford Accident and Indemnity.Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws oftbe State of Connecticut D Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut D Twin City Fire Insurance Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws aCthe State of Indiana D Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State ofIlIinois D Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Indiana D Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida having their home office in Hartford, Connecticut, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Companies") do hereby make, constitute and appoint, up to the amount of unlimited: James R. SommelViile, Valerie M. Pearce, Lawrence F. McMahon, Leticia San Martin, James Baldassare, Jr., Penny E. Keliey of San Diego, CA their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity If more than one is named above, to sign its name as surety(ies) o,nly as delineated above by 1:8:1, and to execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, undertakings, contracts and other written Instruments';n the nature thereof, on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contril(;~'ahd executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. In Witness Whereof, and as authorized by a Resoiution of the Board of Directors of the Companies on July 21, 2003 the Compa'n"es ' have caused these presents to be signed by its Assistant Vice President and its corporate seals to be hereto affixed, duly attested by its Assistant Secretary. Further, pursuant to Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Companies. the Companies hereby unambiguously affirm that they are and will be bound by any mechanically applied signatures applied to this Power of Attorney. Ct. ()~ /~ Paul A. Bergenholtz, Assistant Secretary David T. Akers; Assistant Vice President STATE OF CONNECTICUT} ss. COUNTY OF HARTFORD Hartford ;,".. On this 4th day of August, 2004. before me personally came David T. Akers, to me known, who being by ~e duly sworn, did depose;'a~d say: that he resides in the County of Hampden, Commonwealth of Massachusetts: that he is the Assistant Vice President of the Companies, 'the corporations described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seals of the said corporations: that the seals affix,,!,!t9'the said instrument are such corporate seals; that they were so affixed by authority of the Boards of Directors of said corporations and that he slgn~q his name thereto by like authority. -',' @. LJ~c?g"'" Scott E. Paseka Notary Public CERTIFICATE My Commission Expires October 31, 2007 I, the undersigned, Assistant Vice President of the Companies, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is still in full force effective as of March 6, 2006. Signed and sealed at the City of Hartford. ~1#:-'F-- --'- Gary W. Sturn per, Assistant Vice President ,OJ: POA 2005 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW99-11CH PECHANGA PARKWA Y PHASE liB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (WOLF VALLEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 2) This is to certify that Road Builders, rnc., (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. PW99-11CH, PECHANGA PARKWAY PHASE liB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (WOLF VALLEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 2), situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED EAST OF PECHANGA PARKWAY BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW WAY WITHIN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code !'j7100, 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: ()b ik J 0 h , I By: Brenda K. Martins, Corporate Secretary Print Name and Title , MAINTENANCE BOND M-3R:\CIPIPROJECTSIPW99\99-11CH WVCC Stage 2\Road Builders Final Affidavit & R ITEM NO. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager JM.~ IJIL tf CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Completion and Acceptance of the Construction Contract for the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Dave McBride, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the project, Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek, Project No. PW99-18 as complete; and 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; 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 April 22, 2003, the City Council awarded a construction contract in the amount of $3,994,121.45 to MCM Construction, Inc. to widen the Rancho California Bridge over Murrieta Creek, seismically retrofit the pre-existing support columns, and provide scour protection. During the course of the project fourteen change orders increased the contract by $220,954.71 and due to reductions in the final versus estimated quantities, reducing costs by $24,215.87, the resulting final contract amount is $4,190,860.29. Approximately $143,000 of the change order total was for City requested improvements or reimbursable costs. More specifically, the costs involved relocation of the traffic signals at Diaz and Rancho California Road originally intended to be part of the Phase One of the Diaz realignment, procurement of video vehicle detection units, improved metal guard rail protection, and fire hydrant relocation expenses that have been reimbursed by the Rancho California Water District. The remaining amount of the change orders were for unforeseen construction expenses. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The retention for this project has been released pursuant to the provisions in Public Contract Code Section 7107. FISCAL IMPACT: The Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek project is funded through Redevelopment Agency and Development Impact Fees (Street Improvement) funds. The total cost of construction was $4,190,860.29. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release 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. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to MCM Construction, Inc., 6413 _32"' Street, North Highlands, CA 95660 to perform the following work of improvement: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK Project No. PW99-18 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 21, 2006. That upon said contract the Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of 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: Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek Project No. PW99-18 6. The location of said property is: Rancho California Road, Temecula, California Dated at Temecula, California, this 21" day of March, 2006 City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Caiifornia and do hereby certify under. penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office .of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 21" day of March, 2006. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW99\99-18 ReR Bridge Widening\BJD-DOCS\COMPLETION NOTE.doc Form CITY OF T~eCUL.Ai PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE SOND Bond No. 103320406-M PHO.JECTNO.,PW$9"18 RANCHO CALlFOR'NIARDAriBRIDGE W/'DENINGOVER MURRIETA CRJ!EK KNOW AU.. PI::R$ONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: M.C.M. Construction, Inc., 6413 -32nd Street, North Highlands, California 95660 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTORS a Corporation (fi1/ In Wh6It",r <I C<xP<ifal/otl, P~or/ndivld!JaV , hereinafter called Prinolpal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America 100 California Street, Suite 300, San l.'rancisco, <;alifornia 941-11 NAME ANOADDFlESS OF SURETY l1ereinallerClilleQ StJflli$lY, .ar~ haldand firmly bound unto CITY OF TE:MECULA, herelnaftercalle(lOWNl:R, in.~ep$O:a1~of, F.our Hundred Ei hteen ThousandEi ht Six------------- ------....-- ,~- ,,(iOll.A...ll ,",', ".", ' ",........-....-~ ....---- ....--..,-' .', ,,",',',' ' {$418 ,086.03---....~lln IaWf,UI montayotthe Uol' $tat~s.sai<fsumbeingnotle$S.thal'den (10%) (ifth~ ~VaJ~payableby ~ salaCity of T~~launderthetertn$()f the Contl'aot,for the paymE!tlt()f:)lIhiCh. we bind ourselves, sllOOe$SOrs. and assigns, joIntlY and severally, fil1nly by these presents, THE: CONDmONOF1"HJS.Ql:lfj~Al]QI't Is such that whEl~s, 1he Pri~al enfj:lted' ImaR ~~~tnCpr\trACltWitl1theOW~ER;d1lt\':ld~.$.22nd ,','" dl:l.l'ot April . ".l12093.. 8QOPY 6fWl1l9fllstijlr~ a~aChedar@m1ld~a,Pl!ll'lf1~r~nClrUleCWlsfrp~~ll ofPa$4~eT NO. i1WlJ9,.. 18.RARCHO CAUFORNIA ROAO BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK. WfJ~EA$.. sajdCoh~CtPlWl(l$stliatthe Principal will fLlml~* a>bond conl;litlonedtogtl~IlWs for the period of o(w {1} y.afterapptova\of th~finalestimateQnsaKljOb. by the OWNER, agamst alf defects In wOrkrmmshlp and matElrials which may beoomeappar$llt dUrlng said period; and WflJmE.A$, the said Contract has been completed, and was the final estlmateapptovetlon_ A.V"......-r \5W-. .~ 2005. ' NOW,mEI1EFORE, me CONomOI'tOF THIS013UGAn$N:ISSUCli,that If within oneyeat from Ule date of approval of the final estimate. on said job pursuant to the C<mtract, thewotk. done llnder the telms ot~id Cor'll$ct shall dl$Olose poor workmanship in tl'\eexecutlon of said wo/"k, and.the llatlYlng out of the teimSof$aidCootract, or It shallappearUlatdefaotlve matarlalsware furnished theretllll1er, then this obligation shall remain In full force and VirtlJEl. otherwise thIs instrument shall be void. As a part of Ule obligationseou'i'e<:I heta/:)yand in addition to the face amount speoified,OO$ and rea$Onable~nsesl'lnd fees shall be inoluded,includlngreasonable attorneys f~s, incurred by the City of Temacula In $UcCE!$sfully enforcing thIs obligation, all to be taxed as costs and lnoludedin any judgment rendered. ~1lONO M-t R!\Cl?\PROJ~~~1el'llW Th~ ~4rety hel!lbY$tipi.\l~t~~~l1d aQt~es tbat no changta, extensi9R Of tlrn~i alti~ratlpli,Qr addi1l1:m to the terms o.f the C6ntr~, or tci the W?rk to be P~rt9pne<i" tnerellnper, o.r to'the speclflca.t1oos accorri~nylng the same. shall in anywaY afle91./tS obligil.tiO.l'ls On this bond, and. it does here\;ly Wa,iye notice of any such change, e~$lon .0.1 tirne,alleration, or addition to. the terms o.f the Contract, or to the wPrk, or to. thaSpacUicatio.ns. IN wrfNS~S WHEREOF, thIs lnstrl.lm~nt has be~ duly eXecuted by the Principal and surety' above namEid. on SeptembeJ;, 23.~ 2005. Surety ion, Inc. <:;;;;ro B. Henry (Nart\~l' Att(>rney-in,-Fact. (Titfi?l ,PRESIDENT :~a~ ~ <--- "'. '" ,,' APii'ROVer.i AS to FORM: -. - . RrlrJiTTNn() ~ .PU('1HT (Name) Pe~r M:ihots&i; CltYAttomey " TREASURER/GENERAL COUNSEL (T"tiIs) , ~ \ IJIiJi STPAUL . TRAVELERS IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE NOTICE OF TERRORISM INSURANCE COVERAGE On November 26, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the "Act"). The Act establishes a short-term program under which the Federal Government will share in the payment of covered losses caused by certain acts of international terrorism. We are providing you with this notice to inform you of the key features of the Act, and to let you know what effect, if any, the Act will have on your premium. Under the Act, insurers are required to provide coverage for certain losses caused by international acts of terrorism as defined in the Act. The Act further provides that the Federal Government will pay a share of such losses. Specifically, the Federal Government will pay 90% of the amount of covered losses caused by certain acts of terrorism which is in excess of an insurer's statutorily established deductible for that year. The Act also caps the amount of terrorism-related losses for which the Federal Government or an insurer can be responsible at $100,000,000,000.00, provided that the insurer has met its deductible. Please note that passage of the Act does not result in any change in coverage under the attached policy or bond (or the policy or bond being quoted). Please also note that no separate additional premium charge has been made for the terrorism coverage required by the Act. The premium charge that is allocable to such coverage is inseparable from and imbedded in your overall premium, and is no more than one percent of your premium. September 23, 2005. ILT-I018 (9/04) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of San Francisco On September 23, 2005 before me, Tiana Massey, Notary Public personally appeared-----------------------------Carol B. Henry------------------------------------ ug personally known to me - OR- ~------~-~---~ TIANA MASSEY ~_.. Comrn~sion# 1452579 i -,,; . Notory PUbll,C - California ~ ~ ~, Son Fronc~co County t .... . MyComm.Expjres Nov22, 2007 - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _. -- -- -- o proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY Hartford, Connecticut 06183-9062 POWER OF ATIORNEY AND CERTIFlCATE OF AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY(S)-IN-FACT KNOW AIL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and having their principal offices in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford, State of Connecticut, (hereinafter the "Companies") hath made, constituted and appointed, and do by these presents make, constitute and appoint: Carol B. Henry, Bradley N. Wright, William PhillipsJr., Tiana Massey, of San Francisco, California, their true and lawful Attomey(s )-in~Fact; with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, execute and acknowledge, at anyplace within the United States,the follo"!ing instrument(s): by his/her sole signature and act, any and all bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking and any and all ConsentS incident thereto and to bind the Companies, thereby as fully and to the same extent as if the same were signed by the duly authorized officers of the Companies, and all the acts of said Attorney(s)-in-Fact, pursuant to the authority herein given, are hereby ratified and confirmed. , This appointment is made under and by authority of the follo"!ing Standing Resolutions of said Companies, Vlbich Resolutions are now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the Chairman, the, President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasnrer; the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys-in-Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the company and, may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authOl:ity may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal1Vith the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and, other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her. VOTED: That the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chainnan, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary. ' VOTED: That any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a 1>ond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the,(;ompany when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chainnan, any'Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary, or (b)i:luly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys-in-Fact and AgentspJU'SU3rlt to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority. This Power of Attorney ~d Certificate of Authority is signed and sealed by facsimile (mechanical or printed) under and by auth()rity ofthe following Standing Resolution voted by the Boards ofDirectors of TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS SASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, which Resolution is now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys-in-Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such power nf attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified, bysuch facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon.the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to, which it is attached. (11 -00 Standard) CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW99-18 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK This is to certify that MCM CONSTRUCTION" ?h~'feinafter 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. PW99-18, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING, CITY OF TEMECULA INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description C-18 STOP NOTICE & RELEASE Dollar Amount to Dispute $11.079 24 $ 1,195.44 $41,808.00 TRAFFIC CHANGE PENALTY IN LIEU OF INTEREST < '-:,',..., L. RETENTION $418,087.94 Pursuant to Public Contract Code !l7100, 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: FEBRUARY 13, 2006 BY'C nO--NT_-nRAC_T7/0R ~~ , ~Q- Signature EDMUNDO A. PUCHI, TREASURER Print Name and Title RELEASE R-1C:\Documenls and SettingslepuchilLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2IBID-DOCS-PW99-181 ITEM NO. 13 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager {ik<~ /JIL ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract Traffic Signal Installation at Route 79 South and County Glen Way Project No. PW04-09 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Steven Beswick, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the project, Traffic Signal Installation at Route 79 South and Country Glen Way, Project No. PW04-09 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 July 12, 2005, the City Council awarded a construction contract in the amount of $149,218 to DBX, Inc., of Temecula, California for traffic signal installation at the intersection of Route 79 South and Country Glen Way, Project No. PW04-09. The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 79 South and Country Glen Way was required as a condition of approval (PA94-0095) for a new shopping center (Vail Ranch Center) located along Route 79 South between Country Glen Way and Redhawk Parkway. At the time of development, the traffic signal was not fully warranted as setforth in Caltrans standards. Therefore, the City collected the equivalent fee amount from the developer so that the traffic signal could be constructed in the future. The traffic signal at Route 79 South and Country Glen Way was constructed to accommodate the current traffic configuration (Three eastbound and westbound lanes with a single left turn lane for Country Glen Way). The minor change orders for the project ended up with a net cost savings. There was an additional cost to repair two existing conduits that crossed beneath Route 79 south; however this was more than offset by the savings realized by eliminating the project information signs. 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 pursuant to the provisions in Public Contract Code section 7107. FISCAL IMPACT: The installation of the traffic signal at Route 79 South and Country Glen Way was funded with fees paid by the developer of the Vail Ranch Center and development impact fees (Dl F) -Traffic Signals. The total construction cost of the project was $146,930.27. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive T emecule. CA 925B9-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to DBX. Inc.. 42066 Avenidli Alvardo. Suite C. Temecula. California 92590 to perform the following work of improvement: PROJECT NO. PW04-09 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION SR79 SOUTH AND COUNTRY GLEN WAY 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 21. 2006. That upon said contract the Developers Surety and Indemnity Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: '6. PROJECT NO. PW04-09 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION SR79 SOUTH AND COUNTRY GLEN WAY 7. The location of said property is: Intersection of Route 79 South and Country Glen Way, Temecula. California Dated at Temecula, California, this 21'h day of March 2006. City of T emecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 21"' day of March 2006. City of T emecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk R;\CIP\PROJECTS\PW04\PW04-09 Traffic Signa! SR79 South & Country Glen Way\COMPLETION NOTICE DBX, InC..doc CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND FOIt PROJECT NO. PW04.(J9 TRAFRC SIGNAI.INSTAI.LA110N SR79 SOUTH AND COUNTRY GI.EN WAY BOND il839792P PREMIUM: INCLUDED IN PERFORMANCE BOND EXECUTED IN TWO COUNTERPARTS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: DBX. INCORPORATED 42066 AVENIDA ALVARADO. SUITE C TEMECULA, CA 92590 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S a CORPORATION (1111 In whether a Oorpo/8/ion, PartnelSh/p or IndMdual) , hereinafter called Principal, and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY P.O. BOX 19725 IRVINE. CA 92623 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CllY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called OWNER, In the penal au", of FOURTEEN THOUSAND S IX HUNDRED NINETY -.' . THREE DOLLARS and THREE . CENTS ($ 14.693.03 ) in lawful money of the United States, said .s\.!m being' not less than ten '10%) of the Contract value 'payable by the said City of Temecilla under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of which. we bind ourselves,' successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these pres~nts. ' ' THE CONDITION OF THIS OB'-IGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered Into a certain Contract with the OWNER; dated the 12TH day of .TllT ,Y , 2005, a copy of which Is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the constriJction of PROJECT NO. PW04- 09, TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION SR79 SOUTH AND COUNTRY GLEN WAY. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of ~ (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_ OCTOBER 26 ,2005. . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that If within one year from the date Of approval of the f1nal'estlmate on said Job pursuant to the Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmans~ip In the execution of said work, and the canylng out of th~ terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were ,furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall 'remaln in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument sh~1I be void. . As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified. costs and reasonable expenses and fees s;hall 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 M.l The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of lime, alteration, or addition to ttIe teRnS of the Contract, or to the work to be perfonned thereunder, or to the Speclfh..:ltiOlIS 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 teRnS of the Contract. or to the work. or to the SpecifleaUons. ' Signed and sealed this 29TH' day Of NOVEMBER ,2005. , (Seal) DEVELOPERS SURETY SURElY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY ~y:,~/J~ DBX;~CORPORATED MATTHEW P. FLAKE (Name) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT (lllle) Jim erry (Name) President (lllle) By: APPROVED Afj TO FORM: (Name) PeterM. Thorson, City AIfIlmey (TiUe) --- MAINIENANCE BOND Mol! CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUN.TY OF ORANGE On before me, LEXIE SHERWOOD - NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared MATTHEW P. FLAKE personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WIWES~d ;Jb:::t ,seal. Signature 0 Notary PUblic ~@ LEXIE SHERWOOD 1: f:., ..".. COMM. #1593951 ~ g,: -:.,<".,'. -. NOTARYPUElLlC eCALlFORNIA ~ :E. t,.~ ,.I, ORANGE COUNTY ~ { ."" Comm, Exp. JUL Y 27, 20C9 ( OPTIONAL Though the data below is not requ~red by law, it may prove valuable to persons. relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER o INDIVIDUAL o CORPORATE O~~ICER TITLE(S) o PARTNER(S) o OTHER: ~ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT 0 TRUSTEE(S) SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAM8 or PERSON(S) OR ENTITY{S) POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA PO BOX 19725, IRVINE, CA 92623 (949) 263-3300 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that except as expressly limited, DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, do each, hereby make, constitute and appoint: ***David L. Culbertson, Charles L. Flake, Karen Winland, Richard A. Coon, Lexie Sherwood, Matthew P. Flake, jointly or severally*** as their true and lawful Attomey(s)-in-Fact, to make, ex.e<:ute, deliver and acknowledge. for and on behalf of said corporations, as sureties, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship giving and granting unto said Attomey(s)-in-Fact full power and authority to do and to perform every act necessary, requisite or proper to be done in connection therewith as each of said corporations could do, but reserving to each of said COlpOrations full power of substitution and revocation. and all of the acts of said Attomey(s)-in-Fact, pursuant to these presents, are hereby ratified and confirmed. This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Board of Directors of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNlTY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, effective as of November 1,2000: RESOLVED. that the Chairman of the Board, the President and any Vice President of the corporation be, and that each of them hereby is, autho~ to execute Powers of Attorney, qualifying the attomey(s) named in the Powers of A~mey to execute, on behalf of the corporations, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship; and that the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of the corporations be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to attest the execution of any such Power of Attorney; RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the signatures of such officers may be affixe<l to any such Power of Attorney or -to any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures shall be valid and binding upon the COIpOration when so affIXed and in the future with respect to any bond., undertaking or contract of suretyship to which it is attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA have sevemIly caused these presents to be signed by their respective Executive Vice President and attested by their respective Secretary this 1st day of February; 2005. O~ ") """"111",,, ~"~'i AND l"''+. $~t,. ...........~()~"lo, $......... .., 0 ....v...~ ...:v ..~()~, /tf...... ~_\ :: ~'(j 'A"-r-" =ClO ~ OCt ,. \~\ io:i . a-"; i:i 10 ins \0,\ 1936 ;fU ""!,:",,... ...~$ '''''', lOW' .".' ~-,."... ,. .....",.-~ ."",:()' .............)."t"~ ~"" * ~, "flllllt.""" By: ~,-''lJw~ Waller A. Crowell, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) jSS. ) COUNTY OF ORANGE On Febnuuy I, 2005, before me, Nita a Hiffineyer, personally appeared David H. Rhodes and Walter A. Crowell, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal. s~~J.~ CERTIFICATE The undersigned, as Executive Vice-Presiden~ of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY QF CALIFORNIA, does hereby certifY that the foregoing Power of Attorney remains in full force and has not been revoked, and _ennore, that the provisions of the ....Iutions of the respective Boards of Directors of said cxnporati008 set forth in the Power of Attomey, are in force as of the date of this Certificate. This Certificate is executed in the City of Irvine, California. the 29TH day of NOVEMBER BY~md~p=~ 2005 11).1380 (Rev.2/0S) CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE , PROJECTNO.PWO~09 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLA TION SR79 SOUTH AND COUNTRY GLEN WAY This is to certify that DBX, 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. PW04-09, TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION SR79 SOUTH AND COUNTRY GLEN WAY, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: ' Traffic Signal at SR79S & Country Glen Way INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The CONTRACTORdeclares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code 97100, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of T emecula 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: 11/30/05 By: CONTRACTO~ ~, Q". SI lure Jim Perry, President Print Name and Title .J RelEASE R-1 ITEM NO. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager J4f" iJll ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road; Project No. PW05-04 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids forthe Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road, Project No. PW05-04. BACKGROUND: The Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road project is identified in the City's Capital I mprovement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2006-2010. This project will provide one additional eastbound through lane on Rancho California Road. Improvements will include, but not be limited to: removal/reduction of the existing raised median, pavement, signage and striping, traffic signalization modifications, landscaping and any other associated work, as required. No additional right-of-way is required; existing curb & gutter on the north and south sides of Rancho California Road are to remain in place. As Rancho California Road is a highly used urban arterial highway in Temecula, this project will increase the roadway's capacity as well as improve overall traffic circulation within this area. Currently, the plans and specifications are substantially completed and the project will be ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents will be available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $250,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The Rancho California Road Median Modifications, Project No. PW 05-04 is a Capital Improvement Project, which is funded with Measure A funds. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-165-752-5804. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Project Description t:l ~ T 0 ~ N 1';1 q ~ t SANTASU;z.o..NNEPL '7 ~' 0 {; ~ It"l ..... , .... Z MORAGA RO 1';1 ~ E-< 1';1 l!:I 00 Z 0 3 .... ~ , .... t:l 0 ~ ~ ~ r- t:l ~ ""sRI> ~ ~ .s 0# <>; ! ~ ~ . ,if i1i 0 r:: ~ u 0 i:t: u ~ ~ ~ u ;:( 0 .... ;; t; ;l .. E-< ~ .... u C " z~ .~ ~ Q ... ll-< .... ;;; E-< ii:l o ~ ~ ~ .... ~ u ~ l::l ..... !;,,) ~ o ~ t:l ~ It'l .-< ~ Z 1';1 ~ 1';1 l!:I CIl Z o ~ ...; U .... ~ t:l o ~ ~ .... ~ 1';1 ;:;;: ~ o ~ < ~ o ~ ~~ 00 e~ .~~ <l ;l ~ ti " .S' .. .... '" ..s OJ o ..... ..0 -'d .~ '" ..... .- 00 .S " .g ~ >. ..0 "g a '" '8 <E ~ u o ..0 " ~-g p. 0: 'E o '" 'g ~ o '" P::: .- "0 N '" " 0 0: ... ~-B 0:""' '" 0 on'i'i .... " ~~ 5 " " '" s:.~ l>.;j ..0 0: all '6 '" " " S a u"" ......... 0: '" " 0: " 0 ;::= Q)~ .g i1 "0 ;!::! <i':' '" ;:l .- " o'"l::lCd ,;.., 0 .. iJ;:;;:..s -~ a '6 " S 1J - 00 .S ..... " E '" 0: o " " . ... " >'a .J:J_ .-a,Cd '" 0: o 0 ~ ".::3 N:.a ""0 ~ '" "0 ~ a:g ~ 0 , - ~"O " " " p. " 'E '" '" "0 e ..0" "g.J:J 0:::1 p:::'~ .~ ""g a 0 o ... ~ Q) <'lca>:s ~()t; ~..21:i '-0 0 :;~i ....p:::" C"l 0 w . - '" Zo ..o:E +-,.:a~ g'~ ..d g~.:d () 1-1....-1 ...; 11 '" I " '" :> .t:: '" '" 00 ~ Pi;:l ~ e'C) p.o~ .Sl S " .-4"'d;'" -'g"d>t:l Il<...;a ij " .... ~ e .,ll-< e~ 1:: " :'" l>. o ,Q) t..l ~CIl d .S ~ g ... '<3 " \P ""' fl " > " 8 .s "0 ~ "0 '" 8 " ..0 - ""' o ..... '<3 '" '" " '" .,0 lZlt-: 1l 0 b~ .f1"., ~ ',~ El ;QQ " o - f-<~ .... l>. '" a o 0 Uu <:) 000 0000 00_0-0 -n V)#> o~ 0'" .q-C'!\(')("'l C"lC'"l EA- €F.t €F.t €F.t o .-< , 0\ o o '" 0\ o , 00 o o '" Q() o , .... o o '" .... o , '-0 o o '" 0000 \Coooo 00000 I 1.1)" tri' 00" :g '<j- N \(') N o C"l C'"l '" €F.t €F.t €F.t€F.t '" '" I:n ~ 0 0 ";11('- r--. €~ <e "., "., 0: o 'g b "' 'p 51 e '" ~..~ ~ ~ ...; O,Uf-< 0: o .- <> 2c - J g...; o " 7" ~ ~ Cd " 0 "";:;;:E-< '" .... '" o ;; U'" ~ g ~'"' o~ ~ ~ .... " e ... l:l '):l '"'~ '" '" 00 ....- .... 06 C"l C"l <'"l <'"l "" "" N .... biJ .S "0 0: re ITEM NO. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~ iJll ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Quitclaim Deeds - Vail Ranch Parks and Open Space PREPARED BY: Barbara Smith, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the six (6) Quitclaim Deeds for Vail Ranch Parks and Open Space and authorize the City Clerk to record the documents. BACKGROUND: On July 1 , 2001 the City annexed the Vail Ranch Development located along the southeasterly City boundary. Within the Vail Ranch Development are three (3) developed parks, two (2) pocket parks and one (1) open space lot. The three developed parks were officially named Vail Ranch Park, Stephen M. Linen Jr. Memorial Park and Pablo Apis Park. There are two small "pocket" parks located on Tulley Ranch Road and Cayenne Trail near Temecula Creek and one (1) open space lot located adjacent to Vail Ranch Park from Josheroo Court. The City received the Quitclaim Deeds from the County of Riverside in December 2005. After a review and approval of the deeds and the title reports by the City Attorney's Office, the City is cleared to accept these parks and open space lot in title. FISCAL IMPACT: None, the parks and open space lot have been maintained by TCSD since July 1 ,2006. The ownership status will not change maintenance costs already established in current and future budgets. ATTACHMENTS: Riverside County Resolution 2005-433 Six (6) Quitclaim Deeds Attachment 1 Riverside County Resolution No. 2005-433 Authorization to convey Real Property CSA-143 Redhawk - Vail Ranch Park Sites ~ WEE:pC24 10/13/05 015-ED 25 9.734 1 Board of Supervisors County of Riverside 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-433 AUTHORIZATION TO CONVEY REAL PROPERTY CSA-143 REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITES 4 5 6 7 BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of 8 Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, in regular session 9 assembled on October 25, 2005, that conveyance of six (6) Vail Ranch park sites in that certain real property in the County of Riverside, State of California to the City of 10 11 Ternecula, known as: A$$essor's Parcel Number: 960"093-042, Vail Ranch Park Site 12 l3 i"~1'1J~ll!!~tI~~~1l'!llfL\ssessor's Parcel Nurnber: 960-101-036, Vail Ranch Park ![~~~~ilf\ssessor's Parcel Number: 960-161-034, Vail Ranch Park 14 "(f!}"A~'.O,.~~i 15 Assessor's Parcel Nurnber: 960-202-011, Vail Ranch Park 16 Assessor's Parcel Number: 960-292-001, Vail Ranch Park 17 Assessor's Parcel Nurnber: 960-310-001, Vail Ranch Park 18 described in Exhibit A pages 1 through 6 attached here to and thereby made a part 19 hereof, is hereby approved. 20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Facilities Management or his 21 designee is authorized to execute the necessary documents to cornplete the 22 conveyance of the land. 23 ROLL CALL: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Tavaglione, Stone, Wilson and Ashley None Buster OCT 1 9 2005,..9 . ~. 7: /}?/V".)-L. 1 ^ In.... In.,," EXHIBIT. "A" IParcellO: IOwner: ISitus Address: ISitus City: IMailing Address: Mailil1 City: IAcres: Lot: IMap No.: ILand Value: Istructure value: IZoning: lLilnd Use; ISquare Feet: Page 1 of 6 APN 960-093-042, PARK SITE E-l TR 23174-6, LOT 221 11960093042 IICOUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 lie 11- 113133 7TH ST IRIVERSIDE CA 92507 110.2 2 IITR 23174-6 111289 110 IISPECIFIC PLAN (SP-10) I 1 LOVVMEOIUM (3-{l qU/AC MAX 18812.73 .~ " ,~~ .~ ~~~ tf' .,,,\It<''- 0.-"-1'" - o 1 :~ ~ld L I ^orm~z ." -~, '\ ';::; ':;:.~ ..- ..' ;-..". / '''-'''',- } L.~;i0~ 3lijS~,j...,it U.:iJ-,:::;3;': . " , r EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 6 ' APN 960-101-036, PARK SITE E-2 TR 23174-6, LOT 222 jParcellD: 11960101036 I IOwner: IICOUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 I ISitus Address: II- I ISitus City: II- I IMailing Address: 113133 7TH ST I IMalling City: IIRIVERSIDE CA 92507 I IAcres: 110.1 I Lot: 11222 I IMap No.: IITR 23174-6 I ILand Value: 1112310 I c IStructure Value: 110 I lZoning: /ISPECIFIC PLAN (SP-10) I ILand Use: IIWWMEDIUM(3-6 DU/AC MAX)I r ISquare Feet: 114643.9 I ~- -------~~ -------- ~-- -~ %. ----'\ " ,\ __------\ 1> \ \ ~------\ \j1 \ \ \ \ _J/~\ /-3 / \ ~ ----"-\ \ \ -- II / / ) //',~ _._----~~_._._~-~--_._._--_. ~': EXHIBlt"A~f'r \ Page 3 of 6 APN 960-161,.034,P~SITE E-3 TR23174-2, LOT 115 IParcellD: 11960161034 I IOwner: IICOUNTY OF R.IVERSIDE CSA 1431 ISitus Address: 1144935 NIGHTHAWK PASS I ISitus City: IITEMECUL,A. CA 92592 I ]Mailing Address: 113133 7TH ST 1 IMailing City: IIRIVERSIDE CA 92507 I IIAcres: IIZ.1!! ILot: 1/115 I IMapNo.: IITR 23174:2 I . ILand Value: 110 I IStrui:ture Value: 110 I IZoning~ 11SPECIf'IC P\AN {SP-10) I ILand IJse: IILOW Mf;DI!JM (3-6 DUlAC MAX) I ISquare Feet: 1192607:2 I ,<::/- \ \ ("\- //~\ \ \-/:-\ \ ~-\ ,- \ \ \/ \" \ \ /~~)\ \ \ "f-j 1 )J- , I \ '\ \ j::..r '" // v- \-/~ \ \ / "-. r '" r~'i/\\ '\ ?// I\.-J ~ \,//\ \ ~~<o / ~ 0.'<, ~ \ .--J. '" - It;. -(N1'lI'-,\'" - ,\ ' /\ '~'*'~ \~ '. __ \ s /"" 'y , \ \.----\ \. ~ ',"" ,",,' "- ---' -~~; //)\ /.--~ \ \ ~ .// ~~ ',\; / ~r~ ~ \ vI ~'X<\Y " . EXFlIBIT"A" Page 4 of 6 APN 960..202-011, PARK SITEE-4 TR 23173-2, LOT. 177 IParcellD: 11960202011 I IOwner: IICOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE C$A 1431 ISitus Address: 1132886 JOSHEROO CT ISitus City: IITEMECULA CA 92592 IMailing Address; 1131337TH ST , IMailing City: II RIVERSIDE CA 92507 Acres: 110 , ILot: 11177 I IMap No.: IITR 231n2 I . ILand Value: 110 II IStructure Value: 110 I IZoning; IISPECIFIC PLAN ($P-10) I ILand .use; I!LOW MEDIUM (3-6 DUlAC MAX) I Is quare Feet; 119439.83 II ~~-~----'::.AI~04KS ~;/;/ ~_ DR. ~ .~'/ .....-............... ....,., ............!./ ~---------__~ ''-''- --,_, / ",.,/1/ . --,-......, """....-- .....-...., /'." / --->-. "---..........- .............~ / 1 I ~ ---..... Or.- ....-....-...--J ;' / / ''',-- "--- ~S-Ij>~ // -~- /. '",::-------, "'a , '----'~,,-,l //' ~) 1'1j> / .G 'r-7; <y / ) .~"-------'--y/I l,i/' )/j /('~1fsl/IT'<'llC -/ 0 ! '............, /i . -4~ I / .......~......... ! .to ~ (.----.......i/ / t.. ~I r-.....---_____ '$1y12P -........ S! / ~ i/ I / "....... ;l I ................. <TO: j -. II / / '-.. l ''---1/ " J. ''---I "" i',--- ,( .'--......,7;2 ///'-"'''y/J~l,_, -'''''''' //'---'-~~ '@t'/'//",,!l"'--...... y(' ~-~-- / " /'_. '---,/ / ,,_ , 1'---_ "'-:.---.;/ // '-,"-.., / /" ""'-//' \, / f-I---'~ \ /\ <(, '" , ''..( _.._-_.__._~-~----_._,_._-~ --_.. ... ------... ,,-.-----.-..----...---- - - -.--...-.,--------.,-.....,-~-.,...,..~-c_.,..__:.-- < . EXH IB_IT "A"' Page 5 of6 APN 960..292..001, PAR.KSITE'E.;.5 TR 23173-1, LOT 169 IParcellD: ,11960292001 I IOwner: IICOUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 I ISitus Address: 1133005 REGINA DR I ISitus City: !ITEMECULA CA 92592 I IMailing Address: 113133 7TH ST 1 /Mailing City: 1 RIVERSIDECA 92507 ',' , '.. 'I Acres: , 2.28 , ILot: ' 11169 I IMap No.: IITR 23173~ 1 1 . ILand Value: 110 I IStructure Value: 110 1 IZoning: IlspECIFIC PLAN (SP-"9) I ILand Use: IIPUBLlC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES 1 ISquare Feet: 1199547.46 I I 1\ \ \ \ U L 1 REGINA OR ~- \ L--/----/ /' >-< \., /" "'j ,-. .' ....--/, .' - _-\ \ / I '\----- \ \,/ /1 -~\ /'/-- \ ';:~// /j 1 '\ /', '- i -----\("/ /) ""'-----1... ~;/ /~--------- -.-/ / ~o~ .~\ ~- '\ \ \ \---- \ \ J----->~ J.-____v - ~-- .......------------- ....---------------- ----~- , ----... ~l<~~^ ~lT7 '_~-L~~~~ 1 .~l)l ..----/1 ^/ { / I I ~~ . , EXH'IBIT "A" Page 6 of6 APN 960-310-001, PARK SITE E-6 PM 23780, LOT 013 IParcel 10: 11960310001 I IOwner: IICOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ' , ISitus Address: II- I ISitusCity: II- I !Mailing Address: 119255 TOWNE CENTRE DR 100 I IMailing City: IISAN DIEGO CA 92121 I Acres: 16.51 Lot: 113 I IMap No.: II PM 23780 I , ILand Value: 110 I Istructure Value: 110 I ,. IZoning: IISPECIFIC PLAN (SP-10) I ILand Use: I[LOW MEDIUM (3-6 DUlAC MAX)I ISquare Feet: 11715748.16 I ._------_...._---~.__._---_.,-~..- ,...-.----.-..--- - --- Attachment 2 Quitclaim Deeds Recorded at request of and return to: City Cierk City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Exempt from Recording Fee (Gov!. Code 27383) Ci of T emecula Space above this line reserved for Recorde~s Use DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE Public Agency Exempt Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E"6, LOT 013 TRACT: PM 23780 APN: 960-310-001 QUITCLAIM DEED The County of Riverside on behalf of COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation as the grantee, the following real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: LOT 013 OF TRACT PM 23780, 719,175 SQ. FT. (16.51 ACRE) PARK SITE E-6 WITHIN THE REDHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF VAIL RANCH SITUATED BETWEEN VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AND REGINA DRIVE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK PM 161, PAGE 92, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. See Exhibit "An and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof 10/25/05 3.19 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-6, LOT 013 TRACT: PM 23780 APN: 960-310-001 Dated: 11/28/05 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a political subdivision By:J1M~ It~ MARION ASHLEY, Chairman Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss On Np"ember 28, 2005 , before me, Maria J. Villarreal xxxj a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Marion Ashley xxxx personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person~ whose name~ is/afEl subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ste/t~y executed the same irvt'i@,JMt~ir authorized capacity<F), and that by his/?ir/ti?eir signature~on the instrurinfrl( {he personlS)' or the entity upon behalf of which the person~) actetl, executed the instrument. ~ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~@ MARIAJ. VILlARREAL ~ ,~.. . Commission # 1456976 ~ . -. Notary PubUc . Callfomla ,~ , RiversIde County My Comm. Explles Dee 16. 2007 NANCY ROMERO Clerk 0 he Board of Supervisors [SEAL] WEE:eo CSA 143 Park Site-Red hawk-Vail Ranch Lot 013 004EO 10/25/05 3.19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23780, AS FILED IN BOOK 161, PAGE 92, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. ----------------------------------------- EXHIBIT "A" f ~- . ~~! ~"ii .~,. g-c;;; !;l~~ pi !<~~ ll..- mal? -<;t>3 ~~g I;~ ~-~ ",,~ ~-~ :~11 ~~ ~!::!.5i .- M~~ ~o " .'" do Q .o~ o-oi ~ ! Q ... '" '"' 3= '"" "" U"> co I- '"" '"" '"" <0 U"> - c..> ...... U"> \' EXHIBIT "B" if ~ @ @ t,;;D w- @ @ . .-'-"~:. '" !R '" '" f- g '" '" '" < , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Eo - - t: a:l - :r:: X w ~ '" ~i ~ 0 v ~,,:; 1l!' ii ~ . ~~ '1",' ':" Recorded at request of and return to: City Clerk City of T emecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Exempt from Recording Fee (Gov!. Code 27383) Ci ofTemecula Space above this line reserved for Recorder's Use DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE Public Agency Exempt Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 PROJECT: REDHAWK- VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-3, LOT 115 TRACT: 23174-2 APN: 960-161-034 QUITCLAIM DEED The County of Riverside on behalf of COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, the following real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: LOT 115 OF TRACT 23174-2,95,396 SQ. FT. (2.19 ACRE) PARK SITE E-3 WITHIN THE REDHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF VAIL RANCH LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AND NIGHTHAWK PASS, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 234, PAGES 40 THROUGH 49 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. See Exhibit "An and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof 10/25/05 3.19 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-3, LOT 115 TRACT: 23174-2 APN: 960-161-034 Dated: 11/28/05 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a political subdivision BI1/1/1~ ~~ MARION ASHLEY, Chairman Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss '-, On November 28, 2005 xxx , before me, Maria J. Villarreal a Notary Public in and fOr said County and State, personally appeared M:::arinn A!=:hlpy xxxx personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(atwhose name(s') is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sJre/tAey executed the same in his/heT1tl)eir authorized capacity(i98), and that by his/h,(lf/th~ signature(s} on the instrument the person(.sf," or the entity upon,behalf of which the person(M-acted, executed the instrument. ~------------J G MARIAJ. VILLARREAL "'" CommiSSion # 1456976 ~ . -.,; . Notary Public.. CalifornIa ~ , , . Riverside County - My Comm. expires Dee 16.2007 NANCY ROMERO Clerk of the oryf Supervisors [SEAL] WEE:eo CSA 143 Park Site-Red hawk-Vail Ranch Lot 115 004EO 10/25/05 3.19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT MAP NO. 23174-2, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 234, PAGES 40 THROUGH 49 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. ------------------------------------------- EXHIBIT "A" ......... :~ \ ij;';z,X" H I BIT' L~~ ~~IR>-J U = ~~ "...." ,~ < '" ~ ..c~ "'""'" ~= =~ =- , , -- -~ == (0 @ ~ ~- V> ~ I- U") <..) '-'-' V> <::> '-'-' I- ~ "" l- e "" Iit'l; Ol;"IS lIe'Oils )1"SIi t~.ss '''"!is ~~ . Si ~~- ::;,,@ '""w ,..:~!:: g:~ ~,,- ii;;~ ~~5 -0- i~i: ~5S "'''~ "i!" ~gg s<~ ~~- &:;~ "-1l !l!~" ~<~ ~~:i ~SP~ @ PQj'Lor1tJ " 19'/l8 ~ VAt lOr ~ RANCH Pkwy ~ -1 @ . (:~~:..J m '" .. .... <0 o m "' "' > , " z ~ ;;; ~ eo = ~ , '" ::;, ~ ~ = ~ ":-:-;;" W - - I-- - OJ 1B!IiIiiiIlII!J ""r, ~ ~', ~ (g ~ '" 1<", "'= ~'" '" - m",. "" . "'" ~ - ~:; ~ - ::;4 ~ ~ .. <~ Recorded at request of and return to: City Clerk City of T emecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Exempt from Recording Fee (Gov!. Code 27383) Ci of T emecula Space above this line reserved for Recorder's Use DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE Public Agency Exempt Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 PROJECT: REDHAWK- VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-5, LOT 169 TRACT: 23173-1 APN: 960-292-001 QUITCLAIM DEED The County of Riverside on behalf of COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation as the grantee, the following real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: LOT 169 OF TRACT 23173-1,99,320 SQ. FT. (2.28 ACRES) PARK SITE E-5 WITHIN THE REDHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF VAIL RANCH LOCATED AT SOUTH SIDE OF REGINA DRIVE ADJACENT TO PAUBA VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN VALENTINO WAY AND TEHACHAPI PASS, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 229, PAGES 1 THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. See Exhibit "An and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof 10/25/05 3.19 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-5, LOT 169 TRACT: 23173-1 APN: 960-292-001 Dated: 11/28/05 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a political subdivision By: J1M~ ~~__ MARION ASHLEY, ~h8iiTilan/ Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss On November 28, 2005 , before me, Maria J. Villarreal xxxx a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Marion Ashlevu xxxxxx personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the perso~whose name(.s1 is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s):le/tJ;1ey executed the same in his/ber/theif-authorized capacity(ieS), and that by his/h,e'r/th~r signature(~on the instrument the person(fJ, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s1 acted, executed the instrument. ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ r ' MARIA J. VILlARREAL . '''' Commission # 1456976 NANCY ROMERO ~ ,_,,; Notary Public -Colltomla ~ Clerk of the ar of Supervisors Riverside County - , MyComm. Exphea Dee 16, 2007 WEE:eo CSA 143 Park Sites-Redhawk-Vail Ranch Lot 169 004EO 10/25/05 3.19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,iiI,;QI.,~(9)'QF TRACT 23~73-~, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, -.... ..^. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 229, PAGES ~ THROUGH ~4, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. LOT ~ 69 APN: 960-292-00~ EXHIBIT "A" E EXH I BIT "B" '0'- N~ '" . @a e s ", . " " . @~ . 8 8 11I.~gl In.55 1l!.9l ,; @2,'.a 22.99 e" ....., 5 1i\", ':l.9\ 111.&9 -- lt796 . @s .. 8a :0= l!s.93 187.M C'.I = @e ea . _. .. V> 112.&7 191.1' (0 >- @ e . ~ ~ C'.I C'.I '" B163 C'.I @~ @a <..> . ...., 111.95 \93.17 V> .- @ a .- r::~ IS9.29 .. @ B 293.3B @ 8 291.99 =" -0':' .. 0-" m m ., ., , ~ m ., ~.;::;:j.,; :::;~~ !!l"'~ ~~l!j ~- ,..:~~ ~'<~ ~jlf- ~~9 ~<.. ....i1ii25 llj-= ",:;'l> Y-l.Q...!. ",_0 ~!i s~..... ~~~ l:E2$S "'-" ~08 ~~" ~!:2~ 00 ." ,,- " '-" .;. or ~ U",& o ~ . =~ ;. \:::;J~ , . . . . < 2\.411 8@ . 11." 5!io.BB @ :\Q ~\:V ~ ~ ~ gJ 41.S.... @ . Q::\ V IS? m .,. c l- e.;, <:> -ru I , m "'''' m ~... r-.. m -~ - "'''' , ruru 0 ~ Q:C" >->- "- vru - , IlO -.' "-"- "'''' ruru ruru !D!D "" .. .. a.l .. .. I- - -m - :I: X W ~ = ~ = g~ = . ~~ ~" " " ~~ ~;;; ~ - ~ - ~ . ~ .. ~~ Recorded at request of and return to: City Clerk City of Temecula PO Box 9033 T emecula, CA 92589-9033 Exemplfrom Recording Fee (Govt, Code 27383) Ci ofTemecula Space above this line reserved for Recorder's Use DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE Public Agency Exempt Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-1, LOT 221 TRACT: 23174-6 APN: 960-093-042 QUITCLAIM DEED The County of Riverside on behalf of COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation as the grantee, the following real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: LOT 221 OF TRACT 23174-6,8,720 SQ, FT, (,20 ACRE) PARK SITE E-1 WITHIN THE REDHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF VAIL RANCH LOCATED AT TULLEY RANCH ROAD AND ALlGHCHI WAY, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 237, PAGES 21 THROUGH 3.1, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. See Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof 10/25/05 3.19 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH' PARK SITE: E-1, LOT 221 TRACT: 23174-6 APN: 960-093-042 Dated: ]1/28/0') COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a political subdivision BY:~:4fIA"~ ~~ MARl HLEY, hairman Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss On November 28. 200') ,before me, M~ri 0 T V< 11 orro.l xx x x a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Marion Ashley xxxx personally known to me (or proved to me on the basisof satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s1 whose name(s-) is/qre subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/9Re/tPef executed the same in his/!J,9rIt~ authorized capacity(ieat, and that by his/hftl'/th.eirsignature~ on the instrument the person(sJ; or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. NANCY ROMERO Clerk of the Board of Supervisors @' .~. MARIAJ, VILlARREAL -' .,-..., Commission # 1456976 i ~~&' . '. Notary Public - CalifornIa i ~'t " Riverside County , .... .. My Comm, expires Dee 16,2007 B [SEAL] WEE:eo CSA 143 Park Site-Red hawk-Vail Ranch Lot 221 004EO 10/25/05 3.19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ii,*~~$<Ji~~~iiiiAND 222 OF TRACT 23174-6, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 237, PAGES 21 THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. ------------------------------------------- APN: 960-093-042 LOT 222 APN: 960-101-036 EXHIBIT "Al' EXH IBIT "BH SHEET 4 OF II SHF:E1S IN 711. UNlNCORPOMTED 7Fl/f/I7r)R't' OF 711. COIJl{1Y 01'" ~tDE; S7ATfi OF CAlJFr)RNIA TRACT MAP NO. .;e/J174-6 BE/NfJ A S/I8IJMSION or PARCEL ., OF PARCEL. MAP NQ 2.J7BO AS iiidtiiiiiEiiiiiiOi:ii:'6f'AfPAifiiin::i9 ~~"'.. ~~ff.&~5ff~r;,~PIlifl'1S~~~THf, 7HE: ~ '" 71/1; CtXJNTY _ '" !IAN DIEGO COI/NTY. ALSO BS\'!.~ Pg~1J$f. ~""ll1f/;f~~ ~~TY8~~m'Jllftr ~S<l"(JR1';.Ciii A~N,A$~ IN 7HI!~cClJRT"'OFSAID CfMIrr. . . RANPAC ENGINEERING CORP. \fTA JANUARy' 1990 , , 6" 'bN '.. .. , 11< U" '" 68 ....m: " ""~U' ~ ~.....-: ~..~,; I 25 I I _L t; III :c .. c; :.: " .. 56 ..., " 24 ~ tl .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '- - I .. ~ ~,^m liP' .GIWl 60 ./' ./' - SEE SHEET NO. 8 . " .. " ,.. ,,, -- - --- - fJfWV(:;JOU1l1lEr t~4d' t.~'~ ~ OJ - - I- - OJ - J: X W Recorded at request of and return to: City Clerk City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Exempt from Recording Fee (Govt, Code 27383) Ci of T emecula Space above this line reserved for Recorder's Use DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE Public Agency Exempt Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-2, LOT 222 TRACT: 23174-6 APN: 960-101-036 QUITCLAIM DEED The County of Riverside on behalf of COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation as the grantee, the following real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: LOT 222 OF TRACT 23174-6,4,350 SQ, FT. (,10 ACRE) PARK SITE E-2 WITHIN THE REDHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF VAIL RANCH LOCATED AT TULLEY RANCH ROAD AND CAYENNE TRAIL, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 237, PAGES 21 THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, See Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof 10/25/05 3.19 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-2, LOT 222 TRACT: 23174-6 APN: 960-101-036 Dated: 11/28/05 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a political subdivision BY:~~ ~/I';J/- MARl N ASHLEY, Chairm n Board of Supervisors . STATE OF CALIFORNIA.) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss On November 28, 2005 xx , before me, Maria J. Villarreal a Notary Public in and for said County and State, Marion As~ley XXRRx personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(~hose name(.s}-is/9J:8 subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/~/th9y executed the same in his/l).fMftbeir authorized capacity(ies-), and that by his/h.eHth.eir signature(Mon the instrument the person(.s-r, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ MARIA J. VillARREAL ,-.. Commission # 1456976 ~ . ..,; Nofary Public. California ~ J . . . Riverside County [ J _ ~_ _ ~~m:..Exp~re:.ee:.l~2~7t [SEAL] WEE:eo CSA 143 Park Site-Red hawk-Vail Ranch Lot 222 004EO 10/25/05 3.19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 221 AND{:5~~~@QF TRACT 23174-6, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 237, PAGES 2~ THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. ------------------------------------------- LOT 22~ APN: 960-093-042 APN: 960-10~-036 EXHIBIT "A" -- -- 1 ~ /98 , EXHIBIT nSE SHIfE7 7 ()f"'1I SHiEis IN. THE: 'I/N1NCOf1PORATED TE'RR/TrJRY OF' THE: COUNTY OF' RIVERSIDE. S11.TE OF' CAJJroRNlA. TRACT MAP NO. 23I74-6 SE1NC A SlJSDIafS/DN tF AWCQ. " OF pARCEL MAP NO. N78() AS ~:-;i'iiI;iii::iit:};ff,:P;4'iiS-:~ ~~"'i,.lIf~K'..m~rRIOIW ~ifP~~':7l'~ 1HE' DFFICE OF THE fXXINTY RECOR/JER OF SAN TY. - SDNfJ A PDRr/ON . ~,j!Wll1J/lfrf'c!lf!f"8r ~BTY~ $AN~ S ~7!' ~ ~ A'f"tf;E,Gfi7~ II '/Hi! SlJPEROR COlJRT OF SAD ctJt/NTf. RANPAC ENGINEERING CORP. JANUARY. 1990 r'jiiNEE.'f..s Ir"s 8M T ,I FASEM~Nr NOTES SEE SNEET N(J. 2 TOTAL BOIlNhAI/Y . SEE .tHEET NQ.Z . 1.0,.".. .. ~~~ ~ .....-..~ ...........) .. . :1" . It;', .,/ '" " ' ,~S8 . , ~-) ....' ... "'''' 41>4- 8S -...' .t.f;~~ 1(1) . trit. 102 . . 108 104 ,~ ,~. 18,. .iSJ , s..;' ~ ...... -- m - :c X R,J. ~; t~_~ U.3t'n~ <S7' ~ . . 11/ 112 ~ : / \ \ 170 \ \ 169 \/ /~)l SEE \ \ \ 120\08 \ \ \ \ 10 \ 121 SHEET \ 12~0.\ Recorded at request of and return to: City Clerk City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Exempt from Recording Fee (Govt, Code 27383) Ci of T emecula Space above this line reserved for Recorder's Use DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE Public Agency Exempt Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-4, LOT 177 TRACT: 23173-2 APN: 960-202-011 QUITCLAIM DEED The County of Riverside on behalf of COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation as the grantee, the following real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as: LOT 177 OF TRACT 23173-2,9,200 SQ. FT, (,21 ACRE) PARK SITE E-4 WITHIN THE REDHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF VAIL RANCH LOCATED AT CUPA LANE AND JOSHEROO DRIVE, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 229, PAGES 15 THROUGH 27, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, See Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof 10/25/05 3.19 PROJECT: REDHAWK-VAIL RANCH PARK SITE: E-4, LOT 177 TRACT: 23173-2 APN: 960-202-011 Dated: 11/28/05 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE a political subdivision By: 11M~ it~ MARION ASRLEY, Chairman Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss On November 28, 2005 , before me, Maria J. Villarreal xx a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Marion Ashle'17 xxx personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name~ is/are subscribed to the within instrument and aCknowledged to me that he/sPelti)sy executed the same in his/j:Jsr/tj:leir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/h.er1tl)J* signature(.8} on the instrument the personk8r. or the entity upon behalf of which the person~) acted, executed the instrument. . MARIAJ, VILlARREAl - ' -.. Commission # 1456976 ~ .""; Notary Public. Calltornla ~ '- , Riverside County - MyComm. ExpIres Dee 16,2007 NANCY ROMERO Clerk of the ard of Supervisors [SEAL] WEE:eo CSA 143 Park Site~Redhawk-Vail Ranch Lot 177 004EO 10/25/05 3.19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION :1.f~Wi<~s~~s~F TRACT 23173-2, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 229, PAGES 15 THROUGH 27, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXHIBIT "A" "" " ~:; j 'Q.:::-""; -so .. '9; '" .a, ..", @)~ @)~ @)~ @~ @" ~ :>! " ",'," ~ '" ':.i .i'10 '~90" ,,-.a ./"-' @ [::;XH I B IT ~16,,';;jJ" ;1 ',1. ....~,., I = ;~r :< 0-", ~ = = , ~ = = -< ..; ,..: 3:lVdS_ IIg'IIS1 , 8'" , '" t\"SIII co 0i> J LII"IIIUZ'S SI"ts ~ ... ,,-IS .;0 ,"0- o 0, . d 0"" : o G\ ~ <Gi- . liI'lll 0 " . " L~'i1l1 ~ 8 " IIG-[Il 0 ':!> . . U'Sl1 ~/J'~f 0 ii> . . '1I",i! 99"11'1 " ~ '" \, <" II'"!!; ..; l " It'i1S " @)'" . . " ..... IIl"iil kYN. \iI'L& '"'~~ 8...~<l' . .. ,03.,.101 ~~'.t:i1 ~~'l., " It,!!, ~ @) ,~ " . .(J....S @) ~ lIe'ss <lE',/; . [s'ss . IR'59 " &,.,9 1I11'~" ~ " 10"59 -@ g ;h j/. " " @~ @ ~ @ ~ @ - @- " ~ .. " " " " " . ,8..101 . -31\'\11 'y'dn3 ~~.,.; ::;~t: ~....~ ~~l!j -'~!" ~:i ,.~~ 1<-.. ~~3 ~:::= t3:~ l:::!O:S <,,~ 1''''g _!L ~;~ --~ lf2S>- "'-~ ii~ !::::!!:2,... i=:!::::!;i ct 111'\1;; U :;: v,''': '8. 0."0-, - C\ 11> v. 0 g 0 " " " " IIO'as '/l> <1- ~ "- \!- - @) - @) - @) - @) ~ @) IID'II11 U'S9 " ~@ 5S'SE!! " " " all'as -L~ "Vi, .101 - ^,'iI>fU H-:JN\fl:J - ---=JIWt- - . @ ~ , ~ ~ ;;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ';' ~ ~. ~ = ~ @ . Sill'iS .. " 19: ;;: 0" ~ @ :z ~ . Il"i. ~~ , '''It ..' . 1I11111_11 III '., co n'I, ""'u[ e! ~ .it ",'! ~, . G\ ' ~ \!Y .. > . ' i ~I fit"SS . ta.s''!..... " ~J 3SE-U.IIEN 0:> m '" '" l- e.;, <=> ~ m m , o " ~ "" ,03 1m;, ~ r- ....-. m - :J: X ou ~hL_.~. ~ "' !i ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~" ~8 ~~ ~ . ~~ ITEM NO. 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FEBRUARY 28, 2006 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:35 P,M" at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington and Comerchero ABSENT: o DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones, PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 18 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 18,1 Approve the minutes of February 14, 2006, 19 Professional Services Aqreement with RJM Desiqn GrouP, Inc, for the Redhawk Parks Improvement Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 19,1 Approve the Professional Services Agreement with RJM Design Group, Inc, for the design of the Redhawk Parks Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $27,640; 19,2 Approve a contingency in the amount of $3,000, 20 Approval of 2005-06 Mid-Year Budqet Adiustments RECOMMENDATION: 20,1 Adopt a resolution entitled: MOTION: DirectorEdwards moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Director Washington seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\022806 RESOLUTION NO, CSD 06-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2005- 06 ANNUAL CSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 21 Community Services Department Monthlv Report No additional comment. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No additional comment. CSD GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comment. CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No additional comment. CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:36 P,M" the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 21,2006, at 5:30 P,M" for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P,M" City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W, Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes\022806 2 ITEM NO. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~ /J/2 9t TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman Parker, Director of Community Services William G, Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting Project Number PW04-06CSD PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer William Becerra, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors 1, Accept the project, Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting, Project Number PW 04-06CSD 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 March 8, 2005, the Board of Directors awarded a construction contract in the amount of $1 02,696,00 to R & M Electrical Contracting for Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting, Project Number PW04-06CSD, Two change orders increased the contract by $10,269,00, The first change order provided additional electronic ballasts that were required to enable the lighting to function adequately, The second change order compensated the contractor for project delays resulting from Southern California Edison requiring a utility easement for the electrical service, This project dovetails with the Joint Use Agreement between the City and Temecula Valley Unified School District entered into December 16, 2003, As per the agreement, the Temecula Community Services District will be responsible for the maintenance of the lighting improvements, periodic re-striping of the courts, and associated utility costs, 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 Notice of Completion has been recorded, FISCAL IMPACT: The Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting, Project Number PW04-06CSD is a Capital Improvement Program project funded through Capital Project Reserves and Economic Development Initiative Federal Grant. The total construction cost was $112,965,00, ATTACHMENTS: 1, Notice of Completion 2, Maintenance Bond 3, Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P,O, BQX 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecul., CA 92589-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTiCE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1, The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described, 2, The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92589, 3, The Nature of Interest is a Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to R & M Electrical Contracting, 22541 Aspen Street, Suite C, Lake Forest, CA 92630 to perform the following work of improvement: VAIL RANCH MIDDLE SCHOOL BASKETBALL COURT LIGHTING Project No. PW04-06CSD 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 February 28, 2006, That upon said contract the Developers Surety and Indemnity Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law, 5, The property on which said work of improvement was compieted is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting Project No, PW04-06CSD 6, The location of said property is: Temecula, California Dated at Temecula, California, this 21" day of March, 2006 City of Temecula Susan W, Jones MMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W, Jones MMC, City Cierk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 21" day of March, 2006. City of T emecu/a Susan W, Jones MMC, City Clerk R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW04\PW04-06CSD Vail Ranch MS\Construction\Notice of Completion - R&M Elecetrical Contracting.doc\zpw99-11lS\Agreements\Completion Note American West CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEI>ARTMENT ' TEMECUlA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAINTENANCE BOND Bond No: 5582071"-1 Premium included In PROJECT NO. PW04-06CSD Performance Bond VAIL RANCH MIDDLE SCHOOL BASKETBALL COURT UGHTING KNOW AL.l PE;RSONS BY THES~ PRESE~I Tm;M Electrical Contracting 1 As en Stre~~'SEiPJ1~~~m& fo~esY,~A '9263U NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S a Corporation , hereinafter called Principal, and ((jilin wh6th9r II CorponJ'fon, P3rlne~hJp ot indMdual) . C Developers Surety and Indemnity ompany 17780 Fitch, #200, Irvine, CA 92614 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 Ten Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy , DOLLARs and no/10U GENTS ($10,270,00* ) 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 Temec:ula 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 8th day of March , 2005, a copy of Which is herelo attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT No; PW04. 06CSD, VAIL. RANCIi MIDDLE SCHOOL l'JASKETBALL. COURT LIGHTING, WHEREAS, said Contract provides thatlhe Principal will furnish a bond conditioned 10 guarantee for the periOd of Qng (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, Qgainst all defects in workmanship arid materials which may become apparent during said periOd; and , WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was the final, estimate approved on _ ,2004, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OaUGATlON IS SUCH, that if Within one year from the date of approval of the final estimate on said job pursuant to the Contract,' the work done under tile terms of sail::! Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying o'ut of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obl;gation 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 judgmeht rendered. MAINTENANCE BONO M,I FP,C1Po.f'l;l111IiCTSIP"MM\l'WOof.<<CBO Vd.Aln'ft MS\$paIPwO(.OG'Clil'lJ):2l11clnoe dol " j: . " i ,1 I I ,I l , ~ 'I' I :,1\ , '~ it ] .11 on ,~ ,~ Ji !! Ii ii ,~ j~ The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work 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 18th day of January ,200M, (Seal) Developers Surety and Indemnity SURETY Company By: 9bd,M;.d_ RMF Contracting, Inc" dba PRINCIPAL R & M Electrical Contracting By: JGA'~~ JL .~-' ~ ~. \ c.,^o.-v-d \:::::~lm~-e.r (N~e) " .' ('.JfQX'(....h, I)r\S ~,()j().O { Ilf (Tiller By: ,1,:mF!t I MillF!r (Name) AttmnF!y-ln-F;:l(~t (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: (Name) , Peler M. Thorson. City Attorney (Title) . MAINTENANCE BONO M.2 ft",C1P\mQleC1i\pWOOPWO(,ar.cSI) ~II A,ncil ~lll'l:l'lPWO.(-o6OSD~ BJ:l Ooc,elll'[ ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of : California County of Orange On 1/20/06 Date , before me Denise Hance. Notarv Public Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared Richard Feilmeier Name(s) QfSigner (s) [X ] personally known to me [ ] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hefshe/ they executed the same in hisAief/tfteir authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/tlieir signature( s) on the instrument the person( s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person( s) acted, executed the instrument. WIlNESS my hand and official seal Place Notary Seal Above CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of San Bernardino ) 55. On Januarv 18. 2006 before me, Pamela McCarthv. Notarv Public Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe. Notary Public") Personally appeared Janet L. Miller Name(s) of Signer(s) l&l personally known to me o proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence PM'lELA MC CARniY a ' '1354310 z comrnisslon cal'.fornia 5: Public - - :<. Nolarj ~'no county Z San Berna.u' "^ .- z ~_II1IIlAPf-'- Iki c;omm, ""'" to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~)?) C4~ Signat~ Qf NQtaTy Public tf' OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Number of Pages: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: o Individual o Corporate Officer Title o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General l&l, Attorney-in-Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator Other: RT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer is Representing: POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA PO BOX 19725,IRVINE, CA 92623 (949) 263-3300 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that exeepl as expressly limited, DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, do each, hereby make, constitute and appoint: ***Jay p, Freeman, Kelly A, Saitman, Janet L. Miller, Pamela McCarthy, jointly or severally*** as their true and lawful Attomey(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, deliver and acknowledge, for and on behalf of said corporations, as sureties, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship giving and granting WIto said Attomey(s)-in-Fact full power and authority to do and to perform every act necessary, requisite or proper to be done in connection therewith as each of said corporations could do, but reserving to each of said corporations full power of substitution and revocation, and all of the acts of said Attomcy(s)-in-Fact, pursuant to these presents, are hereby ratified and confirmed. This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Board of Directors of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, effective as ofNnvember 1,2000: RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board, the President and any Vice President of the corporation be, and that each of them hereby is, authorized to execute Powers of Attorney, qualifying the attorney(s) named in the Powers of Attorney to execute, on behalf of the corporations, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship; and that the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of the corporations be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to attest the execution of any such Power of Attorney; RESOLVED. FURTHER, that the signatures of such officers may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures shall be valid and binding upon the corporation when so affixed and in the future with respect to any bond, undertaking or contract of suretyship to which it is attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA have severally caused these presents to be signed by their respective Executive Vice President and attested by their respective Secretary this 1 st day of December, 2005. By:G~-) David H. Rhodes, Executive Vice-President ~~ ..0111.....'" .......'...t AND t""" ~.df(,"\ .......... W()^...... .......~ .... PO ..... ~~ ~ . '.;' ."0'1' 11.4}>....... i:"/v ~\~\ "'" OCT. ;-<, i~{ 10 in! \~\ 1936 f~j . .... ..~. \'?~.... lOW'" .....~ I ......"'0 ...............\-if.,,~ ......"", * .......... '''''1111.'''''' By: Walter A. Crowell, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] COUNTY OF ORANGE On December I, 2005 before me, Gina L. Garner, (here insert name.and title of the officer), personally appeared David H. Rhodes and Waiter A. Crowell, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that belshe/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislber/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Signature 6md ;/ ~ (SEAL) f.. . .. ~I~~~.~~~~E~. J Ie COMM.#1569561 I NOTARY PUBUC CAUFORNlA ORANGE COUNTY ~ My comm. .~... ~ 13.W ._.....-~~...... -..- .... WITNESS my hand and official seal. CERTIFICATE The undersigned. as Assistant Seeretary, ofDEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, does hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney remains in full force and bas not been revoked, and furthermore, that the provisions of.the resolutions of the respective Boards of Directors of said corporations set forth in the Power of Attorney, are ~n force as of the date of this Certificate. This Certifieale is exeeu\ed in the City nfIrvine, California, Ihe 18TH day of JANUARY 2006 By Albert Hillebrand, Assistant Secretary ~I-~ ID-I380 (Rev, t2l05) j CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW04-06CSD VAIL RANCH MIDDLE SCHOOL BASKETBALL COURT LIGHTING This is to certify that ~'HVl 8ei"h"icc.\ GIn.. (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 cootracted 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. PW04. 06CSD, VAIL RANCH MIDDLE SCHOOL BASKETBALL COURT LIGHTING, situated in the City of T emecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: 4 C ~ INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK HERE ~ The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any " unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts,: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute :{ ," .~ Pursuant to Public Contract Code !l7100, 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, ~ l i;. , ' I ," , ,r; ir; ,i :} Dated: leX! lor I / ;nR 22 By: 4/l~ I':J A~ Signature ' '" \. G)(J n I <:;'€ /-Ir1,ha C)D.evttf-rons' ~ Print Name and Title-r , l' I R;\CIPlPROJECTS\PW04\PW04-06CSD v~ Ranch M5\Specs\PWCl4-iJOCSD.02 SKI Doc.ool RELEASE R,j ITEM NO. 18 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ~ CIl ~ TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman D, Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Retrofit Existing Play Areas at Lama Linda Parks PREPARED BY: Jerzy Kanigowski, Facility Maintenance Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the Agreement with Miracle Playground Sales in the amount of $116,613,00 plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $11,661,30 to retrofit playground equipment at Lama Linda Parks, BACKGROUND: Lama Linda Park contains three separate playground areas, The existing playground equipment, rubber surfacing and sand have been in place for approximately 14 years, The original rubber surfacing and sand has deteriorated and is in need of immediate replacement. Upon further review of the playground equipment it was determined that many of the components no longer met current standards set by; Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Disabilities Act (ADA), Therefore it is recommended that we retrofit the existing equipment and install new safety surfacing, The existing play structures are Miracle Playground equipment. Retrofits to the equipment must be made using Miracle parts, Additionally, the rubber surfacing replacement represents a small portion of the project and is best accomplished in conjunction with the play equipment retrofits, Therefore, Miracle Playground Sales is a sole source for this project and no bid process is necessary, FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the construction contract is $116,613,00, plus an additional 10% contingency of $11,661,30, Sufficient funds have been included in the Capital Improvement Budget in account number 210-190-192 for FY 2005/2006, ATTACHMENTS: 1) Contract 2) CIP Project Description Page CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONTRACT AGREEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (Minor Project) THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT made and entered into as of March 28, 2006 by and between the Temecula Community Services District, ("City") and Miracle Playground Sales ("Contractor"), In consideration ofthe mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor recognizes' and agrees that this Agreement is for the purpose of establishing a contractual relationship between the City and the Contractor for the future repair, improvement, maintenance and/or construction upon real and personal property ofthe City ofTemecula, Work will include emergency repairs, emergency maintenance, maintenance work, and/or minor construction work. The work under this Agreement is non-exclusive and Community Services District reserves the right to hire other contractors to perform similar work. The procedure for assigning work is set forth in Exhibit" A", Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, The Director of Community Services ("Director"), or his designee, is authorized to approve the work in accordance with the procedures of this Agreement. 2, TERM OF AGREEMENT, This Agreement shall commence as of March 28, 2006 and shall terminate as of Decem ber 30, 2006 unless sooner terminated as provided in this Agreement. 3, PAYMENT, a, Contractor shall be compensated for actual work performed on the basis of the labor and equipment rates set forth in Exhibit "B", Labor and Equipment Rates, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, the cost of materials approved by the Director pursuant to the procedures set forth in Exhibit "A", The maximum amount of payment under this Agreement shall be One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four Dollars and Thirty Cents ($128,274,30) unless a higher amount is approved by the City Council by amendment to this Agreement. b, Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed, Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth day of each month for services provided during the previous month, The invoice shall describe the approved work assignment under which the work has been performed, Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt ofthe invoice as to all non-disputed fees, Ifthe City disputes any ofthe Contractor's fees, it shall give written notice to the Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt ofthe invoice ofthe disputed fees on the invoice, 4, PERFORMANCE. Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform 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. Contractor shall cause a full time experienced Superintendent to be present on the site during all construction and to oversee and supervise the Work. 5, CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be fumished and work performed and completed subject to the approval of the City or its authorized representatives, and the quality ofthe workmanship shall be guaranteed for one year from date of acceptance, 6, WAIVER OF CLAIMS, On or before making final request for payment under Paragraph 2" above, Contractor shall submit to the City, in writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out ofthis contract; the acceptance by Contractor of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against the City under or arising out ofthis Contract except those previously made in writing and request for payment. c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnifY agreement with each claim for payment. 7, PREVAILING W AGES, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 ofthe 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 ofthe Department ofIndustrial Relations, These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office ofTemecula, 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 District, as a penalty, the sum of$25,OO 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 ofthe provisions ofthe Contract. 8, SUSPENSION OR TERMINA nON 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 ofthis 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, 9, 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 delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any ofthe terms or conditions ofthis Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice ofthe 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 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. 10, INDEMNIFICA nON, 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, 11, LIABILITY INSURANCE. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration ofthe contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees, a, Minimum Scope ofInsurance, Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (I) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001), (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed, 1/87) covenng Automobile Liability, code I (any auto), (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of Califomia and Employer's Liability Insurance, b, Minimum Limits ofInsurance, Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (I) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily lllJUry and property damage, (3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease, c, Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions, Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment oflosses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses, d, Other Insurance Provisions, The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (I) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers, (2) For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess ofthe Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers, c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc (4) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability, (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City, e, Acceptability ofInsurers, Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A,M, Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City, f. 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. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City, All endorsements are to be received and approved by the District before work commences, As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications, g, Contractor, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "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 ofthe work ofthis Contract." 12, TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is ofthe essence in this Contract. 13, 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 City, or bind the City in any manner. 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 the City, The City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 14, 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 ofthe Contractor to comply with this section, 15, 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 ofletting this Contract out to proposal will be accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part ofthe Contractor to fulfill in every detail all requirements ofthis Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as a basis for any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension oftime, c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc 16, CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT, After the completion ofthe 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 ofthe laws ofthe State of California, 17, BOOKS AND RECORDS, Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance ofthis Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative ofthe City, 18, UTILITY LOCATION, The City acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215, 19, REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS, Contractor agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in accordance with Government Code Section 4215, 20, INSPECTION, The Work shall be subject to inspection and testing by the 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 ofthe Work. 21. 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 handi cap, 22, 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 N oti ce: To City: City of Temecula POBox 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Contractor: Miracle Playground Sales 27464 Cornmerce Center Drive Suite 1 Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (800) 264-7225 c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc Contact Person: Kelly 23, ASSIGNMENT, The Contractor shall not assign the performance ofthis Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent ofthe City of Temecula, 24, LICENSES, At all times during the term ofthis 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. 25, GOVERNING LAW, The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws ofthe State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities ofthe parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation ofthis Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with jurisdiction over the City of Temecula, In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as detennined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation, 26, PROHIBITED INTEREST, No member, officer, or employee ofthe City ofTemecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract ofthe 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 the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business ofthe 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 )cornmencing with Section 1090) or Article 4,6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I ofthe Government Code ofthe State of California, 27, ENTIRE AGREEMENT, This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations ofthe 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. 27, 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreementto be executed the day and year first above written, TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Chuck Washington, President c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc Attest: Susan W, Jones, MMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M, Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Miracle Playground Sales 27464 Commerce Center Drive Suite I Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (800) 264-7225 Contact Person: Kelly By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: (Two Signatures Required for Corporations) c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc EXHIBIT "A" Contractor recognizes' and agrees that this Agreement is for the purpose of establishing a contractual relationship between the Temecula Community Services District and the Contractor for the future repair, improvement, maintenance services and/or construction upon real and personal property of the City of Temecula, Work will include retrofit existing play equipment at Lorna Linda Parks, The procedure for assigning work is set forth as follows: 1. Director of Community Services ("Director") or his designee shall submit to Contractor a written "Request for Work", The Request for Work shall include a description of the work to be completed, the time for completion ofthe work, and the plans and specifications, if any, work. 2, Within five (5) business days ofthe date ofthe Request for Work, Contractor shall respond in writing to the Request for Work and advise Director whether it can perform the work and specifY the cost of material which will be required and the estimated cost oflabor and equipment necessary to complete the work in accordance with the labor and equipment rates set forth in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. 3, In the event emergency work is required, the Director may transmitthe Request for Work orally to the Contractor. As soon as practical following the emergency, the Contractor and Director shall in good faith confirm in writing the scope ofthe emergency work undertaken, 4, Upon acceptance ofthe Contractor's response by the Director, the Contractor shall proceed with the work. The performance ofthe work shall be pursuant to the terms ofthis Agreement. c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc EXHIBIT B PARTS AND LABOR Please see attachment c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\16040\$ASQpdf797532.doc MAR-07-2006 15:51 FROM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 951676B706 TO: 9096946488 P.l/8 MIRACLE .. .. ~ " .. o c: Z l;I III l> .. .. III QUOTATION 27464 Commerce Center Drive # I Temecula, CA 92590 (800) 264-7225 (951) 676-8706 FAX Date Quotation # 3/7/2006 203748D Customer Name 0.:1 fApJ l.iAJ City of T emecula P.O, Box 9033 6?~~ Temecula. Ca 92589 Jerzy . Terms Rep FOB Project Net 30 JS factory Loma Vista North . Item Description Qty Rate TOTAL 718-852-4s 31/2" 00 Arch Frame w 4 Slashproof Seals MC (Note: 1 1,365,10 1,365,10T reuse of existing swing parts) KC/CS Sys.., Kids' Choice Playsystem 1 10,631,25 10,631.25T 593.107 Pirouette 780,30 780,30T Freight Commercial Freight 1 1,087.27 1,087.27 Fibar Fibar System #312 - 12" compacted Fibar material, Fibar 1 7,105,20 7,105,20T cloth, Fibar Mats, Fibar Drain strips Freight Commercial Freight 1 855,00 855,00 Site Work Site Work: demo and removal of existing equipment, I. 1 13,815,00 13,81$,00 ' , removal of rubber surfacing/sub base, removal of sand, address drainage issue (if any). install new equipment and Fibar System #312, , . . Jt~ Rtv"~ ~~m The acceptance signature below serves as authorization 10 order the items quoted and indicates acceptance of the listed prices and payment terms. Signature above will not substitute for a Purchase Order, if a Purchase Qrder is required by customer. Unloading, storage and installalion of equipment upon arrivai is not included in above prices unless specifically noted on quote. Subtotal $35,639,12 Sales Tax (7,75%) $1,540,84 TOTAL $37,179,96 State law requires that playgrounds be installed by manufacturer certified installers or inpsected afler installation before first use by a CPSI. Should you requiro such an inspection from us there will be a separate charge as the'salo of the equipment does not include the cost of after installalion inspeclion unless specifically noled in the quotation, SIGNATURE r;;::' I MAR-07-2006 15:51 FRDM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 951676B706 (i)U lis E~ I~ I" U (i il" h~ dli I~ " ~ i ~ ia i~ i~. !d \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ , , \ \. / , \ .I II I~ ," ",/"---_." ''\ ......... \......../ "\ TO: 9096946488 "" .; o o ". '" /"'\ , \ \. , \ \ \ \ i:i e <( ~ :;; o " .., o L Co \ ,- ,~/' \ i I / P,2/8 en w, ~I Cl z ::> o c:: c.!l >- ::s 0- w ..J () ~ :E .~~ O::J ~O li'W O::ii zW .:1- f'1L !!lO > ~~ 0- JO , I wi ~3~! ii' ~ '~ U) " o! iii o i- ~ ~ ~~ ' lU Sl t~ ~ ~" III is ~~ ~:i -- 0", "" . ;z lU .~ ~ ~ I~ z ~ " <0 ~ E I a " . , . B .. . ~~r':," if'd,. .........-..... ~AR-07-2006 15:51 FROM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 9516768706 TO: 9096946488 P.3/8 MIRACLE ... S III ~ c: Z " '^ > ~ m '^ QUOTATION 27464 Commerce Center Drive # I Temecula, CA 92590 (800) 264-7225 (951) 676-8706 FAX Date Quotation # 3/7/2006 2037470 Customer Name City of Temecula P.O, Box 9033 Temecula, Ca 92589 Jerzy Terms Rep FOB Project Net 30 JS factory Lama Vista South Item Description Qty Rate TOTAL TC Systems Retrofit existing play area w/Tots' Choice Playsystem 1 11,046,00 11,046,OOT (Note: reuse of existing swing parts) 718-852-4 Tot's Choice 4 seat swing w/2 tot seats and 2 belt seats 1 1,365,10 1,365,10T 714-260 Kids Choice playhouse wlroof 1 3,361,75 3,361.75T 943 Multi Bouncer 1 1,535.95 1,535,95T 714-734-1 Freestanding Safety Panel (Ages 2-5) ,1 172.00 172,OOT Freight Commercial Freight 1 1,864,50 1,864.50 Fibar Fibar System #312 - 12" compacted Fibar material, Fibar 1 6,321.60 6.321,60T cloth, Fibar Mats, Fibsr Drain strips Freight Commercial Freight 1 836,00 836.00 Site Work Site Work: demo and removal of existing equipment, 1 14,331.00 14,331,00 removal of rubber surfacing/sub base, removal of sand, address drainage issue (if any), install new equipment, install Fibar System #312 . . The acceptance signature below serves as authorization to order the items quoted and indicates acceptance of the listed plices and payment terms, Signature above will not substitute for a Purchase Order. Wa Purchase Order is required by customer, Untoading, storage and insta!lation of equipment upon arrival is not included in above prices unless specifically noted on quale, State law requires that playgrounds be installed by manufacturer certified installers or inpsected after installation before firsl use by a CPSI. Should you requiro such an inspection from us there wiil be a separate charge as lhe sale of the equipment does not include the cost of after installation inspection unless specifically noted in the quotation, SIGNATURE Subtotal $40,833,90 Sales Tax (7,75%) $1,844,69 TOTAL $42,678.59 MRR-07-2006 15:51 FROM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 9516768706 SIM GNnca:DlYN -- -~ -:i n ... III Q5 ~~ OS 11m ~ -lm mo S:c m-l 0:1: C~ ~~ UiiI!:l ~ l!i~:!:8) ~ . ~ m.. p n n c::o () ,,~ ~ jO r- ~~ ~ ~ m ~~ id i ~ ~ * ~ i ..... c:. , "Z [lIfE I ~ !Iii . ~ . . i [ z ,. ~ ~ ; Q ;; , l! i~ ~ TO: 909694648B " ... ....-- ---...., , i \ I. !! ffi "8 fi ~ "~l ,~ ~~I rnJ ~!i~'I~ . t , ,~ .' t~ I~ yg ~ ~ I I \ \ i ----// ;~I ~ 'U ... o .... ell n .... ~. > ... ell Po " " '-~ N CD Ol 01 ~ "" P,4/B -1 i N I (Jl (f) " c .... ::r 3! " '< > ... ell C .. .. ~ 27464 Commerce Center Drive # I ~ T emecula, CA 92590 ~ -- (800) 264-7225 (951) 676-8706 FAX " ;: .. m .. MAR-07-2006 15:51 FROM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 9516768706 MIRACLE Customer Name City of Temecula p.,O, Box 9033 Temecula, Ca 92589 Jerzy TO: 9096946488 P,5/B QUOTATION Date Quotation # 3/7/2006 2037460 Terms Rep FOB Project Net 30 JS factory Loml:'l Vista Middle. Item Description Qty Rate TOTAL TC Systems Retrofit existing play area wrrots' Choice Playsystem - 1 11,459,00 11.459,OOT ages 5-12 (note: reuse of existing activity panel and swing seats) 718-852-4s 31/2" 00 Arch Frame w 4 Slashproof Seats MC 1 1,237,60 1,237,60T 714-734 Freestanding Safety Panel (Ages 5-12) 1 172,00 172.00T Freight Commercial Freight 1 1,498,01 1.498,01 Fibar Fibar System #312 - 12" Fibar surfacing, Fibar cloth, Fibar 1 6,321,60 6,321,60T mats, Fibar Drain strips Freight Commercial Freight 1 836,00 836,00 Site Work Site Work: demo and removal of existing equipment, 1 13,743,00 13,743,00 removal of rubber surfacing/sub base, removal of sand, address drainage issues (if any), install new equipment, install Fibar System #312 The acceptance signature below selVes as authorization to order ,the items quoted and indicates acceptance of the listed prices and payment terms. Signature above will not substitute for a Purchase Order, if a Purchase Order is required by customer, Unloading, storage and installalion of equipment upon arrival is not , included in above prices unless specifically noted on quote, Slate law requires th~t playgrounds be installed by manufacturer certified installers or inpsected after installation before first use by a CPSI. Should you require such an inspection from us there will be a separale charge as the sale of the equipment does not include the cost of after installalion inspection unless specifically noted in the quotation, Sublotal Sales Tax (7,75%) TOTAL . SIGNATURE Pago 1 MAR"07-2005 15:52 FROM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 9515758705 TD:9095945488 P,5/8 MIRACLE QUOTATION .. S '" ~ c: z " ~ .. m '" 27464 Commerce Center Drive # I Temecula, CA 92590 (800) 264-7225 (951) 676-8706 FAX Date Quotation # 3/7/2006 2037460 Customer Name City ofTemecula P,O. Box 9033 Temecula, Ca 92589 Jerzy Terms Rep FOB Project Net 30 JS factory Lorna Vista Middle Item . Description Qty Rate TOTAL EXCLUDES: fees & permits, work outside of play areas, . The acceptance signature below serves as authorrzallon to order the items quoted and indicates acceptance of the listed prices and payment terms, Signature above will not substitute for a Purchase Order, it a Purchase Order is required by customer. Subtotal $35,267.21 Sales Tax (7,75%) $1.487,24 TOTAL $36,754.45 Unloading, storage and installation of equipment upon arrival is not included in above prices unless specifically noted on quole, Slate law requires that playgrounds be installed by manufacturer certified installers or inpsected after installation before first use by a CPSI. Should you require such an inspection from uS there will be a separate charge as the sale of the equipment does nul include the cost of after installation inspection unless specifically noted in (he quotation. SIGNATURE Page 2 M~R-07-2006 15:52 FROM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 9516768706 TO: 9096946488 '-'-" aMI aNnoIDlYW - ,~ - ,~ n t- In Q5 ~~ O~ ":;! ';: m_ S:" m'" o Iii c:~ ~;o< i!litI ~ s: ~~ Iii ~ ;;0 , g ~ )> ~~ }: - C1r ~~ 03: -? )10 ~ m f~ '"l;l '1J ,~g~ ~~ ~ , c ~ f:! ;0 G) ~ ';;0 ~ ~ 0 '" C Z ,0 I(f) ,)> 'r 1m :00 . "- ~ " if , i ~ Ii 1 ~ ~ '11 ~ it 8 3 , I~ Il~~ I II"'" ; ITI i -0 -, o ..... (1) () rl- < (1) )> -, (1) o II N ()) ()l OJ (/l .0 -+, rl- n8~ ~ ~~i / 4 on ~I~ I~ f'1$ I ~~~ i~~ m !:l I:i~ h~ ~~~ z ~ ...---...... ?~ ~". ~~ b \ '. \, .....~~ ~! J . ~ / /'. ~~ /~ ~!, , \ ISli!~ >' "''- g /' ',------~ P.7'8 MAR-08-2006 12:01 FRoM:MIRACLE PLAYGROUND 9516768706 TO: 96946488 P,l/l C&rV1 - (JtJpJ.a/td -Hil}1. +v ~ J q-j a1A.. o-f ~---rA.. ku /6<'- MARttL ' 'CERiTIFICATE OF INSURANCE C!RTI~ICAT[! NUNDI!R . ,." CHI"OO 1268552.1 0 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED A9 A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLoY AND CONFeRS Marsh USA'lnc. NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER OTHER THAIt THOSE PROVIDI!.D IN TN!!. BOO Markel Slreet, Suite 2600 POLICY. THIS CERTIFICATI!. Does NOT AMI!ND, I!XTI!HD OR ALTI!R THE!. COVERAGE!. $1 Louis, MO 63101-2500 AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN. AUn: Kathy Solm COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE . .-....-..--...--. COMPANY 52253'CAS-RM.05/0B A LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ------...--..... ....--... INSURED COMPANY Play Power. Inc. B lW IN CITY FIRE INS CO Mi~cre Rac:realio'l equipment Co., Soft Play, LLC. .......-.--..- I:-Z Dock, Inc., PlayPower Export. Inc. Kid Play, Inc HAGS COMPANY Playground. PlayPower L T Fanning'on, Inc., C NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS, CO, OF PITTSBURGH, PA 13620 Eas! Reese Boulevard~ SuIte 300 Huntersville. NC 28078 COMPANY D WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO COVERAGES "This. .c~l1iftcale' .s.lIpe.[S~~f~fld.: r!,.p.I(lGe8'afly_.p...~viotJalv. I~~I~~p C!.El!."f!!.~. for lhe pollcy.pe(lo.ct_Jloted b.ola.w- 0 lHlS IS TO CERTIFY lHATPOUCIl:S ()J! INSURANCE DESCRIBED HERIiIN 1.IAve ()ECN lSSUl::D TO 'THE INSURED NAMED HEREIN FOR TI-lE POLICY rERIOD INOlCATED NOTWIlHSTANOING ANY RF.QUIA:EMEIIIT, TJ::RM OR CONDmON OF ^I'N CONTRACT OR OTHER OOCUMENTWIlH RESPECT TO WHICH TI1E CERTIfICATE MAY Sf: I5SUED ()R MAY pF.~rAIN. THE INSURANCE;: AfFORDED BY TI-lE POLICIES OESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJEOT TO ALL THE 1E~M~. C()Notrl()Nfl AND GX'(:I,.USION$ OF SuCti POLlClE:S, AGGREGATJ:: LIMrrs SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REO\Jl;F.ll!;lY PAID CLAIMS. ,-, .., ..... CO TYPI;OF INSuRAN'CE POLICY NUMBER POLlCY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMIts 'T< PAltlIMftilIOO/VY) DATE (MMfDD/Y'f) A GENERAL I.IABlLlTY EB1-641.004540.025 03/31/06 0:!/31fOB ,g.~~~~~G?RL~~ $ 5,000,000 X COMMER.ClAl GENERAL LIABILITY ...... f,!'l.Ohl!!Q'!'~2.~!MI-'/Of> AGG $ 5,000,000 ~~ CLA1~MADf. 0 OCCUR P\:~~qNA!:: ~ AIW IN.lI!.R.,!. $ 1,000,000 X OWNER'S If, CONmAc..'TOR'S PROT EACH OCCUF\l'i:ENC:e $ 1,000,000 SJ&1IiSOO-OOO, -;;~~'~~~~;~~Y-~~1!!~ $ ",OO~,,~ - .... MED EXP 'A"'" anD ....rslln\ $ NIA B AUHlMOiJll.i UAD1I.JT'W' B3UENRF9550 03131/05 03/31106 $ , 1,000,000 -,;- COMBINED SINGLJ:: LIMIT B ~ ANYAUT'O 83 UEN RZ1033 03131105 03131105 n_. ~ ALL OWNED AUTOS aODn.. Y INJl)A.Y $ (pllrper.ron) X SCHEDULED AUTOS ,.. ...,- HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ X NON.OWNED AUTOS (Pllrnr.ddonl) X 1000 Comprehensive Oed. PROPERTYDAtdAGE $ X 1000 Collision Oed. CARAGE I.1AIJILltf AUTO ONL V - EA ACCIDGNT $ ANY AIJI'O OTHeR THAN AUTO ONLY: FACH ACCIDF.NT $ AGGREGATE $ C EXCE$S I.IABIU'r''W' BE2963590 03131/05 03131106 EACH OCCURRENce $ 5,000,000 X 11MBREUA FORM AGGREGATE $ 5,000,000 OTliER lHAN UMBRELLA FORM SIR $ 10,000 D W A"'~~_",_\,IMP~_~SA!ION AND WCJZ91534636035 07/01106 07101/06 X I T~~~lfMWs I I O~ EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY lilliACH ACCIDCNT $ 1,000,000 lHEPR(lPRiSTOf.l/ ~:NC' Cl DIS.~SE.pOllCY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 PARTNERSfEXECUllVE a. DlS~S[!'€ACH EMPLOYEE $ , ,000,000 OfFICER.S ME' EXCL orHER PElilCf{lf'110N OF OP!AATIOlfSllOCATIONSIVEHICLE51SPECIAL ITEMS Ptoof of Insurance CERTI~ICATE HPLDER -,... - ...... '" ,CAN~LATJPN'.7": .. - ........-..._-- .-.- .-.. ..-.--. -" - ,.... ,. ..,-,..~...^. ....-. ._._..___..h_... - !lHOUl.D ANY OF THE POllClES CESCFtIClEO HERlllN UIl t.:J\NCt':l.Lll' plI OAt: TMr; r-)(f'IRATlON DAn; THEREOF lllE INSURER. AFFORDING covr:;,RJlG/: WILL l:N~\i:.~vOI! 1(1 MAll ---3fl. DAYS WRITTEN NOfJCE TO THE E\idonoo Only CERTIFICATE HOlDER NrlMED HEREIN. IllIT ""llURE III M"IL ~1Ir:H NOTle(: !lHAU IUPD!lE NO OBUaATlON OR lIf1aILITYOF IINY KIND lJI"ON TIlE IN:;ll!u:r~ A~tO!rlllNG l';QVr;RAGfi. ITll AGENTS- OR REFRE<lENl'A1WIl5. OR THE IaSUEROFTHISCERTIFK;^TE. MARSH USA INC. ~o..CI~ BY; Alfred A. Pelerfeso ._..n_. ._ ._-". .. ,- ..'--""-"'- .. 'u vALiii'AS OF: 07107/05 ""41(3/02), .. . .. - - -..... .. ,. . >-30"" g. ~ ., " =;jot-.> '" "" V. t:J ~ 0 s- a 0 '!'l Ef ~ ~ ~ ~ .z . .... ... o "" "" .... - v. v. 00 bo 00 00 fi " " s,o ~fI.O '" ~ i5.Cj ~ e '" .. !'!. '" ! l<' ~ " (l '" "', o " ~~Q> e. f!j, Sl rr en ~ 2" ~: a en (5' ~ ~ o' t:J f;A f;A &:t f;A N - - = v..-N-= ONV'tNUI OVtb't.hb OOCO=" 0000 f;A fi'7 &'3- -&9 =- > t::l~ a" " ;;' N = = 1" =, " N = = ot = 00 N = = 00 , = Ie N = = Ie , .... = CjCj t;;l--"N--ei ONVtN-=@"to. g~g~i~ oooo~= >-3= '" " .. = !.~ ::p:'t .s. " ~ Cj '" '" :l' "" oot::l 8 " 'Cl ., " ::l. s'e '"d" ... a ~. .. " & "''''n ~~, ~ , Pl S i ~, - en I en 13' <Zl <> " " $, 0.<> " f)j S'I " > 0.<> " <> ~. ~ ~ .. 8.~ 13' ~ [!?o ., , ~t:O !!<o ~r to o IV ..... ~ @ en ~, - ~' en ~ <> 13' "" S' .... ~ " '0 ~ I en !!< t-< o ~ t-< 13' ~ 0'" @, ~ ~ 8. 13' [!? ., I:::: t:J ~ @ en ~ " a ~ <> 13' "" S' .... ~ " '0 ~ g ~ en !!< t-< o ~ t-< 13' 0. ., '" ~ ~ '"d ... .s. " ~ ::l =- ~ ;g ~ q ~ ~ S ~ :;:j ~ t"" o ~ t-< ~ > ~ ~ 00 >-3 ~ >-3 ~ <Zl ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ..... ITEM NO. 19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FEBRUARY 28, 2006 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:36 PM" in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, and Naggar ABSENT: o AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones, PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments, CONSENT CALENDAR 22 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 22,1 Approve the minutes of February 14, 2006, 23 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Bids for Rouqh Gradinq of the Temecula Education Center - Proiect No, PW06-03 RECOMMENDATION: 23,1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the rough grading of the Temecula Education Center - Project No, PW06-03, 24 Approval of the 2005-06 Mid-Year Budqet Adiustments RECOMMENDATION: 24,1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, RDA 06-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS R:\Minutes\022806 MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Agency Member Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING 25 Third Amendment to the Disposition and Development Aqreement for the Temecula Education Center RECOMMENDATION 25,1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: Director of Housing and Redevelopment Meyer provided the Agency with a staff report (of written material), In response to Agency Member Comerchero's question, Director of Redevelopment Meyer stated that there has not been a determination whether the Fairy Shrimp would be an endangered species or not, but that in an effort to keep the project moving forward, staff would assume that it would be, For Agency Member Washington, Executive Director Nelson stated that the undeveloped reestablished site of the Margarita Community Park would be an acceptable site, and that any costs associated with the move would be reimbursed to the City by the developer. At this time, the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers, it was closed, Noting his full support for the proposed project, Agency Member Comerchero thanked staff for bringing this project forward, Agency Member Washington echoed Agency Member Comerchero's comment. For the youth in the audience, Agency Member Edwards explained the Endangered Species Act, as it would relate to the Fairy Shrimp issue, RESOLUTION NO, 06-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND AGK GROUP, LLC, FOR THE TEMECULA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX 25,2 That the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, RDA 06-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AGK GROUP, LLC, FOR THE TEMECULA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX R:\Minutes\022806 2 25,3 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 06-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE FAIRY SHRIMP HABITAT FROM THE TEMECULA EDUCATION CENTER PROJECT SITE TO MARGARITA COMMUNITY PARK MOTION: City Council Member/Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Nos, 06-22, RDA 06-02, and 06-23, The motion was seconded by City Council/Agency Member Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Nelson commended Director of Public Works Hughes and staff for taking over the grading operations of the proposed site with regard to the Temecula Education Center. RDA AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No additional comment. RDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:48 P,M" the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 21,2006, at 5:30 P,M" for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P,M" City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, Michael S, Naggar, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W, Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes\022806 3 ITEM NO. 20 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager fM<~ /JI!.. LJ8 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: March 21,2006 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490 through PA04-0492 for the site development and construction of 428 residential units on 36,19 acres ofa 47,72 acre site located atthe northeastern carner of Lama Linda Road and Temecula Lane PREPARED BY: Christine Damko, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1, Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA04-0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04-0491, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04-0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE-FAMIL Y UNITS, 96 TRI-PLEX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR- PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE BACKGROUND: The Temecula Lane Residential project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005 and January 18, 2006, At the December 14, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission and the public had some concernS regarding the consistency of the project with the current zone regulations, the impact on local schools, the environmental determination of the project, and traffic, In addition, some members of the public raised an issue related to the public notice, Based on these concernS and questions surrounding the public notice, the Planning Commission voted 3-0 to continue this item to the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, At the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting, staff provided additional clarification on the project consistency with the current zoning and General Plan standards, provided a copy of the approved Initial Study and a letter from the Temecula Unified School District indicating the project was included in all future student enrollment projections, Traffic issues were addressed by the Department of Public Works, Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission moved to approve the project with a vote of 3-0 (with two Commissioners absent) subject to the following: that the City Council consider the acceleration of the bridge project in the CIP; that a condition be imposed on the applicant to complete the road improvements on Lama Linda Road to Pechanga Parkway; and that Lama Linda Road shall have minimum use as a haul route for importing dirt to the site, Appeal On February 2, 2006, an appeal was filed by Mark Broderick, The subject of the appeal is the location of a future roadway corridor connecting ultimately to Avenida de Missiones, The project was conditioned to extend Via Del Coronado along the eastern end of the projectto cross Temecula Creek and tie into Avenida de Missiones, The appellant contends that this is an unsafe location because it is the entrance to the Bridlevale and Redhawk neighborhoods, as well as, the Erie Stanley Gardner Middle school. The appellant further contends that this connection point would significantly increase traffic impacts at this location and he is requesting that the roadway be relocated through the proposed project so that it intersects with Lama Linda Road and Redwood Road thereby diverting traffic away from the residential neighborhoods and the middle school improving traffic safety and congestion, In addition, the appellant states that Lama Linda Road should be a four lane roadway from Pechanga Parkway to Redwood Road and the future roadway should be a four lane roadway from the intersection of Lama Linda Road and Redwood Road to the Temecula creek, Lastly, the appellant states that extending Redwood Road through the Temecula Lane project would separate the project into two land use categories (single family and multiple family) and would be better land use planning, Response to the Appeal This requested arterial is not included in the General Plan and is not needed to mitigate the project's impacts, The proposed Temecula Lane project actually results in far less trips generated than the potential office and commercial uses (2,850 Average Daily Trips [ADT] versus 12,699 ADT), The residential use versus office and commercial will also reduce travel demands between Lama Linda and Route 79 South, The Temecula Lane project was appropriately conditioned in conformance with the General Plan to dedicate right-of-way for the extension of a two-lane collector (Via del Coronado) which will eventually cross Temecula Creek to Avenida de Missiones, The Redwood Road alignment and four-lane classification was reviewed and recommended by the General Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) at the suggestion of the appellant. The CAC's recommendation which moved through our Commissions during the recent General Plan update was greatly overshadowed by North General Kearny and the road closure issues that dominated the public hearing process, However, the CAC's recommendations were not ultimately accepted by the City Council upon the advice of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. The Director's position was based on low traffic volumes on Lama Linda (3,700 ADT, Level Of Service [LOS] A on 2 lane collector) and Via del Coronado (4,000 ADT, LOS A on 2 lane collector), and on the difficult and costly geometric constraints that the four-lane Redwood Road alignment would have created, The City Council adopted the two-lane collector standard along the Via del Coronado alignment to meet the needs of the area, With respect to the appellant's contention that separating the project with a four lane roadway would result in a better project because it separates the single family homes from the multiple family homes, staff does not support this kind of segregation of uses where there will be one homeowner's association and shared recreational amenities and trails, The applicant has created a single community through the project design and segregating the single family from the multiple family destroys the sense of community, FISCAL IMPACT: None, ATTACHMENTS: CC Resolution No, 06-_ Appeal Minutes from the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing Minutes from the December 14, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing Planning Commission Staff Report for January 18, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO APPROVEPLANNING APPLlCATIO N NO. PA04-0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04-0491, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04-0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS, 96 TRI- PLEX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR-PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Continental Residential Inc" filed Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, B, Planning Application Nos, PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 were processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, C, The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 on December 14, 2005, and on January 18, 2006 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D, The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 on March 21, 2006 at duly noticed hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. Section 2, Findinqs, The City Council, in approving Planning Application No, PA04-0490 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map), PA 04-0491 (Conditional Use Permit), and PA 04-0492 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17,05,010F of the TeB'Cula Municipal Code , Appeal A. The proposed project is consistent with the Traffic Element of the General Plan; The Temecula Lane project was conditioned to extend Via Del Coronado along the eastern end of the project to cross Temecula creek and tie into Avenida de Missiones, The appellant contends that this is an unsafe location because it is the entrance to the Bridalvale and Redhawk neighborhoods, as well as, the Erie Stanley Gardner Middle School, The appellant also states that the future connection should be located from the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Redwood Road to the Temecula creek, This requested arterial is not included in the General Plan and is not needed to mitigate the project's impacts, The Temecula Lane project was appropriately conditioned in conformance with the General Plan to dedicate right-of-way for the extension of a two-lane collector (Via del Coronado) which will eventually cross Temecula Creek to Avenida de Missiones, Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16,09,1400) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 31946 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, and the Municipal Code, The appellant's request to relocate the future roadway corridor (Via Del Coronado) located along the eastern end of the project is not consistent with the General Plan and is not needed to mitigate the project's impacts, The Vesting Tract Map No, 31946 was appropriately conditioned in conformance with the General Plan to dedicate right-of-way for the extension of a two-lane collector (Via Del Coronado), B, The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered to pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; This project is not located with the Williamson Act, and therefore does not propose to subdivide land that has been entered into an Agricultural Contract, C, The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; The project consists of a 10l-lot 428 total residential units) Vesting Tentative Tract Map on property designated for high density residential uses (a portion which should be affordable housing), which is consistent with the General Plan, 0, The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the stockpile and grading permit, which addressed environmental impacts on the site, Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), have been incorporated as conditions for this application, as appropriate, The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act, E, The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and the Building & Safety Division, As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their concerns, Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded, The project is consistent with these documents, F, The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, Prior to the construction of single-family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation, G, The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Vesting Tentative Map, The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, H, The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby); Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fees will be required as a Condition of Approval, Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17,04,010, E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, conditions and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, According to Section 17,10,020,3 of the Development Code and Section H-36 of the General Plan, affordable residential housing is permitted in the Professional Office (PO) zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit, The development will set aside 86 of the 118 two-bedroom homes (20 percent of the total proposed units) located within the four-plex portion of the site for buyers with moderate incomes, This project is in compliance with the Government Code low income requirements and the Development Code, B, The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the General Plan, Staff has reviewed the proposed residential use against the adjacent land uses and has determined that the proposed use will be consistent with the surrounding uses, The area in which the project is to be located is near existing residential uses, The proposed use will not adversely affect any of the surrounding uses because the project proposes a residential use surrounded by existing residential uses, C, The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The proposed project is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines for the City of Temecula, Staff has reviewed the proposed project to determine consistency with the Development Code and has found that the project meets all of the applicable requirements, The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed residential project without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features required by the Development Code in order to integrate the use with other uses on the site and in the neighborhood, D, The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; Staff has reviewed the proposed residential use and found that it will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Fire Prevention has reviewed circulation and drive aisle widths and has determined that the site will able to be adequately served by the Fire Department in an emergency situation, Development Plan (Code Section 17,05,01 OF) A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City; The proposed multi and single-family development is permitted in the Professional Office Use designation standards contained in the City's Development Code, The Development Code states that a residential use is permitted if affordable housing is provided on a portion of the project, The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed, The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes, According to Section 17,10,020,3 of the Development Code and Section H-36 of the General Plan, affordable residential housing is permitted in the Professional Office (PO) zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit, The development will set aside 86 of the 118 two- bedroom homes (20 percent of the total proposed units) located within the four- plex portion of the site for buyers with moderate incomes, This project is in compliance with the Government Code low income requirements and the Development Code, B, The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the single-family homes and multi-family development, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site, The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, Section 3, Environmental Compliance, A Notice of Determination for Planning Application No.'s PA 04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 was prepared per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162, In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Determination will be issued in compliance with CEQA Section 15162 - Subsequent Negative Declaration, Section 4, Conditions, hat the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby denies the appeal and approves Planning Application No, PA 04-0490 (Vesting Tract Map), PA04-0491 (Conditional Use Permit), PA04-0492 (Development Plan) Temecula Lane, subject to the conditions of approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 21 st day of March , 2006, Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W, Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W, Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No, 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 21stday of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W, Jones, MMC City Clerk City ojr rr'emecuCa 43200 Business Park Drive P,O, Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 (951) 694-640Q FAX (951) 694-6477 .4PPEAL (PUlBLIC HEARING) Planning Application No,_ ';",::,,,,,;:;"-,;",,:,,;::(:"-,',.:.,, .',.:',:__:,__"_'__","",',:_', ,_ ' .. ;";.....::.,!,:",::",,,,,.. n,'_.:"'; ':'.:;:",_._:___---: ';. " ,'----- :',----...-;0': "::.:: " ".':'.. :::-_C::..." -_.-':..:.... _,'::, ''''''''''-'':-'''.., ," .',--' ,,' :.-'. PROJIECT'INFORMATION .:',;':::','::," :=J""'", "':!:"';,i/:'_':'",_::.>:,:,_:, ,'_co',:." .n__........._.... ,.._ '._ '," ___".'...._nn_.:... ,',". ;';: :::':::-~;'.::,<j,::'-,'-!./:',:';:' "-'-'-""'''' . .__ ,.H '" ..... . ..,c........,."....._.,.:._-....... "-'''-'''''',-'''' ....,... _...._._._n_....... _ " -' ,', " ',. ,,' '.:~. :'. "-,, ',;. ..-"'.. i '-'.:'",>---,'- ",-.-"",,-.,;,., "..,;..,.,..;.-,.......,'::;'".. "'.'-" -'- ,'.'-,"-'''' , , i iiJ :-;:,';U;;-';?-:':::: ,:H:' --',:':~, I '''':;''''':""l , -;.,~,;..., "---- "" m'._".. .. &:,:;:1;, .. . . . " '''''..' - ~ . "c, ".".,.>----':..: ':';'-::,::_-i-,<":':.:':: .-,. ,'.....,-.."' """'_..--,"'-''- . '-'---,-;,;.:...'-' Original Planning Application Number(s): PA04-0490, PA04.0491, PA04-0492_ Appealing the decision of (SpeCify Director of Planning, Director's Hearing. or Planning Commission and Action Dat'l): Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Briefly specify what action or decision is being appealed: _The Approval of the Temecula Lane Project, 0:;:.,-';"', ......,~.,.,-;-- .. .,"'_-",,:, _:":::':,':,:",;!',,,:.',:;,,;,:,:"'_:.::::'- .':.'__:_ '';':-'_-'_':'-':;-'',:..',i','';:';-::-,:':,''::'',,; AD~ITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATIc:iN __ ' " ',': """.' '.' ._ __..- :' '." . .. - n_'-.: '" ,_ '--_ cc.. " . -,' " "'"".; ~: ,'." . ;'C';"';_:-; '.;<,_"",," "'u,'" , --..,', ";"Y:i,},ii'<':" ~ 'I-'-: ~<"_:J II'''" '. ,,'.'. I" .... . ~ '!ii:::;;';~~ ':;;,,;;~;;': :,:.,~p~-., .. Legal Description (Tract, Lot No,):Tract 31946, That portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8756 as shown by Parcel Map on file in book 34, pages 34 and 35 of Parcel Maps, records of Riverside COlnty, California, excepting there from any portion lying within Parcel Map 15568, recorded in book 85, pages 37 and 38 on Parcel Maps, records of Riverside county, parcel 1 , 2, and 3 of ,Parcel Map 15568 as shown by map on file on book 85 pages 37 and 38 of maps, records of Riverside County, California, Street Address(es): N/A GenerOl! Location: Northeast Corner of the intersection of Lorna Linda Rd and Temecula Lane, C:\Doc~ments anci setlinSS\"eneaIMy DocumentsIMark\Appeals.completed form,doc 2 j II "-"'",".;- .',',- "V" .. '''', . ,,'. ,",.'- ".'- ,,' .,.,,,. ... - ...... . - . .. ,.. '-'." ..-..... ,--,-,:, ,. ",",' . .,'.. ",,' _':. ',',',' n_. ", --'--.-,', " ""..:, .-.' -',: -n--.:.. __ .., .c--"-'- _ . '. APPLICAN(f/Rep~E$ENTA'I"IY~iOIlVNERlf,J.I"()~IliIATI()N I >J APPELLANT/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT Broderick Mark LAST FIRST D, MI, PHONE NO, _ (951) 694-1052 or (951) 970-2383 FAX NO, _ (951)506-1886_ ADDRESS 45501 Clubhouse Drive - STREET Temecula CITY Ca, STATE 92592_ ZIP E-MAIL _mark.broderick2@verizon.net PROPERTY OWNER: Temecula Lane LLC__REPRESENTATIVE:_Lindsay Quackenbush_ PHONE NO, _760-496-3207 FAX NO, _760-496-3331__ ADDRESS_41743 Enterprise Circle North #207 Temecula CA STREET CITY STATE 92590 ZIP - E-MAIL _lrquaCkenbush@drhorton.com_. o I certify that al/ filing requirements have been satisfied for my application. I further undE,rstand thatan incomplete application cannot be accepted for processing. APPlicanrsSignature4A~1L- p>~(./ Date:? -.6 ~D{P Owner Certification o I certify under the penalty of the laws of the State of California that I am the property owner of the property that is the subject matter of this al'plication and I am authorizing to and hereby do consent to the filing of this application and acknowledge that the final approval by the City ofTemeclila, if any, may result in restrictions, limitations and construction obligations being Imposed on this re,tI property. Owner/Authorized Agent Signature: Date: Print Name: Written authori~ation from the legal property owner is required. An authorized agent for thE' owner must attach a notarized letter of authorization from the legal property owner. ~:i., C:\Oocuments and SettingsIRenea\My DocumentsIMarklAppeals-completed'!Qrm,doc 3 Section A. An appeal of the Planning Commission approval for the Temecula Lane residential project located on the northeast corner of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane. The Planning Commission approved the subject property on January 18, 2006. Planning Application Numbers: P A04-0490, P A04-049l, P A04-0492 llPN:96l-0l0-0l6,018,02l Legal Description: That portion of Parcell and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8756 as shown by Parcel Map on file in book 34, pages 34 and 35 of Parcel Maps, records of Riverside County, California, excepting there from any portion lying within Parcel Map 15568, recorded in book 85, pages 37 and 38 on Parcel Maps, records of Riverside County, parcell, 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 15568 as shown by map on file on book 85 pages 37 and 38 of maps, records of Riverside County, California. Section B. The appeal issue is not whether or not to construct the project, but the location of where the future roadway corridor, running through the subject property, will connect at Loma Linda Road. It is no secret that there are traffic circulation and safety problems associated with school pick-up and drop-off areas throughout the City. The location of the dedicated right-of-way for the future roadway corridor approved by the Planning Commission will intersect at Loma Linda Road and Via Del Coronado. This intersection is the entrance to the Bridlevale and Rehhawk residential neighborhoods, as well as the Erie Stanley Gardner Middle School. This connection point would significantly increase impacts at this location, and could have tragic results. By relocating this roadway through the subject property, so that it intersects at Loma Linda Road and Redwood Road, through traffic would be directed away from residential neighborhoods and the middle school, improving traffic safety and congestion. Traffic safety problems are most acute where vehicle traffic occurs within short peak periods, such as schools. (Circulation Element, Circulation Plan, Traffic Safety) Work with schools and developers to improve circulation at pick-up and drop off areas. (Circulation Element, Goals and Policies, Traffic Safety, Goal 6, Policy 6.5) Work with local schools, the school district, and developers to improve traffic safety and reduce congestion caused by picking up and dropping off students. (Circulation Element, Implementation Programs, C-9 School Traffic Safety) The relocation of the future roadway connection on Loma Linda Road to Redwood Road would certainly change the dynamics of the project area planned as single-family residences, possibly resulting in fewer units, and separating the two land use categories with a roadway. However, the multi-family project area could possibly experience additional units, hopefully resulting in approximately the same total project dwelling units. More importantlv. the safety of Temecula residents must alwavs be the City's hie:hest priority. Additionally, The new roadway would act as an appropriate transition between the higher density and lower density units, by preserving the scale and character of the lower density residential developments, and preservine the desirable characteristics of Quiet. calm. safe. familv- oriented neie:hborhoods. which is also a hieh priority for the City. (Community Design Element, Goals and Policies, DistrictlNeighborhood Preservation And Enhancement, Goal 3, Policy 3.2) (Land Use Element, Land Use Plan, Preserving Residential Neighborhoods) The other issue regarding the Temecula Lane project is the planning of the CIP project, "Temecula Creek crossing to provide supplemental access to SR-79South". This route will be constructed by completing a future roadway through the subject property. The widths and location of the roads that will make up this new access route to Highway 79 South was the subject of extensive discussion during the recent General Plan Update process. The General Plan Advisory Committee spent a considerable amount of time on this issue, and recommended in the Draft General Plan, that Loma Linda Road and the future roadway corridor through the subject property be designated as 4-lane roadways because of traffic safety and circulation concerns, this will be the last remaining land option to construct a new roadway corridor, and there can be no mistakes with regard to future roadway capacities. (For example, in the past, city officials projected that SR 79 South would easily accommodate all existing and future cumulative traffic impacts to SR 79 South. That turned out to not be true.) Traffic safety was also a great concern regarding this future roadway corridor. The location ofthe connection point on Loma Linda Road was extensively discussed. The GP AC was in total agreement that a connection point at Via Del Coronado would create significant traffic safety problems at the middle school, and were also in agreement that the best connection point would be at Redwood Road. Loma Linda Road would be a 4-lane roadway from Pechanga Parkway to Redwood Road, approximately .4 mile, and the future roadway through the subject property would be a 4-lane roadway from the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Redwood Road to the Temecula Creek, approximately .2 mile. The Traffic Commission recommended approval of the Draft General Plan, as did the Planning Commission, designating these roadways for 4-lanes. The Planning Commission's approval of this project, in regards to these roadways is inconsistent with their past discussions regarding traffic safety and impacts. The City Council reviewed the Draft General Plan Circulation Element on March 22, 2005. At this meeting, the council spent approximately 5 hours discussing the recommendation to compete North General Kearny Road. The discussion regarding the roadway designations for Loma Linda Road and the future roadway through the subject property took place after midnight, when all residents who had come to speak had gone home. The recommendation to designate these roadways with 4-lanes was not supported after a brief remark from Public Works Director Hughes regarding projected future traffic volumes. There can be no mistake with regards to planning for future impacts on traffic circulation and safety issues. There is surely a need for additional discussion regarding the designation of these roadways. , / I m .:xl s: r- m C c rn r- ,..j m )> rn Z (') r- :r m o -< o I:i) r- )> :xl C Z m :xl "" r- o s: )> c Z c )> ::c ,.0 )> C ll" ::; )> c m r- (') o :xl o Z )> C o I . /r~l !W~~, ':'Q ',i.';,r_,b~ ,P.l!!" fdfc?'!:n c~C :f' ~i ~.~,f~.J 'c;. ~J ,::~ <>:#W:~~; " i, " .3, 'f.,olS"::': -'--:::;e':J:'>>f. "2'~" . \1;' II~', _ ~j~:J'\~; .. ." I '..-~ i ,'1_" 1~ > < m z o > c m i: - en ~ o z m en - .~ ..-"i' < > :c o -l m s:: m o C r- > Jw;,r-""" ' .: ,~, {u...," ,L1~~' ' .2t.'/!if!; ,~.'=.~ ~ en o c ,,-l :I: :E m en -i I'""' o s:: ;I> c z c ;I> :c o ;I> c ;I> -i -c m o :I: ;I> Z CO ;I> -c ;I> :c " :E ~ " ." J I: .,., ~ ; (c' ~, z -, 0 :II.:II >, -I ,... Z ... lXlm 70, o ~. ..~ 0> > z "Z, G> -< > o 70 Z> . :II> ~ o ~ '~. > ,-< / '~ '.'. -., ",... ,~, '". ~,' ,',,-',' ," ,-.,., .~ ~. ~=. . - ._~~,,--==~~ ' --...,.~ .,. . - ... ""... ._,.--' .,....-.-.. .. ". I ~. ~ .~~~~Sl Of "",~ t'j, !:!i ,.,,"" ~ f! ~; IS ,IT ','~ ,.... '\_ ..J; f k'~ \~<"^" 'i' U . ,"f{A~ \t~' A , "1~.... ~. // "" -i' --. -""--.~ ~. ,- ~~'.,n.';'_:'-"'" ,~. t!iJJ. , :", .. I , D ~ ~€l""~st ~ ....~"',!:!i ,.,"'" ~ f! ,s,: " ,I' , ' I ~$ l ",")....' f \',)'- ,/Mf , I, \ I I ., I i ~ ?", ~a' " _.~' "- U 1111" .1155" 'qM."i , X$rl .,.. . N I ~6' ~ 1# ';c s: ~ ~ 'i J.} H .{J.I ~ lJ\ V- ill C "" ~ ~, : '\ ii~ i~ ....- - ,':1',; r;,lb14 ii I ';t i~~ '." lI:IS*: i; ra'.::J ,; .".. \ _t;, ': €!Iv , ~~ ';ttl: ~~ 'i'=l .-(, ~~ I ' ! \ ........ , '-, ... . ~R:lr vl I...;:, 't ------ , .. ---.,., I ~ HI I '!\' 3(f "~ /'. /, ~ \$>- j OPu~ '''f:,>,-<! , ~~ ~ A '"'J{l v ~' ---y---':' 'f<.pkb \,J A-'f b6S\&,.J~IID N s,. "~<<~f1~v;~.!~~~i~~}"J.t,~;;i.~;~ t2.... I' ~.. -,'*' ~/w 70' R/W J II 'l-oMA LIN.DA RO^D (+-I~) C'P~CX\MJ6-A.. t>Kw~ '10 'REh'Woob "RDtU)) 121 , ~' F u 1:"" u RE. 'Ro;.,'t:> wAy (..... 1X')i (Ri:l>W coh ~~' \0 Te.Meeul.-t\. ~-K.) "'-", ;~Jit' ,-- , ......... r j R e. 11 L l\ T I 'J L N TR,'\FFIC SA.ccu { PLANS IN f,C110N Speed iil'll'ts are enforced tbroughol"l Ibe Plant/ing JlrfXt, ,md the City improves ro!"ulway acces~ separates vehicles from pedestrian and. biryc!e traffic, eG'ucates tbe public regarding safe driving, and coordi;",t.., with schools to improve )'ick-lIp I drop-alf circu!t:r.tio'l. / co.:> T r-', L " , , 1 rr r-a.LI.1C aCCIdents can w.lve tra.rrlC Impacts and can neco-ati've v aZIe:ct .... . " " the lifestyle of Te:mecula residents if they occur on a routine or repeated basis. Accidents typically occur as a resuit of driver distractions, such as cell phones; excessive automobile speed; traffic congestion; poorly-designed driveway/roadway interface' areas; and/or poor placement of pedestrian or bicycle facilities relative to high-speed vehicle travel lanes, Traffic safety problems are most acute at major intersections along the SR-79 North and South corridors, freeway interchanges along, I- 15, and locations where vehicle traffic both occUrs within short peak periods, such as schools, churches, or community centers. The City is committed to reducing potential traffic safety hazards through a variety of impr~vement and education strategies, \. "\ \ . ..;-{- :~~~~~~~~- -..........~. , , 1. '" }{.... '- ("-:-.... 1.\-......__.. l1 .....' L A f' .;. .i. ;:'"'jf""e . ! , I i /-i \.../ 'i\. 'f !'J Tp' AJeo- r, C--v' i. 'hLwitii:li / S~ft: cpe:ation of ~'iehicuJar tr;~fEic on City streets tS a co::(ei"n Gf " ~'"' ."-':+.+ ;:: ;,,1 ........ri _: 1""..;.. C...1.. _., n 'J-. T~~ C,-,J1 _ . :::C'.~.. "-'1.'.)' OlllCl,u5 dU,-, rp.:::~G\"'ns 01. l1le cou!ffiunllY. ....l..!.:_ -'.v-.iOl"/lng l' , .., " , " c 1: ' d pC!lCles are dlrecteG to\'}rardS TI11D1ITI1Z1ng saJ,ety laza:as an encouraging safer operating conditions on City streets. Goal 6 Enhance traffic safety on City streets. Policy 6.1 Policy 6.2 Policy 6.3 Policy 6.4 Policy 6.5 Policy 6,6 Enforce speed restrictions throughout the City, Require that future roads and improvements to current roads be designed to minimize traffic conDicts which result from curb parkillg maneuvers, uncontrolled access along heayily trayeled roadways, and development of private driyewaysonto primary residential collector streets, Require that yehicular, pedestrian and bicycl~ traffic be separated to the maximum extent feasible, especially in areas with high traffi~;Yolumes, Establish public education and enforcement programs to promote safe driving in the community, Work with schools and developers to' improye circulation at pick-up/drop oft areas and encourage that these facilities be provided on:site; Consider installing traffic calming measures on residential streets when other forms of. traffic control haye not been successful at reducing traffic speeds, ,\ . y- L i R. C U L A T ,1 o N ,; ./ ",,;-"-"> ,,5 - TEMECUL". FiVE YEf-S. C'J"iTA.L r:"jPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a planning tool used to coordinate the financing and scheduling of major projects, including transportation improvements, to be undertaken by the City. Not all projects included in the ClP have budget approval. The City's ClP is revised on an annual basis to meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions, The following ClP designated projects have particuiar relevance to the Circulation Element: ,.:. French Valley Parkway interchange and overcrossing of [-15 .:. The extension of-Overland Drive bridge over Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road ~ ,- .:. Pechanga Parkway widening and improvements from ~Rc79 South to Via Eduardo ' , . .:. Rancho California Road widening from Old Town Fro:lt Streei to east ofYnez Road .:. Rancho Way extension from Diaz Road to Marg~rita Ro ld .:. Eastern Bypass project improvements to Butterfield Stale Road, Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, .:. Diaz Road extension to Cherry Street .:. Diaz Road widening from Winchester i.Road' 'to - Rirrcho California Road , .:. Main Street bridge over Murrieta Creek (repllt,er'4ent) .:. Pauba Road Improvements from Margarita'l}o~d to west of Showalter Road .:. Rainbow Canyon Road widening from Pechanga Parkwa, tathe ' City limits .:. l-15/SR-79 South ultimate interchange .:. La Paz Street widening from Ynez Road to SR-79 Sbuth ".:. Temecula Creek crossing to provide supplemental access to SR. 79 South .:. Y nez Road widening from Tima Vista Road to La Paz St] eet .:. Western Bypass Corridor from SR.79 South to French Valley Parkway PR.ESERVING R,ESIDENTlAL NFlGHBOR.HOODS Temecula IS composed j,argely of single-family residential neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are the building biock, UPO'l which the quality ofiife enjoyed by all Temecula residents is basec. Preserving the desirable chamcteristics of quiet, calm, safe, famil~... oriented neighborhoods is a high priority for the City. The City will consider the compatibility of future d,:velopmert projects on surrounding residential neighborhoods in tre developmentreviewJ:>rocess, inc1u_dinpnalysis of projects under tre California Environmental Qyality Act (CEQjI.), Addltionallr, traffic impact reports are required for major deveiopment projec.:s to identify mitigation me3sureS that ensure adveise traffic impaCtS of major development projects in residential neighborhoods a:e minimized. }:~~'i~~ T L- A ! \ Nf f ' o u c u E PR.ESER vI~<G RESIDENTL"L NEIGHBORHOODS Ti;,:: .....-;""'ri-,..;,;n'""l~""- L'l~d "<:f- ;"'';:>-;-''-:>''''11- 1" t1.,e slno-1e,i:am'!1-.y de"'-':lr~.::~- ---.. }-__'"'\....l._..___"'-_~l.. .___ w....~ ~.... ........~~_'-~L;_c. v 1. -~.D.I..l. -~-~.Y 1.._-....1_........ nose, ra:J.glcg from two to eight d~;;lelling uDits per acre. l'vlany neicO"hborhoods e..~hibit distin'Zuis.hable character in terms of design. ~ ~ ' I " .",. F" 'I d al1C1scaplng} ana nardscape !:mprovements. uture reS1Gentla.l. an Don-residential development should be compatible with the natural features of the site and the adjacent uses, so that the character and value ofTemecula's single-famIly res1dentla] areas are m!"l1ta.ined, ' GoalS A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential ne:ighborhoods. Policy 5.1 Consider the comnatibilitv of proposed projects on surrounding llses in terms of the ,size and contiguratlOn of buildin",s, use of mal:erials and landscaping, preservation of existing ,vegetation ~d landform, the location of acc~ss routes, noise ,impacts, traffic impacts, and "other -envlro~me;;tai conditions, ' Policy 5.2 Require parcels developed ,for cd'mmercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses, Policy 5.3 Require proposed development to ,evaluate the incremental traffic impacts un, local roads throughout the proposed project phasing in order tel ensure that any adverse impacts to iocal roads in residential areas are avoided or adequately mitigated. \ ,....- --..--.- ....--....-..,.----.-...---.----..------ ._. --.--.---- -.-.-. " Ii " \\ c " ~, .. T L A- t\.. N , I o u c, ....., .E ;&~~{~~~~, '- '.-' ,:'\h , '" '; -;" ~-.,~: -.-(-, "y :w....,. l'~_ ''"' ~ ;.r-. '\....:;.::. ~~, . . ".,,; L~''''''''''":""l -.,,-.-j j10~l-'.J'.......11 N'~ N ~,""~" "~QD i 'El<""hDv"-..'-:\.. PR.ESE~ V:\ nON Ai'\JD B~I-[Al'.rCEMEN ! / / 'I::e p:c.;s'~:':7.:do:: c: tl:.e C:1s:.:~c"Ce:: of t':.e s::."":.gle-:~Tdy ::~lg::borhccd$ "2..::2 -;.:o~~cticc. ,:.f L:ese !:~lg:-:bor.'::oods fro~ lD.t..-:.J.slo:,..,s,..<----:t;,.:e ~!out of s::?le" or cD:r:cii ~-:CG'r::D2.'tible h;:d uses 1S lo-:cpor..:;.::t to !:l~tair;~'Z th.e (;\..:" 1t:v or the built en~rironme1:t. '-' ... .. Goal 3 Pres.et"l:ation and enhancement of 't.1.e positt<re qualities or indhddu:al districts or neighborhoods. P Ii 0_ .0 cy,).J Policy 3.2' Policv 3.3 , ,Policy 3.4 Improve the, app=nce of neighborhood areas and neighborhood edges through landscaping, location of open, space buffers, and special landscape features. Preserve thc scale and character' of residential development by creating appropriate transitions between lower density and rural areas, and higher density development Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create v-lsual interest and reduce conflicts 'between different land uses. Improve the pedestrian orientation, conveci~nce and safety of commercial centers thf.o~h the provision of pedestrian amenities such as benches, plaza areas, infonnation kiosks lind other street furniture, and' ' through. <:areful site planning and architectural design. .',,~~ r ,', \. \\ " \' Temecula Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2005 Agenda Item #3 Circulation Element Primary Changes to policy direction (page 4): . New Roadways are introduced in the roadway plan, such as: Lorna Linda! A venida De Missiones Commission Discussion (page 9) For Commissioner Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the proposed upgrades for Lorna Linda Road will not impact Pechanga Parkway or SR 79 South, Motion (page 9): Upgrade Lorna Linda Road (Incorrectly identified as SR 79 South) as a secondary arterial . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETiNG OF T-HE CITY OF TEMECULA PLAf"~t':U'~G COMMISS!ON FEBRUARY 2, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened ina regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday, February 2, 2005, in the City COuncil Chambers of Teme-c>_lia City HaU, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, ALLEGIANCE C-::lmmissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute, ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,and Chairman Tviathewson. Absent: None, PU8L1C COMMENTS Chairman Mathewson informed the audient.e that, as per Fire Code requirements, any individual not seated will need to exit the City Council Chamber to the Main Conference Room whic-hhas been opened for overflow seating, Chairman Mathewson also implored the audienc.e to remain courteous to speakers, CONSENT CALEND~ 1 AGenda RECOMMENDATION: 1,1 Approve the Agenda of February 2, 2005 2 A reouest to rescind Plannino Commission Resolution 2004-066 which approved Plannino Application No, PA04-0260, a Development Plan for an additional 20 units at the approved Temecu!a RidGe Apartments to result in the desion, construction and operation of a 240- unit. two and three-story apartment c.omp!ex with a pool. c1ubhouse, workout buildina and tot lot on approximate!v 21 acres located at the southeast comer of Rancho California Road and MoraGa Road, known as Assessor's Parc.el No, 944-290-011 MOTION: Chairman Mathewson moved to approve the Consent Calendar Item Nos, 1-2, Commissioner Guerrie.ro seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanlmolls aoprava!. Chairman Mathewson announced to the audience that the Planning Commission will only be focJ.!slng on the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update and that all other elements wi!1 1 be considered at another Planning Commission meeting. He also informed those individuals wil>hing to speak with regard to the Anza Circulation Element should address their issues and llOncems with the County, Clal'ifying 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 Update to comprehensivelv update the foliowino elements of the General Plan: land. Use Circulation, OpenSpace/Conservation, Growth ManaaementlPublic Facifities. Public Safetv. Noise. Air Qualitv. Communitv Desion. and Economic Development 3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan of land Use, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagementlPublic Facilities, Pubiic Safety, Noise, Ajr 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 pf a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) , representing local citlzens,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, Ai this time, Mr, Hogan introduced ML Henderson and, Ms, Stetson of CottonlBridges and Associates, By way of PowerPoint, Mr, Henderson highlighted the DraflGeneral 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 . Califoniia GeolOgical survey review of Safety Element completed (recommended changes to Safety Element identified. in staff report) 2 General Plan Elements · WInd Usa . Circulation . Mousing (2002 Update) . Open SpaceIConservation Element . Growth ManagementlPublic,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 Chanaes . 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 . Preservingeslablished rural areas - Nicolas Valley, winery locations, SR 79 South, and Anza Road Land Use Policy MaD . Several recommended changes reviewed with City CouncillPlanning Commission Workshop in August 2004 :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 Primary Chanoes to pOlicy directiOn: . Provisions that atlow 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 LindalAvenida de Missiones, EastemlSouthem 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 4 CAC Recommendation (not part of the Draft General Plan that is before the Planning Commission) . North General Keamy - Limited Secondary, La Colima to Nicolas Roads Changes to Other Elements Growth ManagementlPublic Facilities . New statement will discourage street closures that may limit or delay access to emergency seNices Open Space/Conservation Element . New discussion of historic and cultural resources Community Design Element . New discussion of mixed-use design concepts . Policies and implementation encouraging creation of public spaces and public art Environmental Impact Report IEIRI Draft EIR circulating for public review and comment . 5 comment letters received to date . Responses will be in final E1R Significant 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 significant . Required mitigation measures are incorporated in the General Plan as Implementation Findings and statement of overriding 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) 5 For Commissioner ChinJaeff, 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 Chiniaeft'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 wilrcontinue, 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 improvementslinfrastructure 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 pfanning 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 concemed 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 woutd 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, 6 For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr, Hughes stated that. in his opinion, the appropriateright.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, retterating the need for these four lanes, In response to Chairman Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Paries 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 Ctty . 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 Attomey 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 I(mg-range planning process, At this time, the public hearing was opened, The following individuals spoke in opposttion of the Rainbow Canyon Road Draft General Plan Update: . Mr, David payne . Ms, Renea Broderick . Mr, Mark Broderick . Ms. Roberta Adkins . Ms. Adria.n MoGregor . Ms,Kathleen Montaldo . Mr, Bernie Thomas The above-mentioned 'individuals spoke in opposition to widening Rainbow Canyon Road forthe 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 7 . Traffic impacts · Property depreciation for the existing 12 homes that front ~ainbow Canyon ~oad 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 benefll from the Dr?f1 General Plan, At this time, the public hearing was closed, Addressing the above-mentioned concerns, Public Works Director Hughes stated the foliowing: . That the curl'ent 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 chalienges 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 pl<iln On improving the oper<il!ions near SR 79 Southll-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 thatarecurrently 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 $~ 79 South, the existing lanes will be restripped to eight lanes betweenPechanga 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 Chini?eff, e<;hoed by Commissioner Olh<ilsso, stated th?t the city ShOuld be planning to create parKways that have limited access and would <illlow tr<ilWc 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), 8 For Commissioner Guerriero, Public Works Director' Hughes advised that the proposed upgrades for Lorna 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 iribal Council regarding secondary access to the casino; that while there is no firm commitment "t this p"rticul"r time, the Trib,,1 Council doel? lInderst"nd the traffic imp"ots; that the City has clisclIssed the possibility of reserving corridors that such roadways bllt 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 isslles tobedil?cLlSSecl wOl,lld pe 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, Joseph Wasek, Jr, . Mr, Nicolas Kardouche Mr, steve Gossett . Ms, Maria Hetzner Ms, Linda Gossett . Mr, Richard Moriki Ms, Jennie Strutz . Mr. Norman Clark Mr. Robert Johnston . Ms, Lisa Weinmann Mr, John Austin . Mr, WiHlams Herrmann Ms, Nancy Ray . Ms. Diana Lovett-Webfl ' Ms. EllenEUish . Mr. Terry stute Ms, Adrian Mc Gregor . Ms, Cheryl Huber Mr, Peter Franchesc:hina . Mr, Brett Saunders Mr, Jerry Throckmorton . , Mr, Bernie Thomas Ms, TeriBiancardi . Ms. Lori Nelson . Mr, Jon Andrews 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 9 . Tliat solutions must be explored - especially ones that will not continue to destroy the neighborhoods and the City . - That Meadowvi~W 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 dally 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 pwnership is inherent in this zoning designation · That a General Plan goalS is to preserve rural communities within Temecula and to preserve thequalily 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 Keamy and Kahwea Roads would create a safety concern forthe Meadowview residents . T./lat thereCiJrrently are eXisting traffic problems on residential streets suCh as Calle Pina COlada, Via Norte, Del Rey, and Avenida de Barca · mat by opening another road into the Meadowview, the traffic congestion will sJgnificantly 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 . l:hatthe Meadowview area has numerous housing densities {two churches, a schopl, a public park, a doctor's office, and an equestrian center), whiCh contribute to congestion. The rollowingindividuals spoke in favor of the proposed Draft General plan: . Ms. Evelyn BuCfianan .. Mr, Brian Hamed . Mr, Mike Kuhn 10 . Ms, Suzanne Zychowlcz . Ms, Diana Broderick · Ms, Jessica Christopher The above-mentioned indiViduals spoke In favor of the extension of North General KearnI' and, Kahwea Roads for ltle following reasons: . That the City of Temecula must take respOASibility of opening roads and planned r.oads ' in the City, including North General Keamy 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 fenceslbarriers would assist local residents with daily driving routes . That the Meadowvlew residents should have equal access to traffic circulation . That the closed roads in Meadowview were planned to accommodate local traffic . That Meadowview is withinttre city; thatilTe streets are- paid for and IlJailJlailJect 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 KearnI' and Kahwea Roads will not add more trips to City streets; that il 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 beneflls of improved circulation, Alfhough always dependent on the location of the emergency, Fire Marshal McBride noted that road closures will negatively impact response times. Principal Planner Hogan offered Ihe following commenls: . Thatlhere would be one lane in each direction with space for a lell-turn lane · That in anatternpt to design a raadto 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 ltle road surface; and ltlat this croSS-section is not currently in/he existing General Plan but would be a proposed addition 11 . That when the Public Traffic Safety Commission reviewed this nem, 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 n 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 Keamy and Kahwea Roads should be reflected in the General Plan for studying, Deputy Director Thornhill offered the following comments: . That the City has made limned 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 constru~ion and Capital Improvement Projects . That the Rorlpaugh project at pourroy and Nicholas Roads was preapproved by the County under development agreements prior to Cny 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 Rorlpaugh . That the City has been very judiciai in ns 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 Ollulsso 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 !lie G.eneral Plan, commissioner Telesio, ecl1Oed. by Commissioner Guernero, recommended that, at this time, no funding be proposed until a complete and comprehensilte study of the area has been performed, 12 MOT!ON: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the Planning .Commission's meeting another 20 minutes. COmmissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reffected approval with the exceot!on of Chairman Mathewson who abstained, MOTION: Commissioner Tei~-",io moved to recommend to the City Council that the extension of North General Kearny Road be reUec!ed in .the General Plan but thg! no funding ,be proposed unm a comprehensive study has !:leen completed, Commissioner Chiniaefi seconded the motion and voice vote refiected approval with the excention of Commissioner Olhasso who voted no and Chairman MatrH~wscn who abstained. MOTlO!\!.: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to support the policy of opening roads, Commissioner .a/hasso seconded tM motion. andvoic.e vote, reflected, approval with the excentiQ!I otChairman Mathewson who abstainec:t It was the consensus of Commissioners Chinlaeffl Telesiol Planning CoroJnis.slon meetings at 6:30 p,m, versus 6,:QQ P,i\I[, and Guerriero to ...4-.....4 ;:l;:,a.IL future COMMISSIONER'S REPORT No reports, PLANf"ii\!G DiRECTOR'S REPORT No report ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 P,M" Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reauiar me<ltina to be held on Wednesdav. February 15. 2005 at 6:00 P,M., in the City Council Ghqmp",l;, 43Z0Q 6u1;in,,1;l; PqrKQrive, TeweGu!q, Dave fVlathewson Chairman. ~bDie Ubnoske Director of Planning 1-3 Temecula Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 2005 Agenda Item #3 Land Use Element Request #7 (page 8) A review of the request to change zoning of subject property (Temecula Lane) from Office Professional to Medium Density Residential. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not support the CAC's recommendation to support retaining the eastern and western-thirds at Low- Medium Density. Mr. Mark Broderick expressed concern with traffic impacts that would be created as a result of not constructing a bridge across A venida De Missiones. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the bridge has been earmarked in the City's CIP but has not yet been funded. MH\HJTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA P!...J\NN!NG COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning C-ommission convened in a regular meeting at 6;00 P.M., on Wednesday, March 16, 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 Chinieeff, Guerriero, Olhesso Telesio, end Chairman Mathewson. Absent None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Aoenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 A,pprove the Agenda of March 16,2005 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of December 15, 2005 C.::' ":'c:: ''':=:::::::==:=:c=: ''':'c::c'~=~ ~"".'=-:' '''' ;;;pprove the Consent Calender. It was seconded by Commissioner Olhesso and voice vote reflected approval wj~" ;___ ~~",,,,,==,~.,,=, = ;,.,,,,,c,"?\':son and Guerriero who abstained, R:\MinutesPC\031605 Considered out of order 4 Plannina Application No. PA04-0178. a Tract Map. submitted bv Scott Carino. to subdivide 28.6 acres into 71 sinale-familv residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7.200 square feet and will include a pedestrian trail alonQ the southern portion of the proposed subdivision. near the creek; located on north side of Nicolas Road. east of Joseph Road Assistant Planner Damko presented a staff report (of record), noting the following; . That the Tentative Tract Map' will create 71 new residential lots that meet the Development Code requirement as well as three Open Space lots which consist of water and utility easements . fhat a pedestrian trail connecting to the City's trail system will be provided . fhat a pedestrian trail and a 10' foot wide landscape easement will provide buffering between the residential lots and Santa Gertrudis Creek; that the trail will provide two pedestrian access points for residents of the tract; that the Cny will take ownership of the 1.39 acre property. located between Nicolas Road and the channel; and that the Cny's Community Services Department will designate this area as a trail head for the City's trail system . That the project will be consistent with current zoning and General Plan designation; that the current zoning and General Plan designation is low-medium density residential, allowing 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre; and that the project proposes fwe dwelling units . per acre j That the main access will be located off Joseph Road, located. on the north sfde of NiCOlas Road; ll'Iat the JOSeph Road crossing will require half-street width improvements and flOOd improvements wniCn may nave impacts to tlie Creek and may require permits; that because staff is anticipating that permits will be required, the project has condnioned to obtain approval from the resource agencies and the appropriate permits are obtained . That the proposed 71 lot subdivision will be consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and the Development Code; and that the project will meet the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size . That because lot nos. 7.12 nave a relatively nominal, useable flat rear yard space due to the slope necessary to support Rita Way, staff has conditioned these- lots' to provide at least 50% of flat useable rear yard space; that the applicant is aware of this condition and wiU be satisfying It by adding a retaining wall behind the homes.to provide more flat useable space for these lots . That staff has prepared an innial study aiong with a Negative Declaration for the project; that the noticing started on February 15,2005 and ended on March 16,2005 . That no significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed project . That the proposed project will not be located within a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan criteria cell and that there are no vernal poois on site R:\f\f1fnut..esPC\03iGOS 2 . That staff has received a letter-from a concerned-citizen; . That the project has adhered to the 30--day public review process and that state agencies were notified . That the applicant has been conditioned to gain approval from the resource agencies prior to any potential impacts to the Creek . That the applicant has completed two biology studies and it was determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts . That the Department of Public Works Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and it was determined that a traffic study was not needed for the proposed project; and that a traffic study was provided through the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan which included the Seraphina Tract. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Assistant Planner Damkoslated that the developer will be required to advise any prospective buyeritenant of the Notice of Airport in Vicinity_ Ms. Oamko reiterated that biological surveys of the site were completed and it was determined that no habitat of endangered wildlife or plant species was found on the site and that the Creek will be preserved as Open Space, At this lime, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jo Rotell, Temecula, expressed concern with drainage issuesthatcould be caUsed as a resultofthe development near his properly. Infesponse to Mr. Rotell's concern, Deputy Public Works Director Parks relayed that the Santa Gertrudis Creek will be improved to the standard ofthe existing Creek which would be reviewed by Riverside County Flood Control as well as the City of Temecula; that the subdivision will. be elevated but that the passage of water will be adequate in Santa Gertrudis Creek to drain -Mr. Rotell's property. Mr. Greg Krzys, Temecula, expressed concern with the California Environmental .Quality Act document prepared for the project and the Jack of a traffic study. Mr. Krzys queried if the previous Environmental Impact Report for the. Roripaugh project _ addressed.the pro-posed project and the-anticipated uses on the land, noting-that the proposed project should not be approved until the improvements forR<lripaugh have been completed. Mr. Thornhill advised that there has been no change to the pmposed project since the first General Pian; that this project was analyzed in the General Plan document as well as the General Plan that is currently being considered; that the proposed project wlllbe c<lnsistent with the General- Plan; and, that, therefore, staff viewed the proposed project as having been completely and adequately analyzed. Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula, expressed concern with the proposed project, commenting on encroachment -onto the Liefer Rural Preservation Zone. R:\MinutesPC\C31S05 3 In response to Mr. Ray's concern, Principal Planner Hogan clarified the Liefer Rural Preservation area boundary, noting that Mr. Ray's property will not be affected. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation including a modification to Condition of Approval Nos. 11 and D6 to include that the developer give notice to the Department of Real Estate regarding Notice of Airport in Vicinity. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMEC{JLA APPROVtNGPLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA-04-0178, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32346 SUBDIVIDING 28c6 ACRES INTO 71 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF NICOLAS ROAD, EAST OF JOSEPH ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 957- OSO-o14 AND 957-oS0-o19 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA04-017S) Continued from February 2, 2005 3 A General Plan' Update tocompretJensivefv uodatethe foIlowina elements ofthe: General Plan; Land Use. Open Space/Conservation. Growth Manaaemenl/Public Facilities. Public Safetv. Noise. Air Quality. Communitv Desian. and Economic Development 3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), highlighting the following; . That staff's recommendation continues to be that the Planning Commission consider the . remaining eight elements of the General Plan, make any necessary changes, and recommend to the Cny Council to approve the Updated General Plan . That since the Community Advisory Committee's Draft Updated General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report, four additional Land Use requests have been submitted __ one of which was received on March 16, 2005 and has not yet been reviewed or discussed; therefore, staff will not be making a recommendation with regard to that request . That it would be within the Planning Commission's purview to make alternate recommendations to tlieCAC's recommendations . That those requests not supported by the CAC, the applicants of those request will have an opportunity to make their requests to the Pianning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the Planning Commission address the General Plan followed by each individual Land Use Map Amendment. R:\MinutesPC\031605 4 Open Space Conservation Element See. staff's addendum report; copies distributed to the Commissioners; no additional discussion. Growth ManaaementlPublic Facilities See staff's addendum report; copies distributed to the Commissioners; no additional discussion. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Greg Kryzs, Temecula, expressed concern with the continuaf approval of projects and requested' that the Planning Commission review the current Public- Facilities Elements and . Growth Management in the Cityinwder to deterrninethe numher of General Plan Amendrnents and rezones that have been processed by the City since 1993. Atthistim.e,. the. public.haaringwas.ctosed. Public SafetvElement See staff's addendum report; copies distributed. to the Commissloners~noaddltional discussion. No speakers for this item. . ~-Ele.ment No changes being proposed to this item. No speakers for this item. Air Quality: Element No changes being proposed to this item. No speakers for this item. Community Deslim Element See .staffs addendum report;. copies..distributed.lolhe_ Commissioners;. IlQaddillonaLcliscussion. At this time, the public hearing was opened. !n response to Ms. Diana-Lovett-Webb, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that staff would be willing. to work with Ms. Lovett in creating a Communny Workshop to preserve rural communities. Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula, spoke of the importance of preserving rural equestrian communnies in the City ofTemecula. At this time, the public hearing was closed. R:"\MinutesPC\031605 5 Economic Development Element No changes being proposed to this item. For future items, Commissioner Olhasso requested more detailed information in the staff report with regard to Economic Development. No speakers for this item. At 7;13 p.m., the Planning Commission called a short recess and reconvened at 7:22 p.m. Land Use Element 1. Northside of the Santa Gertrudis Channel between Margarita Road and Rustic Glen Drive REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) and Public Institutional (PI) to Professional Office (PO) CAC RECOMMENDATION: As per the Draft Lane Use Plan, unanimous support for Professional Office. No speakers for this item. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation. 2. Southeast of the intersection of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo REQUEST: From Very Low Densny Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) and Open Space (OS) CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority ofthe CAC were of the opinion to retain this property as Very Low Density would be appropriate. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Diamond, representing the Garret Group, spoke in favor of the CAC's recommendation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation and it was noted that if there were any boundary line issues, those could be addressed through a Planned Development Overlay. 3. Southeast of the intersection of Margarna Road and Solana Way REQUEST: From Medium Density Residential (MD) to Professional Office (PO) Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Open Space (OS) CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority supported Professional Office and Open Space (OS). The Professional Office and Open Space designations have been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Ms. Melinda Smith, spoke in favor of the CAC's recommendation. R:\MinutesPC\031605 6 At this time, the public hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation. 4. Between Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane north of Solana Way REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Density Residential. CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. This request was delayed until the uncertainty of the dirt roads and the Roripaugh Ranch project have been resolved. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Galvez, Walcolllnvestments, noted for the record, that if he were granted a LM zone, he would be willinQ'to pave Liefer Road which would resolve road issues for residents of Nicolas Valley. . Ms. Linda Beaudoin, echoed by Mr. Jo Rotell, spoke in favor of Mr. Galvez' offer to pave Liefer Road. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Although appreciating Mr. Galvez' offer to pave Liefer Road, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that a General Plan may not be condnioned or rezoned and that Mr. Galvez would have no legal obligation to pave the road. at his own expense. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation. 5. South of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. This request was delayed until the uncertainty of the dirt roads and Roripaugh Ranch project have been resolved. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. No speakers for this item. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation. 6. South of Temecula Creek Village project and west of the extension of Jedediah Smith Road REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) to Unspecified Designations. CAe RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC was of the opinion that.the Open Space (OS) designation was the correct use for this property. No changes were made to Land Use. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Markham Development Management Group, spoke in. favor of the proposed project, noting that the proposal would not be in the flood plain channel and that the proposed project would not be within the Army Corps and/or Fish and Game jurisdiction. At this time, the public hearing was closed. R:\MinutesPC\031605 7 It was the consensus of the Planning commission to approve the CAC's recommendation. 7. Northside of Loma Linda Road, east of Temecula Lane REQUEST; From Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (MD) CAe RECOMMENDATION: As I'ler the Draft laoo Use Plan, supported Low Medium Densny on the eastern-third and Medium Density on the western-third. N. this time, the public hearing was opened. IW.JlllarkBroderick,-Iemecula, expressed -GOI1cern wnh traffic impacts that would be created as a result of not constructing a bridge across Avenida de Missiones. N. this time, the public hearing was closed. In response to Mr. Broderick's concern, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the bridge has been eanTIarked in the City's CIP but has not yet been funded. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not support the CAC's recommendation to support retaining the eastern and western-thirds at Low Medium Density. 8. Southwest of the City's Northwest Sports Park (T emecula Education Project) REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) to Community Commercial (CC), High Density Residential (HD), and medium Oensny Residential (MO}/Mixed-Use. CAC RECOMMENDAT!ON; No action recommended. Staff was ofthe opinion that changes in this area should not be considered until additional information about the Temecula Education Project has been obtained and its potential impacts to the area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation. 9. . South and west of the City's Northwest Sports' Park 1Temecula Education Project) adjacent to request NO.8 REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) to either High Oensity Residential or Medium Density Residential (MO). CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. Staff was of the opinion that changes in this area should not be considered until additional information about the Temecula Education Project has been obtained and its potential impacts to the area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation. 10. West of Butterfield Stage Road between Chenin Clinet and Ahern Place REQUEST: From Very Low Oensity Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM). CAC RECOMMENDATION: Supported a change to Low Medium Oensity Residential. This has ShowlLolllha draft Land Use. Plan. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan spoke in favor of the proposed project. R:\fv1inutesPC\031605 8 Relaying her opposition to this request and to the CAC's recommendation, Commissioner Olhasso expressed concem with the request of the Low-Medium designation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation with the exceDtion of Commission Olhasso who voted No. 11. Northwest Corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to Community Commercial (CC). CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC was of the opinion that retaining the PO designation would be the most appropriate for this location. No speakers for this item. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation 12. Northeast comer of Winchester and Nicolas Road REQUEST: From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CO). CAC RECOMMENDATION: As per the Draft Land Use Plan, the CAC supported this change. No speakers for this item. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation. 13. Rainbow Canyon Road west of Pechanga Creek REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) and Highway Tourist Commercial (HT) to Open Space (OS), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), and Low-Medium Density Residential (LM) CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. Mr. Thornhill relayed that n was the opinion of the CAC that until any certainty as to whether or not a southern interchange will occur, no intensification of Land Use should occur along the corridor of Rainbow Canyon Road. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Wheeler, representing the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated that it was the opinion of the CAC to not support this change at this time. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Temecula Creek Inn, expressed the applicant's desire to be given the opportunity, at a future date, to explore a Specific Plan Overlay. Advising that the applicant is only requesting a Specific Plan Zone Overlay, Mr. Larry Markham noted that Mr. Alhadeffs letter to the Planning Commission, dated January 31, 2005, references language with regard to fractional ownership and that the applicant would be willing to fund the Specific Plan with a full Environmental Impact Report. At this time, the publiC hearing was closed. For the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that staff could clarify in the Specific Plan that developments consistent with the resort commercial would not require a Specific Plan; that R:\MinutesPC\031605 9 resort uses would include a golf course, hotel rooms, fractional ownership units, day spa, etc.; and that all other uses wnh exception of resort commercial activities would require approval of a Specific Plan. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation. 14. SR-79 South east of Jedidiah Smith Road REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO) CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. M this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, noted opposnion to the request of Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO). M this time, the public hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation. The following requests had not been reviewed by the CAC: 15. Southside of Rancho California road, east of the city limits REQUEST: From Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) to some form of commercial. It was noted that the applicant subsequently withdrew his request on February 12, 2005. 16. East side of Winchester road at Rustic Glen Drive REQUEST: From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Professional Office (PO) At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bart Doyle, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the requested change. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to deny the request but expressed a willingness toa General Plan Amendment wnh a development proposal for senior housing at some future time. 17. Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to High Density Residential (HD) At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eric Luna, owner of project, spoke in favor of the request. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to change the designation from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density (MD). 18. Request for change to Generai Plan Land Use Plan for 2.5 acres located on the south side of Pauba Road, west of the Plaza Del Sol Center R:\fJibutesPC\031605 10 At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, noted that the change would represent an extension of uses that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent office/retail pattern of development to the east and existing and proposed Public Institutional uses on the north side of Pauba Road. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to deny the request and retain the Very Low Density Residential designation. Mr. Steve Corona, representing the Corona Family, spoke in opposition to the inclusion of properties outside of the Cny's sphere. In response to Mr. Corona's comment, Principal Planner Hogan relayed the CAC's opinion to not convert areas that are currently <\gricuJtural and rural residential into urban densities; that the CAC focused on urban development in urban areas and to maintain the agricultural and rural character within the City, advising that noticing was provided by the newspapers. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Environmental Impact Report, to approve the Draft General Plan as amended by the Planning Commission, and to adopt the resolution. Commissioner Guerriero Seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THAT. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS For Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Parks relayed that he will ensure that he receives his report regarding the mining operation on Rancho California Road. Commissioner Olhasso stated that she will not be able to attend the March 30, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional comment. R:\MinutesPC\031505 11 ADJOURNMENT At 11;30 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesdav. Mar.ch 30, 2005 at 6;00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dave Mathewson Chairman DebbieUbnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\031605 12 Temecula City Council Meeting March 22, 2005 Agenda Item #19 General Plan Update Circulation Element The council discussed the North General Kearny Road issue until midnight. Then began discussion on the Avenida De Missiones Connection (page 18). No residents remained after midnight to give public testimony and the public hearing was closed. Public Works Director Hughes advised that the Community Advisory Committee had recommended this to a four lane road but that staff, because of traffic volumes, could support a two lane road. Motion to include Avenida De Missiones Connection (two-lane road) in the circulation Element was approved. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2005 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The Open Session convened at 7:00 P.M. Present 5 Councilmembers; Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, and Cornerchero Absent o Councilmembers: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by the Chaparral Chamber Choir. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Father Sean Cox of Sl. Thomas Episcopal Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts. PRESENTA TIONS/PROCLAMA TlONS Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. David Micheal Recognizing Mr. Micheal for his efforts with coordinating the promotion and installation of engraved granite pavers at the newly dedicated Veterans' Memorial, Mayor Comerchero commended Mr. Micheal and presented to him a Certificate of Appreciation. Acknowledging the attendance of his family and thanking the City Council and staff for this honor, Mr. Micheal recognized the support of several other individuals which made this endeavor possible. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Appreciating the City's continued support, Mr. Jimmy Moore, Temecula, on behalf of the Arts Council of Temecula Valley, presented the City Council with an award for its continued support. B. Thanking the City Council for its support of the retention of the March Air Reserve Base, Mr. Kenneth Dickson, Murrieta, representing Friends of the March Field, expressed his support of this action and advised that he was in attendance to answer questions if necessary. R:\Minutes\032205 1 C. Ms. Christi Gordon, representing Bank of America and its Foundation, announced an exciting charitable-giving program (Neighborhood Excellence), benefiting non-profit organizations and volunteers throughout the entire Inland Empire. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A Councilwoman Edwards suggested that the City Council entertain placing a permanent recognition to Mr. Micheal for his contribution to the Veterans' Memorial at the Memorial. B. In order to first select a contractor and builder and to have those individuals in attendance of the groundbreaking, Mayor Pro T em Roberts advised that the Library Groundbreaking Ceremony has been postponed from March 31, 2005 to late April 2005. With tonighfs discussion of North General Keamy Road, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts advised that because he is a resident of Meadowview, he will not be participating in the discussion. C. Councilman Naggar relayed his concurrence with Mrs. Edwards' recommendation to entertain placing a permanent recognition at the Veterans' Memorial for Mr. David Micheal. D. Having attended the National League of Cities Annual Congressional Conference with Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilwoman Edwards, Mayor Comerchero commented on the overall support to not cut the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and advised that the CDBG Program will be fully funded and retained at HUD. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION; 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution approvinQ List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A R:\Minutes\032205 2 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 Security Grant Funds Transfer RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-30 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 chanoino the time of Plan nino Commission Meetinos RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU!ilCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION R:\MinutesI032205 3 7 Resolution in Support of retainina March Air Reserve Base (MARBI. support continuation of Air Attack Resources at Hemet-Rvan Airport. and approval 01$5.000 to assist in retention efforts RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-32 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 Sase retention efforts. 8 Second Amendment to an aareement for Contract Inspection Services for P&O Consultants RECOMMENOATION: 8.1 Approve a Second Amendment for consulting services wnh 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 Orainaae Easements within Tract Map No. 26941 (Crowne HiII- The Reserve) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled; RESOLUTION NO. 05-33 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 R:\Minutes\032205 4 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: RESOLUTION NO. 05-34 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 Vallev Road and east of Pechanaa Parkwav) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29305 in conformance wnh the conditions of approval. 12 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract - John Warner Road Assessment District Improvement - Proiect No. PW02-D7 RECOMMENDA nON; 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 ofthe Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for the Rainbow Canvon 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. R:\MinutesI032205 5 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. PW99-11 TS - 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. 15 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II - Protect No. PW02-26 - Award of a Construction Contract REVISED RECOMMENDATION (as distributed at the City Council) 15.1 Adopt a resolution entnled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-35 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 in the amount of $1,717,860 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 15.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed a contingency of 10% ofthe contract amount in the amount of $171,786; 15.4 Authorize a transfer of $250,000 of Measure A funds from Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide. 16 Cable Franchise Aareement Extension of Time RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled; R:\Minutes\032205 6 RESOLUTION NO. 05-36 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 Proiectl RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: 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-D027) MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-18. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:25 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:31 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. 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; R:\Minutes\032205 7 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. Mayor Comerchero read a statement (of record) prepared by the City Attorney with regard to the proceedings of this item. Thanking those individuals involved in this lengthy General Plan process, Planning Director Ubnoske briefly highlighted the item and introduced Mr. Jeff Henderson of Cotton Bridges Associates who, in turn, presented, by way of a PowerPoint presentation, the staff report, noting the following; . That the comment period for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) associated with the Plan concluded on March 12, 2005; that responses to comments received from approximately 16 agencies will be distributed to those agencies 10 days prior to the April 12, 2005, public hearing; that the responses were sent out March 22, 2005; . That the Airport Land Use Commission of Riverside County is as well in the process of making a finding of consistency of the proposed General Plan and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for French Valley Airport and will be considering this matter at its April 14, 2005, meeting; . That the California Geological Survey has provided comments as to the Safety Element of the General Plan and recommended changes to that element as identified in the staff report (of record); . That the Planning Commission held public hearings on both the Circulation Element and the remainder of the General Plan on February 16, 2005 and March 16, 2005; that tonight's public hearing will address the Circulation Element and the public hearing regarding the remaining elements of the General Plan will be continued to April 12, 2005; . That the Land Use Element will address future land uses within the Planning Area and that the Circulation Element will address recommended roadway plans, trail plans, transit plans, and other Circulation Element components; . That the City's Housing Element was updated in 2002 and will not be a part of the current General Plan Update; that the Housing Element will be renewed in 2006/2007; . That the Open Space Conservation Element will address the City's Open Space Resources and the Conservation of Natural Resources wnhin the Planning Area; . That the Growth Management and Public Facilfties Element will address utilities and public facilnies required for future development in the Planning Area; . That the Public Safety Element will address natural and man-made hazards within the Planning Area; . That the Noise Element will address community noise generated both by traffic sources as well as point-source oriented noise; R:lMinutesI032205 8 . That the General Plan will as well include an Air Quality Element that will address smog and other components of air quality wnhin the community; . That the Community Design Element will address the design components of the community; . That the Economic Development Element will outline the priorities for economic development for the next 20 years; . That overall the proposed General Plan will represent the same, basic policy direction as established in the City's previous General Plan; that most of the proposed changes will fit within the framework established by that Plan; that the proposed changes will primarily affect the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the Plan; . That the proposed changes are generally technical in nature; . That the Implementation Programs for each Element have been updated; . That in order to ensure consistency with the 2002 Housing Element, a number of changes are being proposed in the Land Use Element to the General Plan, conC6ming Mixed-Use Development; . That a few new key policy directions are being proposed: o Encouraging Mixed-Use Development at key locations near Interstate 15 o Preserving established rural area o Managing future growth o Prioritizing/monitoring/correcting traffic congestion hotspots o Incorporating transit and multi-use trails into the circulation system CIRCULATION ELEMENT Mr. Henderson noted that the primary changes to policy direction in the Circulation Element are as follows: . provisions to allow for additional street dedication (beyond the standardized rights-of- way) around higher volume key intersections and consideration of reopening closed connecting streets to improve Citywide circulation; Roadwav Cross-Sections to better serve less urban portions of the City; that both of the new cross sections are based upon the standard 88' secondary arterial right-of-way; o Modified Secondary Arterial (De Portola and Ynez Road through Los Ranchitos) would provide 2 divided lanes in each direction with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk and location of left-tum lanes would be determined as the roadways are individually designed; that separated trails would be incorporated to the right of the cross section into the design where addnional right-of-way beyond 88' is available o Limited Secondary Arterial (portions of Nicolas and Santiago Roads and the North General Kearny extension if added to the Plan) will feature one lane in each direction with a left-tum lane and a separated trail within the right-of-way o Rural Highway (rural preservation areas - Anza, De Portola, and portions of Rancho California Roads) will feature one lane in each direction with left-turn pockets where needed and two lanes may be needed in some sections of those roadways; that the intent of the Rural Highway is to protect future right-of-way for larger roadway types in the future wnhout compromising the short-term functions of these roadways and the rural character of the surrounding areas; that the Rural Highway will be consistent with County standards for these roadways on R:IMinutesl032205 9 the portions that occur within the unincorporated portions of the TemeGula Planning Area; Circulation MaP/Roadwav Plan - that the only new General Plan roadway being proposed within the City is the Loma Linda! Avenida de Missiones (between Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79S; Two new roadwavs identified on the Circulation Map . Eastern Bypass (Southern Bypass) will consist of portions of Anza Road, Deer Hollow Way, and a new interchange at Interstate 15 to the south of the City; . Sky Canyon Road/Briggs Road will be a parallel route to Winchester Road in the French Valley Airport area to assist with relieving projected congestion along Winchester Road; Proposed kev roadwav improvements . Winchester Road from Jefferson Road to Hunter Road - currently a six-lane urban arterial proposed to an eight-lane urban arterial . Rancho California Road from Old Town Front Street to Ynez Road - currently a six-lane urban arterial proposed to an eight-lane urban arterial . Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road - currently a four-lane arterial proposed to a six-lane urban arterial . Ynez Road from Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road - currently a four-lane arterial proposed to a six-lane urban arterial . Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to the City limits - currently a four-lane arterial proposed to a six-lane urban arterial . Western Bypass Road - currently designated as a secondary arterial proposed to a major arterial. Resident Concerns . Rainbow Canyon Road - to downgrade the roadway - currently a 66' right-of-way - both current and proposed General Plan call for a Secondary Arterial at 88' right-of-way; . North General Keamy - Community Advisory Committee (CAC) recommendation to connect 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 bypass congestion along Winchester Road; o That the Planning Commission supported the CAC's recommendation to add North General Kearny as a Limited Secondary Arterial and identifying it on the Circulation Map and, thereby, identifying the requirement of a traffic study; o That the proposed Roadway Plan does not include a North General Extension; that in order to include that extension within the Circulation Plan, this particular segment must be added; o That the Planning Commission also agreed wnh the recommendation by the County of Riverside that Winchester Road, between Hunter and Keller Roads, will require 184' right-of-way per an existing agreement between Caltrans and the County of Riverside; R:\MinutesI032205 10 Draft Environmental Impact Report IEIR) . That it has been circulated for public review and comment . That the City has received 16 comment letters from public agencies . That responses to the EIR have been provided to the Council and will present in the final EIR for the April 12, 2005, public hearing . That the General Plan, as per the EIR, will have three significant, unavoidable impacts o Two with regard to air quality - short-term construction impacts and long-term emissions o Three intersections and six freeway ramps would be projected to operate below established level of service standards as per the Draft EIR . That all other impacts in the EIR were found to be less than significant . That because of the significant, unavoidable impacts, the Council will be required to make findings and adopt a statement of overriding considerations approving the General Plan; that both the findings and the statement of overriding considerations will be forwarded to the Council prior to the April 12, 2005, meeting. At this time, the public hearing was opened; it was noted by Mayor Comerchero that the first item of discussion will be the Environmental Impact Report and Circulation Element related to North General Keamy and other roads in the Meadowview area. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington excused themselves from the dais and the Chamber. Regarding his conflict of interest, Councilman Washington expressed his support of the Fair Political Practices Commission's determination for him to have to abstain with regard to this item. Mayor Comerchero briefly reviewed the rules of the public hearing process. Council Discussion For Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that because the Environmental Impact Report is still under review, she would not be able to answer whether there would be a nexus between North General Kearny and the possible construction of a golf course in the Meadowview area. Councilwoman Edwards clarified that the Circulation Element for the General Plan with regard to North General Kearny and the potential of including its designation on a Map but not to build or to fund a road. Deputy City Clerk Ballreich informed the City Council of communications received (of record) with regard to the General Plan. The following individuals spoke in support of the extension of North General Kearny; . Suzanne Zychowics . Jodie Christopher . Diana Broderick . Kendra Herrera Jessica Christopher Mike Kuhn Evelyn Bucannen David Lander R:\Minu1esI032205 11 The above-mentioned individuals noted the following with regard to the extension of North General Kearny and the opening of Kahwea Road for the following reasons: . That this matter has been politicized . That many individuals in support of the extension are not in attendance because of conflicts of interest with friendships, colleagues, business associates, etc. . That it takes an excessive amount of time to travel to the mall from the residential area . That emergency response time during rush hour traffic is not adequate . That increasing traffic in a rural area will create dangers - mixing traffic with equestrians and wnh pedestrians; however, some of these dangers have already been realized on Winchester Road between Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs Roads; that these dangers could be mitigated by changing the traffic flow; that the extension of North General Keamy would permit parents to drop their children at the James L Day Middle School on the school side versus the children having to cross the street which will alleviate some congestion; that the roads that are being proposed for opening were originally intended to be thoroughfares as per the original Plan; . That opening this road will increase City-wide circulation; that these are public streets for public travel; . That it would grant parents to access to Day and Chaparral Schools without being forced to travel on Margarita and Winchester Roads and would decrease use on Calle Medusa and Calle Pina Colada; that Meadowview streets are supported by City taxes; . That change is an evitable step in the City's growth; that all must share in the responsibility of the City's streets; . That the traffic on Winchester Road must be addressed and that the extension will improve the situation along Winchester Road. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the extension of North General Kearny: . Kim Churchwood . Jeff Perrin . Lori Nelson . Norman Clark . Lisa Weinmann . Audrey Gomez . Keven Porter . Teri Biancardi . Ellen Ellish . Bob Johnston . Bert Bjorklund . Kathleen Roe . Rolfe Wittman . Edward Kostjal . William Herrmann . Mary Lanier . Christine Estoch Richard Moriki Paula Peterson Maria Hetzner Steve Gossett James Neeley Karen Paciotti Rosemary Priefe John Austin Diana Lovett-Webb Brad Inman John Harkey Frank Boarese Dan Maidment Rikki Bauer Bill Brown Nancy Ray David Payne (provided written communication) The above-mentioned individuals, by way of pictures and video, relayed the following with regard to the extension of North General Kearny for the following reasons: R:\MinutesI032205 12 . That for the past 10 years, Meadowview residents have appeared before the CounciVCommissions with regard to North General Kearny and Kahwea Road; . That North General Kearny and Kahwea Road be permanently removed from the General Plan; In response to Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that under California Law, each Council would have the opportunity to amend or modify the General Plan. . That the existing traffic problems surrounding James L Day Middle School and Chaparral High School will be exacerbated by the extension of North General Kearny; that James L Day Middle School currently does not provide traffic-controlled supervision; . That the Meadowview trails are maintained and repaired through Meadowview Association dues; that these trails are utilized by bikers, riders, walkers/joggers on a daily basis; . That the loss of these trails would be a loss of history never replaceable; . That one General Plan goal is to preserve the quality and value of single-family neighborhoods - opening Kahwea Road and North General Kearny would not preserve the zoning or quality and value of this single-family neighborhood; . That even with the posted horse crossing signs at every trail head, opening Kahwea Road and North General Kearny would be incompatible to safe crossings; that drivers ignore the law to stop within sighting distance of a horse; that the opening would put citizens in grave danger; . That the City's traffic circulation problems should not necessitate imposing other people's view points on Meadowview residents' property; . That some horseback riders have to ride the paved streets to access the trails; that Kahwea Road is used as a trail because of the easement behind Kahwea Road homes is too steep for many riders; that opening Kahwea Road will increase traffic on Meadowview streets which will prevent the use of the trails in a safe rnanner; that these streets are substandard, rural streets; In response to Councilman Naggar, Mayor Comerchero advised that the City Council, this evening, is discussing the extension of North General Kearny and other roads in the Meadowview area. Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that only the extension of North General Kearny is being considered and that there was a recommendation to study the remainder ofthe Meadowview roads and that no decision will be made this evening with regard to Kahwea Road. Mayor Comerchero further clarified that the Council will not be voting on this issue this evening but that it will be making a recommendation to staff as to what to include or not to include in the General Plan. City Attorney Thorson noted that the City Council may not take action on the General Plan until the approval of the Environmental Impact Report. . That extending North General Kearny will not address traffic congestion; that road crossings at the intersections of Calle Madero/Nada Lane/North General Kearny/Calle Pina Collada are currently not safe; that these hazardous situations will increase and that any traffic benefit would not justify putting local residents at risk; . That because horses are unpredictable, it would not be safe to have a horse trail next to a street that rnay carry as many as 10,000 plus cars a day; . That opening Kahwea Road would have a significant safety impact due to the increased number of cars; R:IMinulesl032205 13 . That all Meadowview streets are front loaded with houses; . That drivers generally exceed the 35 mph speed limit; that with vehicles parked on both sides of the street, there is not sufficient room for moving vehicles to pass each other; . That Kahwea Road was closed in 1998 by constructing a wrought-iron fence with a gate; that opening Kahwea Road would impact Meadowview by way of non-resident traffic; . That considering the City is aware that the Meadowview streets are substandard would that hold the City liable if an accident were to occur; . That these curvy, hilly, narrow streets that lack sidewalks and streetlights are over 20 years old; . That the pathway to Rancho Elementary School is less than two-tenths of a mile from Kahwea Road off Del Rey Road; that approximately 100 of Meadowview's children use this walkway twice a day to get to Rancho Elementary School located on La Serena; that currently there are no signs indicating the location of school access; that additional non-resident traffic will further exacerbate an already unsafe situation; . That extending North General Kearny will have minimal impact on resolving the City's traffic congestion, viewing such an extension as a band aid; . That drivers currently ignore the existing stop signs; . That because Meadowview has no sewers and all surface water travels along natural, open, sandy pathways, leading into the main Blue Line River (under the jurisdiction of the Anny Corps of Engineers), extending North General Kearny would cover several of these natural waterways; . That the extension of North General Kearny would place homes within close proximity of this road; . That an existing, varied echo system would be impacted and that once destroyed, it could never be returned to its natural state; . That the interior noise level would be impacted; At 9:16 P.M., a short recess was called and the meeting was reconvened at 9:30 P.M. . That because of Meadowview CC&R requirements, properties in Meadowview are to be open, visible, and, therefore, vulnerable to crime with the extension of North General Kearny; . That emergency services (5-minute response time) are adequately met with the City's Fire Stations, including the one at French Valley Airport; that a new Fire Station will be built as a result of the Roripaugh Ranch Development; that the Riverside County General reflects two new Fire Stations between French Valley Airport Station and Enterprise Circle Station; . That the Meadowview area is currently used as a short cut for non-residential traffic; that thousands of cars travel per day along Pina Collada, Del Rey, Avenida Barca, Solana, and Via Norte; that all these streets are front loaded with homes; that as per the Public Works Director, such streets should be kept under a traffic volume of 3,000 cars per day; that the front loaded streets have no buffer zone from the driveway to the street and sit below street level, creating a safety concem (line of sight) with exiting properties; . That the extension would have a long-tenn impact on this area; . That the General Plan's goals will not be met if the extension of North General Keamy and opening of Kahwea Road were approved; R:\Minutes\032205 14 . That the extension of North General Keamy would eliminate the rural area of Meadowview; that Meadowview is in desperate need of pavement rehabilitation; that the anticipated traffic volume will be around 20,000 ears per day; . That Meadowview residents view the area as a rural area and, therefore, function as such which could create safety hazards with the addnional non-resident traffic; . That the quality of life of the Meadowview residents would be impacted by including North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads in the General Plan MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exceDtion of Mayor Pro Tern Roberts and Councilman Washington who abstained. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Harkey advised that the Meadowview Homeowners Association will be pursuing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the construction of a golf course; that, within several days, the Environmental Impact Report will be sllbmitted to the City; that a golf course would be an appropriate use for Open Space; that it will create light traffic for the area (maximum 400 ears per day); and that not all but the majority of the Meadowview residents are in favor of the golf course. . That because of minimal traffic associated wnh a golf course, a golf course could be supported; In response to a comment made by a Meadowview resident, City Attorney Thorson advised that City would have no authority to condemn land for housing. . That the balance of a marginal relief of congestion with permanent disruption of the quality of life for the Meadowview residents would be viewed as a band aid and would provide no actual relief; that the interaction between ears and pedestrians would be a concern ; . That the Equestrian Center is directly across the street from James L. Day Middle School; that the increased traffic volume to this area would create increased horse/pedestrian accidents; . That many other City infrastructure improvements have occurred but did not occur in residents' backyards; that additional traffic mitigations would be expected with the City's recent control of Winchester Road and SR 79 South; . That in 1978, the City had three freeway access points; that in 2005, the City has three freeway access points with a population of 100,000 residents; . That an extension of North General Kearny Road would detrimentally impact the properly values; that all development within the City should be stopped until adequate circulation ean be provided and that the proposed Circulation Element be rejected; that major thoroughfares not be located in fully developed rural areas; . That the City should build reasonably; . That today 10,000 cars per day traveling on North General Kearny will not be 10,000 ears in the future; . That the residents are willing to accept slower emergency services; . That many Meadowview residents walk or horseback riders ride along Del Rey Road and at times, are narrowly missed by passing vehicles; that currently when heavy trucks travel alc;mg Del Rey Road, her house vibrates in her bedroom; . That although not living in Meadowview but, living in Santiago Ranchos, expressed opposition to the extension of North General Keamy; R:\Minutes1032205 15 . That there will be impacts on home values, equestrian/pedestrian safety concerns, and incompatible development; At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Comerchero thanked those that spoke and provided input. Council Discussion Although it would be obvious that all roads open would be better with regard to circulation, Councilman Naggar stated that the benefit to the community must be weighed with regard to the opening of roads; that, in his opinion, the benefit of opening of North General Kearny will outweigh the impact to the community; that the benefit to Winchester Road would be minimal; and that the impact to North General Keamy Road and the Meadowview area would be great. Commenting on the City's control of Winchester Road and SR 79 South, Mr. Naggar advised of improvements that have recently been completed as well as ones that will be forthcoming - widening portions of Winchester, additional lane to a freeway off-ramp, Eastern Bypass, widening of Rancho California Road, etc. Mr. Naggar also addressed the City's efforts of pursuing Federal funding to address freeway issues. With regard to the Meadowview Homeowners Association's pursuit of a golf course, Mr. Naggar noted that if a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were requested, the completion of a traffic study would be necessary in order to detenmine accessibility to the golf course and to study whether or not the opening of those roads were necessary. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to not include North General Kearny Road on the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update. Councilwoman Edwards seconded the motion. (Additional discussion ensued prior to the vote; see below.) Commenting on the many infrastructure projects that have been completed or ones that are in the plans in an effort to mitigate traffic circulation, Councilwoman Edwards expressed her opposition to opening a road through a rural area and to destroying this rural neighborhood, noting the cost will outweigh the benefits. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to extend this meeting to 12:00 midnight. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington who abstained. As well commenting on major infrastructure improvements that will further enhance traffic circulation, Mayor Comerchero expressed concurrence with his colleagues' opposition to extending North General Kearny. At this time, voice vote on the previously made motion reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington who abstained. At this time, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington returned to the dais and Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar removed themselves from the dais and the Council Chamber. R:IMinutes1032205 16 Environmental Impact Report/Circulation Element relatina to the Eastern Bvpass (Southern Bvpass) For the benefit of those Councilmembers now in attendance, Mr. Jeff Henderson of Cotton Bridges Associates provided a brief overview of the staff report (of record), pertaining to the Eastern Bypass. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, Principal Planner Hogan addressed the City's effort to match the County's roadway plan in the area of the proposed Eastern Bypass with the exception of increasing the size of the segment between Rainbow Canyon Road and the freeway to allow for additional capacity. For the benefit of all, Councilman Washington clarified the Eastern Bypass route, noting that portions of this Bypass will be outside the City limn and on reservation property and questioned the desired action with regard to this Bypass. For Councilman Washington, Principal Planner noted that it would be staffs desire for the Council to approve a recommendation which would be incorporated into the City's General Plan and one that would mirror a vision of the freeway interchange or what the County has incorporated in its General Plan. Confirming Councilwoman Edwards' comment, Mr. Hogan stated that by including portions of the Eastern Bypass that are within the City's sphere of influence in the Circulation Element, the City will be assuring its ability to comment and provide input as the County proceeds wnh its projects. At this time, the public hearing was opened. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to direct staff to present the Eastern Bypass in its final form at the April 12, 2005, City Council meeting. Councilwoman Edwards seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar who abstained. At this time, Mayor Comerchero returned to the dais. Councilman Naggar as well abstained with regard to this item. Environmental Impact Report/Circulation Element relatinq to Rainbow Canvon Road and Aqenda de Missions Connection For Councilman Washington, Mr. Henderson clarified that the previously noted negative impacts at intersections and freeway ramps and below standard level of service at certain freeway ramps would refer to build out and after improvements (including the Planning Area, the sphere area, and the areas beyond the sphere within the Planning Area). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Henderson advised, for Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, that currently Rainbow Canyon Road has been designated in the General Plan as a four-lane road; that it currently functions as a two- lane collector; and that the proposed General Plan would concur with the existing General Plan to upgrade it to a four-lane road, noting that no change would retain it as a four-lane road. , R:\Minules1032205 17 There being no public testimony with regard to this item, the public hearing was closed. Public Works Director Hughes clarified that staff would support retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as currently designated; with regard to the Loma LindalAvenida de Missiones connection, Mr. Hughes advised that the Community Advisory Committee had recommended upgrading this to a four-lane road but that staff, because of traffic volumes, could support a two-lane road. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to direct staff to retain Rainbow Canyon Road at its current designation and to include Avenida de Missiones Connection (two-lane road) in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who abstained. At this time, Councilman Naggar returned to the dais. Environmental ImDact ReoortlCirculation Element relatina to all other items other than North General Kearnv. Meadowview. and Southern BVDasS All Councilmembers participated in this discussion. At this time, Principal Planner Hogan clarified, by way of overheads, that other items would include the street cross-sections, the roadway classifications, the various policy statements, and the remainder of the Circulation Element. Providing clarification wnh regard to the policy statements in the General Plan, Mr. Hogan noted that they are basically the same as those existing with the addition of three policy statements as a result of concerns raised with the closing of streets (3.6,3.7, and 3.8). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Viewing Ynez Road as a collector-designation level road, Mr. Raymond Bennett, Los Ranchitos community, advised that Ynez Road in the General Plan has a maximum capacity of 14,000 cars per day; that in the current General Plan, Ynez Road has been designated as Modified Secondary Arterial (four lane), which is an upgrade (20,000 cars per day); and that a Modified Secondary Arterial designation would not permit driveway access. Mr. Bennett recommended to redesignate Ynez Road as a Limited Secondary Arterial (16,000 cars per day); to retain the 88' road width; and to keep it as a three-lane road. Considering the road designations of neighboring streets (Margarita Road, De Portola Road, Ynez Road, Santiago Road), Public Works Director Hughes indicated that a four-lane road would be necessary to handle the needed capacity and would not support downgrading the classification of this roadway. For Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Hughes advised that the placement of a horse trail along Ynez Road <through Los Ranchitos area) would require right-of-way acquisition for the trail system. In an effort to preserve the rural communityllifestyle, Mr. Larry Markham, representing Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, requested that De Portola Road and Ynez Road be classified as Limited Secondary Arterial which will permit for a horse trail within the right of way and will reduce it from a four-lane road to a three-lane road. R:IMinutesl032205 18 Expressing concern with horseback riders having to cross a four-lane road, Ms. Kathleen Stowe, member of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, requested that Ynez Road, De Portola Road, La Paz Road, and Jedediah Smith Road be designated as Limited Secondary Arterials (three lanes). For Ms. Stowe, Councilwoman Edwards advised that Jedediah Smith Road is not being proposed to be widened; in fact, it is being proposed to be reduced in the Circulation Element from four lanes to two lanes. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Concurring with comments made by Mr. Markham, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts supported the Limited Secondary Arterial designation (three-lane road). Although it is currently designated as a four-lane road, Councilman Naggar expressed his support of the horse trails and recommended the retention of the 88' right of way; that the Modified Secondary Arterial designation be retained in order for the imposition of a condition to require a parallel horse trail running the length of De PortolalYnez Road (through Los Ranchitos) within the right of way; that if at a future time the three-lane road were widened to a four-lane road, the necessary right of way would have to be acquired in order to preserve a horse trail; that the horse trail be adequately buffered; and that adequate lighting standards be installed to accommodate horse riders. With the added condition, Mr. Naggar expressed his concurrence with staffs recommendation for a Modified Secondary Arterial. For Councilman Washington, staff advised that the proposed General Plan does reflect the changes proposed by the City of Murrieta wnh regard to Ynez Road. Mayor Comerchero further clarified Councilman Naggar's recommendation. MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to extend the meeting to 12;15 A.M. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Both Councilwoman Edwards and Councilman Washington spoke in support of Councilman Naggar's recommendation. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to designate De PortolalYnez Road through Los Ranchitos as a Modified Secondary Arterial with the goal to preserve the equestrian uses and to impose a condition requiring the installation of light standards to accommodate horseback riders, to install horse crossing signs along that corridor, and to require a parallel horse trail running the length of De PortolalYnez Road (through Los Ranchitos) within the 88' right of way and that if at a future time the three-lane road were widened to a four-lane road, the necessary right of way would have to be acquired in order to preserve a horse trail. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Mayor Pro T em Roberts who voted !!Q. R:\Minutes\032205 19 Roadway Cross-SectionslDownqradinq of Jedediah Smith Road to two lanes/and the balance of the Circulation Element as provided MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to reflect in the General Plan Circulation Element the proposed Roadway Cross-Sections, the downgrading of Jedediah Smith Road to two lanes, and the balance of the Circulation Element as provided. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. City Attorney Thorson advised that those Councilmernbers living in Meadowview may partake in the discussion regarding the policy statements because these policies will affect all City streets. Living on a closed street, Councilman Washington indicated that he would be abstaining with regard to these policies. Policy 3.6 Discourage closing local streets to maintain the functionality of the arterial road network, achieve public safety goals, and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance services. Mayor Comerchero recommended the addition of the following language to Policy 3.6; unless it seriously impacts quality of life issues in rural communities. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to include Policy 3.6 in the General Plan with the amendment as recommended by Mayor Comerchero (as noted above). The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Washington who abstained. Policv 3.7 Consider opening previously closed or blocked local streets to enhance the local road network, achieve public safety goals, and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance services while minimizing outside through traffic on local residential streets. After a brief discussion and with the clarification from City Attorney Thorson, noting that no language would be required in the General Plan for a future City Council to consider any item in the General Plan, the following motions were offered; MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to delete Policy 3.7 from the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Washington who abstained. Policy 3.8 Complete the construction of local connecting streets to enhance area circulation for local residents and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance services while minimizing through traffic on local residential streets. R:\Minutes\032205 20 MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to delete Policy 3.8 from the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Councilman Washington who abstained. MOTION: Councilwoman Edwards moved to continue the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and the General Plan Update itself except for the Circulation Element to the City Council meeting of April 12, 2005. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comment. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable items from Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT At 12:11 AM., on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 7;00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST; Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\Minutes\032205 21 Temecula City Council Meeting April 12, 2005 Agenda Item # 13 Request #7, page 13 A Review of the request to change zoning of subject property (Temecula Lane) from Office Professional to a combination of Low-Medium Density and Medium Density. The request was supported by the Community Advisory Committee. (However, because of significant traffic congestion at bottleneck points on Pechanga Parkway, the main access route to and from the 1-15 freeway, the support for the zone change was conditional upon Lorna Linda Road being redesignated as a 4-lane roadway, and a future roadway corridor through the subject property being designated as a 4-lane roadway, that would connect with A venida De Missiones (already constructed as a 4-lane roadway with a painted median, at Via Rio Temecula (already constructed as a 4-lane roadway, undivided), across the Temecula Creek. These combinations of roadways will create another access route from Southern Temecula to Highway 79 South, also known as the "Temecula Creek crossing to provide supplemental access to SR 79 South" in the Temecula Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which was recently upgraded to a Priority I status, and is identified in the Circulation Element as a "designated proiect having particular relevance to the Circulation Element". The Planning Commission recommended only Low-Medium density for this request for because of similar concerns about traffic safety and congestion. Mlt~UTES OF A REGULAR MEET!NG OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCiL APRIL 12, 2005 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, in the CRy Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The Open Session convened at 7;00 P.M. Present; 5 Councilmembers; Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, and Comerchero Absent; o Councilmembers: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Joshua and Kevin Jurkosky. !NVOCA TION The invocation was given by Pastor Lou Dawson of Rancho Baptist Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Cub Scout Pack No. 148. After the pledge of allegiance, the Pack thanked the City Council for being given the opportunity to perfonn the Flag Ceremony and for its generous support. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Child Abuse Prevention Month On behalf of Prevent Child Abuse of Riverside County, a representative from the organization thanked the City Council for its support, advising that the month of April is Child Abuse Prevention Month. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Suzanne Zychowicz, Temecula, encouraged partnerships among neighbors, neighborhoods, cities, etc. preserving traditions beneficial for the entire communRy and thinking globally and acting locally. On behalf of the residents of the City especially those in the Meadowview area, Ms. Diana Lovell-Webb, Temecula, publicly thanked the City Council for its support of the residential community and in protecting the quality life in this City. Not being aware that the Circulation Plan had already been approved by the City Council, Mr. Kenneth Calderwood, Temecula, addressed the Traffic CirCulation Plan in particular the area R:\Minuf..es\041205 Jor...ated behifle- the- Pechenga Casino, commenting on noise pollution, light pollution, and impacts to the existing eco system. 8y way of overheads, Mr. Joseph Terrazas, Temecula, echoing Mr. Ca!derNood's comments, requested that the proposed road be relocated to the other side of the hi!!. Me John Dedovesh, Temecula, addressed the excessive speed limit along Rancho Californie Road., Mr. Don stowe, Temecula, expressed opposition to the proposed expansion of Ynez and DePortola Roads through Los Ranchnos and requested that this matter be readdressed and thet the public heering regarding this issue be reopened, commenting on increased traffic end horse-crossing safety concerns. !n response to Mr. stowe's request to reopen the public hearing, City Attorney Thorson advised th!:2t .0" 1\.J1~\"';ch 'J? ?n05 the Cif'-l.r-r1l1ncif he'''' a nl"t'\r'\cl"ly nnfi....I:lN pllhli..... he!]l"'ing on th'" ......... II n.~. _,........ '.. ....""" .Ll ......""~. "......,"'" .....""'!"'...... I..............."'" ............. ...... . ... ._ Circulation Element. While individuels, this evening, may comment on traffic issues under Public Comment, the City Council may not take any action on any suggested changes because such action ~Nould require a public hearing. Addressing the proposed changes to Ynez and DePortola Roads, Ms. Marian Guy, Temecu!a, viewed Ynez Roed as a cut through from SR 79 South from Jededieh Smith Road to Margarite Road, creating safety concerns between drivers and equestrians. She further addressed property values and drainage problems on Ynez and DePorto!a Roads- and requested that the public hearing regarding the proposed changes to Ynez and DePortola Roads be- reopened. Advising that he had collected over 200 petnion signatures have been collected by Los Ranchitos' residents and that over 300 postcards have been mailed to City Hall, Ms. Kathleen Stowe commented on the residents' opposition to the City Council's decision to increase the width of Ynez Road/DePortola Roads through Los Ranchitos from two lanes to four lanes. Noting that residents were not given their democratic due process by not being given the opportunity to speak at the March 22, 2005, City Council meeting, Ms. Stowe requested that Item No. 19.2 of the General Plan Update Circulation Element be reopened. !n response to Ms. Stowe, Mayor Comercheroadvised that the City Councif'saction on March 22, 2005, was not to increase the width of those roads but to keep the designation the same as has been in the General Plan. To ensure a democratic process is followed, Ms. Linda Doucell, Temecula, as well requested that the public hearing regarding Ynez/DePortola Roads be reopened. Discussing the Merch 22, 2005, public hearing for the Circuletion Element, Mr. Merk Broderick, Temecu!a, representing the Rainbow Canyon Villages Homeowners Association, noted that he was advised that because of the number of people speaking that evening, he would possibly not address the Council unlil11;30 P.M. or 12;00. midnight; that because he commutes, he could not stay late; and that the Association is requesting that n be given the opportunity to present its concerns regarding the Circulation Element; Opening, extending, and creating new streets should be a priority when considering safety issues within the Circulation Element of the Genera! Plan, Ms. Diana Broderick, Temecura, R:\Minutes\04120S 2 addressed emergency access/pEssage. advising that more chQices WQuld spread the vu[ume of traffic and decreasing the heavy toad on existing arteries. Ms. Charlotte Roa, Riverside, questioned whether there was validity to a highway being constructed near her property located on Anza Road and DeP-ortoia Road. RespOn\:!ing to Ms. Roa, Mayor Comerchero advisee! her that City staff would contact her to n'o","e .,n.ormati.....n u,i"h regarrl ....... nIIOc.t',on not'ir"ln that the a'oa n; nuostl'on 's nn' wl.th',n i'ity 1'" v v If' 1....11 v"'u . .... ~.... "'f......~ ,III~ I.... ..... "'f ... I......~ "' _I~ limits. stating that, in his opinion, the Environmentai Impacl Report (EIR) does provide the required mitigations to approVe the General Plan, Mr. Raymond Bennett, Temecula, rap,,,senling the Los Ranchitos Homeowners i\ssociation, addressed noise, private driveways entering on to the arteriai highway such as Ynez/DePortola Roads and equestrian safety/equestrian trail and requested that the EIR be reevaluated. Considering the existing safety- issues with horse crossing on Ynez Roael, Mr. Jack Williams, Temecula, requested that the Circuiation Element be reopened for discussion. Mr. Faddoul Baida, Temecula, addressed the lack of information being provided to the pubiic. Expressing concern with the manner in which the YnezlDePortoia Roads portion of the Circulation Element was addressed by the City- Council at tI-,e March 22. 2QQ~, City Council meeting, Mr. Neal liff, Temecula, addressed safety concerns and requested that the City Council reopen discussion regarding this particular portion of the Circui-ation Element Mayor G-omerchero'agaln.clarified that the designation for YnezlDePortola Roads in the existing General'P~an, adopted. in 1-W3, has been a four-lane road and. t!:1at the City- Council's, action vl1 March 22, 2005 was to maintain that same designation not to add to the width in terms of lanes. Ms. Pamela Havens, Temecuia, questioned the validity to annexing the County area of Country Road Estates into the City of Temecula. Mayor Comerchero advised that the Ony has no plans to annex the wine country, 80mmenting ona 70-signature petition that he had circulated, Mr.M-ike Kuhn, Temecula. shared the residents' disagreement with eliminating the possibility of opening any blocked streets or the comp!etlon or North Genera~ Kearny R-oad from.Jhe updated General- Pian. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS .....~-~----------"-_._-;-.'-..._-_.._. A. In response to the residents'. comments, Councilman VVashington expressed appreciation for their input. p..~r. Washington appr.sed the public of the upcoming Sixth Annual Golf Tournament Fundraiser for the Theater Fr>lJooation on Memori<!! Weekeoo in Las. Vegas. 6. Commenting on a fatai coHision on Ynez Road, nearihe auto deaierships, involving a car carrier and a. passenger vehici-e, ~...~ayor Pro 'T em Roberts advised- thai he.had requested a meeting wnh the auto dealerships to ensure such a tragic accident wiii not happen in the future. C. AnnQUm:;:~Hg ti:1e.' suc.ce-ss Qf. the. w.eekly.' City.'s Fitness- in Temecu!a (F.LT.) Problf8Hl, r...~ayor Oomerchero advised that this health program will beheld at tour Oity parks, commending Community Services Direcior Parker and his staff. R:\Minutes\04120S 3 CONSENT CALEf'.JDAR , , 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 approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEM!;CULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMAr~D5 AS SET FbRTH IN EXHiBii A 3 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the minutes of March 8, 2005; 3.2 Approve the minutes of March 22, 2005; 3.3 Approve the minutes of March 31, 2005. 4 Citv Treasurer's Rel:iort RECOMMENDATION: 4. i Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of Februar/ 28, 2005. 5 Parcel Map No. 31898. located south of Wolf Valle v Road and East of Pecha no a Parkwav RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve Parcel Map NO.3 1898 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval. (item No.5 was pUller i{)r separate discussion; see page {'.j R:\Minutes\041205 4 6 Second Amendment to Fiscal Year 2004-200-5 Annual Citvwide Routine Maintenance Contract RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Maintenance Contract with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. for an amount of $50.,0.00.00 and authorize the Mayor to axecute the amendment. . 7 Award the Construction Contract for the Temecula Public Library. Proiect No. PWOO-07 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Award a construction contract for the Temecula Public Library, Project No. PWo.o.- 0.7, to EDGE Development, Inc., in the amount of $11,757,812.30, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1.175,781.20, which is equal to 10.% of the contract amount. 7.3 Approve the acceleration of appropriated budgeted funds in FY2005-2006 to FY2Do.4-2005 in the amount of $8,671,570.,0.0, 7.4 Approve a transfer in the amount of $1,70.0,00.0.00 from the Maintenance Facility/Field Operation Canter to the Temecula Library Project. (pulled for separate discussion; see page 7.) 8 Reaooointment of Animal Shelter Liaison/JPA Representative RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Appoint Councilmember Maryann Edwards as the City's representative on the Board of Directors of the Southwest Communities Financing Authority. 9 Resolution of support for Providino Necess8rv Infrastructure for Reoional Goods Movement Includino Separate Rail CrQssinas (At the request of Councilman Naggar) RECOMMENDATiON: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes\041205 5 RESOLUTION NO. 05-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU~JCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE C1TV' OF RIVERSIDE AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES RELATED TO CREATING A REGlmJAL GOOD MOVEMENT SYSTEM THAT CONSTRUCTS GRADE SEPARATED RAIL CROSSINGS; ESTABLISHES HIGHWAY PROJECTS DEDICATED TO GOODS MOVEMENT; AND IDENTIFIES PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FINANCING ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEARLY $3.5 BILLION IN RAIL AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SYSTEM AND PROTECT THE REGION'S ECONOMIC VIABILITY 10 Resolution of Opposnion to the Granite Quarrv Proiect (At the request of Mayor Comerchero) Re;COMMENDA TION; 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled; RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SURFACE MINING OPERATION WITHIN THE HILLS SOUTH OF TEMECULA (Mayor Comerchero requested that this item be continued off calendar for additional discussion and investigation.) MOTION:. Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4, 6, and 8-9 (Item Nos. 5 and 7 were considered under separate discussion and Item No. 10 was continued off calendar.) The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM PULLED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION 5 Parcel Mao No. 31898 (located south of Wolf Vallev Road and east of Pech"naa . Parkwav) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 31898 in conformance with the conditions of approval. Expressing concern with the potential of a freeway off-ramp being located near the Wolf Valley Homeowners Association, Mr. Todd Shoebotham, Temecula, requested that this project be reeveluated to determine its close proximity to the residents, commenting on the impact of the community. R;.\Minutes\041205 6 MOT!O~!: Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Item NO.5. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Award the Constn.!ction Contract for the Temecu!a Public Library - Proiect No. PWOO-07 RECOMMENDATION; 7.1 Award a construction contract for the Temecula Public Library, Project No. PWOO-07, to EDGE Development, Inc., in the amount of $H,757,812.30, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 7.2 Authorize tl1e City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,175,781.20, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 7.3 Approve the acceleration of appropriated budgeted funds in FY2005-2006 to FY2004-2005 in the amount of $8,671,570.00; 7.4 Approve a transfer in the amount of $1,700,000.00 from the Maintenance Facility/Field Operation Center to the Temecula Library Project Mayor Pro Tem Roberts relayed his delight with awarding this construction contract. Councilman Washington, echoed by Mayor Comerchero, expressed support of this project. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Item NO.7. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. 10 Resolution of Opposition to the Granne Quarry Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled; RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF TEMECULA OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SURFACE MINING OPERATION WITHIN THE HILLS SOUTH OF rEMECULA Ms. Vicki Lory, Temecula, encouraged the City Council to reagendize this item in order to oppose the development of a surface mining operation. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to continue this nem off calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8;05 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Tem6cula Public Financing Authorny. After a short recess, the City Council, at 8;20 P.M., resumed with regular business. R:\Minut..\04120$ 7 PUBLIC HEARING 11 Vacation of a Portion of an Unnamed Allev located between Second Stre.et and Third Street east of Old Town Front Stre.etas shown on Block 18 of Town Site of Temecula {Old Town RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-41 A RESOLUT!ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA VACATING A PORTI01'J OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY LOCATEDBElWEE1'J SECOND STREET AND THIRD STREET AS SHOWN ON BLOCK 18 OF TOWN SITE OF TEMECULA IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Public Works Director Hughes presented the staff report (as per agenda materia!). There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. MOTlO1'J: Councilman Naggar moved to approve this item, including the adoption of Resolution No. 05-41. The motion lNas seconded by Councilman Washington a.nd electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. 12 Vacation of AI! Interior Streets and Certain Drainaoe Easements within Tract No. 26941 (Crowne H-Hl - The Resente) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entifJed: RESOLUT!ON NO. 0542 A RESOLUTlGN .OF THE -CITY COUt.JCtl .-OF THE -CtTY OF TEMECl.ILA VACATING LOT "A" (WOLFE STREET), LOT "13" (SUSAN GRACE COURT)A1'lDLOr "C" (MUS!LEK PLACE) AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT NO. 26941 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CAUFORN!A, AS SHQWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS Public Works Director Hughes reviewed the staff report (of record). MOTION: Mayor Pre Tern Roberts moved to approve this item, including the adoption of Resolution No. 05-42. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\.M.m.ytes.\Q412Q5 ~ 13 Generai P!al'lcUpdate RECOMMENDATION; 13,1 Cong\lc\ the P\lpfic Hearing on the Draft-bang IJ-se-, Open Spac;e Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan and the Draft Environmentallmpael Report related to these Elements; 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN 13.3 Adopt a resolution entnled: RESOLUTION NO, 05-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mayor Comerchero read a statement (Of record) prepared by the City Attorney with regard to the proceedings of this item. At this time, Planning Director Ubnoske introduced Mr. Jeff Henderson of Cotton Bridges and Associates who proceeded with the staff report (Of record), commenting on the following: . Development capacity onhe updated General Plan (113.421 population with 55,764 in areas within the City's sphere of influence - total population 169,185) versus existing conditions as well as the previous Genera] Plan (112,254 papulation with 81,655 in areas wnhin tile City's sphere of influence - total population 193,9(9); . Content of the General Plan . Policy direction within the updated General Plan " Direction remains the same as that of the 1993 General Plan " Most changes fit within the framework of that Pian . Primary changes affect Land Use and Circulation Elements . Reflect previously County-granted entitlements . Preservation of Open Space Corridors . Create a desirable and livable Urban area . Adjusting density for the Vineyard and AgriCUltural designation from (1,0 to 0.2 gwe!lingunits per acre . Modify the description of the recreation commercial designation to include timeshare and fractional ownership units . Incorporate the Airport Compatibility Plan figure within the Land Use Element R;\M!nyt~s-\M12.~ a . Remove 1I1e area between Temecula Creek and SR 79 South from Rural Preservation Area No.2 .. Remove Land Use Request NO.2 from the Nicolas VaUeyRural Preservation Area should the City Council concur wnh the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding that area . Identify the Bureau of Land Management Ownership Areas that are present on the Land Use Policy Map 0. Encouraging mixed-use development near Interstate 15 0. Preserving established rural areas 0. Managing future growth 0. Modified Land Use Designations . Rural residential designation - 5-acre minimum lot size - east of current City bounda/)' . Business Park designation to Industrial Park . Vineyards Agricultural designation - new designation . Tribal Trust lands- new designation . Commercial Recreation Overlay . Open Space and Conservation Element 0. Inclusion of identification of the City's historic resources 0. includes new policies and implementation that will address the concern of the Pechanga Band of LUiseno Indians 0. Updated information Williamson ACt Preserves within the Planning Area 0. UpdatediilformatiOn on MTBE contamination .. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element 0. Addition of statements discouraging street closures that may limit or delay access to emergency services 0. Updated technical information provided by Rancho Califomia Water Districts as welf as the Temecula Valfey Unified School District . Pubtic Safety Element 0. No majorpolicycl1anges 0. tnctuded updated Slate geologic hazard programs 0. Incorporated information regarding 1I1e Temecuta Citizen's Corps 0. Addition of a pOliCY statement diSCOuraging the closure of streets when emeriency r.esponse and publiC safety is adversely affect.ecl .. Air -Quality Element -0 No major policy changes are-befng proposed butl1ave included updated mformatibn on local programs, including the Trip Reduction Ordinance . Community DeSign Element 0. Significant changes regarding discussion of mixed-use design concepts 0. Includes new policies and implementation encouraging the creation of public spaces and enh!'lnce the role of public art in "those spaces 0- Interim Chaparral Area poliCies, adopted in 2004, have been incorporated .. Economic Development Element 0. InclUdesupdaled information and descnptions of local programs -does not include any major policy changes. . Housing EIero.ent '" Not updated as part of this program o Currently adopted Housing Element with which "this GeneralPlan is consistent wilt be. incorporated into "the General Plan once it is adopted 0. Next Housing Etement Update will begin 2006 or 2007 ~WliruilaaW4t2115 tU . Airport Land Use Commission o Several changes have been recommended to ensure consistency with the FrenCh Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan o Suggested changes consistent with the other pOlicies and implementation that have 'already been included in the draft . envir~nmentallmpac:t Report (t;IR) o it, comment letters were received from various agencies o 3 Significant, unavoidable impacts were detennined in that EIR · Short-tenn construction impacts . Long-term emissiOns . Transportation o AU other impacts in the EIR were considered less than significant . Required mitigation measures have been included and identified At this. time, the public hearing was opened. BR in Land Use Desianations for the area south of Moman Hill Specific Plan (Mayorcomerchero. and Councilman Naggar did not partake in this matter and removed themselves from the dais and Council Chamber.) Mayor Pro Tem Roberts presided, There being no public hearing, the public hearing regarding the above-mentioned item was closed. MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to approve staffs recommended Land Use Designations for the area south of Morgan Hill Specific Plan. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor ComerChero and Councilman Naggarwho abstained, Reauest No. 2 - 72 acres at the comer of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo - Plannina Commission recommendation to. split the desianation with low densitv on the northern half and Open Space on the southern portion. of the site with a reauirement for a JJlanned development overlay (Mayor Comerchero did not partake in this matter and removed himself from the dais and Council Chamber.) By way.. of overheads, Principal Planner Hogan. described the proposed request, highlighting the Community Advisol)' Committee's recommendation as well aslhe Planning Commission's recommendation, noting that Council approval would be required with the Commission's proposal of a Planned Development Overlay. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Viewing the property of discussion as a gateway to Nicolas Valley, Mr. Chris Pedersen, Temecula, discouraged an increase in density, noting thata majority of the property would be unusable for development Mr. Roger Share, representing the Garrett Group, expressed the Garrett Group's support of the Planning Commission's recommendation. R:iMinulesi041205 11 Advi5ing that three years ago the Garrell Group acquired the property of discussion from the Boy Scouts, MLKirk Wright, representing the Garrett Group, as well concurred with the Planning 'Commission's recommendation and noted that although the propOcssl may be an upzone in density, the proposed density would not be equal to the densny that would have been permnted with a very low densny project. There being no addnional speakers, the public hearing was closed. Being of the opinion that the General f'lan wouldnot.be the appropriate lime to review particular projects, Councilman Naggar relayed his .support of the CityCounciireviewing this par!icularland use designation and General Plan Amendment as a project, commenting on the City'S Growth Management Plan and noting lIlatifthis were approvedatthispoinnn time, the Growth Management Plan process would be negated. Concurring with Councilman Naggar's comment, Coun.cilwomanEdwards stated that because of the quality of projects produced by the Garrell Group, she would have no doubt that the future Garrett GroupprojectJorthe area of discussion will be a project the City Council would accept. In response to Councilman Washington, Cny Attorney Thorson. advised that approval of the request will require a majority.vote; Echoing Mrs. ,Edwards, Mr. Washington as well expressed his confidence in the Garrett Group 10 produce a quality project. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts echoed the previousTymade comments shared by Councilman Naggar. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to maintain the existing General Plan designation for the 72 acres at the corner of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo as its current Very Low Density designation. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with theexceJ:rtionofMayor Comercharo who abstained. Callowav Winery ProDertvtlocatel:Jin the Rural.Preservation Areas to the east of the Citv boundary) {Mayor Comerchero did not partake in this matter and removed himself from the dais and Council Chamber.} .' Reviewinglhis request, Mr. Hendersonnoted.the following; . That the current designation is Vineyards/Agriculture - one unit per f1.ve acres . Thalthe change would .be to include the property in the updated General Plan . That the proposed changewould:bEla recommendation to the County There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. MOTtON::Councilman Naggar moved to approve .the staff recommendation to include the Calloway Winery property in the updated General. Plan and to designate it. as VlneyardsfAgricullure, permnting one unit per five acres. The. motion was seconded by Councilwoman Washington and voice vote reflected approval with the eXC9Dtion of Mayor Comereherowho abstained. R~-,M'Inules\041205 12 At thiS time, MaYOf Comerchero.retumedto the dais and Councilman Naggar removed himselfftom tfladafs and:CouncifChamhef. Request 1\10:. 7 - 45~cre site_the north side of Lorna linda~oad - te) challge from ProfeSsionlllofflie.fcfa-eombination of Low MecliumOeositv and. Medium Densitv. T-ha Low Medium. Density would be on the eastern: portion of the siteadiacent to: theexis.tiOQ sil1Qle-familv homes. A pr-aiect. bas been submitted to the City consistent with this concept. The project inc-afporates 20% affordable units for moderate incomes 00 the part of tbe site desiQnated for Medium Density. The reQUest was supported by the Community Advisorv C~)nlmittee. However. tbe Plannin!f Commission is recommendinQ. onlvLow Medium Densitv. (Councilman Naggaf did not partake in this matter and removed himself from tre dais and Council Chamber.) Mr. Henderson and Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the. proposed request, noting the following: . Thattha Low Medium Density-would: create approximately-4to: 5 units pel acre . That the Professional OffIce designation would generally generate more vehicle trips than either residential category; that a vehicle reduction would occur at enher Low Medium or Medium DensitY · That the Professional OfIica designation would allow mulli:.family, senior housing at a l1igflef density . That approximately 400. units would be the maximum allowable lIDits for Low J\llediumlMedium Density and ~fnximarew-20.0..tmitsfor oolyl.ow' MediumHensity At this time, the public hearing regarding this matterwas opened, AdvisIng that a vesting map has been submitted to staff for a project with regard to the area of dIscussion, Mr. Larry Markham, Temecuta, requested approval from the City Council; advised .tIlat the prl:lject will be heard wnbin ctRe next 60 days by the Planning Commission;:and co~ on efforts. undertaken-witb-+egant~t-(preservation of a p~1he Creek, trait connectivity, right of way, etc.). in response to Mayor Comerchero, Planning Director UbnosKe advised that the project referenced hy Mr. Markham wOlJkf.na consiStent witll !tie current General PIafLMr. COmercbero questioned' how tllisproject.would be.:eoll5islent WillI 'the upd~n if ltleCouneiLwete.-to. conCUr wittt l/'re"!'?h""uitlg Commission'S'recommendatiorrtor-l:.ollJl Medium Density. Not having. stl ltle specifics, City Attorney Tborson nated thattbegeneral rule would he that ttTe-Cily CouncIl may ch~a:z.OJ:le' and because. it may' be lass; thall tn-I> pre'illous: z.oning. or GeneralPlan designation would not necessarily mean it would be. megaL , It was.noted that a letter was,receIVed with regard.to, this-matter and. that It would be part of the. public. record. Mr.. Mark. BrOderick, T'lmecula, rewre!!enting RalOOow Caoyon Village!! HOmeOwrnlfl> Associalioo, expre!!Sed wncem WillI traffic within ltle area of discussioo and oppo!!ed the City CounCl1 dOwngrading- are&ommended designatedmadway. At fuiS time, thepubfil:: hearing was closed. R:\Mintitesl!l4t21lS 1'3 FOf-C9J.mci!w.oman Edwards,J?dru:lj1"'J Planne~ !:iogan (:-OnlirmedJhal the ren,JJested designaUon would decrease the number of trips per day. from the !:lJffent dasigf!a!ioo. for CounCJlman WaS:hinglQn, Cuy Altomey ThQrsQn further clarifi.ed MaYQr CornercherQ's concern whether this project would be co!lsistent with !he updated Genera! Plan,. noting that there are two issues: whether or not to l:hange the General Plan and what is the impact of that project. Mr. Hogan reiterated that !be Community AdviSOlY Committee recommendation would permit approxlJ:nate!y 4QQ units and that the Planning Commission recommendation would permit approximately 200 units, noting that the 400 units had been included in the ElR for tile General Plan. Mayor Comerchero expressed roncern with the City Council adhering to the Planning Commission recommendation and, thereby, downzoning this property atter the appUcanl, in good faith, presented a project that was consistent with the wrrent General Plan and would be ronsistent with the CAG's recommendation but not with the Planning Ggmmission's recommendation. ", MOnQI\!~ Councilman Washington moved tQ approve the CAC's recommendation (for split zoning). Coundlwoman Edwards seconded the motion. {This motion was -ultimately witl1draw.~ Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that by changing the zone from Professional OffJce to a combination of Low Medium Densl1y and MedIum Densll:y, the affor.dable componenf requirement would no longer exist but advised that any future project may be conditioned for the affordable component In !1ght of Mr. Thornh1!!'s dariflcation, Councilman Washington withdrew the abov6--mentloned motion and offered the farrowing; MOTION: Coundlman Washington moved to retain the Professional Office designation for the 45.ac-re site 00 the north side of Lorna Linda Road. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Coundlman Naggar who al:!sfalned~ At this time, Councilman Naggar returned to the dais. EIR for the proPOSed Land Use!Open SoaceConseNation/Growth Manaqement/Pub!ic Facilities/Public Safety/Noise/Air QualitvlCommunitv Desian/Economic Development aemeots of the GeneraT Plan UDdafe ana remainina reauests Ms. Eileen Runde, T€mewla {wine country), questioned the City's desire to include westerly Anza Road to Butt€ITrekl Stage Road in its sphere of influence. Mayor Comerchero reiterated that the City will no! be including tile wine country in its sphere of i!lfluence, noting that it is being included in !he Plaoning Area of the General Plan which wilt give the City the abUlly to romment to the C-Ounty on actions it may take with regard to tIlis area. Ms, Runde as well expressed roncern with making A.nza Road the TransportatiGn Corridor which will divide wine country. In response to. Ms. Runde, Mayor Pro. Tem Roberts advised that in the County's General: Plan CircutatIon Element, Anza Road was redeSIgnated from a two-tane road fo a four- lane road. R:I.MinutesID-.At2O& 14 Ms. Adr1an McBregor, Temecula (wine ccuntlY),commentect, -as -per the -Department/County/State Transportatic..n minutes, {J!\ the width {If the corrictorrelocated tOAAza Road and expressed concem that no circulatory roads have been lncluded; addressed air quality; mixed zoning; future i!,,clusion in the City's sphere of 1nf!uence; taxation; -and natural energies. -For the Beneral Plan Amendments, Cny Attorney Thorson advised that the City has followed the legally required notice with publications. Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula, was called to address the City Council but was no longer in attendance of the meeting. -Noting that at meeting she had attended the majority of the City's representatives (City's co.nsultant, Police/Fire) were in support of opening roads, Ms. Evelyn Buchanan, Temecula, questioned why the City Council would hire a consultant if it does not consider his recommendations; why request information from Police/Fire if the advise is disr...cunted; why are . t' tt 'd I.... .., t"fth" T'I pled "In Ith 'C'I mee Ings se 0 proVI e .HIS m,orms Ion I. e m.orme,lOn IS no. acce ._ ; propose" ,.a. e I,y buy the homes on the Meadowview side of the street and create a strip of land for a Calle Medusa Parkway, similar to Meadows Parkway; and encouraged quality of life for all Temecula res~del1ts. Because the public hearing on the Circulation Element has been ciO--"Sd, Mayor Comerchero. reminded the upcoming speakers that. issues with regard to the Circulation Element will not be discussed this evening. -Noting all Elements of the General Plan must be balanced and must be considered in its entirety, Ms. Suzanne Zychowics, Temecula, noted that a General Plan process was fo!lowed by City consultantlCommissions/staff; that this process was paid for by the taxpayers; that. the pro.cess was not .adhered to by the City Council and, therefore, the Plan was unbalanced; addressed air quaJi!y and safety risks, commenting o.n the F rating at a particular intersection; -and referer>,ced sexoffendars residing within her neighborhood. Appreciating the articulateness of Mr. Buchanan and Ms. Zychowics, Councilman Naggar noted that although information has been provided to the City Co>.mcil regarding the Beneral Plan by consultants/staff/Commissions, the City Council has the responsibility to balance the human fector with this or any Gther {/ecjsion. Mr. -Naggar encouraged Ms. Zycoowiczs and any other individuals to feel free to contact him or the City Manager's Office to obtain informatian about measures the Cityhasun..rIer!aken to address traff1C congestion/cir-culation. Having received numero.us emails after the March 22, 2005, City Council meeting, Mayor Comerchero referenced -comm-ents made in the emaHs to which Mr. Comerchero stated that Meadowview residents represent 3.5% of the population of this City, noting that if the' Cily Council's primarycGflCem werei!s reelection, the Council would -have never taken the stand it did anMarch 22, 2Q05. Mr. Don Gur4un, representing Walcott Investment, advised that a land plan {consisting of 66 units with a minimum o.f 7.,2QQ square foot lots up to 3Q,QQQ square root lots on the northern edge of the property} has.oeen prepared for the 22 .acres in the nort~..st section o.f the City; requested that the City Council consider a zone change from Lo.w Density to loJ!ed.itJm Low Density for these 22 ac-res; and edvised that Walcot! Investment has o.ffered to provide a fire access road (apprQ..ximate!y a mile) for Uefer Road. K\Minuto.\Q412QS 15 At tQ:34 P.M., a short recess was taken. Expressing appreCfation to the Planning Commission as. welt as Planningstaffwfth regard to the Temecula Creek Inn specifiC Plan, Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Temecula Creek Inn, relayed concurrence with the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation, requesting that restaurants/conference center be included in resort-related uses. Mr. Larry Markham, Temecula, expressed concem wnh a policy In the Chaparral Policy Area relating to the constraint area and the 15% of allowed distUlbance of the constraint area; commented on the difficulty of meeting the requirement of slope areas greater than 25%, natural drainage courses, and biological area; and requested that language be added with regard to not having manufactured slopes from the external. view of the site. Wrt.h. regard to Request NO.6 (TemecuJa Creek Village}, Mr. Markham advised that these 7 acres are not in the flood plain; thatle:galaccess nasbe:en acquired and recorded; and that, therefore, it would be requested that consideration be given to utilizing this area for RV/boat storage. Heving requested a zone change at the Planning Commission for a parcel located at Winchester Road and Rustic Glen Drive, Mr. Bart Doyle, Temecula, advised that the requested change woufdbefrom Neighborhood Commercial to Professional Office for the purpose of Obtaining higher density level in order to construct a senior housing project. . Representing Request Nos. 3, 10, and 18,. Mr. Matthew Fagan, Temecula, noted the fallowing: . Tbat R~que$t No. 3 - 9 a.cres at the corner of Margarita RQad and. Solana Way to change fromM.edium Density toa combination of ProfessionaJ.Qffice and. Open Space; . That both the CAC and the Planning Commission have concurred wnh the request; . That Request No. 10- - 1'8"acre site 00 the west side of Butterfield Stage Road to change from Very Low Density toa combination of Low Density and Low Medium Density (MargamaVillage Speclflc Plan); supported by both the CAC and the Planning Commission; . That the projeQthas a large frontage on Butterfield Stage Roaeland condllions will be imposed to participate for the reimbursement of that road; · That if the request were approved, the Margarita Village Specific Plan will still be. wnhin its threshold; . That Request No. 18 - 2-acre site on Pauba Road weSt of the two Neighborhood Commercial properties to change from Very Low Density to Neighborhood Commercial and to remove the property from the Chaparral Area; it was noted that the Planning Commission had not supporteclthis request. IncQl'\C\usion, Mr.. Faganrequested. the City Council's support MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to extend the City Council. meeting to 11:3Q P.M. Mayor Camercllera seconded1he motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Ms. Malinda Smith, Temecula, chose tenet address the CouncU. Mr. Younis, Temecula, wasenher nolongerpre5ent or chose to not address the Council. R:\Minures\U4120S ta Me. Farood Ahmad, Temecula, was either no longer pre.sent orchOS6 to uotaddress the Council. Ms. Margaret Rich, Temecuta, was either no longer present or chose to not address the Council. Ms. Kathy Smiih, Temecula, was either no longer present or chose to not address the Council. Mr. Kenneth Hahn, Murrieta, expressed his surprise with the City Council's action to extend a four-lane highway alongYnez/DePortola Roads which would inundate 70 driveways, noting that the most cost-effective way of Improving air quality, improving safety, and improve circulation issues would be to open North General Kearny Road. Renerating previously made comments of reopening the pUblic hearing for the Circulation Element, Mr. Mark Broderick, Temecula, representing Rainbow Canyon ViUage Homeowners Association, expressed concern with Rural Preservation Area No. 4 (Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch - south of Pechanga Parkway east oJ Rainbow Canyon Road adjacent to the Pechanga Casino), sharing concem wnh the destruction of the hillside and relaying the desire to include this hillside area in the Rural Preservation Area NO.4. in order to maintain the natural resources and the aesthetics of this area. City Clerk Jones referenced the receipt of two letters. At thIs time,. the publ1chearlng was closed. In response to the Mayor's request, the consultant and staff reviewed each request. noting the following: Request No. 1 - 5-'llcresliver of propertv on the east side of Marqarita Road to chanqe from Public Institutional to Professional Office - both theCAC and. Planninq Commission have supported the rellUest . thalthe site of discussion will be a challenging sne Mayor Pro Tem Roberts noted that an easement would be required to accommodate the pedestrian bridge. Because this would not be the appropriate time to address details, Councilman Naggar suggested that thisdesignalion change be reviewed wfih a project and offered the following motion:. MQT1QN~Councilman Naggar moved to retain the existing General Plan designation of Public InstnutionaL Mayor Pro Tem Roberts seconded the motion. (Additional discussion ensuedprtorto the vote; see below.} Councilman WaShington expresseCl his support of the CAC's aM Planning COmmission's recommendation. -. . - - At this t1mee, the electronic vote for the previously made motion reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Washington who voted no. R:\Minute.sXQ4t'Z05: f7 Re9uest NO.2 Previously discussed; see pages 11-12. Request No.3 - 9 acres at the comer of MarQarita Road and Solana Way to chanQe from Medium Density to a combination of Professional Office and Open Space - both the CAC and the PlanninQ Commission have supported the request . that the net affect of the proposed change would be a reduction of 70 units. Councilman Washington expressed his support of the request. MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to approve the requested change. The motion was seconded by CounCilwoman Edwards. (Additional discussion ensued prior to the vote; see below.) Echoing Councilman Washington's comment of support, Councilwoman Edwards noted that the proposed request would be an improvement for the location. For Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, staff provided clarification as to the location of the Professional Office zone and the Open Space zone. Both Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Naggar expressed their support of the request. At this time, the electronic vote on the previously made motion reflected unanimous approval. Reauest No. 4-22-licreSite between Butterfield Staae Roadand\iValcott Lane tochanae from Very Low Dimsity to Low Density 11/2-acre lotsl- not supported bv the CAC and the PlanninQ Commission . that the net affect of the change would be an addition of 35 units. Although supporting the %-acre lot product in order to meet these needs, Councilman Naggar reiterated his previously made statement to review a project prior to a General Plan Amendment and stressed that the 1f,-acre lot should be useable, not including slope. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to retain the existing General Plan designation of Very Low Density. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards. (Additional discussion enSued prior to tile vote; see belOw.) Although supporting the 1f,..acre lot product, Councilman Washington expressed support of the motion to review the request along with a project. At this time, the electronic vote on the previously made motion reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\0412Q5 18 Reauest No.5 - 18-acre site on the south side of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol to chanae from Very Low Density to Low Medium Density _ not sUllllOrted bv the CAC or the PlanninQ Commission . ff1at the net affeel Of tne change would be the addnion Of 72 units. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to retain the existing General Plan designation of Very low Density. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. Request No. 6 ~ narrow 1-acre site south of iemecufa Creek Villaae to change from Ollen to something developable - not supported bv the CAe or the Planning CommiSSion . that the Planning Commission support!ildthe concept of incorporating the property into the Temecula Creek Village project for an appropriate open space use. Mayor Comerchero noted that tl1is site coUld pOSSiblY fOresee some form Of development such as storage facilities. MO.IlON: Councilman Naggar moved to retain the existing General Plan designation of Open Space. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. Reguest No. '1 Previously discussed; see pages 13-14. Request No.8 -52-acre site wet of the Temecula Education Proiect to Change from Industrial Park to a combination of Communltv Commercial. Medium Densitv. and Hiah Densitv ~ not suooorted bv the CAC or the Plannina Commission MOTION: CounCilman Naggar moved to retain me eXisting General f>lan designation of Industrial Park. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. Request No. 9 - 32.acre site southwest of the Temecula Education ProJect to chanae from Industrial Park to either Medium Density or Hiah Density ~ not supported bv the CAC or the Plannlna CommiSSion MOTION: Mayor Comerchero moved to ret<lin the existing General Plan designation of Industrial Park. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggaf and electronic vote reflected wnanimous ilPproval. Reauest No. 10 - 18.acre site on the west side of Sutterfield Stage Road to chanlle from Very Low Density to a combination of Low Density and Low MediUm Density - SUDj)orted f)~~~~c:.~sa_~cttlt~~I~n~i1(1.S()ltiltiiSSioil · that the net affect of the proposed change would be the addition of 14 unns . that the proposed request will not exceed the Margarita Village Specific Plan threshold R:\Mifti:ifes\G41205 19 '~----' .. MOTION:. Mayarl"ra Tem Roberts moved. to approve. the requested change. Councilman Washington seconded the motion and electronic vote reflecledunanimous- approval. Request No; 11 -'-. 3 acrescat~the- northwest corner of Marqarita and Dartola Road to ehanQe from Professional Office to Community Commercial - not supported bv the CAC or the PlanfiinQ Commission MOTION: CounCilman Naggar moved to retain the existing General Plan deSignation of ProfesSiOnal Office. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. Request No. 12 - Commercial Shopping Center at the corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road . that this request was originally supported by the CAC and the Planning Commission and was processed as a General Plan Amendment by the City Council in 2004. . that no CounCil action is required RelJUest No~ 13:--305-acreTemeculaCreek Inn property ....current desiqnaUonol1 the site is Open Space witbaRecreationaJ Commercial Overlav: raQues-twas to add Low Medium Density Residential arid to specify a future specific plan overlay containing sinale-family residential units: neither the CAe nor the PlanninQ Commission supported the request for some Low Medium Density Residential on some of the property: howeyer, the Planning Commission did approve a small part of the request by includinll the area of Temecula Creek Inn as a future specific plan overlay area for any non-resort related uses: the Commission also recommended that an additional General Plan Amendment not be required forthese non-resort uses From a community p(:lint (:If view, Councilman Naggaf questioned whether it would be fair to proceed with a General Plan Amendment or whether n should be considered as a project. Viewing tliiS as an economiC development issue, CounCilwoman EdwardS voiced concurrence wnh the Planning Commission's recommendation. For Councilman Washington, Mr. Sam Alhadeff, Temecula, confirmed that he had requested the addition of restaurants and conference center. Although viewing the economic development of a business not necessarily as a responsibility of the City Council, Councilman Washington expressed support of creating an environment in which business may be successful and expressed an overall support of this request. Having mElI wnh the OWnElf Qf Tf1meculll CrElek Inn, MaYQr Pro Tem Roberts relaYed his suPPort of a Gen6lral Plan Amendment . COi'ICiirring with Mayor Pro T em Roberts, Mayor ComerchefO as well suggesle('i the inclusion of restaurants ani! confere.nce center useS. Although expressing support of the request With the inClusion Of the restaurant and conference center uses, Mr. comerCliero recommended the removal of the Planning Commission's recommendation to bypass the General Plan Amendment process. R:\Mifitifes\Q41205 20 MOTION. Mayar Camerchers maved to approve the recommendation of the Planning "9mmission with the exception of the removal of the General Plan Amendment The motion was seconded by Councilman Washington and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to extend the meeting to 12 midnigl1l. The motion was 5e.cohdM By Councilwoman Edwards and vOice vote reflected unanimOus approval. Re.gues1..No:.._14_~crlL5.ite..aLtI1ILnQrtl1e./ISLcQmer...ofJ:fjgl1wav_.1.!l Soutl:1ancLJ.edediall Smith Road to chailgefrotll-veryi.'o'N &nsitVio-f'rofesSiClnal Office"" not -supported bv the CAe or Planning Commission MOfION: Councilman Naggar moved to retain the existing General Plan designation of Very Low Density. Mayor Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous ?PProvlil. Till! fQllowing requests Wl!re submitted after the CAC provided its recommendation to the Planning commission and City Council. f!~CI.u.e~tfll().15 Has been withdrawn. Reolle5tJllo....-uL- tochanoe a..six-acre s.ite__ont.be...l!llsf.sicLe oLWincl1ester.Road atRustic GlanOrille frol'l1 Nei4hborhood Commercial to Professional Office With the intent. as per the owner. to develop a senior housinQ proiect ~ the PlanninQ Commissioner supported the concept of a senior housinQ project but was unwinin" to recommend approval of the reQuest without the review of a specific proiect MOTION. Councilman Nliggar moved to retain the existing General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts seconded the motion and electronic vote refl(i!ctet:l unanimous approval. Reauest No. 17 - 3-acYe site located at the southeast comer of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista to chanae thaI-and UseDesianation from Professional Office to Hiah Densitv fiesfdentiid- the P1anningCcllnmission has recommended MediultlDensitv . . . .. n_ · that the net affect with the proposed change to High Elensity would be the addition of 36 units . lh<at iii ccmceptlJliIl pr9ject hlils .been shlilreci wnh stlilff . thatfl1ere are eXisting flag lots . that Professional Office would permit a high-density senior housing project , -- - ,. Considering the close proximity of the site of discussion to the Eluck !>ond, Councilman Naggar noted that additional parking Is needed at the Duck Pond and questioned whether a General I"l<OIn Amendment would increase this property's value. MOTION. GO\Jm:i1man Nlilgglilr moved !9 retliin the existing (3enerlil Pllin cfesignl;lti9n 9f Pr9fessi9nl;ll QffIce. MaY9r PrQ T EH)1 Roberts seq:mdl:ld thE> motiQn IiIncf (illectronic v9tEl refll:lctl:ld !lnanimQ!lJ; approval. R,\Mi.n!:Jt.e$\041_~Q~ 21 Request No. 18 - 2-acre site on Pauba Road west of the two NeiQhborhood Commercial properties to chanae from Very Low Density to Neiahborhood Commercial and remove the property from the Chaparral Area - the Plannina Commission did not support the reauest COunCilman Naggar, eChOed by his fellOw counCilmemberS, again reiterated his desir<i to review a project to ensure it would be compatible to adjacent uses. - Because of the close proximity of the school, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts requested that those restrictions imposed on the existing business be imposed on any future project. MOfION; Councilman Naggar. moved to retG\in the existing (3enerG\1 Plan design<ltion of Very !"ow Oensity. Councilm<ln WG\shing!on seconged the motion <lnd electronic vcte reflecte.d unClnimol.ls <lpprOVG\1. other Recommended Chanaes Remove the protlertv for Land Use Reauest No. 2 from the Nicolas Vallev Rural Preservation Area MOTION: With regard to Request No.2, Councilman Naggar moved to retain the 72 acres at the-corner of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo in the Nicola Valley Rural Preservation Area. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Comerchero who abstained. South side of Jefferson Avenue Corridor Having discussed this nem with Director of Housing and Redevelopment Director of Housing and Redevelopment Meyer, Mayor Comerchero noted that the addition of the following I<!ngl.lage is being recommended; . tliat specifiC language be added to call for furtliar analySis Oftlia lower JefferSOn Avenue Corridor. .' . M0'11GN: Mayor Comerchero moved to add .the above-mentioned language with regard to the Jefferson Avenue Corridor. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. . Providing a brief recap of the General Plan process, Councilman Naggar thanked the City's consultant, staff, Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, the community, and his C9LJncil colleagues on a job well done. With regard to the Chaparral Policy; Councilman Naggar noted that he would view it as too tlen$fO. In response to PtiIlCipal Planner Ho~an, the fOIlOWin~ motion was offered: MOTIoN: Councilman NagQar moved to accept the recommended ;3dditional Airport Land Use COmmission policies. The motion was Seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 1l,IM;OH!!>,\Q41 ;1Q. 22 MQ-iON . - ... i. elt ~~,. .........""""'...-'h--'-~~ u 'l'! .- '~l: t ~ vUUUUif-Hwt :~~~l'H-l-V-Ve - :O.-~ _ _ - l.~-l-_:;.~:w.-:i. ~'"~~~~.~~~. - ....'~ :;.~~; was sewnded by Councilman Washinyton and eiecironic vote feirecied unanimous appTOW!t EcOOiflg COOIlcJlmanNaggar, Mayor Comerchefo thanked all tl1ose-trwoived in the- j)fGCeSS. CfTY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional wmment CflY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson edvised that thefe were no reportable actions with regard to Item f\'os. 1 and 2. \/Vitti Fespect to Closed Session Item No.3, MF. Thorsoo advised that tile City Council had approved an agreement with tile- cOunty of Riverside to settle tile- City's iitigatiOO;. cilaiienging tile- Riverside- County!ntegrated Project The vote- was tl"lre-e in favor, nooe- opposed, and Mayor Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tem Roberts had not participated in the vote. Mr. Thor_ noted that the Settlen-.entAgreement requires tile City am! County to. amend .as Generaf Plans to j)fohlbit issuing building permits until housing projects' affects on major arterial roads are- ful!ymitigated; that tile- Agreement as well calls for alfeeway study to examine tile- affects of new housing 00 Western Riverside County freeways; and that a ~ of the Settlement Agreement ami a CClpy of SettiementAgreement will be available tomorrow morning. ADJOURNMENT M. 12:15 ArVL, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to a fegu!aF meeting on Tuesday, Aj)ff12l:>, 2005, at 7;00 P.M., in tile City Council Chambers, 43200&lsfness Park Orive, Temecula, Ca!ifGmia~ JeffComerohero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk l'f:\Mirnt..sI04fZll5 2$ Section Do \~ Relief or action sought by the City Council: Approve the project with the following conditions: 1. Construct Lorna Linda Road as a 4-lane roadway with painted median for turn lanes, similar to Avenida De Missiones, with 5 foot bicycle path, and no curb parking, from Pechanga Parkway to Redwood Road, approximately .4 mile. 2. Place the Location of the dedicated right-of-way through the subject property, for the future roadway, at the intersection of Lorna Linda Road and R:edwood Road. 3. Require the dedicated ri~:ht-of-way through the subject property be sufficient for a 4-lane Iroadway with bicycle paths. '--../ \ ~"' MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 p.m., on Wednesday, January 18, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Commissioner Guerriero thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio. Absent: Chiniaeff and Mathewson. PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of December 14, 2005. 2 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2005. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff and Chairman Mathewson who were absent. R:IMinutesPCI011806 COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Elect new Chair and Vice Chair It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue Commission Business Item NO.3 to the February 1, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from December 7, 2005 4 Plannina Application No. Plannina Application Nos. PA05-0155 a Pedestrian Plan and Sian Proaram. submitted bv Allen Robinson. on a 0.55 acre site for Butterfield Sauare. located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street Associate Planner Fisk requested that Item No. 4 be continued to the February 1, 2006, Planning Commission hearing to provide additional time for the applicant to submit copies of the revised sign program for the Planning Commission to review. . MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue Item No. 4 to the February 1, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff and Chairman Mathewson who were absent. . 5 Plannina Application Nos. PA04-0490. PA04-0491. PA04-0492. a Tentative Tract Map. Conditional Use Permit. and Development Plan. for 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site. The remainina acreaae is located within the channel area for Temecula Creek and will not be developed as part of this proiect. The proiect includes 96 sinale-familv units on 15.14 acres. 96 triplex units (in 32 buildinas) and 236 fourplex units (in 59 buildinas) on 21.05 acres. located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane Continued from December 14, 2005 Associate Planner Damko presented a staff report (of written record). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that the entire team for the proposed project would be available to answer questions. Mr. Lindsay Quackenbush, representing D.R., Horton provided a PowerPoint Presentation while . commenting on the following: . Density Comparisons . Project Description . Existing General Plan and Zoning R:IMinutesPCI011806 2 . Moderate-Income Housing . . Environmental Review . Land Use and Population Density . School District Facility . Owner Occupancy . Traffic and Circulation . Pedestrian Safety . Public Safety . DR. Horton Community Quality . Homeowners Association. Referencing Commissioner Harter's query, Mr. Quackenbush noted that Temecula Lane will be managed by a professional property management company hired by D.R. Horton; that in accordance with the By Laws of the community, the initial Board of Directors will be comprised of three DR. Horton employees; that at the first annual meeting, two homeowner board members will be elected; that D.R. Horton will work closely with the Community Manager and the homeowner board members to ensure a smooth transition from a builder-controlled Board of Directors to a homeowner-controlled board of Directors. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Mr. Quackenbush noted that there will be three gated entries to the development which will be enclosed by a decorative theme wall, landscaping, and public trails, and that Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane will be completed before occupancy. The following individuals spoke aaainst the proposed project: . Mr. Jose Ruiz, Temecula . Mr. Jim Ruiz, Temecula . Mr. Louis Carpino, Temecula . Ms. Kim Rice, Temecula . Mr. Charles Hankley, Temecula . Mr. Greg Dunlap, Temecula . Ms. Lisa Musick, Temecula . Mr. Patrick Fay, Temecula . Mr. Robert Purmort, Temecula . Mr. Richard Rosenbaum, Temecula . Ms. Angela Geiser, Temecula R:IMinutesPCI011806 3 The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed project for the following reasons: . ' That the desire of the residents would be that Via Coronado Road be completed before construction of the proposed project . That the applicant did not act in good faith to the residents within 300 feet of the proposed site by not' providing information to the community . That if the proposed project were approved, lowering the density would be favorable . That the developer should be required to complete the access to highway 79 South . That if the proposed project were to move forward, it would create a negative impact to local schools . That it would be desireable to have a single-family product similar to those in the surrounding developments of Bridlevale, Wolf Creek, and Murifield Development . That the applicant redesign its proposal to allow for single-family development, containing the prescribed amount of affordable housing . That the proposed density figures are distorted and would not be realistic . That the extreme density of the proposed project will bring negative impacts on the surrounding community . That it would be important to work with the applicant to ensure that maintenance of the exterior units are budgeted and maintained . That the traffic study provided by the applicant does not review the traffic impacts on Via Cordova Road. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project: . Mr. Paul Runkle, Temecula . Ms. Stephanie Gordon, Temecula The above-mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That Temecula would be in need of more for-sale affordable housing . That although Pechanga Cultural Resources would be in favor of the proposed project, it would be important that Cultural Resources be adequately addressed in the cultural resources survey, and that adequate and appropriate mitigation be put in place. R:IMinutesPCI011806 4 Rebutting on comments made by speakers, Mr. Larry Markham, noted the following: . That a multi-use trail will be added along Temecula Creek and Loma Linda Drive . That tonight's meeting has been renoticed from the previous hearing of December 14, 2005 . That new traffic counts were taken since the December 14, 2005, public hearing . That a right-of-way has been set aside for the future bridge, advising that vertical and horizontal alignment studies have been performed . That the applicant offered to provide, fund, and install radar speed warning signs in key locations along Loma Linda Road and Del Coronado Road . That via State Law and to satisfy the affordable housing requirements, Temecula Lane would need to provide 20% of the total 428 units as affordable housing . That Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has been tracking the approval process for Temecula Lane for the past two years in anticipation of accommodating the future students that will live in the proposed project; that TVUSD has documented in writing that all students in the area, including students from Temecula Lane, will be accommodated at every grade level without the need for portable classrooms . That with regard to Pechanga Cultural Resources, the applicant concurred with the Conditions of Approval . That the applicant has extensively addressed the impacts with. regard to air quality, grading impacts, impacts of painting houses, traffic, cultural resources, biological; that all impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance, pursuant to the proposed mitigation measures . That in regard to truck haul routes, if there were a desire to relocate the entry/exit point . away from the school, the applicant would work with staff to accommodate the request . That if there were a desire to accelerate the improvements on Loma Linda Road, the applicant would be willing to expedite the construction of the public improvements along Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane to minimize impacts and provide safe routes to school . That the applicant would also be willing to construct Loma Linda Road to Pechanga Parkway. Mr. Quackenbush noted that owner occupancy would be anticipated to predominate at Temecula Lane; thai D.R. Horton's purchase documents would require owner occupancy during the first year of ownership; that 80-moderate-income homes will be precluded from being rented for 45-years and will remain affordable; that Temecula Lane buyers would be anticipated to. be primarily singles, couples, families, empty nesters, and retirees. R:\MinutesPCI011806 5 Ms. Alicia Ayers, Representing RK Engineering, noted the following: . That Via Del Cordova Road was not a study area, advising that the area of study was based on staff direction . That in January 2006, average daily traffic counts were taken on Loma Linda Road . That in the traffic study, standard engineering practices were used and that the Wolf Creek project was included in the traffic study. Mr. Larry Markham advised that the developer adjacent to Pechanga Parkway Bridge was required to dedicate an additional 25-feet on both sides for future widening; that the widening would be designed and will be taking place in the near future; that the remainder of the widening to ultimate would be subject to the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Pechanga Parkway increasing it up to six lanes; and that all of these improvements would be funded. Mr. Markham suggested that the City accelerate the bridge project in its CIP. At this time, the Planning Commission took a 10-mintue break. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Understanding the concerns of community members with regard to maintenance of the units, Commissioner Harter relayed that he would be of the opinion that the Community Manager will ensure that the HOA will be govemed by the recorded covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Clarifying the Circulation Plan on Pechanga Parkway and 79 South, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, noted the following: . That the beginning of the construction on Pechanga Parkway and 79 South will occur the beginning of June 2006 . That it would be anticipated that the construction period of Pechanga Parkway would be approximately eight months which would increase Pechanga Parkway to six lanes with a raised median from Highway 79 South to Via Durardo and four lanes from Via Durardo to Deer Hallow . That if the City were to accept the offer to fully improve Loma Linda Road from Via Durardo to Pechanga Parkway, it would aid in traffic congestion in the area . Ttiat the developer will be providing right-of-way and alignment studies for a connection across Via Rio Temecula (shown on the Circulation Element), advising that it would be shown as a 66-foot right-of-way, which would be considered a residential collector; that the City would need the designation to allow for curvilinear design to cross the creek and tie into Via Rio Temecula; that this project would not be on the five-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP); that there would be no funding other than Development Impact Fees; and that it could be considered if the Planning Commission may recommend that this matter by reviewed by the Public Traffic Safety Commission. R:IMinutesPCI011806 6 Commissioner Telesio made the following comments: . That it would have been his desire to have had the traffic study continued onto Redhawk Parkway . That hewould be in favor of expediting the bridge project in the CIP . That he would be of the opinion that all concerns have been addressed by the applicant . That he is appreciative of the applicant's willingness to complete the Loma Linda Road improvements to Pechanga Parkway Clarifying Moderate-Income Housing, Assistant City Attorney Curley stated that under State Law requirements, the City would have an obligation to encourage, if and when feasible, first-rate, affordable-housing opportunities to the community. Commissioner Guerriero relayed the following: . That he would be desirous of the applicant making the improvements to Loma Linda Road expansion as soon as possible . That the applicant locate an alternate route for construction trucks with regard to ingress and egress other than Loma Linda Road . That the bridge project be accelerated in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP). MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation subject to the following: that the City Council consider the acceleration of the bridge project in the CIP; that a Condition of Approval be imposed on the applicant to complete the road improvements on Loma Linda Road to Pechanga Parkway; and that the applicant relocate the ingress and egress route for construction trucks other than Loma Linda Road. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff and Chairman Mathewson who were absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04- 0491, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04-0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS, 96 TRI-PLEX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR-PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE R:IMinutesPCI011806 7 New Items 6 Plannina Application No. PA04-0584 a Development Plan. submitted bv Rick Conrov of Newport Architects. to construct and operate a three-story. 15.333 SQuare foot mixed-use retail/office buildina and a Minor Exception to permit a 15 percent reduction in the parkinQ reQuirements for a proiect on a 1.4 acre site located on the west side of Old Town Front Street. Approximatelv 1.400 feet south of Santiaao Road. Known as Assessor Parcel No. 922-100-023 Associate Planner Fisk provided a staff report (of written material), advising that the net square footage of the proposed project would be 12,341 and that the gross square footage would be 17,695 square footage, advising that this will be reflected in the Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation as presented. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff and Chairman Mathewson who were absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 15,333 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE RETAIUOFFICE BUILDING AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO PERMIT A 15 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A PROJECT ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD. TOWN FRONT STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET SOUTH SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 922-100-023 At this time, the Planning Commission took a five-l]1inute break. 7 Plannina Application Nos. PA05-0033 and PA05-0034. a Tentative Tract Map (No. 33125) and Development Plan. submitted bv Woodside Homes. to subdivide 14.14 acres within Plannina Area 18 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 10 lots with a minimum lot size of 3.000 sauare feet (8 condominium lots. 1 recreation center. and 1 private street) and. 139 detached sinale-familv "motor court" homes. with associated planned development standards. located east of PechanQa Parkwav and south of Wolf Vallev Road Associate Planner Pete'rs provided a staff report (of record). For Commissioner Harter, Associate Planner Peters advised that all guest parking will be along the street; that in regard to existing garages, the dimensions would meet the City's minimum requirement of 20 x 20. R:IMinutesPCI011806 8 At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jeremy Smith, representing Woodside Homes, provided a brief PowerPoint Presentation. Mr. Michael Rupard, representing William Hezmalhalch Architects, noted the following: . That the project would propose five-floor plans and six-architectural styles, including: Spanish Colonial, American Farmhouse, Monterey, Bungalow, Traditional, and English Cottage . That the proposed project would exceed the design requirements of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan . That the proposed elevations achieve the overarching design principal stated in the . Specific Plan to create a street scene with a strong character as well as function and visual variety . That specific details which would be unique to each style proposed on each elevation, including door and window types, window and door trim, architecturally appropriate garage door designs, materials such as wrought iron details, brick, roof-type and pitch, shutters, and the overall silhouette. In response to Commissioner Harter's query, Associate Planner Peters advised that per the Development Plan with regard to street parking, there will be 96 parking spaces along the street which would be .7 spaces per unit which would be acceptable per staff. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the applicant for the PowerPoint Presentation. MOTION: Commissioner Harter moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff and Chairman Mathewson who were absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0033, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33125 SUBDIVIDING 14.14 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS (8 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOTS, 1 RECREATION CENTER LOT, AND 1 LOT FOR PRIVATE STREETS) TO ACCOMMODATE' 139 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS IN PLANNING AREA 18 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PECHANGA PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF WOLF VALLEY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 962-010-006 R:IMinutesPCI011806 9 COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS In response to Commissioner Telesio's concern, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the newspaper racks at the corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road would be in compliance with the City's ordinance, but that if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, it may request that the Public Traffic Safety Commission consider the possibility of having the site in question painted red. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time. ADJOURNMENT . At 9:15 p.m., Commissioner Guerriero formally adjourned to Wednesdav. February 1. at 6:30 p.rn., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dave Mathewson Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\011806 10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on Wednesday, December 14, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Ternecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. . ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present; Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio; and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 Planninq Application No. PA05-0284. Public Convenience or Necessity Findinqs. submitted bv Rebecca Perrv on behalf of The Wine Sellers. to conduct wine tastinq and sales. located at 28480 Old Town Front Street. #D Assistant Planner Bales presented a staff report (of record). MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Public Convenience or Necessity findings. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from December 7, 2005 2 Planninq Application No. PA05-0064, a Development Plan. submitted bv Matthew Faaan. for a Comprehensive Siqn Proqram for the Marqarita Crossinas shoppinq center on 5.56 acres. located on the southwest corner of Marqarita Road and Overland Drive Associate Planner Fisk provided a staff report (of written record). At this time the public hearing was opened. R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 Mr. Mark Burger, representing the applicant offered the following comments: · That the applicant has worked hard with staff to accommodate the requests made by the Planning Coml'Dission · That the applicant is of the opinion that the changes that were made would be the best that the applicant would be able to make and still be in keeping with the previously made tenant commitments . That the applicant will encourage the tenants to install blade signs and external lighting (gooseneck); however, the applicant must retain the internal lighting channel lettering so that the tenants could remain competitive Mr. John Hadaya, representing ultrasigns, noted that the applicant has met every request that was, made by the Planning Commission. . That the applicant has added a colurnn to the monument side as requested by the Planning Commission . That the sign program as it currently stands, would be considered flexible and would allow for creativity . That not all signs proposed by tenants will be channel lettering or flat cut-out letters mounted on a wall . . That the proposed center will be a first-rate center with a first-rate sign program. Thanking the applicant for the addition of a column to the monument sign, Comrnissioner' Telesio stated and that although the sign program contains a variety of choices, he did.express concern with the possibility of tenants not desiring to be creative; and therefore, only using the basics for its signs. Referencing Commissioner Telesio's comments, Mr. Hadaya noted that every tenant will need to adhere to the sign criteria; and that before a sign permit is pulled, it would have to be reviewed and approved by the landlord to ensure that the sign criteria has been met Mr. Burger noted that every tenant will need to adhere to the proposed sign criteria; that the type of tenants that will be attracted to the proposed project will be a high-end, specialty tenants; and that the tenants will have flexibility to work within their own business format as to how they would want to present their business to the community. Referencing Mr. Burger's comment, Chairman Mathewson stated that the intent of the Planning Commission was for the applicant to look beyond the ordinary, to raise the bar with regard to the typical sign program; that considering the architecture of the proposed project, it would be important for the sign program to enhance the proposed architecture, and not detract from it That considering what is being proposed for the sign program. Chairman Mathewson also noted that neon channel signs would not be desireable. Politely disagreeing with Chairrnan Mathewson's cornments, Mr. Burger stated that the project will be providing tenants the opportunity to be competitive in the market place; that the proposed sign program will be a superior over any other sign program in the City; that although it would be most likely that the tenants would be implementing the full benefits of the sign program, the applicant cannot guarantee this. R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 2 Responding to Mr. Burger's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the Planning Commission's intent would be to avoid an unorganized mixture of various colors and styles of signs; that because the applicant would be proposing to give the tenants too many choices, an unorganized mixture of various colors and styles will be the result. Commissioner Chiniaeff also stated that the main concern would be with the rear of Building C; that he would suggest that the applicant remain with the proposed sign program but that the applicant be more specific to the tenants with regard to the backside of Building C. . Referencing Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Mr. Burger and Mr. Hadaya both stated that they would be willing to accept a Condition of Approval that would condition that the signs of Building C (rear) be non-illuminated with No channel lettering, advising that it would .be strictly external. Echoing Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Commissioner Telesio also stated that he would desire that the applicant be conditioned that the rear of Building C be more restrictive with non- illuminated and No channel lettering. In terms of the rear of Building C, Mr. Burger stated that the main focus would be that tenants receive signage in the front of Building C, that he would be willing to accept a Condition of . Approval restricting the rear of Building C from non-illumination with No channel lettering, but that the front of Building C would be allowed to have Channel neon lighting. For the Commission and applicant, Director of Planning Ubnoske suggested that modifying the language on Page 7 (Margarita Crossing sign Program): Section D: signage composed of several different elements and lighting techniques be modified to be reauired versus encouraqed; and that Lighting Section D: Site signage and Building tenant signage should be illuminated using a variety of lighting techniques. One or more of the following should be modified to be reauired versus encouraqed. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's suggestion, Mr. Burger stated that he would be willing to accept the modification. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the applicant be restricted from placing two identical signs adjacent to each other and that the Planning Commission eliminate signs that would not be desireable. At this time the public hearing was closed. Mo.Tlo.N: Commissioner Chiniaeff motioned to approve the sign program subject to the following modifications: that language on Page 7, Section D: be modified as mentioned above; that a condition be imposed that states all signs on the rear of Building C not be internally illuminated signs; that two of the same sign types not be adjacent to each other; and that there be no exposed neon channel letters. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who voted No. PC RESo.LUTlo.N NO.. 05-067 A RESo.LUTlo.N o.F THE PLANNING Co.MMISSlo.N o.F THE CITY o.F TEMECULA APPRo.VING PLANNING APPLlCATlo.N NO.. PA05-0064, A Co.MPREHENSIVE SIGN PRo.GRAM FOR THE "MARGARITA CRo.SSINGS" SHo.PPING CENTER, GENERALLY Lo.CATED AT THE So.UTHWEST Co.RNER o.F MARGARITA Ro.AD AND o.VERLAND DRIVE, ALSO. KNo.WN AS ASSESSo.R PARCEL NUMBER 921-810-026. R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 3 New Items 3 Plan nino Application No. PA05-0232.' a Development Plan. submitted bv Larrv True. to construct and operate a three-stoN. 47.897 souare foot hotel with 92 units. located on the south side of Winchester Road. approximatelv 225 feet east of Jefferson Avenue . Associate Planner Fisk provided a staff report (of written record), and requested that Condition of Approval No. 10 be modified to impose: The applicant will install landscaping on the adjacent property directly to the north of the site between the property line and Winchester Road. The . applicant and the adjacent property owner have entered into a maintenance agreement which will allow the site to be landscaped and maintained by the applicant of Marriott Fairfield. Inn & Suites. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Associate Planner Fisk noted that stone veneer will be located at the main entry of the building, at the trellis structures along the pOQI area, as well as the trellis structure along the south entry. At this time the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers, it was closed. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked staff why they would be of the opinion that the proposed project would warrant doubling the square footage. . In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's question, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that a hotel use will always exceed its Floor Area Ratio (FAR); that the more a hotel exceeds its FAR, the more staff will work to improve the architecture and landscaping; that staff if of the opinion that the applicant has presented an acceptable project in terms of the treatment of the building and the amount of additional offsite landscaping; and that staff will be readdressing the Development Code as it relates to hotels. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-068 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 47,897 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL WITH 94 UNITS ON A VACANT 1.71 ACRE PARCEL, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 225 FEET . EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 910-310-011 R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 4 Due to a conflict of interest, Commissioner Guerriero stepped down from Item No.4. 4 Plannina Application No. PAD5-D157. a Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv Claudia Mueller. to construct and operate a cellular telecommunication facility consistina of a 45-foot hiah monopine with twelve cellular panel antennas and a 230 sauare foot eauipment shelter within a 633 sauare foot lease area of a 3.57. located at 44526 Pechanaa Parkwav Associate Planner Fisk gave a staff report (of record), noting that a Condition of Approval could . be added that would impose that landscaping around the rnonopine be maintained. At this time the public hearing was opened. Ms. Claudia Mueller, representing Nextel, relayed that the applicant concurs with all Conditions of Approval and a new condition regarding maintenance of landscaping around the monopine. At this time the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-069 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 45- FOOT HIGH MONOPINE WITH TWELVE CELLULAR PANEL ANTENNAS AND A 230 SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT SHELTER WITHIN A 633 SQUARE FOOT LEASE AREA OF A 3.57 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 44562 PECHANGA PARKWAY (A.P.N.961-010-024) At this time the Planning Commission recessed for five minutes. 5 Plannina Application Nos. PA04-049D. PA04-0491. PA04-0492. a Tentative Tract Map. Conditional Use Permit. and Development Plan. for 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site. The remainina acreaae is located within the channel area for Temecula Creek and will not be developed as part of this proiect. The project includes 96 sinale-familv units on 15.14 acres. 96 triplex units (in 32 buildinasl and 236 fourplex units (in 59 buildinasl on 21.05 acres, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Lorna Linda Road and Temecula Lane Associate Planner Damko provided a staff report (of written record), advising that Condition of Approval No. 11 has been amended to impose Vesting Tentative map Affordable Housing Condition of Approval and Condition 18 to Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan Affordable Housing Condition of Approval; and that the square footage for Tri-Plex/Six Plex Units for Plan 3, three-stories should be 1,548 square feet, not 548 square feet. R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 5 In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Redevelopment Director Meyer stated that a threshold income for a family of four would be $66,800 and that the units will be made available at a moderate level for a 45 year period. Referencing Commissioner Chiniaeff's question, Deputy Director Parks noted that the circulation element/or the proposed project was modified to show a two-lane road that would connect Loma Linda Road to Avenida De Missiones; that the bridge itself was not analyzed, but that the project will be conditioned to provide an alignment study. For the Commission, Senior Planner Papp relayed that although the initial study itself for the previous project was not included in the packet, the Mitigation Monitoring program from the initial study was included and that the Conditions of Approval would require that mitigation ' measuresare met At this time the public hearing was opened. Representing the applicant, Mr. Larry Markham stated that the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval including the changes that. were made by staff with regard to the Affordable Housing component, and advised that the entire team would be available to answer any detailed questions. The following individuals spoke aaainst the proposed project: . Mr. Greg Dunlap, Temecula . Mr. Tim Burns, Temecula . Mr. Thomas Fine, Temecula . Ms. Lisa Musick, Temecula . Mr. Ed Means, Temecula The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . That two signs posted for the proposed project had conflicting dates . That the understanding of the surrounding community is that the proposed site is zoned for Light Office (La) . That there is a concern with who and how the proposed units will be maintained . That the approved Wolf Creek project and Boys and Girls Club will already create be too much traffic congestion . That low-income housing will cause depreciation to the adjacent homes in the community. Referencing noticing requirements, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that every' project would be required to be noticed by way o/advertisement, by way of mail to residents within 300 feet, and through posting of the proposed site. R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 6 For the Commission and applicant, Assistant City Attorney Snow noted that it would be appropriate for the applicant to rebut at this time as well as reserve the right to rebut if the item were to be continued. In rebuttal, Mr. Larry Markham noted the following: · That the proposed project will be a for-sale project · That the proposed project will have a homeowners association and advised that common areas will be maintained by the association · . That the proposed units will be a gated community . That portions of the creek will become deeded to the RCA and become permanent Open Space (OS) · That a right-of-way will be provided for the future extension of Avenida De Missiones bridge, and that sta:tf has been provided a series of alignment studies both vertically and horizontally · That the applicant has met with the school district, and that. projections for the elementary school, middle school, and high school have been'calculated · That an extensive traffic study was performed with new traffic counts; and that it would be an 80% reduction in traffic as opposed to what traffic would be if the proposed site were to become Professional Office (PO) . That the affordable units will be restricted to No Renters · That Development Impact Fees (DIF) will go toward the funding of additional police personnel, and that the environmental document that was provided demonstrated an acoustic analysis in regard to traffic, biological, and air quality analysis · That the mitigation monitoring conditions will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval; that the applicant will continue to work with the Pechanga tribe, advising that there would be no issues with regard to Pechanga Cultural Resources. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Larry Iylarkham noted that he will provide the Planning Commission with projections that were provided to the applicant by the school district with regard to the proposed project At this time Chairman Mathewson asked the audience to refrain from comments. Mr.. Lindsay Quackenbush, representing D.R. Horton, offered the following comments: . That the proposed project will be a well designed project with substantial single family and multi-family units · That the majority of the buyers will be first-time buyers and retired persons R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A THREE-STORY BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 6,080 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIUCOMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, 5,137 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR 4,978 SQUARE FEET OFFICES ON THE THIRD FLOOR, TOTALING 16,195 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 41955 4TH STREET BETWEEN FRONT STREET AND MERCEDES STREET 7 Plannina Application No. PA05-0254, PA05-0319. a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct a new commercial shoppina center consistina of five retail buildinqs totalinq approximatelv 73.000 square fee and a drive-thru automatic teller machine, located on Hiahwav 79 South approximatelv 800 feet west of Butterfield Staae Road Associate Planner McCoy provided a staff report (of written material), recommending that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project with the modified Conditions of Approval distributed at the meeting. . . At this time the public hearing was opened. Representing Vail Properties, Mr. Jerry Swanger, relayed his support of the proposed project while advising the Planning Commission of the problems with regard to Wolf Store Road. Mr. Richard Benson, representing Benson & Bohl Architects, relayed his support of the proposed project. At this time the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. CommissioneJ Harter seconded the motion and voice v9te reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-072 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0254, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW COMMERCIAL 73,306 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER THAT INCLUDES FIVE RETAIL BUILDINGS AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0319, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THROUGH AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE FOR A WELLS FARGO BANK LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BETWEEN MAHLON VAIL AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 952-200-002, 011-, 012, AND 013) R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 10 COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS No report at this time. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time. ADJOURNMENT . At 9:21 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned to Thursdav. Januarv 5 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. The Commission's regularly scheduled meetings of December 21, 2005, and January 4, 2006 will not be held. Dave Mathewson Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 11 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Christine Damko, Associate Planner January 18, 2006 Planning Application Nos. PA04-0490 and PA04-0492 - Temecula Lane On December 14, 2005 the Planning Commission received public testimony and considered a proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Plan (Product Review), and Conditional Use Permit for the site development, and construction of 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of . a 47.72 acre site. Due to an incorrect hearing date shown on the public hearing notice sign on the property, the Commission continued the project to the January 18, 2006 hearing. During the December 14, 2005 hearing, there were some concerns from the Commission and the public regarding the consistency of the project with the current zone designations, the impact on local schools, the environmental determination of the project, and traffic. Zonina/General Plan Consistencv According to Section 17.10.020.3 of the Development Code and Section H-36 of the General Plan, affordable residential housing is permitted in th.e Professional Office (PO) zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit The development will set aside 86 of the 118 two-bedroom homes (20 percent of the total proposed units) located within the four-plex portion of the site for buyers with moderate incomes. This project is in compliance with the California Government Code and the City's Development Code. In addition, the project is compatible with the surrounding uses. The project proposes single-family units adjacent to existing single-family units to the east of the project The multi-family condominium units are located on the west side of the project, adjacent to a vacant parcel that is zoned Professional Office. The four-plex and tri-plexunits located along the outer boundaries of the site buffer the six-plex units that are located internally. A community trail that is maintained by the Community Services Department and 6.05 acre open space lot will buffer the proposed project from the Temecula Creek located to the north of the project Impact to Local Schools On December 21, 2005, staff received a letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District verifying that the District has been monitoring the project for over one year. The School District . has included this project in all student enrollment projections for the upcoming 2006/07 school year and will continue to have this project be a part of all school year figures. The School District anticipates being able to serve all new elementary, middle, and high school students for this project without the need for relocatable classroom buildings. R:\T M\2004\04'0490 31946 Temecula Lane\MEMO to PC.doc \ ) Environmental Determination An Initial Study was prepared by staff and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by staff on September 20, 2005 for Planning Application PA04-0496, a Stockpile and Mass Grading application proposed for the site. The Initial Study included the development proposal in the project description and addressed all potential impacts from the future residential development. The Initial Study concludes the project will not have a potential for significant environmental impacts with the. implementation of Mitigation Measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditions of Approval for the project. A Notice of Determination will be prepared stating that the project is consistent with the preyiously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. Traffic Studv A traffic study was prepared by the applicant regarding the proposed development. The Department of Public Works has reviewed and approved this traffic study. The traffic study states that if the site were developed as professional offices, it would generate 15,549 vehicle trips per day with 1,220 trips in the morning peak hour and 1,820 trips in the evening peak hour. The proposed development is forecast to generate a total of 2,850 vehicle trips per day with 216 trips in the morning peak hour and 85 trips in the evening peak hour. The proposed project is projected to generate 12,699 fewer trips each day with 1,004 fewer trips per morning peak hour and 1,551 fewer trips per evening peak hour than the maximum trip generation that would be expected given the site zoning. The Traffic Study also indicates that the proposed project generates less than 20% of the traffic that would be generated if the project were built per current General Plan zoning of Professional Office and Commercial Retail (referenced in Table 3 of the Traffic Study). ' In regards to the Level of Service (LOS) on local roads in the proximity, the Traffic Study indicates that with improvements proposed in Table 7 of the Traffic Study (these improvements are also listed as Conditions of Approval), all study area intersections will operate at Level Of Service (LOS) "D" or better. The proposed project's impacts on the surrounding regional arterials are insignificant; however, addition of 18 other cumulative projects contributes to a LOS below "0". All these projects are required to contribute their fair share impact fees for improvement of the affected regional arterials such as 79 South and 1-15 interchange. Several of these major projects are currently under study and implementation. The proposed project is required to provide all frontage improvements per the current General Plan Circulation Element and pay all applicable fees for the regional off-site improvements. In addition, the only intersections that will operate at a LOS "F" or worse will be limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and will not impact local streets in proximity of this project. No single project can provide adequate improvements to achieve the LOS "D" requirements. Table 9 of the Traffic Study, Summary Intersection Analysis, shows that all study area intersections will operate at a LOS "D" or better with the proposed (cumulative) improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (PA04-0490), Development Plan (PA04-0492), and Conditional Use Permit (PA04- 0491), based upon the findings and with the attached conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS R:IT M\20D4104.D490 31946 Temecula LanelMEMO to PC.doc 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Previously Approved Initial Study - Blue Page 3 2. Temecula Valley School District Letter - Blue Page 4 3. PC Resolution 06-_ - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 4. December 14, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 6 R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula Lane\MEMO to PC.dac 3 : I ATTACHMENT NO.1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INITIAL STUDY R:IT M\2004104.0490 31946 Temecula LanelMEMO to PC.doc 4 City of Temecula Planning Department \,~ Agency Distribution List PROJECT: PA04-0490 through 0492 and PA 04-0496 DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 16, 2005 to September 16, 2005 CASE PLANNER: Christine Damko CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety..................................... (X) Fire Department ...................................... (X) Police Department .................................. (X) Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .................... (X) . Planning, Advance .................................. (X) Public Works ........................................... (X) ........ ( ) STATE:' Caltrans................................................... (X) Fish & Game ........................................... (X) Mines & Geology..................................... ( ) Regional Water Quality Control Board.... ( ) State Clearinghouse ............................... ( ) . State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ............ (X) Water Resources .................................... ( ) ......( ) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers........................ (X) Fish and Wildlife Service......................... (X) ........ ( ) ........ ( ) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management DistricL........... (X) Western Riverside COG ......................... ( ) ......( ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning .................................................. ( ) ......( ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk of the Board of Su pervisors............ ( ) Airport Land Use Corn mission .................( ) Engineer ..................................................( ) Flood Control.......................................... (X) Health Department ..................................( ) Parks and Recreation ..............................( ) Planning DepartmenL.............................( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) . (X) Riverside Transit Agency........................ (X) .......( ) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water DistricL.......... (X) Inland Valley Cablevision.........................( ) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve .... (X) Southern California Gas ..........................( ) Southern California Edison ..................... (X) Temecula Valley School District ............. (X) Metropolitan Water District ......................( ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation................. (X) Eastern Information Center .....................( ) Local AgencyFormation Comm ..............( ) RCTC ..................................................... (X) Homeowners' Association........................ ( ). R:ID P\2004\04-0496 Temecu]. LanelNOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON.dnc . 3 City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration PROJECT: PA04-0490 through 0492 and PA04-0496, Temecula Lane APPLICANT: Temecula Lane LLC LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane in the City of Temecula. DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the site development and construction of 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site. The remaining acreage is located within the channel area for Temecula Creek and will not be developed as part of this project The project includes 96 single-family units on 15.14 acres, and 96 triplex units (in 32 buildings) and 236 . fourplex units (in 59 buildings) on 21.05 acres. The 16t sizes for the single family detached product will range from 4,000 to 9,000 square feet The density for the overall project is 11.83 dwelling units per acre. Within the project, the density ranges from 6.3 units per acre for the single family detached productto 17 units per acre for the fourplex units. The proposed project will be accessed via a gated entrance/exit on T emecula Lane and two gated entrances/exits on Loma Linda Road. The project will require the import of approximately 260,000 cubic yards offill material to elevate the developable portions of the project out of the 1 OO-year floodplain. This material would be obtained from other sites with excess clean soil within approximately eleven miles of the site. The City of T emecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment As a result, the Planning Commission intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is August 16, 2005 to September 16,2005. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through: (Phase One will be approved administratively; Phase Two will be heard by the Planning Commission) L The Local Newspaper. _ Posting the Site. _ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners. R:\D P\2004\04.0496 Temecula LaneINOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.doc I ;l If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Christine Damko at (951) 694-6400. Prepared b : Christine Damko, Associate Planner (Name and Title) R,ID PI2004\04-0496 Temecula LanelNOTICE OF' PROPOSED NEGATNE DECLARATION.doc 2 \ , City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Temecula Lane (Plannina Aoolication 04-0490 throuqh 0492 and PA04-04961 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Christine Damko (951) 694-6400 Project Location The 47.72 acre property (APN 961-010-016 through -021) is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The site is located in the area sectioned as Little Temecula Rancho in Township 8 South, Range 2 West SBM as found on the Pechanga-USGS 7.5- minute toooqraphic auadranale. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Temecula Lane LLC Attn: Randy Blanchard 41743 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 207 Temecula, CA 92590 General Plan Desianation Professional Office (P~ Zonina Professional Office (P~ Description of Project The proposed project is the site development and construction of 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site. The remaining acreage is located within the channel area for Temecula Creek and will not be developed as part of this project. The project includes 96 single-family units on 15.14 acres, 96 triplex units (in 32 buildings) and 236 fourplex units (in 59 bUildings) on 21.05 acres. The lot sizes for the single family detached product will range from 4,000 to 9,000 square feet. The density for the overall project is 11.83 dwelling units per acre. Within the project, the density ranges from 6.3 units per acre for the single family detached product to 17 units per acre for the fourplex units', The proposed project will be accessed via a gated entrance/exit on Temecula Lane and two gated entrances/exits on Loma Linda Road. The project includes an internal linear park system with paths that tie into neighborhood pocket parks, tot lots and the pool and' recreation area will run eastcwest through the approximate middle of the project with several north-south spurs. Open space lots located along the northern and eastern edges of the property where Temecula Creek and a proposed drainage channel will be maintained. A decomposed granite (DG) path is planned to be located within the open space lots east and north of the site and will connect to the internal linear park in the east and the north as well as into sidewalks along Lorna Linda Road. 1 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is required Use of this Initial Study The project will also include half width improvements to Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane, including sidewalk, landscaping and curb and gutter. Loma Linda Road is designed to be 58 feet wide from curb to curb with 10 feet for sidewalk and landscaping on each side for a 78 feet wide right of way. Temecula Lane is designed to be 40 feet wide from curb to curb with 10 feet on each side for sidewalk and landscaping for a 60 feet wide right-of-way. The private, internal road system right of way varies from 29.5 to 60 feet in width. The project will require the import of approximately 260,000 cubic yards of fill material to elevate the developable portions of the project out of the 100-year floodplain. This material would be obtained from other sit€s with excess clean soil within approximately eleven miles of the site. This is expected to require about 18,600 truck trips (assuming 14 cubic yards per truck and trailer). Loma Linda. Road serves as the south boundary of the project site with Ternecula Creek located north of the project site. The Temecula Creek floodway is zoned for Conservation (OS-C). The northern portion of the site is designated open space and is located within the Temecuia Creek drainage. Adjacent property to the east of the site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LM) and property to the west includes residential homes in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Pala Community Park is northwest of the site, and Earl Stanley Gardner Middle School is south of the eastern portion of the site. Land north of Temecula Creek is developed or develbpinq as Professional Office (PO). State Water Resources Control Board NPDES (National Pollution Discharqe Elimination System) permit. This initial Study is intended to evaluate' the environmental effects and impacts associated with the proposed project. This project is expected to occur in multiple phases. Following the public review and comment period, as least two separate activities will be approved. The first approval will be for grading and haul permits to remove the developable portions of the site from the 100- year floodplain. This approval of these permits will be made by City Staff. This will enable floodplain related site development work to proceed based upon the availability of fill material. The second approval. will be for the proposed residential project. The second approval is expected to be made by the City Plannina Commission. 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. . . Aesthetics Mineral Resources Aariculture Resources -/ Noise -/ Air Quality Population and Housinq -/ Bioloqical Resources Public Services -/ Cultural Resources Recreation -/ Geoloqv and Soils -/ Transportationrrraffic' Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hvdroloav and Water Qualitv Mandatorv Findinas of Sianificance Land Use and Planninq None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -/ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on, the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant 'effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE OECLARA TION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitiqation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothinq further is required. ~j\\loS: Oat I Christine Oamko Printed name Temecula Lane For 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Issues and Suonartina Information So'urces Significant Mitigation Significant No fmoact Incorporated Imoacl Imoacl a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic -/ vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, -/ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic bUildinqs within a state scenic hiqhwav? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character -/ or quality ofthe site and its surroundinqs? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare -/ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 1.a.; Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is on vacant land. No scenic vistas have been identified or will be adversely impacted from developing the proposed project. No impacts are expected. - 1.b. Less than Significant Impact: No major rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the project site. The project site is not located on a scenic highway. Removal of trees larger than 6-inch diameter at base height will be required to be mitigated according to the City's Tree Protection Policy. When the import and placement project is completed, the elevation of the property will be raised, but there will be no facilities to damage any scenic resources. 1.c.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed development will alter the existing visual setting of the property, but this change in physical visual setting is the raising of the site elevation by three to four feet in a manner consistent with the adopted General Plan. This modification does not constitute a substantial degradation of the site visual setting. The Development Code establishes design and landscaping standards which will ensure that the project site is developed in a manner consistent with the City's standards. Based on fulfilling these design standards, project aesthetic impacts are forecast to be less than .significant. 1.d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project may result in additional light and glare that could effect the operation of the Mount Palomar Observatory and wildlife resources in the open space areas along Temecula Creek. In order to reduce these impacts, the project will comply with the requirements of Ordinance 655 and the Urban Wildland Interface criteria from the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program. The MSHCP Urban Wildlands Interface states that nighttime iighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. To accomplish this, the fOllowing mitigation measures will be incorporated into the. project. 1. All project-related lighting shall be directed so that no light or glare falls off the property boundary except along Temecula Lane, Lorna Linda Road, as well as any trails. 2. Non-security lighting installed by individual homeowners shall not be located in such a manner as to directly illuminate any open space area along Temecula Creek. This requirement shall be incorporated into the CC&R's.. 4 ! With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts associated with light or glare are expected to be less than significant ' 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnortinn Information Sources Imnact Incorporated Imoact Imoact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ./ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Fermland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- aaricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ./ or a Williamson Act contract? c, Involve other changes in the existing ./ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to noncagricultural use? Comments: 2,a,: Less than Significant Impact: According to Figure 5.2-1 labeled "Agricultural Resources" in the Agricultural Resources portion of the General Plan; the project may be in an area of farmland of local importance. However, the 47 acre site is surrounded by residential development where there are no other immediate properties in the vicinity of the project which have been allocated for farmland use. In addition, this project is zoned Professional Office which can allow for residential use, 2,b,-c.: No Impact The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 5 , , 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management. or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Issues and Suooorting Information Sources' Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact Incoroorated Impact Imnact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the -/ aJ)fJlicable air Quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute -/ . substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase -/ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed I. Quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant -/ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial -/ number of people? Comments; 3.a.; Less than' Significant Impact: The proposed project will not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan for the South .Coast Air Basin. Furthermore, the project will comply with the provisions of the Plan. As a result, no adverse impacts are forecast and no mitigation is required. 3.b.-c.: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: Some short term construction-related air quality impacts are expected to occur as a result of this project. These short term impacts are expected to occur from the import of fill material, on site grading activities and from the actual construction of the prOject. The potential air quality impacts of this project were assessed using the Air Quality Management District's URBEMIS 2002 model. The air quality emission forecast was compiled for this project by The Planning Center. According to this emissions forecast, the proposed project can be implemented without causing significant air quality impacts if the recommended mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The Air Quality Management District's (AQMD) pollutant emission thresholds are shown below. . AQMD POLLUTANT EMISSION THRESHOLDS Construction Thresholds Operational Pollutant Thresholds (Ibs/day) (tons/quarter) (Ibs/day) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 24.75 550 Reactive Orqanic Carbon (ROC) 75 2.50 75 Sulfur Oxides (Sax) 150 6.75 150 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 2.50 55 Particulates (PM10) 150 6.75 150 6 l '; } PROJECTED AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS . Emissions from Import and Site Significant Pollutant Grading Activities AQMD Threshold Imoact? Reactive Organic Gases 24 Ibs/dav 75 Ibs/day No Oxides of NitroQen 209 Ibs/dav 100 Ibs/day No Carbon Monoxide. 131 Ibs/dav 550lbs/dav No Oxides of Sulfur 16 Ibs/dev 150 Ibs/dav No Particulate Matter (PM1 0) 146lbs/dav 150 Ibs/day No Based on this emission forecast, one pollutant, Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), would exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold. NOx emissions are caused by the combustion process. To reduce NOx emissions below the 100 Ibs/day threshold of significance, the property owner has agreed io limit daily truck trip deliveries to 163 trips and extend the delivery period for the fill material to 114 operating days. With this alteration, the import of clean soil material will generate less than 100 Ibs/day NOx and be below the SCAQMD threshold. To ensure that no air quality impacts occur during project construction, the following mitigation measures shall be required. 1. The property owner shall limit the number of imported soil material truck delivery trips per day to a maximum of 163 truck trips. Equipment on site shall be limited to one dozer; two loaders; and one grader. 2. The contractor shall ensure that all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or soil or other loose material off site shall be covered as required by California Vehicle Code 23114 during construction activities. 3. All tfucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials off-site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). 4. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads (reclaimed water shall be used if available). 5. All active sites shall be watered at least.twice daily. 6. All grading activities that result in dust generation shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (greater than 25 miles per hour (mph) when dust is being transported to off site locations and cannot be controlled by watering). 7. It is also assumed that none of the construction phases will be conducted at the same time. In other words, each phase will be implemented by itself after the previous phase has been concluded. 8. Prior to any site disturbance, grading or excavation, the contractor will water the area to be disturbed to minimize fugitive dust during the site disturbance activities. 9. During site disturbance, the contractor will treat all imported material, exposed soil areas and active parts of the construction site, including unpaved on site roads to prevent fugitive dust. These treatments shall include one or more of the following: periodic watering, R:\D P\2004\04.0496 Temecula Lane\lniti~1 Environmenlal Study.doc 7 I , - application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials and/or rOIl:compaction, as appropriate. The treatment shall be done as often as necessary to minimize fugitive dust. 10. The contractor shall ensure that disturbed areas (graded and/or imported deposits) which are temporarily inactive for more than four days shall be monitored weekly and treated as appropriate for dust. stabilization. Soil stabilization (watering, roll-compact and environmentally-safe dust control materials) shall be applied to these temporarily inactive areas as necessary to control fugitive dust. If no further grading or excavation is planned for an area, the area should be either landscaped with fast growing grass or should continue to be treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. 11. Prior to any site disturbance, the contractor will post signs on the site limiting traffic speeds on the project to 15 miles per hour (mph). 12. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent property, typically about 12-15 mph) all clearing, grading and earth moving operations shall be curtained to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by onsite activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off- or onsite. 13. The contractor will require that equipment idling time be minimized during construction activities to prevent unnecessary air pollutant emissions. 14. The number of construction vehicles operating simultaneously on a daily basis shall be limited to the equipment shown on Table 5-3 and construction shall be limited to a maximum of eight hours per day. 15. To minimize the emission rate per construction vehicle, the developer shall require the use of new construction vehicles which comply with Tier 2 of the Federal Diesel Standards for the over excavation, grading and site work phases. 16. The contractor will require.that construction equipment engines are maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer's specification. 17. The developer shall require the use of zero Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction of the project to the maximum extent feasible. If each phase is evaluated independently, compliance with the air quality requirements is further documented. . MITIGATED PROJECT RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (in pounds per day) Construction Phase CO ROG NOx SOx PM10 Over Excavation/Re-cornpaction 52 9 83 7 86 Import 54 8 78 2 57 Grading 52 9 84 6 86 Sitework 63 9 73 5 2 Building Construction 111 12 15 0 1 Maximum Emissions from All 111 12 84 7 86 Construction Phases AQMD Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 Significant? No No No No No R:ID P\2004104,0496 Temecula Lanellnllial Environmental Study.doc 8 , , , , \ 1- With implementation of the above measures, the proposed project construction activities are not forecast to generate emissions that will exceed the SCAQMD significant thresholds. In addition to construction-related impacts, the development and operation of this project may also effect air quality. The land use designation established for this site in the City of Temecula General Plan is office/commercial retail. This designation would allow the operation of office and retail structures. As described in the project traffic report, office uses at the project site would generate approximately 15,550 daily vehicle trips. The proposed project with residential units would generate significantly less daily vehicle trips, only 2,850 trips per day. Because the proposed project would result in vehicle trips which are substantially less under residential uses, as compared to office uses, emissions associated with the proposed residential project would likewise be less than that which would occur under the City's current General Plan land use designation, office use. Since most land use generated air quality impacts result from vehicular emissions, a substantial reduction in vehicle trips would reduce prdject- related air quality effects. As such, the proposed project would not result in emissions which would exceed those that would occur under the office land use designation within the City's General Plan and used in the regional emissions inventory for the AQMP. PROJECT-RELATED OPERATIONAL PHASE EMISSIONS (in pounds per day) Operation Component CO ROG NOx SOx PM10 Stationary Sources (electricity/natural gas 3 21 4 0 0 consumption; landscaping) Mobile Sources 266 25 24 0 29 Total 269 46 28 0 29 SCAQMD Dailv Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 Significant? No No . No No No Evaluations according to AQMD recommendations need to be conducted to ensure that sensitive receptors will not be exposed to localized concentrations of the criteria pollutant carbon monoxide (CO). High levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion in particular slow moving and idling vehicles. Depending on the existing background concentrations of CO, congested roadways and major intersections have the potential to produce CO hot spots. Therefore projects with sensitive receptors or projects that could negatively impact levels of service (LOS) should utilize the Emfac 2.2 and CALlNE 4 programs to evaluate the effects of vehicle emissions to determine if the project will cause the state 1- hour or 8-hour CO standards to be exceeded, creating a "CO hotspot". An air quality analysis was performed utilizing the Emfac program to determine the emissions factors, and CALlNE 4 program to determine the i-hour concentration of CO. The 8-hour concentration was determined using the AQMD's persistence factor table in the CEQA Handbook. The CO hot spot analysis took into consideration the local traffic network, and the "worst-case" scenario for wind, temperature, and sensitive receptor Idcations based on EPA recommendations. None of the. iocations evaluated were identified as being exposed to significant CO concentrations. With no significant potential exposure to toxic substances or to CO "Hotspots", the. proposed project is not forecast to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations that would be considered significant and adverse or exceed air quality significance thresholds with the inclusion of the identified mitigation measures. R:\D P\2004\04-0496 Temecula Lane\lnitial Environmental Study.doc 9 t J 3.d.: Less than Significant Impact: Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons suffering from illness are' normally associated with locations such as schools, daycare facilities, convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. The closest potentially sensitive . receptors include adjacent residences and Earl Stanley Gardner Middle School. When completed the project will not generate pollutant concentrations that will effect adjacent sensitive land uses because this is a residential project, which has little or no potential to generate long-term toxic emissions. Diesel emissions during the short-term construction activities are too low to pose an acute significant toxic air contaminant health hazard and they will not occur over the long-term. As a result, no significant impacts are expected with this project. 3.e.: Less than Significant Impact: During construction the proposed project will contain operations that will produce odors associated with equipment and materials. The site is located within the vicinity of sensitive receptors; however, the odors associated with this type project are normally not considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to complain. Diesel fuel combustion odors from construction equipment, operation equipment, and new asphalt paving fall into this category. Both based on the short-term of the emissions and the characteristics of these emissions, no significant odor impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project. R:ID P\2004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 10 ) , \ 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Issues and Sunnortinn Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Imnact Incorporated Imnact Imoact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly if or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian if habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally if protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (includirig, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastai, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. . Interfere substantially with the movement of any if native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserv sites? . e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances if protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policv or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat if Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, reaional, or state habitat conservation plan? I Comments; 4. a: Less than significant impact: The property was an active horse ranch, with the majority of the site devoted to corrals, livestock, outbuildings, equipment storage areas, partially paved and dirt roads, and several residences. The remainder of the property, along the eastern and northern edges, contains a mix of disturbed open space that has been recently cleared or is covered with ruderal, largely nonnative vegetation dominated by short-pod mustard and a variety of annual grasses and forbs. Overall, the property contains no native habitat, other than small remnants of scrub along the northern boundary site. The project site is relatively flat, ranging from approximately 1,010 feet in elevation to 1,030 feet. Where exposed, soils consist of sandy loarns. Site disturbances include on and off road vehicle and farm equipment use, equipment storage, residential buildings, roads and drives, non-native ornamental vegetation and other disturbances typical of open space within residential areas. According to the Biological Opportunities and Constraints Analysis (BOCA) dated October 24, 2003, prepared by Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc. and on November 16, 2004 a reconnaissance level field survey and a literature review was completed for the subject property. In addition, a search of the R:\D P\2004\04-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 11 \' i r; \ Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database (NOD B) found 62 sensitive species and 6 habitat types recorded in the vicinity of the subject property. Of those species, 28 are plants, 13 are birds, 12 are amphibianslreptiles, 5 are mammals, 3 are invertebrates, and 1 is a fish. Of the 28 sensitive plant species identified in the NBBD search, 9 are federally listed as endangered or threatened. None of the 28 species identified in the literature search were observed during the survey visits. Of the 13 sensitive bird species identified in the NDDB search, 3 are federally listed as threatened. Cooper's hawk, a sensitive bird species did not come up in the NDDB search as having been recorded in the project vicinity. However, a single Cooper's hawk was observed foraging along Temecula Creek immediately north of the project site. Cooper's Hawks are not listed under the ESA. Of the 12 sensitive amphibian and reptile species identified, one species is federally listed as endangered, the Arroyo Toad. The project site. does not contain habitat suitable to support the species, potentially suitable habitat may occur offsite to the north along Temecula Creek. There is only one federally listed mammal as endangered, and the sensitive fish species was not listed under the federal status. All three sensitive invertebrate species identified are federally listed either as threatened or endangered. None of these species were observed onsite. Of the 6 habitat types identified in the NDDB Search (southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern interior basalt flow vernal pool, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, southern willow scrub and valley needlegrass, and valley needlegrass grassland) none occur on the subject property. 4.b-d: Less than Significant Impact: On January 27, 2005 regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to determine the limits of Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and DFG jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2.Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The project site is located just south of Temecula Creek, a Corps jurisdictional intermittent stream; however the grading.plan (attached) indicates that no impacts to Corps jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of this project There is a narrow man-made drainage along the eastern site boundary presumably created in association with the housing development, which lies on a higher elevation immediately east of the project site. Such isolated man-induced drainages are not considered jurisdictional waters. Portions of the property, which occur adjacent to Temecula Creek to the north, contain areas that may represent jurisdictional waters of the US. According to the habitat assessment, some random riparian vegetation does occur on the project site near the Temecula Creek. This portion of the site will be permanently preserved as open space. Since no Corps jurisdictional waters exist onsite and no impact will occur, no Corps Section 404 Permit is required for the project In addition, a CDFG jurisdictional intermittent stream is located near the Temecula Creek. Since no CDFG exists on site and no impact will occur, no CDFG Section 1602 Agreement is required for this project Therefore, development of the proposed project will not adversely impact such resources. In addition, compliance with the provisions of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and related implementation program will further address these issues. This information is presented in the comment section for Item 4.f. 4.e: Less than significant Impact: There are native and non-native tree species on the site that may require acquisition of a permit for removal. The developer is required to obtain such a permit and no mitigation is required to ensure that the permit will be obtained prior to removal of any trees on the property. 4.f: Less than significant Impact: Riverside County adopted the Western Riverside County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on June 17, 2003. The USFWS Biological Opinion in R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnilial Environmental Study.doc 12 f't ) favor of adopting the MSHCP was released on June 22, 2004. The City of Temecula is a signatory to the MSHCP, and therefore, the project is required to comply with the MSHCP. Section 6.0 of the MSHCP identifies the local implementation measures. Section 6.1.6 details the County and Cities Obligations and corresponds with Section 13.2 of the Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The program requires the City to undertake the following steps that the City to insure compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP. . . Payment of local development mitigation fees and other relevant fees (Section 8.5); . Comply with the HANS processor equivalent process to satisfy local acquisition obligation; . Comply with the survey requirements (Section 6.3.2); . Comply with the policies of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2); · Comply with the policies of the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3); · Comply with the policies of the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4); and · Comply with the Best Management Practices (Section 7.0; Appendix C) According to the Biological Habitat Assessment for the site, all five parcels are identified in the MSHCP as occurring in Criteria Cell 7446. The MSHCP indicates that 10-20% of the northern portion of the cell . should be conserved and connected with adjacent cells to the north and west to form Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. The open space is supposed to located along the creek bed and constitutes connection to the existing creek wildlife corridor that extends upstream and downstream. The natural open space is located such that it can connect with land in cells to the north and west of the site. As a result of the HANS process, a portion of the site along Temecula Creek was identified for preservation. The natural open space in Temecula Creek bed is approximately 6.56 acres. In addition, the 0.74 acres between the development and the decomposed Granite (DG) path will be hydroseeded with a non irrigated native seed mixture appropriate to the Temecula Creek area. If the nonirrigated seed mix on the development side of the DG path is included, the total natural open space area would then be 7.3 acres. This would constitute approximately 15.3% of the project site along Temecula Creek being set aside for open space purposes. The City will submit a consistency analysis to the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) indicating that the City finds the project consistent with the criteria area requirements. Thomas Olsen Associates indicates that there is no requirement for surveying of narrow endemic plant species on the project site. Burrowing owl surveys were required and mitigation measures are addressed under item (a) of this section. The Olsen report also found no vernal pools occurring on the project site. The site is adjacent to Temecula Creek and has drainage on site and thus must comply with the Riparian/Riverine Areas. The Riverside County Integrated Plan Conservation Summary Report Generator for the five parcels indicates that the site should be assessed for burrowing owls. The project is located within the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan for Stephen's kangaroo rat. A mandatory per acre development fee will be assessed for the project. The MSHCP Urban Wildlands Interface Policy establishes performance standards to minimize the impact of developed land adjacent to conservation areas. The following mitigation measure is required to insure compliance with the MSHCP regarding entry into the area to be preserved as open space: 1. Exclusion fencing (orange snow screen) will be installed along the construction limits along the north of the property to prevent construction activities from infringing on the Temecula Creek Conservation Area. Below lists the conditions that are required to address the management activities contained within Section 5.0 of the Final MSHCP: As determined through the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy for PA 40-0490, 91 & 92, and 96 established by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation R:\D P\2004104.0496 Temecula Lanelln!!ial Environmental Study.doc 13 \1. ) Plan, a total of 16.62 acres shall be offered .for dedication to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) , as the City of Ternecula directs or authorizes, and accepted by the RCA prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. This does not preclude earlier conveyance of the property at the discretion of the property owner. Prior to acceptance of the offer of dedication by the RCA, the applicant shall subrnit a preliminary title report and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the dedicated acreage, to the RCA for its review and approval. The RCA shall have sole and absolute discretion with respect to the approval of the information conteined in the preliminary title report and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Title to the dedicated acreage shall be free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easernents, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and taxes except those encumbrances and easements, which are in the sole discretion of the RCA are' acceptable. Easements allowing for the management of fuel modification areas or detention basins shall not be accepted. Pursuant to Objective 6 of the Species Account for the burrowing owl included in the Western Riverside . County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, within 30 days prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a pre-construction presence/absence survey for the burrowing owl shall be conduced by a qualified biologist and the results of said survey shall be provided in writing to the City's MSHCP Coordinator. If it is deterrnined that the project site is occupied by the burrowing owl, take of "active" nests shall be avoided. However, when the burrowing owl is present, active relocation outside of the nesting season, (March 1 through August 15) by a quelified biologist shall be required. Occupation of this species on the project site rnay result in the need to revise the grading plans so that the take of "active" nests is avoided or alternatively, a grading permit may be issued once the species had been properly relocated. Prior to grading permit issuance, development of the project shall be consistent with the area of development designated on the attached Grading Plan. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into MSHCP Conservation Area. The final grading plan shall be submitted to the City's MSHCP coordinator for approval. Brush management to reduce fuel loads to protect urban uses (fuel modification zones) will occur only in the boundaries of the development. Fuel modification zones will not encroach into the Conservation Area. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plant pallet shall avoid the list of invasive plant species identified in the MSHCP as those species to be avoided adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. (MSHCP Final in Volume I Section 6 in Table 6.2 on page 6-44 through 6-46). Prior to recordation of a final map or the issuance of a grading permit, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. These requirements shall be in the lighting improvement plan submitted to the Building and Safety Department. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the City's MSHCP Coordinator demonstrating compliance with the approved "Barrier Plan" set forth in the attached Open Space Plan. Inspection or other monitoring may be required to ensure such compliance. Prior to the issuance of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping in accordance with the approved MSHCP landscaping plan shall be installed. R:\D P\2004\04.0496 Temecula Lane\lnilial Environmental Study.doc 14 r ) 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Surmortino Information Sources Imnact Incoroorated Imnact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of -/ a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of -/ an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological -/ resource or site or uni~ue oeolooic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred -/ outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a-d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Temecula General Plan identifies the project site as a sensitive archaeological resource area and area of high paleontological sensitivity (Figure 5-6 and 5- 7, respectively). Jean A. Keller, Ph.D. submitted a "Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment", dated November 2004, which reviewed and summarized previous cultural resources investigations for the project area. The assessment commenced with a review of maps, site records, and reports at the California Archaeological Inventory and California Historical Resources Information System/Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside: Then a field survey was conducted. With the exception of the Temecula Creek, virtually no native vegetation remains within the boundaries of the sUbject property due the establishment of three working horse ranches. The subject property is situated within a well-studied area, with nine cultural resource surveys having been conducted within a one mile radius, two which covered all land within that radius. One archaeological site of prehistoric origil) (CA-RIV-6645) and two sites of historical origin (CA-RIV-3410-H, CA-RIV-3411-H) have been recorded within the study area. Reported cultural resources include midden, a hearth, pottery sherds, flaked stone tools; ground stone tools, bone, and historical structures with associated features. The literature found no direct references to the subject property. Cultural resources of either prehistoric or historical origin were. not observed within the site boundaries. However, Figure 5-7 of the City's General Plan includes the eastern portion of the site as a paleontological area of high sensitivity. Due to the potential for such resources to occur on the property, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: 1. If any cultural resources are exposed during initial grading and ground disturbance activities the City will be contacted, and a qualified archaeologist will evaluate the resources. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding will be provided to collect, curate and report these resources in accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to develop a management plan for any resources that may be unearthed, to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and to participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. Pechanga monitors shall- be . present during any grading of previously undisturbed areas, regardless of grading depth. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to this end prior to issuance of a grading permit. R:\D P\2004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc 15 tz \' 2. Any import and spreading activities that result in excavation below the original ground surface shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of any paleontological resources exposed during the grading activity within the site. If significant resources are encountered, adequate funding will be provided by the developer to collect, curate and report on these resources and a final report of findings shall be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the City of Temecula and any specimens will be deposited with the County Museum repository fossil collection. The report shall describe parcel geologylstratigraphy, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include a faunal list and an inventory of curated/catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of - the specimens and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from other areas. If resources are encountered, the report shall be submitted to. the City within 60 days of the completion of the grading/monitoring ofthe site. 3. If any human remains are encountered during initial grading activities, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office will be contacted to manage such remains. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanelinilial Environmentai St~dy.doc 16 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnnrtinn Information Sources lmoact Inco"':'orated lmoact lrr'm8cl a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvina: f. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated -/ on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geoloav Special Publication 42. if. Strona seismic around shakinQ? -/ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including -/ liquefaction? . iv. Landslides? -/ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of -/ toosoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is -/ unstable, or that would become unstable as a I. result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table -/ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creatinQ substantial risks to life or propertv? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the -/ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: 6.a.i-iii: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The northeast corner of the site is within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone according to the ENGEN Corporation geotechnical engineering study dated May 28, 2003. The Geocon Geotechnical and Fault Investigation Report dated November 7, 2003 found that no active faulting appears to be 'present on the site. The report determines that surface rupture due to active faulting is not likely based upon literature review and fault trench excavations. However, as an existing Rancho California water line limited excavations along the eastern property boundary, a building setback zone is recommended along the eastern property boundary. The incorporation of building setbacks are considered sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As a result, the following mitigation measure implements this recommendation and is sufficient to address these impacts. 1. No structures will be constructed within the building setback zone identified for the site in the Geocon Geotechnical Fault Investigation Report, dated November 7, 2003. R:\D P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc 17 .i } A review of the City's Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazards in the General Plan (Figure 7-2) and the geotechnical report prepared by EnGEN Corporation indicate that the project site is located within a zone of potential subsidence or liquefaction. The subsequent Geocon report indicates that soils on the site have a generally very low to low in expansion potential, with localized areas of highly plastic clays. Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 15 to 23 feet, and Geocon estimates that seasonal groundwater may be as shallow as 10 feet below the natural ground and may be encountered during remedial grading. The following mitigation measure is will be implemented to control potential liquefaction hazards. 2. Materials with an expansion potential greater than low will be kept at least 3 feet below proposed finish grade elevations. Implementation of this mitigation measure is considered sufficient to reduce potential impacts from liquefaction to a less than significant level. 6.a.iv: No Impact: There is a low potential for earthquake induced landslides or rockfalls on the project site because the site is essentially flat and is not adjacent to a hill or ridge. As a result, no impacts or mitigation is required for landslides or rockfalls. 6.b.: Less than Significant Impact: The over-excavation and development of the project site will expose it to potential erosion and downstream sedimentation. The General Plan requires mitigation for projects to control erosion. Further, the state-wide NPDES program requires every project with ground disturbance greater than five acres to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during project construction and operation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are identified in the SWPPP to control erosion on a site and any sedimentation generated by disturbing the site for development. Mitigation is required to control potential erosion and sedimentation. The following mitigation measure will be implemented: 3. The SWPPP prepared for this project will implement BMPs identified in the SWPPP prepared for this project by RBF Consulting. The required performance standard is to minimize erosion on the site in accordance with the County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and to contain 80% of eroded sediment on the project site. 6.c.-d.: Less than Significant Impact: Trash and undocumented fill occur on the site and are not considered suitable to provide structural support in their present condition. The Geocon report indicates that undocumented fill and alluvium will be removed to a depth of at least 8 feet below existing or finished grade, whichever is deeper, to mitigate possible soil liquefaction and to reduce expected differential settlement to within generally acceptable levels. The City will ,require the following performance standard. 4. The Geotechnical survey for the site shall identify design management requirements to meet the following performance standard: Humans and structures shall be protected from hazards that would threaten human life and safety or the soundness of the structures for continuous habitation. 6.e.: No Impact: The project site will be served by a sewer collection system owned by Eastern Municipal Water District. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc 18 ,t \ 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: . Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Issues and SUDDortina fnformalion Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoacl lnco~~orated Imnact Imoact a. Create a significant hazard to the pUblic or the -/ environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the -/ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous -/. or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or orooosed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of -/ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the ! oublic or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use -/ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proiect area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private -/ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the oroject area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere -/ with an adopted emergency response plan or emeraencv evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk -/ or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are . intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 7. a.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will use existing Loma Linda Road as the ingress and egress point. The proposed project consists of transporting clean fill dirt to the site and filling the property out of the flood zone. The proposed project does not propose the use or manufacture of hazardous materials or produce hazardous wastes to comply with existing federal, State, and County Regulations. Therefore, there will be no significant hazard to the public or the . environment from the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. R:\D P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study. doc 19 7. b.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes to construct single family homes and multi-family units totaling to 338 residential living areas. The project will also propose a parcel map that will subdivide the property into 98 legal parcels. It is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. c.: Less than Significant Impact: A school is located immediately south of the eastern portion of the property across Loma Linda Road. The proposed import and placement of soil on the property use does not include any activities or uses that would pose a potential health hazard to the local population. 7. d.: Less than Significant Impact: Review of available data (site appearance, USGS map, California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese list), The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Enviromapper indicates no past uses that may have involved hazardous materials. The DTSC Cortese List does not include any sites within the City ofTemecula. The US EPA Enviromapper identifies three sites within one mile of the project site that handle hazardous wastes. Two sites are gasoline stations and the third is a home improvement store. LUSTIS identifies one leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) within one mile of the proposed project site. Tile following site information is that found in LUSTIS. Chevron #204029 at 31669 State Route 79 in is identified as a LUFT site. Agasoline leak impacted soil in 2001 at this site. The site is about 0.5 miles northeast of the project site. No further information regarding remediation or recent action at this site is available on LUSTIS. Based upon the available data and the historical land use, there is no evidence to support that hazardous wastes would be present on the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 7. e-f.: No Impact: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip according to Figure 5.9-4 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D PI2004\04-0496 Temecula Lanellnilial Environmental Study.doc 20 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: PotenliaUy Potenlially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation ' Significant No Impacl Issues and SUDoorting Information Sources Impact Incomorated Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially -/ deQrade water Qualitv? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or -/ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table . . level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been oranted1? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of -/ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of -/ . the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would -/ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Require the preparation of a Water Quality -/ Management Plan? g. Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area . -/ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 1 OQ-year flood hazard area -/ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? f. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of -/ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including f100dinQ as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? -/ Comment: 8.a.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would permit development of 428 single- and multi~family residential dwelling units and associated infrastructure. This type of development typically generates domestic and/or municipal wastewater that does not require pretreatment or waste discharge requirements. No water quality standards are forecast to be violated by impiementing the proposed project which will deliver its wastewater flows to the regional wastewater plant. Wastewater R:IO P\2004\04-0496 Temecula Lanellnilial Environmental Study.doc 21 " J. will be delivered to the regio.nal treatment plant for treatment under waste discharge requirements established by the San Diego. Regional Water Quality Control Board. During construction and o.ccupancy, BMPs will be implemented which will co.ntrol storm water runoff pollution to a level of nonsignificance. 8.b.: Less than Significant Impact Geo.con enco.untered gro.undwater at depths of appro.ximately 15 to. 23 feet during soil bo.rings. Geoco.n estimates that seasonal groundwater may be as shallow as 10 feet below the natural ground surface and may be encountered during remedial grading. To mitigate potential impacts to groundwater, the following mitigation is required. 1 In the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered during primary grading/excavation activities, the developer shall require any groundwater pumped from the grading site to be properly treated before being released into Temecula Creek. Proper treatment will include removal of all man-made contaminants (such as petroleum products) in conformance with the Regional Board's current discharge standards and. reduction of sediment in the groundwater by 80% prior to release. The proPo.sed project do.es no.t include any extraction o.f gro.undwater, so. no. adverse direct impact can result from implementing the proPo.sed project. The GPEIR addresses water demand from develo.pment in the City o.f Temecula. The GPEIR co.ncludes that cumulative water demand within the City can be met by the City's two. purveyo.rs witho.ut having a significant adverse impact on the enviro.nment, including depletion of the areas groundwater supplies. This is verified by the Rancho California Water District's Urban Water Master Plan which defines the resources available to. the District to. meet future cumulative demand within its service area. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan designation for the pro.perty and thus, is considered consistent with the GPEIR. Therefore, the pro.Po.sed project will not co.ntribute to. a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area groundwater aquifers. In additio.n, some water will be used for dust control during the grading process. The property owner has indicated that recycled water will be used for constructio.n purpo.ses if available. Regardless, the volume of water required to contro.l dust is forecast to be about two acre-feet over the construction perio.d (about 5,000 gallons per day for 132 days) and this volume of demand is not considered a significant and adverse impact on water resources. No significant impacts are anticipated. 8. c.: Less than Significant Impact:The project site presently drains in a no.rtherly directio.n into Temecula Creek and ultimately the Santa Margarita River. Equipment will distribute the imported soil material o.n the site in a manner that will preserve the existing direction of surface runoff to. Temecula Creek, only with the additio.n of best management practices to ensure that the site drainage does not significantly degrade water quality. Thus, through the implementation o.f the project SWPPP, erosion and siltatio.n issues are co.ntrolled to a less than significant impact level and this project will not result in substantial erosio.n o.r siltation o.n- o.r off-site. 8.d-f.: Less than Significant Impact: The pro.Po.sed project would increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site. The Storm Water Management Plan fo.r the project indicates that 85% o.f the site will be impervious after construction as opposed to the 5% that is impervious under existing conditions. The City imposes standard mitigation to detain surface runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum runoff volume from the site is not significantly increased. The project will not vio.late any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements established by the State of California. However, the pro.ject is required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to. the Municipal Separate Sto.rm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. R:IDPI2004104-0496 Temecuia Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc 22 j A drainage evaluation has been developed that estimated the surface drainage from the site utilizing the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District's Hydrology Manual. Existing 10- year and 100 year flows from the site are approximately 81 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 128 cfs, respectively. After site construction, 1 O-year and 100 year flows from the site are expected to increase to 91 cfs and 140 cfs. As noted above, flows will continue to be directed into Temecula Creek. The drainage analysis by Mr. Frank Gerard concluded that discharges from this project will have an insignificant impact on Temecula Creek due to the large differences in the times of concentration and that detention is not necessary. . The project includes three water quality basins to be located along the northern edge of the developed area. The basins will serve to collect runoff from the project site and allow percolation that will recharge the groundwater basin and reduce potential water quality impacts on Temecula Creek from the site. Currently, flows that originate on the site are discharged directly into Temecula Creek with no treatment. The required water quality volumes for the three proposed basins, is 0.5 acre-feet (ac-ft) for the eastern basin, 0.2 ac-ft for the central basin and 0.6 ac-ft for the western basin. Based upon the information presented above, no significant adverse impact to either downstream flows or water quality in Temecula Creek is forecast to affect properties downstream of the site from developing the project as proposed. 8.g-h.: Less than Significant Impact Under existing conditions, the majority of the site is within the 100-year floodplain. The map shows that the proposed import of about 260,000 cubic yards of soil material to the site will elevate the project site by about three to four feet, which is above the 100-year floodplain. No buildings or structures will be located within the 100-year floodplain as a result of implementing this project. No significant flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. West Consulting, fnc produced a map dated November 4, 2004 (see Figure 5) that shows the 100-year flood plain boundaries if the project is approved as proposed. No significant flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. The letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) verifying the data in Figure 5 is provided as Appendix 1 to this document. . 8. i.: Less than Significant Impact According to Figure 7-4 of the City's General Plan, the project site is located within a dam inundation flood hazard area downstream from Vail Lake. Rupture of the dam and release of flows could cause loss of life and property. The Office of Emergency Services is responsible for reviewing population control and evacuation procedures in areas designated as potential for loss of life in the event of a dam failure. The City's General Plan Public Safety Element Section IV. Implementation Programs C. Flood Hazards includes the following relevant items (#2 is not relevant.) 1. Development proposals for projects within the 100-year flood plain shall be reviewed for consistency with Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements. 2. Develop a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan as part of the Emergency Response Pian. 3. Coordinate planning projections with the Office of Emergency Services to ensure that Dam Safety Plans reflect development in the community. The City has implemented a multi-hazard functional plan pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act. The proposed project does not contain critical or essential facilities. No mitigation is required. 8. j.: No Impact: Due to the project area's distance from the ocean and elevation, there is no potential for a tsunami. The project area is not located near a large surface water body and there is no potential for inundation by seiche or mudflow. R:ID PI2004\04-0496 Temecula Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc .23 ) \ 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: . Potentially Potentially Significanl.Untess less Than Significant. MiligaUon Significant No Issues and Suooorting Information Sources Imoact lncoroorated Impact lmoacl a. Physicallv divide an established community? -/ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or -/ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or -/ natural community conservation plan? Comments: 9. a.: Less than Significant Impact: The construction and occupancy of 428 residential units on this 47.72-acre site is consistent with existing and proposed surrounding residential uses. The units will be constructed as 96 single- family units on 20.4 acres, 96 triplex units (32 bUildings) on 9.51-acres and 236 fourplex units (59 buildings) on 16.67-acres. The single-family units will be located adjacent to the existing single family homes east of the site. The type of project proposed, the location of the project and the vacant state of much of the land south and west of the site eliminate any possibility of physically dividing an established community. 9. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project site is zoned for Professional Office (PO). The City of Temecula Development Code allows affordable housing to be located on land zoned PO as a conditional use (Section 17.08.030). Section 17.06.050 establishes the special use standards and regulations that allow for the increase in the maximum residential density beyond the target density but within the maximum density range for the land use. State law requires that if a developer allocates at least 20% of new residential units for lower-income households, 10% of units for very low-income . households or 50% of the units for senior citizens, then the City must either grant a density bonus of 25% in addition to one regulatory concession or provide financially equivalent incentives. The Affordable Housing Development section of the Housing Element indicates that the City offers density bonuses to builders who meet the state requirements. The project is proposing to allocate 20% of new residential units for lower-income households. To do this, the project will enter into a recorded covenant with the City to ensure the continued affordability of bonus units. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to conflict with any agency plans or policies that have been adopted in order to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. 9. c.: Less than Significant Impact The project site is located within a criteria cell of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to which the City of Temecula is a signatory. As such the project must show that it is consistent with the MSHCP requirements for the cell and corridor within which it is located. Additionally, the project must comply with the Riparian Policy (Section 6.1.2), the Narrow Endemics Policy (Section 6.1.3) and the Urban Wildlands interface Policy (Section 6.1.4). The project site is also located within the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan for Stephen's kangaroo rat, and therefore, a mandatory per acreage development fee will be assessed for the project. Please refer to the Biological Section for a full discussion of this item and details of the mitigation measures required. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 24 \ , \- 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: . Potentially Potentially Significant Unless less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and SUDDortino Information Sources Imnact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral. -/ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 1 -/ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local Qeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10. a.-b.: No Impact According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in Temecula. Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc 25 ( J. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Polentially Significanl Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnortinn Information Sources Imnact Incomorated Impact Imnact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise. -/ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other aQencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive -/ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise -/ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the oroiect? . d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in -/ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existinQ without the proiect? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan -/ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within I two miles of a public airport orpublic use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, -/ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 11.a.: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: According to the Noise Study prepared by The Planning Center dated March 17,2005, the proposed project contains one stage of noise generation when the soil is imported and spread (distributed) on the project property. The proposed project is not forecast to generate severe noise levels over the long-term. The project will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land. However, those noises are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Since this project does not involve any pile driving or other severe noise generating activities, this project is not forecast to generate severe noise levels that would impact the nearby school or residential noise receptors. In general, the trucks and earth-moving sources are noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Noise emissions tend to be more associated with periodic events under full load rather than continuous noise exposure. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 20 dB in 500' of propagation. The loudest earth-moving noise sources will therefore sometimes be temporarily detectable above the local background beyo'nd 1,000 feet from the noise source. An extensive noise impact envelope requires a clear line of sight from source to receiver. Any terrain, topography or structures between the source and receiver would limit line of sight. Construction noise impacts are therefore less than predicted urider theoretical maximum input conditions. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 26 " } I disturbance during quiet hours, and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance, usually leads to time limits on grading activity imposed as a condition on grading permits. The City of Temecula provides specific standards for preventing construction noise nuisance: 1. During construction, vehicle staging areas and placement shall be located as far as is practicable from existing residential dwellings. 2. The property owner shall require that construction activities be limited to no more than the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction can occur outside of these hours or on Sunday or holidays except in the event of emergency. 3. The applicant shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 65 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the applicant will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. 4..The applicant will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities. Compliance with the above noise mitigation measures will ensure that construction noise impacts are controlled to a less than significant level. These measures are set as conditions on the project grading permits. Compliance with these criteria will preclude creation of a significant temporary noise impact during construction. 11.b.: Less than Significant Impact This project does not include any construction activities that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. No potential exists for significant ground borne noise/vibration impacts associated with the proposed project. 11.c.: Less than Significant Impact: As noted above, this single-family residential project does not contain onsite activities that would generate .a substantial increase in noise levels. The project will contribute to potentially significant cumulative noise levels on major roadways (Pechanga and State Highway 79 south). However, the volume of this project's contribution on major roadways is considered . to be less than significant because it will not contribute to a change greater than 3 dB based on the existing background traffic levels, which is a less than audible contribution. The noise study prepared for the project indicates that the proposed project will not have any significant impact to off-site noise levels along the project's adjacent roadways or other sensitive land uses in the area. . 11.d.: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Temporary construction noise impacts vary because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges as a functi,on of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discreet phases dominated initially by earth-moving sources, then by foundation and parking area construction, and finally for finish const~uction. In general, earth-moving sources are noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Pile drivers, jack hammers and rock drills are also noisy, with the peak noise from a pile driver exceeding 100 dBA at 50 ft and jack hammers and rock drills exceeding 90 dBA. (For more specific information on construction equipment noise generation, please refer to the noise study in the technical appendices). R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnltial Environmental Study.doc 27 { } 1 Noise emissions tend to be more associated with periodic events under full load rather than continuous noise exposure. Short-term noise generation thus tends to be on the higher end of the ranges, while long-term exposure is at the quieter end of the noise spectrum. . Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 20 dB in 500' of propagation. The loudest earth-moving noise sources will therefore sometimes be temporarily detectable above the local background beyond 1,000 feet from the noise source. An extensive noise impact envelope requires a clear line of sight from source to receiver. Any terrain, topography or structures between the source and receiver would limit line of sight. Construction noise impacts are therefore less than predicted under theoretical maximum input conditions. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours, and the nuisance facfor accompanying such disturbance, usually leads to time limits on grading activity imposed as a condition on grading permits. The City of Temecula provides specific standards for preventing construction noise nuisance: 5. During construction, vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as is practicable from existing residential dwellings. 6. The applicant shall require that construction activities be limited to no more than the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction can occur outside of these hours or on Sunday or holidays except in the event of emergency. 7. The applicant shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 65 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the applicant will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. 8. The applicant will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities. Compliance with the above time limits will ensure that construction noise impacts are controlled to a less than significant level. These time limits are set as conditions on the project grading permits. 'Compliance with these criteria will preclude creation of a significant temporary noise impact during construction. 11.e-f: No Impact: This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. According to Figure 5.10-4 of the French Valley Airport Future Noise Contours in the Noise Element of the General Plan, the project is not located in the noise impact area for the French Valley Airport. In addition, the project is not located in the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone according. to Figure 5.9-3 in the Land Use and Planning Element of the General Plan. Therefore, people working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport and no impacts will result from this project. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitlal Environmental Study.doc 28 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Miligalion Significanl No Issues and SUDoorting Information Sources Impact lncor~orated Imoact lmoact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, -/ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, -/. necessitating the construction of replacement housinQ elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, -/ necessitating the construction of replacement housinQ elsewhere? Comments: 12.a.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is the construction and development of 428 residential units on 47.72-acres for a total density of about 9.0 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). The units will be constructed as 96 single-family units on 15.14 acres, 96 triplex units (32 buildings) on 7.17- acres and 236 fourplex units (59 buildings) on 13.88-acres. The density will be 6.3 du/acre for the single family portion of the project, 13.4 du/acre for the triplex lot and about 17 du/acre for the fourplex lot. The multi-family portion of the site will account for 332 residences on 26.18 acres for a density of 15.77 du/acre. With a total of 428 dwelling units, the proposed project is forecast to house a population of 1,211 persons (428 x 2.83 persons per household). As discussed under the Land Use and Planning Section, the City of Temecula Development Code allows affordable housing to be located on land zoned PO as a conditional use (Section 17.08.030). The proposed project is not forecast to cause significant growth within the City of Temecula beyond that which is allowed for in the General Plan. As an infill project, the site is surrounded by other development (existing or in progress) and the Temecula Creek flood plain (north), so no potential for inducing growth in the immediate surrounding area, either directly or indirectly, can result from the proposed project. 12.b-c.: Less than Significant Impact: The project site is presently vacant land. The proposed project will not displace any existing housing. The project provides essential moderate income housing that is currently in very short supply within the City and surrounding area. The project also provides detached single-family residential homes. The construction of 428 residential dwelling units, including units designated for affordable housing, is not considered an adverse impact under CEQA. No mitigation is required. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 29 ), \ , 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environm.ental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the pUblic services: Potentially PolenUaUy Significant Unless Less Than Significant Miligation Significanl No Issues and $uooortino Information Sources InlOact Incorporated Irrmact ImDact a. Fire protection? -/ b. Police protection? -/ c. Schools? -/ d. Parks? -/ e. Other public facilities? . -/ Comments: 13.a.-e.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is an infill development and all services are already available to the project site. The development of 428 residential units will .place a small increment of cumulative demand on the service systems (fire, police, schools, and parks). The proposed project will be required to pay development impact fees in addition to property taxes to cover other public facility or service demands. There is a mandatory requirement of the City to mitigate impact to public facilities. For park and recreation services, the City requires developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based upon five acres of usable parkland per one thousand residents or pay in lieu fees. The ultimate project buildout will house an estimated 1,211 people based upon a generation of 2.83 persons per unit. The proposed project will create 6-foot wide 2,450 linear feet DG path along the Temecula Creek and along the northeast property line. The City of Temecula ordinance does not allow for the creation of trails to satisfy Quimby requirements. The project also includes playgrounds and recreational facilities. The City has the discretion to allow qualified recreational facilities to fulfill up to half of the Quimby acreage requirements. The proposed project will be required to create or pay in lieu fees for a total of 6.05-acres of parkland. These fees are mandatory and no additional mitigation is required. R:\D P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitlal Environmental Study.doc 30 , h , I' 14. RECREATION. Would the project: PotenliaUy PolentlaUy Significanl Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and SUDDortino Infonnation Sources lmoacl lncoroorated Imoact Imoact a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and -/ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the -/ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a.-b.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes recreation areas as part of the project including a swimming pool, club house and play areas. The proposed project will create 6-foot wide 2,450 linear feet public multi-use trail along Temecula Creek and the northeast property line. As discussed in Section 11 Public Services, the City requires developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based upon five acres of usable parkland per one thousand residents or pay in lieu fees. The proposed project will be required to create or pay in lieu fees for a total of 6.05-acres of parkland. Based on the inclusion of these recreational features as part of the proposed project, existing neighborhood park utilization is not forecast to increase significantly. The residents of the development ,are likely to increase demand for regional facilities, such as baseball diamonds, basketball courts, etc. However, these are managed facilities where the individual users are typically integrated into existing leagues and the cumulative demand for such facilities is not forecast to increase substantially from implementing the proposed project. No significant adverse impact to recreational resources is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project. R:\D P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitlal Environmental Study.doc 31 ... } , J. " 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnortinn Information Sources Imnact IncorDorated IrrlOact Imnact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in -/ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections i? ' b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of -/ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or hiQhwavs? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including -/ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safetv risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design -/ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emeraencv access? -/ f. Result in inadequate parkinQ capacity? -/ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs -/ supporting alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comrnents: 15. a.-b.: Potentially Significant Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated: A traffic irnpact study conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated July 26,2004 and revised on December 15, 2004. A copy of this study has been made available to the pertinent traffic management agencies (City of Temecula,Caltrans and Riverside County) in the region. Other individuals or agencies interested in review of copy of the traffic study can request a copy from the City of TemeculaPlanning Department. The following is a summary of the traffic study findings. First, the traffic study states that if the site were developed as professional offices, it would generate a total of 15,549 vehicle trips per day with 1,220 trips in the morning peak hourand 1,820 trips in the evening peak hour. The proposed development is forecast to generate a total of 2,850 vehicle trips per day with 216 trips in the morning peak hour and 85 trips in the evening peak hour. The proposed project is projected to generate 12,699 fewer trips each day with 1,004 fewer trips per morning peak hour and 1,551 fewer trips per evening peak hour than the maximum trip generation that would be expected given the site zoning. Under existing conditions, all intersections evaluated in the Traffic Study are functioning at LOS D or better during existi.ng peak hour conditions except for the following intersections along SR-79: La Paz Street, Pechanga Parkway, Jedediah Smith Road, Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway and, the north and southbound ramps to Interstate 15. With the addition of the project to the existing conditions, all intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better except for those listed above that were already operating below acceptable levels per the City standards. The intersection of Jedediah Smith Road and SR-79 warrants signalization under current conditions. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnltlal Environmental Study.doc 32 { } \ ) \, Assuming the project is constructed and operation in 2007, all intersections would function at LOS D or better during peak hours with the exception of the following which would function at LOS E or LOS. F: Pechanga Parkway and Rainbow Canyon Road and SR-79 and the following streets: Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway, Jedediah Smith Road, Pechanga Parkway, La Paz Street, Bedford Court and the northbound and southbound ramps of Interstate 15. The above listed intersections would operate at a LOS E or F with or without the project construction. In the short term, construction of the proposed facilities will also result in the generation of up to about 40 additional vehicle trips on the adjacent roadways by construction personnel and the delivery of construction materials during site preparation for about 150 working days. Landscaping and construction of buildings will generate up to about 400 additional trips for about 220 working days. This increase in traffic is not considered to be a sufficient increase in short-term traffic to affect the level of service on roadways or congestion at any intersection. Over the long-term, the proposed project will contribute to LOS F traffic flows at the locations identified above, even after proposed improvements are implemented. However, since this project will not significantly worsen the traffic flow after implementation of mitigation, the project is required to pay fair share to circulation system components that are impacted by cumulative traffic growth in the Temecula region. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130(a)(3) permit a finding of no significant impact when a project offsets its contribution to a cumulatively significant impact by paying its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate such impact. Based on the identified project specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, the City concludes that potential project specific and cumulative effects of the project are effectively mitigated to a less than significant impact level based on the mitigation measures identified below, including payment of fair share fees for circulation system impacts that result from cumulative traffic growth. '1. Construct Loma Linda Road, and Temecula Lane adjacent to the proJect site at their ultimate half-section width in conjunction with development. Dedicate the right-of-way for future construction of the ultimate half-section width for Avenida Del Coronado. 2. The project shall pay all applicable fees and dedicate right-of-way along the frontage of the project. With implementation of the above measures, the project's specific and cumulative circulation system impactswill be offset or mitigated to a nonsignificant level of impact. In addition, the proposed soil import phase was originally forecast to generate about 200 truck trips per day. However, due to air emission concerns, the proposed project will be restricted to generate a maximum of 163 truck trips per day. Even at three passenger car equivalents per truck, the total trip generation on the local circulation system would be 489,trips. Although this is not a significant number of trips, the effect during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic would be to cause further congestion at intersections which are already operating a level of service (LOS) F, which is an unacceptable rate of traffic flow. Thus, to prevent this import project from contributing to significantly adverse traffic flow, the property owner shall limit deliveries to the hours from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This would require the 163 trips to be completed over a 7.5 hour period, or the equivalent of about 21 trips per hour (about one trip every three minutes). The addition of one trip every three minutes to the project site between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. is not forecast to cause significant project specific or cumulative impacts on the local circulation system traffic flow. 15.c.: No Impact: The project site is located approximately 5 miles from the nearest airport, French Valley, and therefore project implementation has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic patterns. No railroads occur adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No impact can be identified, and no mitigation is required. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitlal Environmental Study.doc 33 ) 15.d.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed circulation system improvements associated with the project will be installed in conformance with the City's circulation system requirements. The traffic study recommends implementation of the following conditions relative to the new circulation system components. .3. Complete the internal circulation system per the City of Temecula standards. 4. Sight distance at the project accesses shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/City of Temecula sight distance standards and constructed in conformance with these standards. 5. Traffic signing/striping shall be defined at the time detailed construction plans are completed and implemented prior to occupancy. 6. Stop signs, stop bars and stop legends shall be provided at the project access points. Implementation of these measures will ensure that no residual traffic, ,hazards result from the construction of the roadways in conjunction with the proposed project. 15.e.: Less than Significant Impact A review of the tract map design indicates that emergency access is provided to the proposed tract by two entrances on Loma Linda Road and one entrance on Temecula Lane. The proposed tract will have no affect on emergency access to adjacent parcels after development. In the short term, the proposed project will impact roads in that temporary, partial closures may be necessary in order to construct road improvements. 15.f.: Less than Significant Impact: Parking spaces are required to be provided at a ratio of 9.17 per fourplex unit and 7.5 per triplex unit with 1 guest space per 6 units. The total number of parking spaces required for fourplex units is 571; 572 units are proposed as part of the project. The total number of parking spaces required and proposed for triplex units is 256. The project incorporates 354 garage spaces for fourplex units and 192 garage spaces for triplex units. The project incorporates 218 parking in bays for fourplex units and 64 garage spaces for triplex units. No adverse parking capacity impacts are forecast to occur. No mitigation is required. 15.g.: Less than Significant Impact: The City of Temecula mass transit is provided by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). Route 24 currently provides transit connecting the general area of the project site with the development in the Winchester, Rancho California and Highway 79. The closest current alignment is along Pechanga Parkway, Wolf Valley Road and Margarita Parkway. Mr. Michael McCoy. Senior Planner at RTA, reviewed the project design and made preliminary comments. He stated that RTA is not currently planning to run transit on Loma Linda Road.or Temecula Lane. In the event that RTA decides 10 run transit on Loma Linda Road at some time in the future, he indicated that the street is sufficiently wide to allow bus stops along red-painted curbs without turnouts. RT A is considering providing increased transit along Wolf Valley Road in the future. Existing and proposed transit services along Pechanga Boulevard are close enough to service the project. Figure 5-2 of the City's General Plan does not identify a bicycle trail along Loma Linda Road or Temecula Lane. No conflict or adverse impact to adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 34 . , 't ~ ! 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially PolentiaUy Significant Unless Less Than Significant Miligation Significanl No Issues and Sunnortlnn Information Sources Imnact lncornoraled Impact Imnact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the -/ applicable Reaional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water -/ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could . cause siQnificant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm -/ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sianificant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve -/ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater -/ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the, orovider's existinQ commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted -/ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and -/ requlations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.-b.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will deliver wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula. EMWD is in the process of improving sewer capacity to be able to convey the expected peak flows at full development of the areas it services. Flows from the project would be conveyed to the Temecula Valley Plant, which is rated for processing 12.0 millions of gallons per day (MGD) and is in the process of designing an expansion to process 16.0 MGD. EMWD literature indicates that 235 gallons of wastewater are produced by a typical residential household. Based upon the EMWD average, the proposed tract is projected to generate 100,580 gallons of wastewater per day. EMWD has a policy of Financial Participation Charges wherein new users buy into the existing infrastructure and pay for the additional infrastructure requirements. Through the payment of annexation fees, sewer connection fees, development impact fees (for water facilities) and meter installation fees, the impact of implementing the proposed project on sewage systems is forecast to be less than significant. Adequate capacity exists in each system for this project to be implemented without causing significant adverse impacts to these systems. Other than mandatory fees and installation of onsite and connecting utility infrastructure, no mitigation is required.' , 16.c.: Less than Significant Impact: The site currently drains via sheetflow and the drainage along the eastern edge of the site into Temecula Creek. The proposed project would increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site. The SWPPP for the project indicates that 85% of the site will be imperious after construction as opposed ,to the 5% that is impervious under existing R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitlal Environmental Study.doc 35 /~---.... ,~ 1 i,i 1 (} conditions. The City imposes standard mitigation to detain surface runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum runoff volume from the site is not significantly increased. Mr. Frank Gerard (project hydrologist) estimated the surface drainage from the site utilizing the , Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District's Hydrology Manual. Existing 1 a-year and 100 year flows from the site are approximately 81 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 128 cfs. After site construction, 10-year and 100 year flows from the site are expected to increase to 91 cfs and 140 cfs. Flows will be directed into Temecula Creek. Mr. Gerard concluded that discharges from this project will have an insignificant impact on Temecula Creek due to the large differences in the times of concentration and that detention is not necessary. ~ The project includes three water quality basins to be located along the northern edge of the developed area. The basins will serve to collect runoff from the project site and allow percolation that will recharge the groundwater basin and reduce potential water quality impacts on Temecula Creek from the site. Currently, flows from the site are discharged into Temecula Creek. The required water quality volumes for the three proposed basins, is 0.5 acre-feet (ac-ft) for the eastern basin, 0.2 ac-ft for the central basin and 0.6 ac-ft for the western basin. Based upon the information presented above, the project will not result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities other than those discussed above and analyzed as part of the project. No mitigation is required. 16.d.: Less than Significant Impact: Adequate water supplies have been identified by the Rancho California Water District to meet the current and immediate future demands in its service area, including the proposed project. This analysis and related findings are contained in the District's Urban Water Master Plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact is expected. 16.e.: Less than Significant Impact: Adequate wastewater treatment capacity has been identified by the EMWD to meet the current and immediate future demands in its service area, including the proposed project. 16.f.: No Impact: According to the General Plan and the County Solid Waste Management Plan adequate landfill disposal capacity exists within the regional landfills to meet current and future demands. Solid waste mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR (Measures 2 and 3) must be implemented by all projects in the City to meet the City's source reduction requirements. 16.g.: Less than Significant Impact: By participating in the City's source reduction and recycling element, the proposed project will comply with all statutes and regulations for management of solid waste. The proposed commercial and residential project does not pose any significant or unique management requirements. Regarding e[lergy supplies to the project and region, the proposed project will generate demand for utility system capacity and have a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on energy. The City of Temecula's General Plan identified adequate capacity for energy systems. Since this document was adopted electric and natural gas utilities have been deregulated and short-term shortages in electricity and natural gas were experienced during 2001. Since 2001, new electrical generation and natural gas production came on line and began operating combined with the economic slow down decreased demand for these resources and resulted in surpluses. The City has adopted building codes that require implementation of energy conservation measures for new development. Implementation of these design and construction standards are considered adequate compliance with energy conservation goals and policies. The additional energy demand resulting from the project is considered a less than significant impact and consistent with forecast regional demand for electricity from the build-out of the City. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 36 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than r - Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suooortina Information Sources hilOact Incoroorated Imnacl lmnact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the -/ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a . fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major , periods of California history or prehistorv? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually -/ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future Droiects)? . c. Does the project have environmental effects -/ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beinas, either directly or indirectlv? Comments: 17.a.-c.: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is the construction and development of 428 residential units on 47.72-acres. The units will be constructed as 96 single-family units on 20.4 acres. 96 triplex units (32 buildings) on 9.51-acres and 236 fourplex units (59 buildings) on 16.67-acres. The project will be accessed via a gated entrance/exit on Temecula Lane and two gated entrances/exits on Loma Linda Road. This project will provide essential affordable housing for the City of Temecula if it is approved for development. Residential development of the type proposed is allowed in the Professional Office land use designation if approved by the City. Potential impacts include short-term construction effects and the long-term effects that result from , converting a property from its existing disturbed, pastoral setting to a residential neighborhood. Most of the potential adverse impacts are either not significant without mitigation or they can be controlled to a less than significant impact with identified mitigation measures. Several potential impacts (air quality, transportation/circulation and noise) require extensive mitigation, including modification of the construction schedule, to ensure that impacts are controlled to a less than significant level. With the identified mitigation required to be implemented, the proposed project is not forecast to cause any significant adverse environmental impacts to any of the environmental resource issues addressed in this Initial Study. The City of Temecula proposes to issue a Negative Declaration with mitigation as the appropriate environmental determination for this project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City will issue a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and distribute this document for public review through the State Clearinghouse. Assuming potential project impacts remain less than significant after receipt of comments and development of responses, the City will consider adopting the Negative Declaration prior to issuance of any of the entitlements for this project to be developed on the project site. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 37 ) 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier anal ses used. Identi earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the roject. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. Biological Habitat Assessment completed by Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc. dated 10/24/03 5. Burrowing Owl Survey completed by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. dated 9/20/04 6. Biological Habitat Assessment completed by Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc. dated 11/16/04 7. Air Quality Analysis completed by Giroux and Associates dated 12/17/04 8. Air Quality Analysis completed by Giroux and Associates dated 1/2005 9. Jurisdictional Delineation Report completed by Glenn Lukos Associates dated 2/3/05 10. Traffic Impact Study completed by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated 3/9/05 11. MSHCP Consistency Analysis and HANS Review completed by Michael Brandman Associates dated 3/16/05 12. Noise Study completed by The Planning Center dated 3/17/05 R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula Lanellnitial Environmental Study.doc 38 FIGURE 1 Regional Location Map ~I II I ~ .R!!!!!'~L..,. , - 'SAN 'OltGO 1.." ......." cO"4fJ)- ::-0.;: cou~..... " "-.:._,.-,0.' . " : ;:.., - . ~ ,'-' , . "-'--- -_.-._" l!IP . .m Nell tq Scale . Source: RBF Consulting Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants I' FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map ~ .... City of Temecula .... ...... - Los Ranc:hiicls CmnmunllV / / / h......... (:ftek...... ..., C_ ftodbawk Community .... ,./ ~ ".>. ''', '" ~ Santa MlI'~l'Ila. Etlllogie.1 Prose""" I c, ... "';'0-:...<'. \. \ _/ Pechanga indian ~.non m'Notte.ki.Je- Source: RBF Consulling Tom Dodson' & Associates Environmental Consultants r "t- (i FIGURE 3 ( ! Aerial Photograph of Site Location PA04-0490 PA04-0491 PA04-0492 ~- o , 160 320 640 960 1,280 'Feet This map was made by the City ofTemecula Geographic Information System. The map is derived from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Trahsportation and land ManagementAgencY of Riverside County. The CIty ofTemecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and infonnallon represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The Geographic Information System and other sources shOuld be queried for the most current information. This map Is not for reprint Of resale. R:\GIS\SusanJlArcMap_proj\SMS_temp.mxd r ! i FIGURE 4 Surrounding Land U$e I Zoning 19 ~ / ',- '-- '-- " '-" '., .-0'-- r?,.. ~.-j "-... c:~ "- "', '- '" '-- "-. ''-., ~ LM = Low Medium Residential PO = Professional Offlce PDO.1 = Planned Devt. OVerlay HT = Highway Tourist Commercial Os.c = Conservatl"n PH . Public Parks 8< Recreation SP = Specfflc Plan RESORT CASINO " '-, m Nolto~~ Source: RBF Consulting Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants r' , i \ '~, FIGURE 5 FEMA Flood Zone Map ~; ;:,:. ~ , '. MAP LEGEND r.zJ Rm..d flooclwGy .........'Oo-Y'.....floDdploln Rnil06 Soo.YotorfSoodpkllfl , ""O".~'."ET ~ 1004 II 1000;} Note: Base map used for this exhibit reflects LOMA deled Feb 4, 2004, t10wever "Zone X" designation wnhi" subject property reflects the CLOMA (Based on Fill) document approved by FEMA dated JanuaIY 12, 2005. DSite Source: RBF Consulting Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants Cell No. 7 Source: RBF Consulting ,"" , '. ( FIGURE 6 MSHCP Cells Within Site Vicinity Cell No. ~ " Cell No. 7330 19 $~ \, " " " A".. ~,"" '"...j, . "'", "'- ,<?~ "-. ',--- ell No. 7359 ., ~ I' (11 e Cd. \- --- ~ /' ,K .--/ C r e ___ , .-- "- '"' "'- RESORT CASINO mN0l10Sclle Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants I'- UJ 0::: :::> (!) u:: C III 0.. 2 '0. -'" u o Ci5 ~ Q) c '6 ~ C9 "0 Q) en o a. e 0.. \"\ (i ! .AWN' ~ .....~N-.<M............oom....."''''''''"'''.. Ii ~ . IHHle~IJd . - 'Ii ~ ili" ! l!i~ -E!l!ir~ -, ! !'I~ Illi ~ ;! iii I I . " 'I l I'.ib:;:! , , jl'!n,1; I ' I' ,. ijij" "II. __ IIi! I;ii:j:il l :;~~3 b"Ii"!i'l ~, . u !1~5!E I'" I' !; II~I !ji!!1 >'i...l:l <I'" " ~111 I! ,!l, 11, ' " "I "bf~i!!' .1,' ., ':!~~ l!i"r ~i~ "'" '''''jtr" ., ;d;~~ ""..~"" , " ~ll: !!lo bEl ~~~b g I ~=I;~; ,,,' ii. II!: jaj:: ii....1 llf~~ .Ii 1';;f )t-... i i ',ij.j ~ ! 1iih ~~ilt II' ~II~~55~~ a ....Ji!, !II 11'1" 'II!! " lqi !l'f; !dlii H:jii,!'~!1 ii !ili~t:l :II :hu III :!:Xl iilli ,., ;;:'~~i< ~ <:l~~l:l :5 ~ " ~ CQo:a:: ~it 0) ,..... (")0 Q: ""1- O~ ~O ....~ ~ ~O q:ffi ... ~ q:o:a:: 5Lu 0::1 ~~ UJO ....e (I), "I. g~~; j,'- I ~-ili I,; tl~..: :1',: " 'll;! Ilill, !.l~ll ;!!Il" 'I""I! "'I l:it! ~ ,,~ :I~ ~u~ ~ I~~ ~+ . i . ' -:~ ~ I !'I, III !~ L Jilt g~ U;;:U -=-1i if, ',_" r.~;"l'"' ii' Ii!. '! 'I,' ill' !"i, , I',,! '! !I~"I " ! ri'Ulh.ti~ ~ili J:i al fi~ ~ l! _ ~ it e tl ""!!I,llll:, I. ~2 J~~I! 15! ~_ ~'i Ill; It 1I11"'j1111!' " !! lil.l!i,g.!;:! 'j i~!i!111:!f!;I'111:! I!ll!l, !Il~'! II, Ii' II:il,dI1!!llil,I,-I.! 'd"""'II'I,.I. .... .", l!: ..~.. Ii ~ ,g;;!ili,I,1;,!,IM tli!:!"'!; f! hi '"ii, , ., , !~i!1 . I'll !jii~ I d~6 "'1' = i'"I ,.',' , 'I' II'" "I' il'! ~ 1!'! -'II'p,l; !I'!i!,! !!~! ll!lill~I:I'!i ,II<!!!"'!' li,lo'ill!'! 111111 il!1 fbJl ~I !t'!i!B!1 I ,,'i Iii;!:"! II ~{ Ill' .IJ!; i:~~ Ilif!=1 tt"~ oBI, !~;l iil~~i ~~ l"l! 'j'l i'!' I.', i!;l ig. iinlli~Bi ,i'I'I!!'I' lil',{lill-! ,; !I!'l.l, ,; ..; d :! I jil! , . II ~I ~ ~:rl~ i~ ;g~ I~; ~ ~~! t~ , lil'! I!! ,!:ol .!; II :!: ..~l!: i!!'" ~~~ "if:! 8 ei!:~ gllo- 111m, I! ,I: il!!! II!', l~! ~~ ii!~! I; II: .11i! ill, ;11 II "I,l,., !!I ill!; !~!I I., II ~!Ili:i Ii! illi! hii ;1i ~~ ;~ ~~ @g l!s~; B~il!; ~ Z~o-~ :o~g f5l!; ~"'!~~ <'ji I!e::! ~::;!h r;:' i1l:!O: g:;:;l 0>: ~~ ~~g~";l!i h~~ I~~i be d~e ~~~ /:~ :~~~~ ~a ~~~~ ~;~~ ~~ ~!id 5;:~ !. 11,,: 'I, :~" "', 'i .I!! ,I, " . e,' I,! "II 1'1' i. , "11- ::i ~~ ~:!~t!e !jllll~ ~~ :tg:>~ ill: :~R", ~~ i :! t ii '" l:i ::1 I ~..~ riP ~ l!; iii':/' <>~ '" :;:~e ~ :i l'!~::l.lc t' ! ;, ~ II: j;'l'~ ; ; Ii ;!ll i!!i ;111 I; !1!,; i~!I!]i I ~ ;< <Z.. ill 12 ~ is !i8 if]-:t i:ll:!"~ &......... ~ O:i'O,' i!:~ ~~i ~ ~lll ~ 13!t: i\;~~;;: " ei ~f;! ;;:ij~~ :s~p~ ~~;s~ ~ ~ is~1o !l'8~~ 0- j I:! ! Ii! :!lli! ; il :11: ii!1 loll ! I, ii!;l !~!~!, I'!" , "' 0"" . ! 1'11"1' ,I,! I ,,'ll!' , ,"1' ii i;~ ! ,i! il!Ili: i I: Il!l :;11 ;:1; i!l il;llij!g~! .,', ",1', -. I,' I" i!;:!: t! ~;. is,:t!(15 j!:,Il!iii: "~!lI<:S ~ !::1i l~~~~ ~ N:> ..... I~" ~ III ~ ~i!:l ""'2 l'i~c~"" ~lS ;~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~~~, ! '.~~ ~ iI i:!Z ~i!< ~5 ig.ij:~ 10 ~~ !~,,~~ ti ,,.. n" ,,1/.... z tI ~ ~...ilf -lE" 1111:l ~ I ~I ;~~ ~ ~! ~;~ gi~ii ~~ I ~ii ~!d i~gl ~i~~~!;~ li~~~ f~ i~N1j ~~ ~"f" g~~~~ ~$ ~ i\S:! ~~~... 2~~: ~~~~= ~ ..it ~dti~ ;! ~~; i ;~ I!!: I~~;~ ~; i~ Ul ;I~; n~i~ !~;:I i i~ ~!i; :~ i!! 1 ~~ ~~~~ :~~~i ,~ ~~ ~~~ 19~i ~~~~~ a~~~~ ~ ~g !:~~!l _ N 0<1.... .. .... 0$ .. Ii '" ::':! '!. ':! . !~E ~ . il!li ij ! l'j!!1 !; , ,!11ll i! ,I< 'I,," 'I 011 !!.i!1 ! ,i ! I!!'! !~. !'I'll! -r; Idli'I'11111 !llil!! ,!. i-li " ;:i ~ ! ii! 1,'1 ii" ,'i! 1:11>.. "'! III! . "Ill i!~b I l!ll ; b!~i!l =1' "'tlllel 11111 11"1 I, I!' 11 "I' " I'-l!, 'Iid,l i!lo!~~ ~fl J J ~ ]~~ Hi i'L ~ I .J ; I 1'1 . !: I I' '; ~ "a . -, , , - ! ~ I 'j! I!' n iil I I I I ~ ild .' l'i ~"""'K'"''''''''I'-\''''',"",,'''''''''I<OOO''l\''''''''''' \ .<ow,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -~ :, Ii N i I ~ ! I I I~I an, ml 15 5 J J i ~ ]]~l Ii; I'. II , I ! l ' , j'! . 1'1 " " , , . i 1111 ~ !:! !l! !:! I I ~ , ! I f 'Ii , . ill '," ~ III . ! . ,; I I I - ~ I t! I ' ,I ! l!!/IJ " . ., L! i I! , " (:; T , .' , .. I .,11 1"'/, Iii 1 ,", '1lhllll'" Ill' I "I'l,!I!! iiI' i'll'''I!:!' 'I'! '> '," ." !"! ~i~~_i 1;:.,,,;1' ~!l 111'11"!!'ll,ill 11!!!!llil'I." ,lldl!,li;! Ig' !lll'II!!-,!;,! .11"11' "1,'11'11' 1'11i'I'ilil !b;~J~ i I~~i rr!il! m!Ii!,~ i!l,l,/! ~ ,; I'll!' 'Ii ~,l II . 11111 !I!;I'!~I !', I Il'!/;!! I"; . l"I;!lilil-II!" II , "I" Ii' .1 "f i'l,l'; 'I I',. 1,111"lli,I,IIII: Ii , "1,1," ,., II jil!!,II!:!I!!:I! !'~ 11ll1! III!'III, '" ",I'lllilN"'I'1 mmI1Ii!'llll'I','!!1 ,~.""h!il',I' , r' . .~ O>/U/< .."""""'" Ill'" "1 !'ll! I "I' "., I" 'i!!' d" i'!i! i d!1 1l1ll~1II ~ IV~~ 111.n!I" II" ill' ' > I' .. 0- il ~j;! 1;1.1 i Illil l'I'li'I~ll'" :h "Ii,i!l !'Ihi",'ll" !!lllin!!I!! :>' i ! ti "I 11,1, i,II! Hi~~ ~ 1,11 i ~~~= =; Ilii II 11'1> I. l!!ll "'il"ll .,,~ 11',lil! ~ I~t ~5 l1;;~~f ~~ l!' ~ _om\.....""........... liCW)i I ~ ! I I i!1 ~ Iii ~ ~ l!; ~ " J J I ~ ]]Il Ii~ i'. !I I · ~I , , I'! I I , l i ' l' '; , dHI ~ II !l! !Ii ! I I III 'I' i! III I I i i I I ~ lid \l i I l~ , Ii ~l p , i 1 i' . ~ . to W 0:: ::l t9 u:: = nnn 00 L'::'..'::J (QJ '00 ~ 00 j CO'~ "",roc . Ol c::= tij C;; (QI.= ! j g:e~ 0.. I-~= ro ogtij ~ d ~(0(0 ~ g~. <<i'5 -g ~~oo Ul ""'o1ij 8. [!ill] ~ 00 *'" ~ ~illiOO ~ I- IJ= [!ill] '5 P ~ (0 I! I' . I ~ =: Y"15t::HI.! J i ~::l I i I I j I I I I I III llil jlll!llllj'llil ~llljlll!l!ifllf! ~Iilmn AIIII! I- I it J -';;;,"" ''''''''~o.= """''''"~''><''',h,'\'\J'''''<''_'_''''\><'''_''~''''::'''('_'i ., .' PI . ~ . r . ... I ,W I Z; , :'3~ I :'3g1 ~~! I 011~ I ~ ~ ~~il ~i ~ I!! i~ ~ d~ I I ~ PI; ,L ! ' ~ , !! : I; :;)1' 11!~ ;:~ ~ ~ Ii! Ii i !In ;1 ~I~! ~ II I B I ~ jll I ;11 I ~ ill Ii! ~l III : ~ 2 e:..~ I!.!!..il . 'Hole, ~U..e, ~ Ii!H"ilU Ii!U"ilU W I Il~ l!i~ i'.'i ~ l!lil !!i11 i'.'i ~ !!!lli~ !!!ml S ~ :1 :~I' :I:~I' ::! 9 :'I.~11 ::I.~11 ::! ~ ':I::I';I~ :,I::I';I~ iB~!1 , ~il~!i " ~iilhi !' Ulsh! ! ..~h! ! <t!dl! I <. :.- I! ~ , ~ ! . ~ g ;'!~ "" I I; ~~~~ J~"":J' i~'J . ~..4''$'. I 'II I ill 'il ! ! I m ,., :.t;tIl>"'....li>tI,!(ll !S~!5~i;~~~; c iI~ .. l~~lll!ll!' ! lulnliiil II ~~ =ii i i~lI !(llb,b,tI..l>,lllt ~ ~ml ~~U!ii~~~l'j!;i!ll; .... --,<,', ,~ .1< Ii ll~~ii!lll' filii ! 1& l;ll;:lild i; ;1 rllill~ :i!lli1i; mi; I I inl I:: .. ;II~ I ! ! i !! ! ! II II _I, 11' ! I : 11 ~ I I;: 1;: ! li '8 ~ ~ i~ b !!R II '11!p; ~!I ~I i~, u~llh!I..HI~ I p"",pH1.llIj"!!! i,,'III' ! . !....~ '. I!"h" , III h. III ilIO"!>,I.. ~. III f I P P !,~ 1~~!lIWml!l! ~.... .......... .."'" !:!::!".'" "'!:!!!.. 11! It " hl hl ;15 'j " U hl ::;; hl I- ~~~ ~~: /1 :; mro "''''' ro, roo> 1'i1~,..." ~~'d d:::to.. ~'ili ~r,1 ~~ L:!..,~ ~, , I"' l- i . : < () > ~~; { ~ ~' ';-f ~ilt"ll .' '" !l '" ~ ' z ~". 5 . ~ Q~ 7:1 t; ~., . g ~~; ~W 0 i >- I- Z " ::;;" ::;;", 8~ j ",,' Ii: j' , \ ,..".~ 'd,~.-:;'_' "' ~~~'l("",>t(.""~"";h~>i,' 1\<.;".~,,\.,,~~,,;t\',."I,r," ,fr .J.33HS 33S 3NI7H:J.J.VJo/ " ------- .(iv , I ',~ ~ ,if . N i , i W I Zil: . S~ I Sg1 I ~ E ::::J t O~; ~ W~O ~ ~~ is 8 I I . H: ~ li i I , " " . '" f... ~ ltl .VI ~ '-i ;;'! ~ ~ / / / ,/ '1./ :.-. '.' .~ . /.. !/~~ ......,....,.' .............'.... ....-....~....";.c. :.' ,.'-. 'co' -~ . . ":'-':' --'. -' ,:,:'- ..... , . I ' ( " "~........>.,.. . .,~--~ '. - ~-,. ". ill II! II! ! ~ , . , @ ~ li i ~ .';: ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i ,. ~"",,,,.,,,o,s "."o;""....y...\"-'-.>'''''"'''''''lJ"~\,:'''..,'''\~L'~.''-,_K . (') , ------~_~~.l.'1... ~H.S: 33. S 3N.T 7H:J.L1iW '-" "....---. '.::>-,._~ ' , T , 1 a: Ii:! , 'I; Ii ':) L " , Ii! j)i l J< i'l " .'" U>>- '<0, ~:~., 1 ~"d ..;J.....1l. w., o ",<0 -<;, ...... \,~. , 1 \ t\ , , 8' \ , \ ,I, ~::I i i W i :H I d~ I. S~~ :;) "'~ j ~~& :sm I- ~ B I I , ! !I' j i 1 . , ! - ,1 j; ~ ~ . , Ii; . . ~"~ J~g ~. I 'II ilJ ! III ill, ; Ii . I , i ~. . . . ~ -' ., . . " . u i ~ ! ~ t! i ~ :r ~ ! ~ , ,,"'""'::<."':~ "'~O""-""''''''\",j''^>'''''''''''-\\'<i''~\'''J'''''('~'';O ;_'; ~ " ''< o' ~~, " , ....~ I--~ '" , ~ .,') ..t ,0'0 lJj QIto ...\1, ,,, .... '~2 0";02 i:U : ~f4~ '<t N~. ~ 0); '" "" 1;' .' , -1' ~~~.._. ;r:~ ~ ~ -,~ ~ -.~ ~, .' - ~g: , " .' ii)~'! -'" ",os. o' ~~!2 . ' o..~.... C')~~.. " " .' ;S'l. -, -_,If ({I :~ '/'0 'D "Ci '~ 1m . -tr , /' ~~. E7:;. a~!l<i~ . .~'%":91 " ~!~;! ~:!II .' III ~ i '" '" jW ! Zl . ~~ I ~~1 -. ~ ~ ........'0 ~ ~ie ~ ~~ i5 5 "1' ~l'l : , ! i e &" I I , , . " " . Zwo..... ![]r ~ ~ ':1.3.. ,fg 1; ~..-:,$' f ;P I III ; III I ~ I , ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~,.- '" '" l'l I9Ij ~3 '" " '" f- J L_ t., ,,-,,0Cl:,-.,.1:l': :v.<l'''''~~H~'.'''' ,'A')',"'I\~." ,,\ "-"~';" "'J< ,,,,... ;,. if". Jf l:l ("" n ~ ~1- .. " - w L~u> i .., . I W I z! " ~". ~n , :) ~ ~ o~.. ~ w~" ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I , ; :1 ll' ; .1 ! /:: <;;;- Ii ~ i' , Ii~ <0 N <0) lo. . t'-N" '~ : ~: ~-'___",;:':~r~. :" "_ ~ ,,-"', n'.,: '. ,..-.:----.----,-- .:.~o:i.;;.j..io...,;;:".:O.-!IN -~; '::Olli~, ,. -,6;_. I ,- f'l,~. I ~ ~i! i I I U)~; -.< .!i_ . '.. N' ~~~ I' ~ ; W ill 51~ ',- I III i:l < ~! l VI . !Il I , 1::", 5 , " i:'i ! i ~! " . ", , .' , (:!, ,Ii-'-' 0,;._ ,.. i!' .L33HS 33S 3NI7HJ.L1tN " :a.N.t " , ;jl , i " ...' "'- . , , ,. ! m~ ,. I -, ti!(" " ! ~g~ ",' ~~~ "'" . " .0'1 " ~:!II ,I I ~ ~ ~ ~ , l , ! , , J' \' ATTACHMENT A Mitigation Monitoring Program R:ID P12004104-0496Temecula LanelCEQA Initial Study 2005.doc 60 I; Mitigation Monitoring Program Temecula Lane Planning Application No. PA04-0490 through 0492 and PA04-0496 AIR QUALITY General Impact: The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people working in the nearby area. Mitigation Measures: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall verify that all earth moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected considering emission factors and energy efficiency. Electrical and/or diesel-powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines. During construction and grading phases, the project site shall be watered down in the morning before grading and/or construction begins and in the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. All fill being transported to and/or from the site shall be covered and the wheels and lower portion of transport trucks shall be sprayed with water to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. The property owner shall limit the number of imported soil materiai truck delivery trips per day to a maximum of 163 truck trips. Equipment onsite shall be limited to one dozer; two loaders; and one grader during the import phase of the project and to one dozer, two loaders, and six scrapers during the overexcavationlrecompaction. The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferable at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads from the project site. The contractor shall post signs on the four property boundaries that state: If visible dust leaves this project site, call (give phone number and contact). RID P12004104-0496 Temecula lanelMitigation Monitoring Program.doc 1 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: CULTURAL RESOURCES , General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: t- Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of the grading pian check review process. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontologicai or archaeological resources. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. . The agreement /treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and Native American human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/ treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. Place the above condition of approval on this project to require a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan between the applicant and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if cultural resources are encountered during grading, ownership shall be relinquished to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula LanelMitigation Monitoring Program.doc 2 i' (, Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure: Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and. redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians arid their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Specific Process: Place the above condition of approval on this project so , that a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Mitigation Milestone: During the grading process. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure: If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Miranda, Tomaras, Ogas & Wengler, LLP will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. Specific Process: Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Miranda, Tomaras, Ogas & Wengler, LLP will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. Mitigation Milestone: During the grading process. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and Public Works Departments R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula LanelMitigation Monitoring Program.doc , 3 \' GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Mitigation Measures: A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check and development shall occur in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the soils report and the EnGEN Corporation studies referenced in Initial Study. SpeCific Processes: Submit soils report with initial grading plan check erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public. Grading plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the soils report and the EnGEN studies referenced in Initial Study. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works General Impact: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or' mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Mitigation Measure: . Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. Specific Process: A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. A registered Civil Engineer shall certify building pads. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Mitigation Measure: Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Specific Process: Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula LanelMitigation Monitoring Program.doc 4 (i , Mitigation Milestone: , Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department BIOLOGY General Impact: The proposed project could directly or indirectly disturbed wildlife and/or habitat on site. Mitigation Measures: To avoid an illegal take of bird nests, ahy clearing, import or soil distribution will be conducted outside of the State identified nesting season (nesting is February 15 through September 1). Alternatively, the site will be evaluated by a qualified biologist prior to identification of ground disturbance to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds. .. EXclusion fencing (orange snow screen) will be installed along the construction limits along the north of the property to prevent construction activities from infringing on. the Temecula Conservation Area. , Specific Processes: Submit soils report with initial grading plan check erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public. Grading plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the soils report and the EnGEN studies referenced in Initiai Study. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department R:IP P12004104-0496 Temecula LanelMltigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 ATTACHMENT B Jurisdictional Delineation Report R:ID P12004104-0496 Temecula LanelCEQA Initial, Study 2005.doc 61 ( r I [' L , {' I [ , 1- [. f , '. , (' \ ~ GLENN LUKaS ASSOCIATES ~~Vi~~t ~.."x ',. ., t- #"., " ~~ 1.. " .il' ;T .$~~:~ @J1: ~",.n Regulatory SeNices February 3, 2005 Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton 5927 Priestly Drive Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 SUBJECT: Temecula Lane Property; City of Temecula, Riverside County, California: Jurisdictional Delineation Report Dear Mr. Quackenbush: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings ofV.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction for the above-referenced property. I , The Temecula Lane Property (Project) is located within an unnumbered section, Township 8 South, and Range 2 West within the City of Temecula, Riverside County [Exhibit]], California. The Project comprises approximately 45 acres and supports one former blue-line stream (as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map Pechanga, California [dated 1968 and photorevised in 1988]) [Exhibit 2]. No evidence of the above-mentioned streambed is present on site. On January 17,2005 regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukas Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to determine the limits of (I) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and (2) CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2. Chapter 6,SeCtion 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Enclosed is a 200-scale map [Exhibit 3], which depicts the areas of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction. Photographs to document the topography, vegetative communities, and general widths of each of the waters are provided as Exhibit 4. No Corps jurisdictional waters exist at the site. The Project site is located just south of Temecula Creek, a Corps jurisdictional intermittent stream, however the grading plans indicate that no I This report presents our best effort at estimating the subject jurisdictional boundaries using the most Up-Io.date regulations and written policy andguidance from the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination ofjurisdictiorial boundaries. If a final jurisdiclional delermination is required, GLA can assist in getting written confirmation of jurisdictional boundaries ITom the agencies. 29 Orchard . Telephone: (949) 837-0404 Lake Forest . California 92630-8300 Facsimile: (949) 837-5834 r. .> i. r f'.' r {. . \' f.." , , , r t. r' ! i I I:' ',.,: "t ! , Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 2 impacts to Corps jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of the Project. Since no Corps jurisdictional waters exist on site and no impact will occur, no Corps Section 404 Permit is required for this project. . No CDFG jurisdiction exists at the site. The Project site is located just south ofTemecula Creek, a CDFG jurisdictional intermittent stream, however the grading plans indicate that no impacts to CDFG jurisdiction will occur as a result of the Project. Since no CDFG jurisdiction exists on site and no impact will occur, no CDFG Section 1602 Agreement is required for this project. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation a 200-scale color aerial photograph, a 200-scale topographic base map of the property, and the previously cited USGS topographic If '''~M examined to determine the locations of potential areas ofCorps/CDFG jurisdiction. uspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Suspected wetland habitats on the site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual2 (Wetland Manual). While in the field the jurisdictional area was recorded onto a 200-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks. Other data were recorded onto wetland data sheets. The Soil Conservation Service (SCSi has mapped the following soil types as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: Gorgonio Loamy Sand, 0 to 8 Percent Slopes (GhC) and Gorgonio Loamy Sand, Channeled, 2 to 15 Percent Slopes (GkD) Soils of the Gorgonio series consist of somewhat excessively drained to excessively drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils formed in alluvium made up chiefly of granitic materials. The upper] 5 inches consist of dark grayish-brown (I OYR 4/2) and brown (I OYR 5/3) gravelly loamy fine sand when dry and very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) and dark brown (1 OYR 3/3) gravelly loamy fine sand when moist. Gorgonio soils are used for dryland pasture and range, forirrigated alfalfa and apricots, and for homesites. 2 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. COrDS of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 3 SCS is now knO\\TI as the National Resource Conservation Service or NRCS. r I i f' I f I C J' I f: " \ ,. i l f' i '.1' \ Lindsay Quackenbush Continental HomesID.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 3 GrangevilIe Fine Sandy Loam,Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes (GtA) Soils of the GrangeviUe series consist of moderately well drained to poorly drained soils on alluvial fans and floodplains. These soils fanned in alluvium made up chiefly of granitic materials. The upper ten inches consist of grayish-bro,""n (2.5Y 5/2) loamy fine sand when dry and very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) loamy fine sand when moist. Grangeville soils are used for dryland grain, for irrigated alfalfa, truck crops, pasture and for homesites. ' Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam, 0 t02 Percent Slopes (HcA) and Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 Percent Slopes (HcC)) The Hanford series consists of well drained to somewhat excessivelv drained soils fom1ed in granitic allm;ium. These soils are found on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans. A typical profile consists of an A horizon ranging from pale brown to light brownish gray underlain by a deep C horizon ranging from very pale brown to light yellowish brown. These soils are used for dryland grain, pasture and range, citrus crops, and for homesites. Honcut Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 Percent Slopes (HnC) Soils of the Honcut series consist of well drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils formed in alluvium made up chiefly igneous rocks. The upper ten inches consist of dark brown (I DYR 3/3) sandy loam when dry and very dark brown (10 YR 2/3) sandy loam when moist. Honcut soils are used for dryland pasture and grain, and for irrigated citrus and truck crops. Rivenvash (RsC) RiverWash is on slopes of 0 to 8 percent in valley fills and on alluvial fans. These sandy, gravelly, or cobbl)' areas lie in the beds of the major streams and larger creeks. Areas in the streambed are frequently flooded during the rainy season. Drainage is variable. This land is used as wildlife habitat and as a source of water. According to the SCS's publication, Hvdric Soils of the United States.4.one soil within the Project area, the Riverwash soil, is listed as hydric. The Riverwash soil (RsC) is also listed as a hydric soil by the Western Riverside County Soil Survey issued by the SCS. Two hydric soil components are listed for this soil. The components consist of soils within the Aquic suborder, . 4 United States Depanment of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hvdric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. (In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.) f- / 1'""" I \ , " , , r \ r i i. f' i ,. r" I I i , . , F i; Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 4 Aquic subgroups, AI bolls suborder, Salorthids great group, Pell great groups of Vertisols. Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table at less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing seaSon and soils that are frequently flooded for a long duration or very long duration during the growing season. In addition, the Hydric Soils List for Western Riverside County does identifY Gorgonio loamy sand, channeled, 2 to 15 percent slopes (GkD) as a hydric soil when it is an inclusion of the Riverwash soil (RsC) and contains soils in the Aquic suborder,Aquic subgroups, Albolls suborder, Salorthids great group, Pell great groups of Vertisols, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table at less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing season and soils that are poorly drained or very poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table at less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing seasoniftextures are coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches, or for other soils. The Gorgonio loamy sand, channeled, 2 to 15 percent slopes, soil is also considered hydric according to the National Food Security Act (NFSA) Manual when hydric landforms are located within the drainageway and consist of saturation and support woody vegetation under natural conditions and the RiverWash soil is considered hydric when it is located within a floodplain channel and supports woody vegetation under natural conditions and is seasonally flooded or ponded. II. JURISDICTION A. Army Corps ofEn!!:ineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as: (1) All waters which are currently used, or-were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb andjlow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudjlats. san4f!ats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, 1', f " . r I r , , " I I ,', r r' , I l i .,". ., i I, r c Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 5 wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affict foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From whichfish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate ,or foreign commerce; or (Iii) Which are used or could be usedfor industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce... (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(6) of this section. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements ofCWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123. 11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland 5 Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as' intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of Ii tier and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. 'The tenn "prior converted cropland" is defined in the Corps' Regulatory Guidance Letter 90-7 (dated September 26, 1990) as "wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that they no longer exhibit iniportant wetland values. Specifically, prior converted cropland is inundated for no more than 14 consecutive davs during the growing season...." [Emphasis added.] {' '. , 1 j l' , I i r ( i i r' , ! [".. r i ( Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 6 Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, federal regulatory authority extends only to activities that affect interstate commerce. In the early I 980s the Corps interpreted the interstate commerce requirement in a manner that restricted Corps jurisdiction on isolated (intrastate) waters. On September 12, 1985, EPA asserted that Corps jurisdiction extended to isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species, and the definition of "waters of the United States" in Corps regulations was modified as quoted above from 33 CFR 328.3(a). On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. (SW ANCC). In this case the Court was asked whether use of an isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is a sufficient interstate commerce connection to bring the pond into federal jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The written opinion notes that the court's previous support of the Corps' expansion of jurisdiction beyond navigable waters (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.) was for a wetland that abutted a navigable water and that the court did not express any opinion on the question of the authority of the Corps to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. The current opinion goes on to state: In order to rule for the respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. We conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this. , , Therefore, we believe that the court's opinion goes beyond the migratory bird issue and says that no isolated, intrastate water is subject to'the provisions of Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (regardless of any interstate commerce connection). However, the Corps and EP A have issued a joint memorandum which states that they are interpreting the ruling to address only the migratory bird issue and leaving the other interstate commerce clause nexuses intact.. The term "wetlands" (a subset of "waters of the United States") is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. In 1989 the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation developed an updated methodology which was adopted by the Corps, U.S. , Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and SCS r. j I T i i II I i I I , , [' -['.. r . i l r i " f I, I \ , Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 7 which replaced the 1987 Wetland Delineation ManuaL6 The use of this 1989 manual was perceived by many to excessively increase the jurisdictional limits of wetlands. After several congressional hearings, EPA, Corps, SCS, and USFWS published proposed 1991 revisions to the 1989 manuaL7 A few days afterwards, the President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1992 which, in effect, prohibits the use of the 1989 manual. Because the 1991 proposed revisions to the 1989 manual have not yet been adopted, the only remaining valid methodology is the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.s The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual generally requires that, in order to be considered a wetland, the. vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual provides great detail in methodology and allows for varying special conditions, Ii wetland should normally meet each ofthe following three criteria: · more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands\ · soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and · hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall yeatlO. 6 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifvin~ and Delineatin~ Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC Cooperative technical publication. 7 Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, "1989 Federal Manual for IdentifYing Jurisdictional Wetlands; Proposed Revisions." August 14, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 157, pp 40446-40480. 8 This delineation was perfonned using, where appropriate. the 1987 Wetland Manual. It is unlikely that any actions will be taken on a revised wetland manual in the near future. If a new manual is adopted, it may be necessary to review our delineation to determine its compliance with any changes set forth. 9 Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10). 10 For most of low-lying southern California, five percent of the growing season is equivalent to 18 days. r - ! r l (' . y' . . I \ f \ r ., t [ l I , , ' r r f, i \ Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 8 ' B. Rel!ional Water Quality Control Board Subsequent to the SW ANCC decision, the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board issued a memorandum that addressed the effects of the SW ANCC decision on the Section 40 I Water Quality Certification Program. II The memorandum states: California's right and duty to evaluate certification requests under section 401 is pendant to (or dependent upon) a valid application for a section 404 permit from the Corps, or another application for a federal license or permit. Thus if the Corps determines that the water body in question is not subject to regulation under the COE's 404 program,for instance, no applicationfor 401 certification will be required... The SWANCC decision does not affect the Porter Cologne authorities to regulate discharges to isolated, non-navigable waters of the states.... Water Code section 13260 requires "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements). " (Water Code f 13260(a)(1) (emphasis added).) The term "waters of the state" is defined as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." (Water Code f 13050(e).) The US. Supreme Court's ruling in SWANCC has no bearing on the Porter-Cologne definition. While all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the converse is not true-waters of the United States is a subset of waters of the state. Thus, since Porter-Cologne was enacted California always had and retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether the COE has concurrent jurisdiction under section 404. The fact that often Regional Boards opted to regulate discharges to, e.g., vernal pools, through the 401 program in lieu of or in addition to issuing waste discharge requirements (or waivers thereof) does not preclude the regions from issuing WDRs (or waivers ofWDRs) in the absence of a request for 401 certification.... In this memorandum the SWRCB's Chief Counsel has made the clear assumption that fill material to be discharged into isolated waters of the United States is to be considered equivalent " Wilson, Craig M. January 25, 2001. Memorandum addressed to State Board Members and Regional Board Executive Officers. I' t [- r:: r ). r \ L C' \ ( L [' r l i i , , i. Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page 9 to "waste" and therefore subject to the authority of the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. However, while providing a recounting of the Act's definition of waters of the United States, this memorandum fails to also reference the Act's own definition of waste: "Waste" includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. The lack of inclusion of a reference to "fill material," "dirt," "earth" or other similar terms in the Act's definition of "waste," or elsewhere in the Act, suggests that no such association was intended. Thus, the Chief Counsel's memorandum sighals that the SWRCB is attempting to . retain jurisdiction over discharge of fill material into isolated waters of the United States by administratively expanding the definition of "waste" to include "fill material" without actually seeking amendment of the Act's definition of waste (an amendment would require action by the state legislature). Consequently, discharge offill material into waters of the State not subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act mav require authorization pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act through application for waste discharge requirements (WDRs) or through waiver ofWDRs, despite the lack of a clear regulatory imperative. C. California Department ofFish and Game Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600- I 603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, orlake which supports fish or wildlife. CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs. " CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinion: r" , i , \1 i I I Lindsay Quackenbush Continental HomesID.R. Horton February 3, 2005 Page II I , I l (" I l I C. CDFG Jurisdiction f: l. No CDFG jurisdiction is associated with the Temecula Lane Project. The Project site is located just south of Temecula Creek, a CDFG jurisdictional stream, however no impacts to CDFG jurisdiction will occur as a result of the Project. (' f, I ! Vegetation found within the Project area consists of non-native ruderal species such as horehound (Marrubium vulgare) and gum species (Eucalyptus spp.). Native vegetation within the development footprint is dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). No soil pits were taken as part of this project since no CDFG jurisdiction is present. I" I, ( . IV. DISCUSSION A. Impact Analvsis 1. Impacts to Corps Jurisdictional Waters No Corps jurisdictional waters or wetlands are associated with the Temecula Lane Project. The Project site is located just south ofTemecula Creek, a Corps jurisdictional intermittent stream, however no impacts to Corps jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, no impacts to Corps jurisdictional waters will occur and no Corps permit is required pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the applicant revises the Project and propose impacts to Temecula Creek, a Corps Section 404 Permit will be required for impacts to Corps jurisdictional waters. 2. Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction No CDFG jurisdiction is associated with the Temecula Lane Project. The Project site is locate just south ofTemecula Creek, a CDFG jurisdictional stream, however no impacts to CDFG jurisdiction will occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, no CDFG Section 1602 Streambe Alteration Agreement is required for this project. If the applicant revises the Project and proposes impacts to Temecula Creek, a CDFG Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreeme will be required for impacts to CDFG jurisdiction. r- r , \' ,- I /. - r r l [' I r- , " \ r. I .. ..10 , , ), -. Lindsay Quackenbush Continental Homes/D.R. Horton February 3, 2005 . Page 12 If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact me at (949) 837-0404, Ext. 20. Sincerely, GLENN LUKaS ASSOCIATES, INC. J;t/~ It2cp It:<< [' , Martin A. Rasnick Regulatory Specialist s: 0237-lIa.rpt I: ATTACHMENT C Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter RID P12004104-0496 Temecula LanelCEQA Initial Study 2005.doc 62 r r r' r L [' , , r L [ fl , , Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 January 12, 2005 THE HONORABLE JEFF STONE MAYOR, CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. BOX 9033 lEMECULA. CA 92589-9033 CASE NO,: OS-69.0217C COMMUNITY: CITY OFTEMECULA, RNERSIDE COONTY, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY NO.: 060742 DEAR MAYOR STONE: This is in reference to a request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determine if the property described in the enclosed doclll11ent is located within an identified Special Flood Hazard Area, the area that would be inundated by the flood having a I-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood), on the effective Nationlll Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map. Using the information submitted and the effective NFIP map, our determination is shown on the attached Conditional Letter of Map Revision based 00. Fill (CLOMR-F) Comment Document. Ths comment document provides additional information regarding the effective NFIP m8p, the legal description of the property and our comments regarding this proposed project. Additional documents are enclosed which provide informatioo regarding the subject property and CLOMR-Fs. Please see the List of Enclosures below to determine which documents are enclosed. Other attachments specific to this request may be included as referenced in the Determination/Comment doclll11ent If you have any questions about this letter or any of the enclosures, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 EiS!:llhower Avenue, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439. Sincerely, 1---. ~ Doug Bellomo, P.E., CFM, Chief Hazard Identification Section, Mitigation Division Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate LIST OF ENCLOSURES, CLOMR-FCOMMENTDOCUMENT cc: Mr. David S. Smith [, J, [' Page 1 of5 I I Date: January 12, 2005 ICase No.: 05-09-0217C I CLOMR-F II ~.~ Federal Emergency Management Agency '5 .!t-: ~~.q1fO sW Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL COMMENT DOCUMENT COMMUNllY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERlY DESCRIPTION CllY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE Proposed Temecula Lane, Tract No. 31946, Riverside County, California 1 COUNlY, CALIFORNIA COMMUNllY COMM UNllY NO,: 060742 NUMBER: 060742oo10B AFFECTED NAME: CllY OF TEMECUlA, RIVERSIDE MAP PANEL COUNlY, CAl.IFCRNlA CATE: 11/2C/1996 FLOODING SOURCE: TEMECULA CREEK APPROlCIMATE LAl1TUDE & LONGITUDE OF PRCPER1Y: 33.471,-117,114 . SWRCE OF LAT & LONG: PRECISION MAPPING STREETS 7.0 DATUM: NAD83 COMMENT TABLE REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROPERTY (PlEPSE NOTE THATTHIS IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION. A FINAL DETERMINATION WILL BE MI>DE UPOII RECEIPT OF AS-BUILT INFORMA110N REGARDING THIS PROPERTY.) OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL LOWEST LOWEST WH'.T WOULD CHANCE AOJACENT ,LOT LOT BLOCK! SUBOIVISION STREET BE REMOVED FLOOD FLOOP GRADE ELEVA11 ON SECTION FROM THE ZONe ELEVATION ELEVATION (NGVD 29) SFHA (NGVD 29) (NGVD29) 1-8 Tract 31946 - Structure - (Triplex) X (shaded) 1022.7 feet 1023.3 feet - Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)- TheSFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chence of being equaled or exoeeded in any given year(bal;eflood~ ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate sectlon on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.) PETERMINA 11011 TABLE (CONTINUEO) REVISED BY LETTER OF MAP REVISION PORTIONS REMAIN I N THE SFHA ZONE A CONDITIONAL LOMR-F DETERMINA110N this document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency'S comment regarding a request for a Conditional letter of Map Revlslon based on Fill for the property. described above. Using the Information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have detennlned that the proposed structure(s) on the propertyOes) would not be located in the SFHA, an area Inundated by the flood having a 1-parcent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) if built as proposed. Our final determination will be made upon receipt of a copy of this document, as-buUt elevations, and a completed Community Acknowledgement fonn. Proper completion of this fonn certifies the.subject property Is reasonably safe from flooding In accordance with Part 65.5(aX4) of our regulations. Further guidance on determining If the subject property is reasonably safe from flooding may be found in FEMA Technical Bullalin 10-01. A copy of this bulletin can be oblalned by calling the FEMA Map Assislanca Center toll free at (877) 336.2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or from our web site at htlp:/Iwww.fema.gov!miUtb1001.pdf. This document is not a final detennination; It only provides our comment on the proposed project In relation to the SFHA shown on the effective NFIP map. This comment document Is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide addltionallnfonnation regarding this request. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601' Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439. l---.. ~N. Doug Bellomo. P.E., CFM, Chief Hazard Identification Section, Mitigation DIvisIon Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Version 1.3.3 1029299.1 CLOMR-F-ML097520217 r- r r r L r f- l f" I r r [ [' r r: [ fL !. f Page 2 of 5 I I Dale: January 12, 2005 ICase No.: 05-09-0217C I CLOM R-F - . . Federal Emergency Management Agency l~.~' ;l; 't.' ~~<~I<D s.crs'l Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL COMMENT DOCUMENT ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) OUTCOMe 1% ANNUAL LoweST LOWEST WHATWOULO CHANCE ADJACENT LOT BLOCKI SUBPIVlSION STReET BE REMOVED FLOOD FLOOD GRADE ELEVATION LOT SECTION FROM THE ZONE ELEVATION ELEVATION (NGVD 29) . SFHA (NGVD 29) (NGVD 29) 9- . Tract 31946 Structure - - X (shaded) 1023.5 1eet 1023.5 feet 16 (Triplex) - 17- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1023.7 feet 1024.0 feel 30 (Triplex) - 4- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1025.8 feel 1026.0 feet 14 (Quadplex) - . 15, - Trect31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1024.8 feet 1025.0 feet 16 (Quadplex) - . 17- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1024.0 feet 1024.0 feel 23 (Quadplex) - . 24- - Trac131946 - Structure X (shaded) 1025.7 feet 1026.0 feet 50 (Quadplex) - , ~ 530- Tract 31946 Structure - - X (shaded) 1024.9 feet 1026.5 feet 65 (Quadplex) - 1-9 - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1028.8 feet 1030.5 feet (Residence) - 22- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1028.5 feet 1028.6 feet 25 (Residence) - 26. - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shadad) 1027.7 feet 1027.7 feel 29 (Residence) - 30- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1026.8 feet 1027.0 feet 32 (Residence) - 33. - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1026.0 feet 1026.5 feet 34 (Residence) - This attachment provides addItional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about-this attachment please rontact the FEMA Map Assistance Center loll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federel Emergency Manegement Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22304-<3439. 1--- ~t= Doug Bellomo, P .E.. CFM, Chief Hazard Identification Section. Mitigation Division El!lergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Version 1.3.3 1029299.1 CLOMR-F-ML097520217 r- r- , l, r I [ [ [ r r [ I ~. Page 3 of 5 I I Date: January 12,2005 ICase No.: 05-09-0217C I CLOMR-F ;I l~.~ Federal Emergency Management Agency ~ 'J:: ~ ,.. Washington, D.C. 20472 , ~ND S~~ - " . CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL - COMMENT DOCUMENT ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL LOWEST LOWEST . WHAT WOULD CHANCE ADJACENT LOT BLOCK! SUBPIVISION STREET BE REMOVED FLOOP FLOOD GRADE ELEVAllON LOT SECTION FROM THE ZONE ELEVATION ELEVATION SFfI/I (NOVO 29) (NOVO 29) (NGVD29) 35 - - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1027.0 feet 1027.0 feet 39 (Residence) - 40- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (sheded) 1027.9 reel 1028.0feet 45 (Residence) - 46- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1028.4 feet 1028.5 feet 55 (Residence) - 58- - Tract 31946 - StrucJure X (shaded) 1026.6 feet 1027.0 feet 65 (Residence) - 66- - Tract 31946 - Structure X (shaded) 1028.8 reet 1029.5 feet 96 (Residence) - PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 18 Properties.) Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial Improvement on the property remains subject to Faderal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. CONDITIONAL LOMR-F DETERMINATION (This AdditIonal Consideration applies to the preceding 18 Properties.) Comments regarding this conditional request are based on the flood data presentiy available. Our flnal determination will be made upon receipt of this Comment Document, certlfled as-built elevatlon.s and/or certlfled ,as-built survey. Since this request is for a Conditional letter of Map Revision based on Fill, we will also require the applicable processing fee, and the 'Community Acknowledgement' form. Please note that additional Items may be required before a final as-built determination Is issued. This letter does not relieve Federal agencies of the need to comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management in carrying out their responsibilities and providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements, or in their regulating or licensing activities. REVISED BY LETTER OF MAP REVISION (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 18 Properties.) The effective National Flood Insurance Program map for the subject property, has since been revised by a letter of Map This attachment provides additfonallnformatlon regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (B77-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Elsenhowar Avenue, Suite 600, A1exandMa, VA 22304-6439. 1---... ~! Doug Ballomo, P.E., CFM, Chler Hazard Identification Section, MItigation DIvision Emergency Preparedness and Response DIrectorate Version.1.3.3 1029299.1CLOMR.F.ML09752D217 r- , , L " , , " r I 'i J, \ \ r r [' r L' r-- '. f Page 4 of5 I IDate: January 12,2005 ICase No.: 05-09-0217C I CLOMR-F at"ltt#~ I . > \.~) Federal Emergency Management Agency ~ ,,+ Washington, D.C. 20472 <iliD st(; CONDITiONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL COMMENT DOCUMENT ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) Revision (LOMR) dated 2/4/2004. The 2/4/2004, LOMR has been used In making the determination/comment for the subject property. DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED) OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL LOWEST LOWEST WHATWOULO CHANCE APJACENT LOT BLOCK! SUBDIVISION STREET BE REMOVEO FLOOD FLOOD GRADE ELEVATION LOT SECTION FROM THE ZONE ELEVATION ELEVATION SFHA (NOVO 29) (NOVO 29) (NOVO 29) , 10- Tract 31946 . Slnlcture - - X (shaded) 1029.5 fee1 1029.5 feet 21 (Residence) - PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration apptles to the preceding 1 Property.) Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain In the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial Improvement on the property remains subJectto Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management. CONDITIONAL LOMR-F DETERMINATION (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Comments regarding this conditional request are based on the flood data presently available. Our final determination will be made upon receipt of this Comment Document, certified as-built elevations and/or certified as-built survey. Since this request Is for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill, we will also require the applicable processing fee, and the "Community Acknowledgement" form. Please note that additional items may be required before a final as-built determination is issued. , this letter does not relieve Federal agencies of thll need to comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management hi carrying out their responsibilities and providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements, or in their regulating or licensing activities. REVISED BY LETTER OF MAP REVISION (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) The effective National Flood Insurance Program map for the subject property, has since been revised by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) dated 2/4/2004. The 2/4/2004, LOMR has been used in making the determination/comment for the subject property. ZONE A (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) The National Flood Insurance Program map affecting this property depicts a Special Flood Hazard Area that was determined using the best flood hazard data available to FEMA, but without performing a detailed engineering analysis. The flood elevation used to make this determination Is based on approximate methods and has not been formalized through the standard process for establishing base flood elevations published In the Flood Insurance Study. This flood elevation is This attachment provides addltlonallnformatlon regarding this request. If you have any questlons ebout this attachmen~ please conlact the FEMA Map Assistance Cenler toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600, Alexandria. VA 22304-6439. 1---- ---;t:bt DOU9 Bellomo, P.E., CFM, Chief Hazard Identlflcatlon Section, Mitigatlon Division Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Version 1.3.3 1029299.1CLOMR-F.ML097520217 r i. r - I r Page5of5 r r [' subject to change. I - :o~~'r~N' IIJBI "'~ ~,~ :t.<1ND ~~~ , \ I, I Date: January 12,2005 ( ICase No.: 05-09-0217C Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONAL LEITER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL COMMENT DOCUMENT ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) r I, [ : r; ( . [ , , f" . I CLOMR-F This attachment provides additional Information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600, Alexandrta, VA 22304-6439. I~ ,', ~~l- Doug Bellomo, P.E., CFM, Chief Hazard Identification Section, Mitigation Plvlslon Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Version 1.3.3 1029299.1CLOMR-F-ML097520217 '1 J J 1 .Ii a ! g>> i ! i .. ~ :l! ~ j I. ~ Oli! !il i f t t J Jl~J~~;'j ~~ lls.'!j HII. i Ii J..: lalll! I I j J L1- I" o EJ ~} f5c: ~:.:::i ;!i!1! 3'19 s:~ .....0 u u 'il I en ~ en :& '5 'j ~ ~ J:" 'i!! 'i:i :;: ,ij ~ ~ , ,~ I , i I 11 i~' l i ~ ~. I I ~ { ~PJi ~ ~h Ii;.!' ~81l&"! J Ji< ,,~/ ~~jliljjIJljl!IJ~ JIIIII 1~~I.llmIJ j " , -Ill! f pn jlH · -;f" .. . /j .I! el ]~~ i i ud~ ; I !"111l!1 = = !!' ~ Ii /j /j '" ~ ., [!IB ;jlll~ L...I.- ~ic~ ~ ~ II CO I IJ clt: ;Eo> S.... s:.t ......", c ... c CO '.l:l i ~ Cl,;, U ~ ::Ii z:: ... 'i .!l ';; u it! c ... 'C J!l 'C u l } ( ! ATTACHMENT NO.2 TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER R:IT M12004104-0490 31946 Temecula LanelMEMO to PC.doc 5 ~ ~ECULA VALLEY Unified School District \ ) BOARD OF EDUCATION i'! " ,- ,.. Robert Brown Stewart Morris Ke.nneth Ray Richard Shafer f'~,.: "'>',..--- -,-",~~.~,"-.,~,,:, '. 0"'_";"";''''':' ':_'JO."'" , , ..!:; j SUPERINTENDENT David B. Allmen I~~ DEL 2 1 2005 Barbara Tooker December 16, 2005 01 Ms. Christine Damko City of Temecula - Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: D.R. Horton, Continental- Temecula Lane: Tract 31946,429 New Homes (Enclave - 96 SFD, Reflections - 236 SF A, Bungalows - 97 SFD) Dear Ms. Damko: The Temecula Valley Unified School District has been following the Temecula Lane project since it first received information from the City of Temecula. This project of approximately 429 new homes has been included in all student enrollment projections for the upcoming 2006/07 school year and will continue to be part of future school year figures until the project is complete. As you know, the District is in the process of constructing a new school, Temecula Luisefio Elementary School, within the Wolf Creek community. This school, as with all of our new elementary schools, is constructed to serve approximately 1,200 elementaTY . students. The Temecula Lane development is located in an area which will be served by one of three District elementary schools, Joan F. Sparkman, Red Hawk or the new Temecula Luisefio Elementary Schools. The District anticipates being able to service all new elementary students from this project without the need for relocatable classroom buildings on the new Temecula Luisefio Elementary School site. The middle and high school students from this tract will also be accommodated at Erie Stanley Gardner and Great Oak High Schools without the need for relocatable classrooms on either of those sites. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951)506-7915. Sincerely, _d~{/ ~ Shirley Cordner Coordinator Facilities Planning cc: Mr. Lindsay Quackenbush D.R. Horton, Continental Residential Inc. 5927 Priestly St. Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 31350 Rancho Vista Road, lTemecula, CA 92592/ (951) 676-2661 " ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION 06_ R:IT M12004104-0490 31946 Temecula LanelMEMO to PC.doc 6 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0341 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2) TO AMEND THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE .DESIGNATION FOR PLANNING AREA 33B FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L) TO OPEN SPACE (OS) TO ACCOMMODATE PARK AND RIDE AND TRAIL HEAD USES, AND TO RELOCATE THE PARK AND RIDE FACILITY FROM PLANNING AREA 11 TO PLANNING AREA 33B, GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS OF NICHOLAS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On December 17, 2002, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted an approved Planning Application PA94-0076 (Environmental Impact Report), PA99- 0298 (General Plan Amendment), PA94-0073 (Annexation), PA94-0075 (Specific Plan, Development Code Amendment, and Specific Plan Zoning Standards), PA94-0075 (Change of Zone), PA99-0299 (Development Agreement), PA01-0253 (Tentative Tract Map 29661), and PA01-0230 (Tentative Tract Map 29353); B. On January 11, 2005, the City Council of the City of T emecula approved the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No.1 (PA04-0371) to change Planning Area 7B from Open Space (OS) to Low Medium Residential (LM), Planning Area 10 from Low Density Residential (L) to Low-Estate Residential (L-E) , and make other changes to the Roripaugh Ranc:h Specific Plan; C. Oil November 9, 2005, Ashby USA, LLC, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0341, Specific Plan Amendment No.2 to change the land use designation for Planning Area 33B from Low Density Residential (L) to Open Space (OS) to accommodate park and ride and trail head uses, and to relocate the park and ride facility from Planning Area 11 to Planning Area 33B ("Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines ("Project"); , , t J PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04. 0491, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04.0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS, 96 TRI-PLEX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR-PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) LOCATED AT THE NORTH EASTERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE WHEREAS, Continental Residential Inc., filed Planning Application No:'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application Nos. PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 were processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 on December 14, 2005, and on January 18, 2006 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, PA04-0491, PA04-0492 conformed to the City of T emecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA04-0490 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map), PA 04-0491 (Conditional Use Permit), and PA 04-0492 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010F of the Temecula Municipal Code: R:IT Ml2004104-0490 31946 Temecul. LanelDRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 1 Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City ofTemecula Municipal Code; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31946 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, and the Municipal Code. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land. which is subject to a contract entered to pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; This project is not located with the Williamson Act, and therefore does not propose to subdivide land that has been entered into an Agricultural Contract. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; The project consists of a 107-lot 428 total residential units) Vesting Tentative Tract Map on properly designated for high density residential uses (a porlion which should be affordable housing), which is consistent with the General Plan. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the stockpile and grading permit, which addressed environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), have been incorporated as conditions for this application, as appropriate. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and the Building & Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their concerns. Furlher, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opporlunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single- family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building Deparlment that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation. . R:IT Ml2004\04-0490 31946 Temecu!. LaneIDRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 2 G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Vesting Tentative Map. The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. H. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fees will be required as a Condition of Approval. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.04.010.E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, conditions and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. According to Section 17.10.020.3 of the Development Code and Section H-36 of the General Plan, affordable residential housing is permitted in the Professional Office (PO) zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The development will set aside 86 of the 118 two-bedroom homes (20 percent of the total proposed units) located within the four-plex portion of the site for buyers with moderate incomes. This project is in compliance with the Government Code low income requirements and the Development Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed residential use against the adjacent land uses and has determined that the proposed use will be consistent with the surrounding uses. The area in which the project is to be located is near existing residential uses. The proposed use will not advers1;lly affect any of the surrounding uses because the project proposes a residential use surrounded by existing residential uses. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses. in the neighborhood; The proposed project is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines for the City of Temecula. Staff has reviewed the proposed project to determine consistency with the Development Code and has found that the project meets all of the applicable requirements. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed residential project without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecu1. LanelDRAFT RESO AND CQA'S.doc 3 > , ) and other development features required by the Development Code in order to integrate the use with other uses on the site and in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; Staff has reviewed the proposed residential use and found that it will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Fire Prevention has reviewed circulation and drive aisle widths and has determined that the site will able to be adequately served by the Fire Department in an emergency situation. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City; The proposed multi and single-family development is permitted in the Professional Office Use designation standards contained in the City's Development Code. The Development Code states that a residential use is permitted if affordable housing is provided on the portion of the project. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. According to Section 17.10.020.3 of the Development Code and Section H-36 of the General Plan, affordable residential housing is permitted in the Professional Office (PO) zone with an approyed Conditional Use Permit. The development will set aside 86 of the 118 two-bedroom homes (20 percent of the total proposed units) located within the four-plex portion of the site for buyers with moderate incomes. This project is in compliance with the Government Code low income requirements and the Development Code. B. The overall development of the land is .designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the single-family homes and multi-family development, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Determination for Planning Application No.'s PA 04-0490, PA04-0491, and PA 04-0492 was prepared per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Determination will be issued in compliance with CEQA Section 15162 - Subsequent Negative Declaration. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No.'s PA04-0490, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, PA04-0491, R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecu1. LaueIDRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 4 /---~ ,( ) Conditional Use Permit, and PA04-0492 a Development Plan (Product Review) for 428 residential units, subject to the conditions of approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary. R:IT Ml2004104-0490 31946 Temecula !.=eIDRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 5 /~-', ~ ) Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of January 2006. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of January 2006, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, SecretarY R:ITMI2004104-0490 31946 Temecu1. LanelDRAFT RESO AND COA'S,doc 6 ,'..- ~, ) ?~~_.~ ( ) EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R,IT Ml20Q41Q4,Q490 31946 Temecula LaueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 6 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0490 Project Description: A Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create 96 residential home lots, one condominium lot for proposed four- plex units, one condominium lot for proposed tri- plexisix-plex units, and nine open space lots located at the north eastern corner of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane. DIF Category: Residential (attached and detached) Residential (single and multi-family) . Residential TUMF: MSHCP Category: Tentative Tract No.: TM 31946 Approval Date: January 18, 2006 Expiration Date: January 18, 2009 WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code Section 211 08(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). R:\T Ml2004\04-0490 31946 Temecul. LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 7 ( GENERAL REQUIREMENTS R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecul. LaneIDRAFr RESO AND COA'S.doc 8 t , /-" \ I Planning Department 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Negative Declaration for PA04-0496, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached) thereof. 4. This approval shall in no way limit the City or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. 5. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three (3) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. ' 6. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved plans, contained on file with the Planning Department. 7. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 8. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. 9. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to24' maximum. 10. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. In addition, the developer will coordinate with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga Sand to monitor and participate in archaeological investigations if and when resources are R:\TM\2004\04~0490 31946 Temecula Lane\DRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 9 --, 1 ) \ encountered, including participation in discussions regarding the disposition of cultural items and artifacts. 11. The Owner shall, without economic or other contribution by the City, identify, construct and thereafter maintain not less than 86 of the two bedroom homes in the four-plex component units for and as affordable housing units. The term "affordable housing unit" shall have the same meaning as is set forth in the Temecula Municipal Code. The units shall be maintained as affordable units by means of a written agreement and covenant/deed restriction that burdens the title to the subject property for the benefit of City, for the purpose of ensuring that the units are maintained as affordable for not less than 55 years. The form of agreement and covenant/deed restriction shall, for the City, be subject to the approval of the City Manager and City Attorney. The agreement shall specify, in addition to all other terms deemed necessary by the City and Owner to effectuate the intent of the parties, that 86 of two bedroom units shall be maintained as affordable. The affordable units shall be allocated to the low income categories as defined in Health and Safety Code 950079.5. The Owner shall reimburse the City its reasonable cost of preparing the Agreements including attorney fees and staff time. No building permit shall be issued by the City for any of the development authorized by this Resolution until the Agreements have been executed by the parties and the covenant/deed restriction submitted for recordation by the County of Riverside Recorder's Office. Fire Prevention 12. Any and all previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 13. Final fire and life safety conditions will be' addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 14. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Fiow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III.A) 15. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 10 ,..--..... j ) '--., l l upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) 16. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 17. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902 and Ord 99-14) 18. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 99-14) 19. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 20. Prior to building construction, this development, and any street serving more than 35 homes shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered' civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 22. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building' final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 23. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 24. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arcfnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone 'VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecul. LaueIDRAFr RESO AND COA'S.doc 11 { ) Community Services Department 25. All landscaped areas, open space, recreational facilities and amenities, entry monumentation and fencing shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). 26. The developer shall contact the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent for a pre-design meeting to obtain TCSD design specifications for the Class I multi-use trails along Temecula Creek, Loma Linda Drive and the east side of the project. 27. Construction of the future TCSD maintained Class I muJti-use trails shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD construction specifications/details, review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of the multi-use trails into the TCSD maintenance program. 28. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Class I multi-use trails until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. Public Works Department 29. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 30. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 31. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 32. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 TemeOu!a LaneIDRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 12 i I " ' PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDING R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 TemecuI. LaueIDRAFl' RESO AND COA'S,doc 13 , I j , ".-" 't j i '\. '\ I Planning Department 33. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's). i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed wjth the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Iii. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. Community Services Department 34. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to 4.12 acres of land. Said requirement includes a 25% credit for the private recreation facilities to be constructed within the development. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of park land by the City's then current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager. 35. Public access easements and TCSD maintenance easements shall be dedicated on the final map for the Class I multi-use trails. The underlying ownership of the multi-use' trails shall remain with the developer or successor. TCSD will accept the maintenance easements only after the construction is completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. 36. Construction drawings for the Class I multi-use trails along Temecula Creek, Loma Linda Drive and the east side of the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecula LaueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 14 , , ( ) - , I 37. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the Class I multi-use trails. 38. TGSD shall review and approve the CG&R's. The CC&R's pertaining to the three (3) plex product shall include: ' a. The trash hauler will invoice the HOA for trash service. b. The location of the individual property owners' trash bins placement for servicing will be designated including an exhibit. Include how the residents and visitors will be notified of various restrictions and bin placement. c. After construction is completed the hauler will invoice the HOA for trash service for each unit regardless of occupancy. d. HOA will paint an address on each bin for residential identification. e. Address HOA enforcement of the trash collection issues. Public Works Department 39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau e. Planning Department f. Department of Public Works g. Riverside County Health Department h. Cable TV Franchise i. Community Services District j. Verizon k. Southern California Edison Company I. Southern California Gas Company m. Department of Fish & Game n. Army Corps of Engineers 40. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Loma Linda Road from Temecula Lane to Via Del Coronado (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula Lane\DRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 15 , I b. Improve Temecula Lane from Loma Linda Road to westerly property boundary (Local Road Standards - 60' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right- of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Via Del Coronado (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include irrevocable offer of dedication for half-width street right-of-way. Provide an alignment study to show future connection. d. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. 41. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shell be 0.5% minimum over P .C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207 and/or 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. I. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. g. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. h. All knuckles shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 602. i. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. j. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. k. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. I. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 42. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Improve Entry Streets "B" and "C" (Private Street - 70' RlE) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 10 foot wide raised landscaped median. R,IT Ml2004104-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 16 /, i J \ , b, Improve Entry Street "A" (Private Street - 60' RlE) to include installation of full- width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 10 foot wide raised landscaped median. c. Improve Streets "I" and "R" thru "Y" (Single Family only) (Private Street - 46' RlE, 36' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. Improve Street "A" from Street "D" to Street "H" (Private Street - 34' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Improve Streets"D" through Street "I" (Multifamily only) (Private Street - 34' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). f. Improve Street "P" through Street "R" (from Street "D" to Street "Q") (Private Street - 34' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). g. Improve Street "A" from Street "H" to Street "K" (Private Street - 30' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, one-sided sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). h. Improve Street "L" and Street "M" (Private Street - 30' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, one-sided sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. Improve Street "R" from Street "D" to Street "L" (Private Street - 30' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, one-sided sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). j. Improve Streets "J", "K", "N" and "0" (Private Street - 26' RlE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). k. Knuckles being required at 90 'bends' in the road. I. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. m. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). n. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90). 43. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 17 , J -) 44. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Temecula Lane on the Final Map with the exception of one (1) opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. 45. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Loma Linda Road on the Final Map with the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. 46. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Via Del Coronado on the Final Map as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. 47. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. 48. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 49. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 50. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 51. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. 52. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 53. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 54. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 55. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecula LaueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 18 PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT R\T M\2004104-0490 31946 TemecuIa LaneIDRAFI' RESO AND COA'S.doc 19 ".----'\ Z J (-) Planning Department 56. Exclusion fencing (orange snow screen) will be installed along the construction limits along the north property to prevent construction activities from infringing on the Temecula Creek Conservation Area. 57. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shan not extend into the MSHCP conservation area. The Final Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City's MSHCP coordinator for approval. 58. Brush management to reduce fuel loads to protect urban uses (fuel modification zones) win occur only in the boundaries of the development. Fuel modification zones will not encroach in to the conservation area. 59. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shan be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 60. The applicant shan comply with the provIsions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Public Works Department 61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shan receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works a. Department of Fish and Game b. Army Corps of Engineers 62. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control . measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 63. ' A Soils Report shan be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 64. A Geotechnical Report shan be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shan include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. R:\TM\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFfRESO AND COA'S.doc 20 (~) (J 65. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. ,Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 66. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post- construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction- phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of 'all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non-structural on site source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term maintenance of all structural post-construction BMPs. 67. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading' and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 68. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 69. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit. Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to occupancy of any unit, Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion. R,IT Ml2004\04-0490 31946 TemecuI. LaueIDRAFI' RESO AND COA'S.doc 21 r, [ ) , , PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temeoul. LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 22 () r) ( . f) \ ' Planning Department 70. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 71. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 72. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94. 21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 73. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a MOdel Home complex permit. 74. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 75. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 76. All off-site graded areas shall be landscaped as approved by the Planning Director. Fire Prevention 77. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, Use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 78. . The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow maybe adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A) 79. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix 111-8, Tabie A.III-B-1. A minimum number of hydrants, in a combination of on- site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access R,IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecul. LaneIDRAF1' RESO AND COA'S,doc 23 ) , , t I , roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department accessroad(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) 80. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 81. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 82. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 83. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 84. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 85. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 86. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer sh-all furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to' any combustible building materjals being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Community Services Department 87. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements rnade with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 88. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights on Loma Linda Road, Temecula Lane or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application, submit an approved Edison street light plan and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\DRAfT RESO AND COA'S.doc 24 j i .'t I , ) 89. Prior to the issuance of the 175'h residential building permit the Class I trail along Loma Linda Road shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. 90. Prior to the issuance of the 325th residential building permit the Class I trails along the east side of the project and Temecula Creek shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. Public Works Department 91. Prior to the first building permit, Final Map 31946 shall be approved and recorded. 92. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 93. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall, be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 94. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 95. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecu!. LaueIDRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 25 /----., \ J PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\DRAFr RESO AND COA'S.doc 26 " ') t /-") '1, / Planning Department 96. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Fire Prevention 97. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 98. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a .contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Community Services Department 99. Itshall be the developer's responSibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. 100. The developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. Public Works Department 101. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 102. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 103. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 104. The existing improvements shall be reviawed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 27 () OUTSIDE AGENCIES R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 28 / -, I J 1--' t ) C) 105. Comply with the Rancho Water District letter dated August 25, 2004 and provide them with a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement to serve the on-site water facilities. 106. Comply with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District dated September 20, 2005. Additional permits may be required prior to the construction of the project. 107. Comply with the Pechanga Cultural Resources letter dated November 10, 2005. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecu!a LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 29 @ Rancho '* Board of Directors John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corollll. Ralph IL Daily Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman Michael R. McMillan Officers: Brian J. Brady General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance-Treasurer E.P. "Hobn Lemons Direetor of Engineering Perry R. Louck Controller /--<,:->..: . \ j August 25,2004 t'--' . I " Matt Harris, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ......----.~...-,..-~-- -;:::~. 1.(-". \Ji "1\ '\ 1'C. Q ~'\ ~ \ f\Ul1 6J \\.U lev..,---,:;c:. ~.".;...-~,,_... 'r~-"-\;-ilT-.~~.Y:>\ \ . ,- i \ \ \ \ ~ !\\\,l; \;'1 "[ 2004 ~j , SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 31946 PORTION OF PARCEL NO.1 AND NO.2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 8756; APN 961-010-016, APN 961-010-018, APN 961-010- 019, APN 961-010-020, AND APN 961-010-021, PROJECTS NO. P A04-0490, NO. P A04-0491, AND NO. P A04-0492 Dear Mr. Harris: Please be advised that the above-referenced properly is .located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. . If fue protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Linda M. Fregoso District Secretary/Administrative . s.rn~,Manag" Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an C.MJohaelCowett Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Best Best & Krieger ILP General Counsel A portion of this project is a condominium development with potential for individual building owners and a homeowners' association maintaining the common property and private water and fire protection facilities. As a condition of the project, RCWD requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATERDISTRlCT 04\MM:at123\FCF C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road .. Post Office Box 9017 .. Temeeula, California 92589-9017 .. (951) 296-6900 .. FA>;: (951) 296-6860 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager-Chief Engineer L () ,of , ,. l J; 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 9250.1 .951.955.120.0. 951.788.9965 FAX 102252_3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 20, 2005 Ms. Christine Damko City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SfP 2 2 2005 Dear Ms. Damko: Re: P A04-0490 - 0492 and P A 04-0496 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated. cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan. faCilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logicalc()mponent or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, infortnation of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comment does not in any way constitute District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue. This proposed project is adjacent to facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or. a logical extension of Temecula Creek Channel. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request .of the City; facilities Illust be constructed to District> statJ,dards, and DiStrict plM ch~. k ahd iP;ipectio'P will be requited for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection arid administrative'fees will berequired. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. . Cj {-- <j r , I , ,. 102252_3 Ms. Christine Damko -2- Re: P A04-0490 - 0492 and P A 04-0496 September 20, 2005 The applicant shall show written proof of compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for any drainage facilities the applicant proposes to be maintained by the District. All applicable CEQA and MSHCP documents and permits shall address the construction, operation and maintenance of all onsite and off site drainage facilities. Draft CEQA documents shall be forwarded . to the District during the public review period. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the' applicant to obtain all applicable Federal, State and local regulatory permits. These regulatory permits include, but are not limited to: a Section 404 PeIIilit issued by the. U.S. Army Corps of .i Engineers i~: COlnpliancewith section 404. of the Clean Water Act, a California State Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement in compliance with the Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and a 401 Water Quality Certification or a Report of Waste Discharge Requirements in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or State Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, respectively, from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control13oard. The applicant shall also be responsible for complying with all mitigation measures as required under CEQA and all Federal, State, and local environmental rules and regulations. Very truly yours, ~~ ARTURO DIAZ Senior Civil Engineer c: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: David Mares AM:blj , ~ ) PECHANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Chairperson: Germaine Arenas Vice Chairperson: Mary Bear Magee Post Office. Box 2183 oTemecula, CA 92593 Telephone (951) 308-9295 . Fax (951) 506-9491 Committee Members: Raymond Basquez, Sr. Evie Gerber Darlene Miranda Bridgett BarceUo Maxwel Director: Gary DuBois November 10,2005 Coordinator; Paul Macarro Christine Damko City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Cultural Analyst: Stephanie Gordin Monitor Supervisor: Aurelia Marruffo Re: Comments on Temecula Lane Project (P A04-0490-0492 and P A 04-0496) Dear Ms. Damko: This comment letter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (hereinafter, "Pechanga Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign govemment. The Pechanga . Band requests that these comments as well as any subsequent comments submitted by the Pechanga Band be included in the record of approval for the Project. The Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting, pnrsuant to Public Resources Code ~21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"). THE TRIBE'S CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT The Tribe has two primary concerns with the Project which it would like to see addressed by the City. First and foremost, this Project is close to a site which contains over 18 burials of human remains. Such information was not included or addressed in the Cultural Resonrces Survey. As such, adequate and appropriate mitigation was not put into place. Further, it is the Tribe's understanding that the mass grading permit was processed separately, and as far as the Tribe is aware it was not notified of that application. Because of the proximity to the site with the burials, awarding the mass grading permit without appropriate environmental evaluation was improper by the City. THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN ITS REVIEW PROCESS Because of the culturally sensitive site, the Temecula Creek Village site which has been determined to be a significant site, lying in close proximity to the Project area, it is imperative that the City, as lead agency, as well as the applicant adequately consult with the Tribe. It has Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care A.nd With Honor We Rise To The Need " - Pechanga comment lette} J the City of Temecula RE: Comments on Temecula Lane Project Page 2 -, .I been the intent of the Federal Govermnent1 and the State ofCalifornia2 that Indian tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as other govermnental concerns. The responsibility to consult with Indian tribes stems from the unique govemment-to-govermnent relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions of govermnental agencies and departments such as approval of Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case, it is undisputed that the project lies within the Luisefio tribe's traditional territory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is imperative that the Lead Agency and the Project applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an lidequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the project effects, as well as generating adequate mitigation measures. Such consultation is especially important with regard to Projects such as this one which has the potential to impact Native American human remains. PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES. The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal territory, as evidenced by the existence ofLuisefio place names, rock art pictographs, petroglyphs and extensive artifact records found in the vicinity of the Project. The Pechanga Tribe's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural resources. The Pechanga Tribe is conpemed about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luisefio village sites, and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground-disturbing work on the project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultur?l items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. The Tribe would also like to point out that a preferred method of treatment for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance (California Public Resources Code ~21083.1), and that this is in agreement with the Tribe's practices and policies concerning cultural resources. Further, the Pechanga Tribe believes that if human remains are discovered, State law would apply and the mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. According to the California Public Resources Code, ~ 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage commission must name a ''most likely descendant," who shall be consulted as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's. location in Pechanga territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or items discovered in the course of this project. 1 See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tnoal Governments and Executive Order of November 6, 2000 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 2 See California Public Resource Code ~5097.9 et seq. Pechanga Cultural Resources' Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183. Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need [--....... Pechanga comment lettel .) the City of Temecula RE: Comments on Temecula Lane Project Page 3 , ) As was discussed above, the Project site lies in close proximity to the Temecula Creek Village site which is a sensitive archaeological village site in which multiple Native American human remain burials were encountered. As the City is aware, measures were taken in that Project to assure the appropriate treatment and protection of those burials. Further, the proximity of the Project to the creek channel makes the discovery of more human remains likely. While the Tribe understands that the intent is to leave the portion by the creek channel as open space, adequate mitigation and protection of the sensitive areas are necessary. Such conditions of approval should provide for the mass grading to be performed near t4e sensitive site in a manner which would allow for the greatest protection of any items or human remains uncovered during the mass grading. For this reason, additional mitigation language is requested prior to the Project being approved. The Tribe has been in contact with the Project applicant who has expressed its willingness to work with the Tribe to develop adequate mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the sensitive areas. . REQUIRED MITIGATION Given this Project's close proximity to known cultural sites which were not adequately discussed in the initial cultural study, including a known village site, Pechanga requests the following be included as mitigation measures as well as conditions of approval which are required to be met prior to the issuance of grading permits, and the City should assure that the already issued mass grading permit adheres to the necessary conditions: I. The mass grading of the Project site shall be performed in a controlled manner, the specifics of which shall be determined in consultation between the project applicant/developer and the Pechanga Band of Lnisefio Indians prior to issuance of grading permits or prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the developer shall enter into a Treatment AgreementS with the Pechanga Tribe. lbis Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be encountered during construction. The Agreement will further contain provisions of tribal monitors and address compensation for the Native American monitors being paid by the developer. 3. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifactS found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by the law. 4. Monitoring by a professional archaeologist and Pechanga Tribal monitors is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor's shall each have the.authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for additional investigation as necessary. Pechanga Cultural Resources' Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183. Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga comment lette{.)the City of Temecula RE: Comments on Temecula Lane Project Page 4 5. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall stop and the County Coroner must be notified immediately. . All activity must cease until the County Coroner has determined the origin and disposition of said remains. The Coroner shall determine if the remains are prehistoric, and shall notifY the State Native American Heritage Commission if applicable. Further actions shall be determined by the desires of the Most Likely Descendent. 6. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved, The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Temecula, the applicant, and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Luisefio cultural resources found in the Project area If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 308-9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676-2768, Ex!. 2137. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerely, (Jfl J)~ .~Y1 Stephanie Gordin Cc: Mr. Lindsey Quakenbush D.R. Horton 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Pechanga Cultural Resources. Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians Post Office Box2I83 . Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0491, and PA04-0492 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan (Product Review) for the development of 96 single- family units, 96 tri-plex units, and 236 four-plex units (428 total units) located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane. DIF Category: Residential (attached and detached) Residential (single and multi-family) TUMF: MSHCP Category: Residential Tentative Tract No.: TM 31946 Approval Date: January 18, 2006 Expiration Date: January 18, 2008 WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file.the Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 30 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 31 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. The applicant shall submit, to the Planning Department for permanent filing, two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the color and Materials Boards and of the colored version of the approved colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board, and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 4. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Negative Declaration for PA04-0496, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached) thereof. 5. This approval shall in no way limit the City or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements andlor conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. 6. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 7. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 8. All project-related lighting shall be directed so that no light or glare falls off the property boundary except along Temecula Lane, Loma Linda Road, as well as any trails. 9. Non-security lighting installed by individual homeowners shall not be located in such a manner as to directly illuminate any open space area along Temecula Creek. This requirement shall be incorporated into the CC&R's. 10. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved plans, contained on file with the Planning Department. 11. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department, or as amended R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 32 ~, J herein. Any devjation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Staff may elect to reject the request to amend or substitute materials and colors, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 13. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. 14. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. 15. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. 16. All lots shall be built in accordance with the Site Plans labeled as "Elevations". 17. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. In addition, the developer will coordinate with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga Band to monitor and participate in archaeological investigations if and when resources are encountered, including participation in discussions regarding the disposition of cultural items and artifacts. 18. The Owner shall, without economic or other contribution by the City, identify, construct and thereafter maintain not less than 86 of the two bedroom homes in the four-plex component units for and as affordable housing units. The term "affordable housing unit" shall have the same meaning as is set forth in the Temecula Municipal Code. The units shall be maintained as affordable units by means of a written agreement and covenant/deed restriction that burdens the title to the subject property for the benefit of City, for the purpose of ensuring that the units are maintained as affordable for not less than 55 years. The form of agreement and covenant/deed restriction shall, for the City, be subject to the approval of the City Manager and City Attorney. The agreement shall specify, in addition to all other terms deemed necessary by the City and Owner to effectuate the intent of the parties, that 86 of two bedroom units shall be maintained as affordable. The affordable units shall be allocated to the low income categories as defined in Health and Safety Code !}50079.5. The Owner shall reimburse the City its reasonable cost of preparing the Agreements including attorney fees and staff time. No building permit shall be issued by the City for any of the development authorized by this Resolution until the Agreements have been executed by the parties and the R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 33 covenant/deed restriction submitted for recordation by the County of Riverside Recorder's Office. Building and Safety Department 19. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 20. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 22. A.receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 23. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 24. Show all building setbacks. 25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. For developments with multiple buildings, each separate building shall be provided with a house meter. 26. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 27. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April . 1, 1998) 28. Compliance with the provisions of Senate Bill 1025, effective Juiy 1, 2005, which modifies Chapter 11 A of the California Building Code as it relates to multi-story non" elevator dwelling units, including condominiums and townhouse units, will be required. 29. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 30. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 31. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula LaueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 34 , ! 32. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 33. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays Fire Prevention 34. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 35. The Fire Prevention Bureau' is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III.A) 36. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to'a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) 37. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704:2 and 902.2.2) Community Services Department 38. All landscaped areas, open space, recreational facilities and amenities, entry monumentation and fencing shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). 39. Multi-Family refuse service will be provided for the 4-plex units. The HOA will be billed directly by the trash hauler for this service. 40. Multi-family trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a trash bin. Enclosures adjacent to sidewalks will require ramping at the curb to allow servicing. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 35 41. Single family trash service will be provided for the 3-plex units and will be billed directly to the HOA. The placement of bins for servicing will not reduce the 24 feet wide clearance on the private roads needed for emergency vehicles. Trash bins will be serviced from sidewalks. 42. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing street lights shall be paid for by the developer. 43. The developer shall be subject to the Public Art Ordinance. 44. The developer shall contact the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent for a pre-design meeting to obtain TCSD design specifications for the Class I multi-use trails along Temecula Creek, Loma Linda Drive and the east side of the project. 45. Construction of the future TCSD maintained Class I multi-use trails shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent.. Failure to comply with the TCSD construction specifications/details, review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of the multi-use trails into the TCSD maintenance program. 46. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Class I multi-use trails until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. . 47. All landscaped areas, open space, recreational facilities and amenities, entry monumentation and fencing shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). 48. The developer shall contact the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent for a pre-design meeting to obtain TCSD design specifications for the Class I multi-use trails along Temecula Creek, Loma Linda Drive and the east side of the project. 49. Construction of the future TCSD maintained Class I multi-use trails shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD construction specificationsldetails, review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of the multi-use trails into the TCSD maintenance program. . 50. . The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Class I multi-use trails until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 51. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Public Works Department 52. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula l.aueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 36 53. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 54. All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaueIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 37 PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 38 , ; Planning Department 55. Exclusion fencing (orange snow screen) will be installed along the construction limits along the north property to prevent construction activities from infringing on the Temecula Creek Conservation Area. 56. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area. The Final Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City's MSHCP coordinator for approval. 57. Brush management to reduce fuel loads to protect urban uses (fuel modification zones) will occur only in the boundaries of the development. Fuel modification zones will not encroach in to the conservation area. 58. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 59. The applicant shall comply with the proVISions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Public Works Department 60. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 61. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 62. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sectio.ns. 63. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 64. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in . accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. R:\TM\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 39 65. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post- construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction- phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term maintenance of all structural post-construction BMPs. 66. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works; the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 67. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an . Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 68. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to th.e Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 69. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 70. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 71. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\DRAFT RESO AND cOA'S.doc 40 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 41 . Planning Department 72. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Directo~ for final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 73. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 74. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94- 21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 75. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model Home complex permit. 76. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 77. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 78. Landscape plans for front yards, slopes and common lots, to include a plan for perimeter or "community" wallslfences, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. . 79. A landscape maintenance program for all association maintained areas shall be submitted for approval with the landscape construction plans, which details the proper 'maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carryout the detailed program. 80. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and shall not conflict with trees. 81. Provide upgraded front doors on the construction building plans to all single-family homes consist with the home's architectural elevation to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 82. The construction building plans shall show all single family homes with enhanced elevations. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 42 { 83. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans. c. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. d. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). e. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). 84. A Final Landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plant pallet shall avoid the list of invasive plant species identified in the MSHCP as those species to be avoided adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation area (MSHCP Final in Volume 1 Section 6 in Table 6.2 on page 6-44 through 6-46). 85. All off-site graded areas shall be landscaped as approved by the Planning Director. 86. Proposed non-irrigated hydroseed mix areas shall be provided with automatic temporary irrigation to insure proper germination and establishment of the seeded areas as approved by the Planning Director. 87. All front yards shall include a minimum of one 15 gallon size tree per lot in addition to the required street trees. 88. All. shrubs shall be planted from a minimum size of 5 gallon. Sub shrubs (i.e. Agapanthus, Hemerocallis) may be planted from 1 gallon. 89. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and shall not conflict with trees. . 90. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval with the landscape construction plans, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carryout the detailed program. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 43 J I " J, \ } Building and Safety Department 91. A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code. 92. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 93. Provide electricai plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. 94. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 95. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. Fire Prevention 96. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, LIse, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFG), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 97. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A) . 98. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum number of hydrants, in a combination of on- site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets). shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) 99. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 100. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 44 I J 101. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 102. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 103. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 104. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 105. Prior to issuance of buildinq permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1) Community Services Department 106. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 107. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights on Loma Linda Road, Temecula Lane or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application, submit an approved Edison street light plan and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. 108. Prior to the issuance of the 175'h residential building permit the Class I trail along Loma Linda Road shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. 109. Prior to the issuance of the 325'h residential building permit the Class I trails along the east side of the project and Temecula Creek shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. Public Works Department 110. Improvement plans andlor precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula'Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 45 , j , i ) a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of T emecula Standard No. 207 A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400,401 and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 111. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Loma Linda Road from Temecula Lane to Via Del Coronado (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve Temecula Lane from Loma Linda Road to westerly property boundary (Local Road Standards - 60' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right- of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Via Del Coronado (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include irrevocable offer of dedication for half-width street right-of-way. Provide an alignment study to show future connection. d. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. 112, Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Improve Entry Streets "B" and "C" (Private Street - 70' RlE) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 10 foot wide raised landscaped median. b. Improve Entry Street "A" (Private Street - 60' RlE) to include installation of full- width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 10 foot wide raised landscaped median. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 46 c. Improve Streets "I" and "R" thru "Y" (Single Family only) (Private Street - 46' R/E, 36' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. Improve Street "A" from Street "D" to Street "H" (Private Street - 34' RIE, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Improve Streets "D" through Street "I" (Multifamily only) (Private Street - 34' R/E, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). f. Improve Street "P" through Street "R" (from Street "D" to Street "Q") (Private Street - 34' R/E, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). g. Improve Street "A" from Street "H" to Street "K" (Private Street - 30' R/E, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, one-sided sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). h. Improve Street "L" and Street "M" (Private Street - 30' R/E, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, one-sided sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. Improve Street "R" from Street "D" to Street "L" (Private Street - 30' R/E, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, one-sided sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). j. Improve Streets "J", "K", "N" and "0" (Private Street - 26' R/E, 24' curb to curb) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, rolled curb and gutter, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). k. Knuckles being required at 90 'bends' in the road. I. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. m. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). n. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90). 113. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 114. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 47 t J ; \ , J 115. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 116. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula l.aneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 48 i PRIOR TO BUILDING OCCUPANCY R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 49 ) . J \ , ) ) Planning Department 117. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 118. All required landscape planting and irrigation, hardscape and fencing within individual lots shall have been installed and completed for inspection consistent with the approved construction landscape plans prior to issuance of occupancy for each house (excluding model home complex). The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 119. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the City's MSHCP Coordinator demonstrating compliance with the MSHCP. 120. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. Building and Safety Department 121. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 122. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention 123. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 124. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Community Services Department 125. Within each phased map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 50 -, j ) \ 126. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. Public Works Department 127. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 128. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 129. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 130. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:\TM\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 51 , ) \ ! OUTSIDE AGENCIES R:\TM\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\DRAFf RESO AND cOA'S.doc 52 131. Comply with the Rancho Water District letter dated August 25, 2004 and provide them with a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement to serve the on-site water facilities. 132. Comply with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District dated September 20, 2005 . Additional permits may be required prior to the construction of the project. 133. Comply with the Pee hang a Cultural Resources letter dated November 10, 2005. . By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 53 @ Rancho Water Board of Directors John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr. Vice Presidcnt Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman Michael R. McMillan Officers: Brian J. Brady General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance- Treasurer E.P. ''Bobn Lemons Director of Engineering Perry R. Louck Controller j August 25,2004 i.\ \1 C'''-_' , \) " "Oon \ I\UG 21 L u~ Matt Harris, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 31946 PORTION OF PARCEL NO.1 AND NO.2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 8756; APN 961-010-016, APN 961-010-018, APN 961-010- 019, APN 961-010-020, AND APN 961-010-021, PROJECTS NO. P A04-0490, NO. P A04-0491, AND NO. P A04-0492 Dear Mr. Harris: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Linda M. Fregoso District Secretary! Administrative S~i",M"nag~ Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an C. Miohael Cowett Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel A portion of this project is a condominium development with potential for individual building owners and a homeowners' association maintaining the common property and private water and fire protection facilities. As a condition of the project, RCWD requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 04\MM:at123\i'CF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road .. Post Office Box 9017 .. Temecula, California 92589-9017 .. (951) 296-6900 .. FAX (951)296-6860 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager-Chief Engineer -. r J 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 .951.955.1200 . 95 1.788.9965 FAX 102252_3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 20, 2005 Ms. Christine Damko City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SEP 2 2 2005 Dear Ms. Damko: Re: P A04-0490 - 0492 and P A 04-0496 The District does not normally recommend conditions forland divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District commentslrecommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). Tn addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comment does not in any way constitute District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue. This proposed project is adjacent to facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of Temecula Creek Channel. The. District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City; Facilities lIlust be constructed to . District> stat(dards, and DiStrict plan ch<xk . and illspettion will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection arid administrative fees will be required. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. t J t i. 102252_3 Ms. Christine Damko -2- Re: P A04-0490 - 0492 and P A 04-0496 September 20, 2005 The applicant shall show written proof of compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for any drainage facilities the applicant proposes to be maintained by the District. All applicable CEQA and MSHCP documents and permits shall address the construction, operation and maintenance of all onsite and offsite drainage facilities. Draft CEQA documents shall be forwarded to the District during the public review period. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain all applicable Federal, State and local regulatory permits. These regulatory permits include, but are not limited to: a Section 404 Pennit issued by the. U.S. Army Corps of r Engineers i~ cOlripliancewithsection 404 of the Clean Water Act, a California State Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement in compliance with the Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and a 401 Water Quality Certification or a Report of Waste Discharge Requirements in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or State Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, respectively, from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant shall also be responsible for complying with all mitigation measures as required under CEQA and all Federal, State, and local environmental rules and regulations. Very truly yours, ~4 ARTURODIAZ Senior Civil Engineer c: Riverside County Planning Department Attn:David Mares AM:blj \ PECtiANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians Chairperson: Germaine Arenas Vice Chabperson: Mary Bear Magee Post Office. Box 2183. Temecula, CA92593 Telephoue (951) 308-9295. Fax (951) 506-9491 Committee Members: Raymond Basquez, Sr. Evie Gerber Darlene Miranda Bridgett BarcelIo Maxwell Director: Gary DuBois November 10, 2005 Coordinator: Paul Macarro Cultural Analyst: Stephanie Gordin Christine Damko City ofTemecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Monitor Supervisor: Aurelia Marruffo Re: Comments on Temecula Lane Project (pA04-0490-0492 and PA 04-0496) Dear Ms. Damko: This comment letter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (hereinafter, "Pechanga Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Pechanga Band requests that these comments as well as any subsequent comments submitted by the Pechanga Band be included in the record of approval for the Project. The Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code *21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"). THE TRIBE'S CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT The Tribe has two primary concerns with the Project which it would like to see addressed by the City. First and foremost, this Project is close to a site which contains over 18 burials of human remains, Such information was not included or addressed in the Cultural Resources Survey. As such, adequate and appropriate mitigation was not put into place. Further, it is the Tribe's understanding that the mass grading permit was processed separately, and as far as the Tribe is aware it was not notified of that application. Because of the proximity to the site with the burials, awarding the mass grading permit without appropriate environmental evaluation was improper by the City. THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN ITS REVIEW PROCESS Because of the culturally sensitive site, the Temecula Creek Village site which has been determined to be a significant site, lying in close proximity to the Project area, it is imperative that the City, as lead agency, as well as the applicant adequately consult with the Tribe. It has Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need (~l , , Pechanga comment letter to the City of Temecula RE: Comments on Temecula Lane Project Page 2 been the intent of the Federal Governmene and the State ofCalifornia2 that Indian tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as other governmental concerns. The responsibility to consult with Indian tribes stems from the unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions of governmental agencies and departments such as approval of Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case, it is undisputed that the project lies within the Luisefio tribe's traditional territory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is imperative that the Lead Agency and the Project applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an adequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the project effects, as well as generating adequate rnitigation measures. ( 1 Such consultation is especially important with regard to Projects such as this one which has the potential to impact Native American human remains. PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal territory, as evidenced by the existence of Luisefio place names, rock art pictographs, petroglyphs and extensive artifact records found in the vicinity of the Project. The Pechanga Tribe's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural resources. The Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luisefio village sites, and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground-disturbing work on the project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. The Tribe would also like to point out that a preferred method of treatment for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance (California Public Resources Code ~21083.1), and that this is in agreement with the Tribe's practices and policies concerning cultural resources. Further, the Pechanga Tribe believes that if human remains are discovered, State law would apply and the mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. According to the California Public Resources Code, ~ 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage commission must name a "most likely descendant," who shall be consulted as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or items discovered in the course of this project. 1 See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 ou Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments and Executive Order of November 6, 2000 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 2 See California Public Resource Code ~5097.9 et seq. Pechanga Cultural Resources' Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2]83' Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need .- ~, Pechanga comment letter lo ~e City of Temecula RE: Comments on Temecula Lane Project Page 3 As was discussed above, the Project site lies in close proximity to the Temecula Creek Village site which is a sensitive archaeological village site in which multiple Native American human remain burials were encountered. As the City is aware, measures were taken in that Project to assure the appropriate treatment and protection of those burials. Further, the proximity of the Project to the creek channel makes the discovery of more human remains likely. While the Tribe understands that the intent is to leave the portion by the creek channel as open space, adequate mitigation and protection of the sensitive areas are necessary. Such conditions of approval should provide for the mass grading to be performed near the sensitive site in a manner which would allow for the greatest protection of any items or human remains uncovered during the mass grading. For this reason, additional mitigation language is requested prior to the Project being approved. The Tribe has been in contact with the Project applicant who has expressed its willingness to work with the Tribe to develop adequate mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the sensitive areas. REQUIRED MITIGATION Given this Project's close proximity to known cultural sites which were not adequately discussed in the initial cultural study, including a known village site, Pechanga requests the following be included as mitigation measures as well as conditions of approval which are required to be met prior to the issuance of grading permits, and the City should assure that the already issued mass grading permit adheres to the necessary conditions: l. The mass grading of the Project site shall be performed in a controlled manner, the specifics of which shall be determined in consultation between the project applicant/developer and the Pechanga Band ofLuisefio Indians prior to issuance of grading permits or prior to project approval. 2. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the developer shall enter into a Treatment Agreements with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be encountered during construction. The Agreement will further contain provisions of tribal monitors and address compensation for the Native American monitors being paid by the developer. 3. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by the law. 4. Monitoring by a professional archaeologist and Pechanga Tribal monitors is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor's shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for additional investigation as necessary. Pechanga Cultural Resources. Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183. Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need <~\ ~ J Pechanga comment letter to the City of Temecula RE: Comments on Temecula Lane Project Page 4 5. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall stop and the County Coroner must be notified immediately. . All activity must cease until the County Coroner. has determined the origin and disposition of said remains. The Coroner shall determine if the remains are prehistoric, and shall notify the State Native American Heritage Commission if applicable. Further actions shall be determined by the desires of the Most Likely Descendent. 6. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Temecula, the applicant, and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Luisefio cultural resources found in the Project area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 308-9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676-2768, Ex!. 2137. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerely, ~~ Stephanie Gordin Cc: Mr. Lindsey Quakenbush D.R. Horton 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Pechanga Cultural Resources. Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians PostOffice Box 2183. Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need l ) ATTACHMENT NO.4 DECEMBER 14, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:IT M\2004104-0490 31946 Temecula LanelMEMO to PC.doc 7 Date of Meeting: ,; - ~ \ 1 STAFF REPORT - P'LANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2005 Title: Associate Planner Prepared by: Christine Damko File Number PA04-0490 PA04-0491 P A04-0492 Application Type: Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Development Plan (Product Review) Project Description: Recommendation: (Check One) CEQA: (Check One) The proposed project is a Tentative Tract Map, site development, and construction of 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site. The remaining acreage is located within the channel area for Temecula Creek and will not be developed as part of this project. The project includes 96 single-family units on 15.14 acres, 96 triplex units (in 32 buildings) and 236 fourplex units (in 59 buildings) on 21.05 acres. The proposed project will be accessed via a gated entrancelexit on Temecula Lane and two gated entranceslexits on Loma Linda Road. The project also proposes a Conditional Use Permit to establish an affordable housing project within the Professional Office (PO) zoning district; and a Development Plan application for the architectural design of the residential units. [gJ Recommend Approval with Conditions D Deny D Continue for Redesign D Continue to: D Recommend Denial [gJ Categorically Exempt 15162 (Subsequent Negative Declaration) (Class) D Negative Declaration D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFF REPORT template.doc 1 r " .~ i , , I , , PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: DR Horton Continental Completion Date: August 4, 2004 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: December 14, 2005 General Plan Designation: Professional Office Zoning Designation: Professional Office SitelSurrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: West: Temecula Creek Floodway (Open-Space Conservation) Earl Stanley Middle SchoollResidential homes in Wolf Creek Specific Plan Residential (Low Medium Density) Residential in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Lot Area: 36.19 net acres Total Floor Area/Ratio: NIA Landscape Area/Coverage: NIA Parking Required/Provided: Single Family Product: two covered spaceslunit required/two garageslunit provided plus on-street parking for guests provided. Tri-Plex/Six-Plex Product: 256 parking spaces required/192 garage and 64 bays. Four-Plex Product: 571 parking spaces required/354 garage and 218 bays. BACKGROUND SUMMARY [8J 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Vesting Tentative Tract Map, PA04-0490 The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31946 will create 96 residential home lots ranging in size from 4,000 to 8,531 square feet, one condominium lot for proposed four-plex units, one condominium lot for proposed tri-plex/six-plex units, and nine open space lots. The Tract Map will create 107 total lots. The Multi-Family units will be sold as condominium project, and therefore this portion of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map will be for Condominium purposes. The current zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation on the proposed development is Professional Office (PO). Since at the time this application was submitted to the City there were R\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFF REPORT template. doc 2 ,,--, l } ~-., \ ) no development standards for multi-family housing in a Professional Office zone, staff has used multi-family standards from the Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed project offers three gated main entrances/exits. The main entrance to the single family product is located on the north side of Loma Linda Lane, while the multi-family product can access off of the east side of Temecula Lane or through a second entrance off of Loma Linda Lane. All streets within the development are private and connect the single family residential product with the multi-family product, which creates a community setting. The proposed access and circulation is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Temecula Creek is channelized adjacent to the north property line of the site. The applicant has been required to keep this portion of the property as biological open space and therefore has created a 5.54 acre Open Space lot adjacent to the creek. In addition to the biological open space lot, the project proposes an additional eight lots totaling more than four acres of recreational/common area. These areas are strategically placed throughout the development to connect the different developments and provide open space for the residents. A pedestrian trail that connects with the City's trail system will also be provided around the development. Conditional Use Permit, PA 04-0491 According to Section 17.10.020.3 of the Development Code, affordable residential housing is permitted in the PO zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The development will set aside 86 of the 118 two bedroom homes located within the four-plex portion of the site will be set aside for home buyers who qualify for low income housing. This project is in compliance with the Government Code low income requirements and the Development Code. Development Plan (Product Review), PA04-0492 - Single Family (96 units) 1. Plan 1, two-story, 1,807 square feet (30 units) a. Spanish Colonial ( 12 units) b. Craftsman (8 units) c. Cottage (10 units) 2. Plan 2, two-story, 2,111 square feet (34 units) a. Spanish Colonial ( 14 units) b. Craftsman ( 11 units) c. Cottage (9 units) 3. Plan 3, two-story, 2,388 square feet (32 units) a. Spanish Colonial (9 units) b. Craftsman (11 units) c. Cottage (12 units) R:\T M\2004\04~0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFF REPORT template.doc 3 (-, 1. ) \ ) Architectural Review The project proposes three (3) two-story floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The architectural styles include Spanish Colonial, Craftsman, and Cottage. Staff feels that with the attached conditions of approval, the project meets the intent of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The proposed elevations create a street scene with character as well as function, and visual variety. The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style: . Spanish Colonial: Varied roof pitches with a typical roof pitch of 5:12 (4:12 for Plan 2), smooth 20/30 sand stucco finish, flower pot shelves under windows (on all sides), Mullioned windows with trim (on all sides), decorative garage doors, wrought iron detailing, arched main entries with porches extending out beyond six feet, decorative piping (on all sides), decorative tile around prominent windows, decorative tile accents around main entry, stucco planter box on lower floor, stucco foam trim on second floor below garage and also on side elevations, and decorative lighting to front elevation. . Craftsman: Decorative stone columned porch extending out over six feet, wood-knee brace (on all sides), rafter tails, decorative stone to front and side elevations, upgraded garage doors, decorative shutters on prominent windows (on all sides) with foam trim around windows (all sides), varied roof pitches with a typical roof pitch of 5:12 (4:12 for Plan 3), light lace stucco finish, and decorative lighting. . Cottage: Upgraded decorative garage doors, decorative stone around main entry and wrapping around to side elevations, decorative shutters on prominent windows (including sides), enhanced windows with mullions and foam trim (on all sides), decorative lighting, decorative stone planter box on first floor, decorative wood pot shelves on second story, varied roof pitches with a typical.roof pitch of 6:12, and light lace stucco finish. The applicant has provided specific details, which are unique to each style proposed on each elevation, including window types, window and door trim, garage door design, materials such as wrought iron details, stone, roof type and pitch, shutters and the overall silhouette. This project as also been conditioned to provide upgraded front doors on the construction building plans, each unique to the home's architectural style. Buildinq Elements/Mass. Heiqht. and Scale The proposed project includes three (3) two story floor plans with three (3) elevations. The proposed maximum height for the units is 26'11". The proposed project includes two-story elevations that incorporate one-story elements. The units provide adequate articulation in roof forms and offsets to reduce massing and the elevations are visually broken up with offset stories, changes in materials, and/or sloping roof lines. Proposed enhancements include additional window shutters on second story sides and rears, additional building materials on sides and rears, and second story pop-out elements; Staff feels the proposed enhancements meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDraft STAFF REPORT lemplate.doc . 4 , l } ) Materials and Colors The project includes variation in both building materials and colors which help to provide variation and interest, as well as break up the massing of two story units. Each of the proposed elevation styles provide four color schemes, which will result in twelve compatible color schemes for the development. Brick, tile and stone are encouraged as paving and wall accents, and have been adequately integrated into the proposed elevations. Roof materials are compatible with the elevation style and complement the primary building colors. Product Placement Units have been plotted to avoid repetition in plan and elevation type, which creates an interesting and varied streetscape. No single-story units are proposed, however, single story elements on twocstory products will avoid a "canyon" effect along the street. Multi Family Residential (91 Buildings) - Four-Plex Units (59 Buildings, 236 Units) 1. Plan 1, three stories, 1 ,071 square feet 2. Plan 2, three stories, 1,586 square feet The project proposed two (2) f100rplans with four (4) variations of Spanish architecture. These variations include: . Spanish Colonial: This style combines elements of the different versions of the Spanish style. Specifically this style takes more of the ornate elements from the Santa Barbara (curving wainscots), some wood elements from the Monterey (louvered shutters) and some elements from the Mediterranean (decorative tile). . Santa Barbara: This style is slightly more ornate. It has more details such as wrought iron and deep recesses and incorporates more curving elements such as the curved wainscots and buttresses. . Mediterranean: Decorative tile patterns, stepped arches and stepped wainscots are combined with Spanish elements such as louvered shutters and awnings on prominent windows. . Monterey: This style is the simplest Spanish architecture. Fewer small scale details, straighter lines and details such as board shutters and trellises. The subtle architectural differences in these four different versions of Spanish architecture give interest and variation to the individual units but keep the smooth Spanish architectural flow throughout the buildings. The applicant has also provided upgraded garage doors and . decorative lighting to the project. Tri-Plex/Six-Plex Units ( 32 Buildings, 96 units) 1. Plan 1, three stories, 1 ,340 square feet I 2. Plan 2, two stdies, 1,411 square feet 3. Plan 3, three stories, 548 square feet R:\T M\2004\04.0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFF REPORT template.doc 5 , {I The project proposes three (3) floor plans with four (4) different variations of Italian Rustic architecture. These variations include: Siena, Tuscan, Umbria, and Florence. The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural variation of the Italian Rustic style: · Siena: Tower element with stone veneer, colored awnings, decorative wrought iron and wood detailing. . Tuscan: Arched entry with stone veneer, decorative shutters on prominent windows, hip roofs with projecting shed overhangs supported by diagonal braces, decorative wrought iron, and distinctive pattern of rectangular windows and shutters on the three story tower element. · Umbria: Broad gable stone wall entry, fabric awnings and decorative shutters on windows, rectangular and arched openings. · Florence: One story shedded stone entry with arched stone wainscot tower element, arched window pattern in three story tower element, decorative wrought iron and wood details, projecting eaves with wood braces. The project proposes sufficient architectural variation with these four different styles of Italian Rustic architecture, while keeping the look of the entire building consistent, smooth, and refined with keeping the architectural variations to a minimum. The applicant has also provided upgraded garage doors and decorative outdoor lighting to all units. A Recreation Building is located toward the center of the Multi-Family Residential portion of the project. The Recreation Building consists of a meeting room, HOA office, kitchen, and restrooms for the adjacent pool area. The building is consistent with the Rustic Italian architecture proposed for the Tri-plex buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION [8J 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). The project has been analyzed within the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA04-0496, which is a stockpile and grading application proposed on the project site. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that this project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and recommends approval based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula LaneIDraft STAFF REPORT template.doc 6 } \ ) FINDINGS Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.140) 1. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31946 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, and the Municipal Code. 2. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. This project is not located with the Williamson Act, and therefore does not propose to subdivide land that has been entered into an Agricultural Contract. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The project consists of a 107-lot 428 tota/residential units) Vesting Tentative Tract Map on property designated for high density residential uses (a portion which should be affordable housing), which is consistent with the General Plan. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the stockpile and grading permit, which addressed environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), have been incorporated as conditions for this application, as appropriate. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and the Building & Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. 6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single- R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFF REPORT template.doc 7 -J' " family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation. 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Vesting Tentative Map. The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. 8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fee swill be required as a Condition of Approval. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 OF) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed multi and single-family development is permitted in the Professional Office Use designation standards contained in the City's Development Code. The Development Code states that a residential use is permitted if affordable housing is provided on the portion of the project. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family homes and multi-family development,. including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent . with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.04.010.E) 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, conditions and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFFRBPORT template.doc 8 ., 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed residential use against the adjacent land uses and has determined that the proposed use will be consistent with the surrounding uses. The area in which the project is to be located is near existing residential uses. The proposed use will not adversely affect any of the surrounding uses because the project proposes a residential use surrounded by existing residential uses. 3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines for the City of Temecula. Staff has reviewed the proposed project to determine consistency with the Development Code and has found that the project meets all of the applicable requirements. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed residential project without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features required by the Development Code in order to integrate the use with other uses on the site and in the neighborhood. 4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Staff has reviewed the proposed residential use and found that it will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Fire Prevention has reviewed circulation and drive aisle widths and has determined that the site will able to be adequately served by the Fire Department in an emergency situation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions - Vesting Tract Map - Blue Page 10 2. Plan Reductions - Product Review - Blue Page 11 3. PC Resolution No. 05-_ - Blue Page 12 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 13 . R:\T M\2004\04-0490 31946 Temecula Lane\Draft STAFF REPORT template.doc 9 ITEM NO. 21 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager V /JIL Cf CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: March 21, 2006 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointment PREPARED BY: Cheryl Domenoe, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Appoint an applicant to serve an un-expired term on the Planning Commission through June 15, 2008. BACKGROUND: Commissioner Dave Mathewson resigned effective February 3,2006. The City Clerk's office has followed the Council's established procedure for filling Commission vacancies by advertising the openings in the local newspaper. Notices were also posted at various locations within the City and on the City's Web page. When the deadline was reached for accepting applications, the applications were forwarded to the subcommittee comprised of Mayor Roberts and Council Member Naggarfor review and recommendation. Both Mayor Roberts and Council Member Naggar have recommended the appointment of Carl Carey to serve the un-expired term through June 15, 2008. All applicants are registered voters and live within the city limits of the City of Temecula. Attached are copies of the applications that were received by the filing deadline of January 31,2006. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Five (5) Applications for Appointment 01-31-06 p~~IMED City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (909) 694-6444 JAN 3 1 2006 Comm;ss;on Appo;ntment . iJl: T" ApplkaUon Please Check One: [LJ Planning Cl Community Services Cl Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident :).. I\<D...: Are you a City Registered Voter? )l;,s . NAME: $'"".)(/1 BA-L-S-l<=-Y ADDRESS: T€'I-1~c()M ('A Q2.51 ( EVENING PHONE: .5""'"^<<" (c ..II \ C"'N SV '-If) NTJ Plllt~ DICIVE , leKeLuL./1 ell "1-:2510 . Educational Background/Degrees: 'B'- S'. Ci""t I 51:3I'l~"""'), I)ec. 200Lj CU:S'19;~ Q-\eIXCr"\. Vnlveh;,-:, (', \'lA.r~~J p,.:) List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: N/A List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, community service): .\-~nC<:\..1\ Socte.J) ~t ('\V(-( ~i'near State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) f>(-QOS-e s<<.."'- ,\-\-I-"'-G~. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: ~ ~ Date: 1(30!Ob Please return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Please be aware of the advertised deadline y.~( Sm\{}... ~",--l'S~ As a new resident of the City of Temecula, I am enthusiastic about serving my community as a member ofthe Planning Commission. Before moving here, I was a intern at the New Jersey Meadow lands Commission, a state agency charged with balancing the interests of a diverse region encompassing every facet of modern life, from pristine wetlands to legacy industrial complexes, placid residential communities to bustling commercial districts, transit hubs, highways, and more. My participation in the development approval process there was a direct result of my lifelong interest in urban design, particularly focusing on community building through planning in suburban areas. I received my LEED Accredited Professional certification in August 2004, and a degree in civil engineering in December 2004, as preparation for a career in sustainable design. I believe my diligence, commitment, and ability to tactfully negotiate compromise would put me in good standing on the Commission, and I look forward to helping to plan the future of our city. RECEIVED r JAN 3 1 2006 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoflemecuia.org (909) 694-6444 ~aTY CLER Comm;ss;on Appo;ntment Applkat;on EPT. Please Check One: ~ Planning L--- I Community Services CJ Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident _~_ Are you a City Registered Voter? _'f~S C R;o A R~G.DiF"6LDP""e",r NAME: __4-R~_...:-'-::::.':!!5eL______ OCCUPATION: ~"i€..~~-4:..~~ ADDRESS: -~ G\ '1 LS'YL DAYTIME PHONE: ( ___ E~ PHONE: .19!>!l:!.'S7 -{,'So~__ EMPLOYER NAME: ~ ,. '0'L.!? F_Y"V,61Z. OS I O€______________________ EMPLOYER ADDRESS: .3 <j~Q __fI? 4-i~_ sm66-r f<{(~e 1t.$'0 ~_..t:&....!l 'Z S'2."L. __ E-MAIL_~ Educational Background/Degrees: 13, S 8ws) "'L'iJ t}Q,....}N i Sht..A-n'D"/ ,<\-.4- .z=vi>..-snzJ4'- ~t>Ju)Nee./2."u& List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, community service): LIe.~NSE:O ~E"'6/lM... G.,G.rolufl-J",l:. 1 {.,e",,6/W<... 'i?,,,/'-OtNlr- CONrl2..4c.rolt.... CJ,.t't.D E-vA-Al{,,((.,ll'_ PtI.l.MJovsthP- COMM,T'T16.L tUE,rnaeR-, State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Piease be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) ')le-e A+l-AcAlVleNT A I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature:___c.~_~_~~------_ Date: -.t.P1 /o~_____ Please retum to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Please be aware of the advertised deadline Attachment A I believe my background and experience would fit exceptionally well with the existing planning commission members and the goals of the City. I have over 25 years experience in the construction industry including capital improvements, planning and development, site acquisition and contract negotiations. In addition, working for the City of Riverside I am very familiar with City administration, planning, development and redevelopment, capital improvements, and related procedures. !RECEIVED City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (909) 694-6444 - . fJAN 2 6 2006 ,,:' :; ,;. ':f~r'ilrqP'erc';'1S!de,:,~~n"riiu'ro,!~l:Urr<1rijIY iNl:l!,resident ii,fth\i.._.:, 'c" _':.., C'I' _ i~:t::;;City,QfJtm.,.c:...le::~nd .~'~~gis,tt,r4!~ Voter:..il1,tht!~"Clty:()fTEtm'Q~~"f:..t ,','.;' ......'::.y:y...f. j, ,....,.v..'f' ..': .. -'."" .- ,",,>.'< U..'.' '.' .. .. ..' '. 't.'::" ... . ..... i-::;:!" ~\....,':':, .' ." . f.' '. .. ."..,' . ...... ,>.,- '.' '-'-":.:"-" P'ease Check One: ~ Planning c=:J Community Services CI Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident ~_ Are you a City Registered Voter? ye~ NAME: DARRELLL.CONNERTON OCCUPATION: CONSULTANT ADDRESS: TEMECULA, CA 92592 DAYTIME PHONE: ( EVENING PHONE: (9~1) 693-9103_____ DLC CONSULTING & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 31618 CORTE ROSARIO E- Educational BackgroundlDegrees: I hold a Califomia Contractors "B" License "SEE ATTACHED RESUME'" Schools associated with Construction List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Presently Treasurer, Republican Central Committee of Riverside County (6 yrs) and a Member of State Republican Central Committee, District Advisory Commissioner of Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District. 6 yrs with Public Safety & Traffic Commission. 3 yrs with General Plan Review Committee. List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, community service): American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE) Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Califomia Treasurers Association, Chairman (2 yrs) Lincoln Club of Southwest Riverside County (Chairman... Founding Chairman) State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) I an very fortunate to l the distinction of having a well managed and planned development process. We who live here, moved to Temecula because of the quality of life. The City Council, Planning Commission and valued staff are a major part of the process and I would like to put my knowledge and experience to work and help maintain the vision we have all benefited from in Temecula. I feel I am qualified because of my vast experience in all phases of the construction industry. I understand tha y or all info tion 0 this f may be verified. I consent to the release of this Information for public informat. purpos . Signature: Date: January 25, 2006 Please retum to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park DriVe~94-6444 (OR) Mail 10: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Please be aware of the advertised deadline PROFESSIONAL LICENSE I AFFILIATIONS California Contractors License - "B" EPA Certification for Asbestos ICBO - Professional Member American Society of Professional Estimators HUD 203 K Certified Consultant, Plan Reviewer, and Inspector BACKGROUND EXPERIENCE DLC, Consulting and Construction Management Lee Saylor, Inc. PM Realty Group Patscheck Development Mountain Meadows Development Kaufman & Broad Heritage Development Department of Defense Connerton Construction Company BACKGROUND QUALIFICATIONS Responsible for daily management of operations and supervision of field staff and subcontracting trades on specific job sites. Provide estimating, scheduling, value engineering, claims preparation and contract negotiations on a wide range of projects. Proiect Manaaer Over 25 years of experience in managing construction projects with hands on experience in superintending, estimating, cost management, value engineering and litigation support for construction claims. Responsibilities include scheduling, developing bid packages, 1 preparation and negotiation of construction contracts and project management operations. Projects range in size up to $18,000,000 including renovations of low and high-rise buildings including all tenant improvement. Other typical projects include shopping centers, industrial buildings and residential condominiums. Construction Manaaer Extensive experience in both on site and off site infrastructure improvements including building stabilization. Hot and cold water repiping, irrigation and fire sprinkler systems. Management responsibilities include purchase orders, project procurement, change order log and tracking and claims analysis. As director of engineering responsibilities include all off site purchases and management of construction for over 300 residential units. Environmental Manaaement Responsibilities include management of hazardous waste mitigation services including asbestos and contaminated soil. Mr. Connerton has worked with the City of Los Angeles and helped author "Regulation 68" which is the procedure used by contractors for asbestos removal and work in the subcommittee in the City of Los Angeles dealing with hi-rise residential fire sprinkler retrofit. He also has worked with the SCAQMD relating to their Rule 1403, dealing with construction and related asbestos removal. Expert Witness Extensive experience in Construction Defect Litigation Support. Mr Connerton has assembled teams of Architects, Structural Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Geologist, Soils Engineers and Roofing Specialist or has worked on an assembled team to evaluate construction defect report and repair recommendations and prepare a report on repairing and cost for reported defects. He has been associated with over 125 cases amounting to in excess of $250 million in construction defect claims. Governmental Was employed by the Department of Defense, traveling to various governmental contractors, insuring compliance with contractual requirements. 2 With Connerton Construction Company, acted as a superintendent and Project Manager on construction sites for structural steel buildings, commercial centers and single family homes. PROJECTS (Partial List) Residential I Commercial New Construction Alterative to Domestic Violence 60 Bed facility 5-Story, 920 space Parking structure Monte Vista Town homes 45 Condos Palm Terrace Town homes 32 Condos Old Chapman Road Town homes 72 Condos Rialto Meadows 67 Single Family Mountain Meadows 280 Single Family Daly Homes 274 Condos Victory Woods 328 Condos High Rise Office and Residential Asbestos removal, sprinkler retrofit, tenant improvements and renovation Todd Towers 11 Floors, Office Bunker Hill Towers 32 Floors, Residential Executive One 25 Floors I 8 Floors Office Westwood Plaza 10 Floors Office & Retail Citi-National Bank Bldg. 25 Floors Office University Parking Structure 5 Floors (920 Spaces) Toad in the Hole 2 Story Restaurant Remodel (Stabilization. rehab and repair) Quail Ridge La Sierra Manor Parsonage House 2617 7th Street 5611 Walter Street 5415 Walter Street 10661 Burton Street 144 Condos 105 Apartments Historical Restoration Historical Restoration Rehab, Single Family Rehab, Single Family Rehab, Multi Family 3 10594 Burton Street Williams Building La Sierra II 10590 Burton Street 1789 7th Street 8957-8897 Indiana Ave 3527 Main Street 3350 Mulberry Street 3441 Mulberry Street 3245 Orange Street 3227 Orange Street 3207 Orange Street 3275 Lime Street 3299 Lime Street 3362 Mulberry Street 3382 Mulberry Street 3350 Mulberry Street 3491 Mulberry Street 3441 Mulberry Street 3406 Mulberry Street 3428 Mulberry Street 4250 Brockton Ave 3848 Fourth Street, House Move, 8797-8957 Indiana Rehab, Multi Family Historical Restoration 40 Unit Apartment, Rehab 16 Unit Apartment, Rehab 27 Unit Apartment, Rehab 13, 4-Plex Bldgs Rehab Restaurant Renovation Single Family New In-fill Single Family New In-fill Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family New, In-fill Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family New, In-fill Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical Single Family Rehab, to Office Historical Single Family Rehab, Historical 11- Fourplexes, Extensive Rehab. Have worked with the City of Riverside and Riverside Housing Development Corporation on the Home and CDBG Programs as a Construction Manager and Inspector on more than 900 homes _ Have also worked as a Construction Manager for the City of Riverside on other types of programs, including Construction Project evaluation, Hazmat problems which include Asbestos, Lead Base Paint, Mold/Mildew contamination and soil contamination. myfiles \resume5.new 4 City of T emecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (909) 694-6444 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2006 Commission App<mrmtMfKf Application EIVED JAN 2 0 2006 Y CLERKS DEFT, Please Check One: [ZJPlanning C:J Community Services C:J Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident ~~ Are you a City Registered Voter? $$ NAME: Steven L Dehlinger OCCUPATION: Home Inspector ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: 951-522-9478 EMPLOYER NAME: American Real Estate Inspection - Vineyard Valley Realty EMPLOYER ADDRESS: Same... Self employed E-MAIL Educational Background/Degrees: HS Graduate, Two years Community College-No Degree. Licensed Building Contractor #824670 Licensed Real Estate Sales Agent # 01464784, Certified Property Inspector - CREIA, NACHI and ICC Certified Tax Preoarer CTEC # A 137382. List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: None List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, community service): Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors - California Real Estate Inspection Association - National Association of Certified Inspectors - International Code Council - California Tax Education Council - Indoor Environmental Standards Organization - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) I wish to serve on the Planning Commission to help the community manage and cope with the continued growth and prosperity we enjoy. I believe I am qualified because of my life experiences includin9 my general knowledge and affiliation with the 10 i1ding and Real Estate Communities. , rma I ay be verified. I consent to the release of this information for Date: \/lbtb~ urn to: Ci Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 (OR) M iI to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Please be aware of the advertised deadline City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (909) 694-6444 Commission Appo"fntment Application RECEIVED I JAN 3 1 2006 EPT" ." '..... :'.',.:":":,..::: .::.':..:.:...... ".:.':.:-,.,:.:.',-:.',,:::,'.:;..:::-": :..:.:::::',-.:"",...:...::.....,.,.:.:."::-:...'..:>..:.....'::,.:'.: :.,:..:.,.... ,f()'r:prq'p~r_c_OnSi~,e..a:tI9J1I:r():~J~U,~t:(::~r~~~tly.~e,;~:r:esi~:~I1~:"(),ft~~ City of Temecilla and a Registered Voter in the City of Temecula Please Check One: [{] Planning c:::J Community Services c:::J Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident ~_ Are you a City Registered Voter? Yes NAME: Pamela Voit OCCUPATION: CEO/ Property Management Co. ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: 951-303-9116 . EMPLOYER NAME: Voit Management EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 38770 Sky Canyon Drive, Suite B, Murrieta. CA 92563 E-MAIL Educational Background/Degrees: Industry Certification, CMCA (Certified Manager of Community Associations) California Real Estate License List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s)of service: None List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, community service): California Legislative Action Committee Liaison. Inland Empire Chapter of Community Associations Institute Chairman of the Board, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce (Third Term) Vice-Chairman, Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Murrieta Temecula Group; California Association of Community Managers State why you wish to serve on this commission. and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) I wish to serve the community by utilizing my experience as a long time resident and business owner, familiar with the growth and development of the City, to preserve and ensure that future development meets the quality standards that have been established thus far. It is my belief that well pla to the long term city, by instilling pride of ownership to its residents, stability to its business community, and quality of life to its citizens. I unders r n this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public'information purposes. Signature: Date: January 30, 2006 Please return tb: Citi rk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909.) 694-6444 (OR) Uail to: P.O. Box 9033. Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Please be aware of the advertised deadline