Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120908 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE DECEMBER 9, 2008 - 6:00 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: 08-14 Resolution: 08-108 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Danny Hahn Invocation: Pastor Gary Nelson of Calvary Chapel of Temecula Flag Salute: Council Member Washington ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 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 1 Declaration of Results of November 4, 2008 Municipal Election RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2008, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW 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 2 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 3 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the minutes of November 18, 2008. 4 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 5 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 08-11 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS AND AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 6 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 08-13 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE FULL SERVICE HOTELS, REVISE THE INTENSITY BONUS JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS WHOSE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDS THE TARGET FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWED IN THE ZONE, ADD NEW PARKING STANDARDS FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS, AND ADD PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR TANDEM PARKING SPACES FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS WHEN VALET SERVICE IS PROVIDED (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR08-0045) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING 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 for the record CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 7 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the minutes of November 25, 2008. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 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 for the record RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 8 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the minutes of November 25, 2008 RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT 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 9 Consideration of Approval of Resolutions/Ordinances for Santa Margarita Area Annexation RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225 AND PA07-0226) 9.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS TO EXTEND THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO THE TERRITORY DESCRIBED AS THE SANTA MARGARITA SPHERE EXPANSION AREA COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,443 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (PA07-0225) 9.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (PA07- 0225) 9.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO INCORPORATE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) AS THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) 9.5 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION PRE-ZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) WITH ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT- SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) 9.6 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY ADOPTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR- SM) AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS- C-SM) AND ADOPTING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PRE- ZONING OF THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council Regular, Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 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. The entire agenda packet (including staff reports) may be available for viewing at City Hall- 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula-and at the Temecula Library- 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula- during normal business hours. The packet will be available for viewing the Friday before the City Council meeting after 4:00 PM. You may access the packet on the City's website- cityoftemecula.org- which as well will be available the Friday before the City Council meeting after 4:00 PM. ITEM NO. 1 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: December 9, 2008 SUBJECT: Declaration of Results of November 4, 2008 Municipal Election RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2008, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW BACKGROUND: The General Municipal Election, held on November 4, 2008, was conducted as provided for in City Council Resolution No. 08-49, adopted on June 10, 2008. The attached resolution recites the facts as to the canvass of the returns and certified final results. The attached resolution is prepared to formalize the process of declaring the results as provided by the Elections Code of the State of California. FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined, upon receipt of final billing from the County of Riverside, Registrar of Voters. A budget allocation in the amount of $90,000. has been set aside to defray these costs. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 08- RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAIN Section 1. A General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Temecula, California, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, as required by law; Section 2. Notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election offers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California; Section 3. Pursuant to Resolution No. 08-49, adopted on June 10, 2008, the County Registrar of Voters canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as "Exhibit A." Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula, does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: A. That the whole number of ballots cast in the City, including absent voter ballots, were 35,376. B. That the names of the persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council are as follows: Chuck Washington James "Stew" Stewart Rita V. Hernandez Albert Abbott Mike Naggar Section 5. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the city to each of the persons above named for the offices for which the persons were candidates was as listed in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 6. The City Council does declare and determine that Mike Naggar and Chuck Washington were elected Members of the City Council for a full term. Section 7. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City, a statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots cast in the City; (2) The names of the persons voted for; (3) For what office each person was voted for; (4) The number of votes given at each precinct to each person; (5) The total number of votes given to each person. Section 8. The City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each person so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribed to it and file it in the office of the City Clerk. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected. Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 9 day of December, 2008. Mike Naggar, 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. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk BARBARA DUNMORE Registrar of Voters J ty of R" M e 4Y184 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE December 2. 2008 Susan Jones, City Clerk City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Ms. Jones: 2724 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92507-0918 (951) 486-7200 • FAX (951) 486-7272 www.voteinfo.net Enclosed is our certificate to the results of the canvass of election returns for your General Municipal Election held on November 4, 2008. The Certificate of Election forms were given to you at the seminar in June. An invoice for services rendered will be mailed to you under a separate cover. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, BARBARA DUN RE Registrar of Voters Enclosures OF Ri 4y * P F ? q: { 2724 Gateway Drive BARBARA DUNMORE c Riverside, CA 92507-0918 Registrar of Voters Mq q „qA (951) 486-7200 • FAX (951) 486-7272 www.voteinfo.net REGISTRAR OF VOTERS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO THE RESULTS OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS State of California ) ) ss. County of Riverside ) I, BARBARA DUNMORE, Registrar of Voters of said County, do hereby certify that, in pursuance of the provisions of Sections 15301, 15372, and 15374 of the California Elections Code, and the resolution adopted by the City Council, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast on November 4, 2008, as part of the Consolidated General Election in the CITY OF TEMECULA and I further certify that the statement of votes cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the whole number of votes for each candidate for elective office at said election, in said City, and in each precinct therein, and that the totals as shown for each candidate are full, true, and correct. Dated this 2nd day of December 2008 BARBARA DUNMORE Registrar of Voters 12102108 11:24 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY Statement of Vote 335 of 977 November 4,2008 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL 100076 TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MEMBER K < z 0 0 N Z z z m h Q O lu Q a n e 3 x b > w z rn .Yl c °c L> 0 w f F 0 0 Y x , 41 K m t K « f 38001 TEMECUTA 332 239 21.99 90 - -35 48 : - 35 ':110 38001- Vote by Mall Reporting 332 3 : 0.90 Insu fficient T urnout to Protect V oter Priv acy '•~•Me 38003 TEMECUTA 1623 818 5o.40 300 181 55 W .351 Iftapotling 38003 - Vote by 1623 572 38004 TEMECULA 386 4801 131 104 49 47 166 38004- Vote by Mall Reporting 804 243 3022 98 64 29 38 119 38005 TEMECULA 0 0 0.00 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 38006 Vole by Mall Reporting 0 -1 0.00 - Inat4 0clarifT omoutto Prated V oter Pill Cy 3800] TEMECUTA 445 320 - 71.91 113 76 43 : 37 -140 3800] - Vote by Mail Reporting 445 25 5.62 7 8 4 3 15 38008 TEMECUIA 600 239 39.83 75 71 14 26 113 38008- Vote by Mall Reporting 600 258 43.00 117 93 42 43 108 38010 TEMECULA 0 ..0 . o a 0 0 -.:0 38010- Vole by Mall Reporting 0 :0 0.00 0 - 0 0 0 - :0 39011' TEMECUTA 1145 542 47:34 165 151 Be 67 -207 38011 - Vote by Mall Reporting 1145 365 31.88 176 94 43 43 175 38012 TEMECUTA 1050 491 46.76 189 121 45 57 218 38012- Vote by Mail Reporting 1050 352 33.52 195 74 19 42 194 38017 TEMECUTA 1368 T75 66.65 283 283 67 67 348 38017-Voleby Mell Reporting 1368 402 29:39 195 157 45 39 - 213 38020 TEMECUTA 1114 591 0.05 ' 247 148 61 69 274 - 38020- Vote by Mall Reboiling 1114 357 32.05 173 112 39 34 198 38023 TEMECUTA 1378 567 41.15 269 178 42 69 227 38023 - Vote by Mail Reporting 1378 621 45.07 348 210 43 54 320 38025 TEMECUTA .1472 708 48.10 299 232 59 --82 338 38025- Vote by Mail Reporting 1472 - 542 36.82 . 279 211 46 - Be - 303 - - 38028-TEMECUTA 1314 655 48.74 208 206 84 103 257 M026- Vote by Mall Reporting 1344 436 32.4 169 153 45 47 216 38027 TEMECUIA 1398 617 44.13 268 208 40 69 297 38027- Vote by Mail Reporting 13M 629 44.99 339 189 52 58 366 38028 TEMECUTA 865 . 430 49.71 167 155 35 41 20,1 38028- Vote by Mall Reporting 865 , 330 . 38.15 174 122 23 . 32 IN 38030. TEMECUTA' 1147 597 52.05 245 192 48 46 301 38030- Vote by Mail Reporting 1147 409 35.66 212 167 29 52 213 38034 TEMECULA 771 329 42.67 172 72 20 42 177 38034 - Vote by Mail Reporting 771 308 39.95 156 101 31 40 154 38035 TEMECULA 1398 721 51.57 243 198 01 93 332 38035- Vote by Mall Reporting 13M 424 30.33 190 119 - 50 43 225 36036 TEMECUTA 779 377 48.40 165 Be 35 35 182 38036- Vote by Mail Reporting 779 283 36.33 154 82 42 36 148 36038 TEMECUIA 772 387 50.13 153 114 68 32 197 38038- Vote by Mall Repotling 772 263 34.07 117 97 43 28 128 38039 TEMECUTA 806 417 51.74 204 107 44 41 210 38039- Vole by Mall Reporting 806 282 34.99 159 94 24 28 147 38044 TEMECULA 1418 653 46.05 278 221 41 66 323 38044- Vote by Mail Reporting 1418 562 39.63 325 226 39 50 297 38046 TEMECULA 1311 563 42.94 231 174 47 56 255 38046 - Vote by Mail Reporting 1311 584 44.55 291 187 43 67 301 38047 TEMECUIA 987 521 52.79 209 168 52 52 229 3804]- Vote by Mall Reporting 987 314 31.81 134 114 37 44 172 38009 TEMECUTA 772 393 50.91 136 106 44 39 180 M049- Vale by Mail Reporting 772 227 29.40 79 72 30 29 127 38051 TEMECUTA 1081 596 55.13 244 166 43 49 288 38051 - Vote by Mail Reporting 1081 349 32.28 174 111 36 40 197 38054 TEMECULA 1129 675 59.79 302 204 w 56 352 38054- Vote by Mail reporting 1129 322 28.52 163 100 29 32 181 M056 TEMECULA 14M 684 47.83 250 195 55 53 308 38055- Vote by Mail Reporting 1430 513 35.8] 213 158 43 53 274 38057 TEMECULA 641 433 51.49 173 113 25 27 206 3805]- Vote by Mail Reporting 841 284 33.77 116 79 17 36 Jr. 38058 TEMECUIA 1050 542 51.62 237 158 39 41 280 12/0210811:24 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY Statement of Vote 336 of 977 November 4,2008 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL 100076 TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MEMBER K z O ru r~. Z y O = 0 Q! Q F Z W m ro Q (7 p N o 3 N 2 F Q b U SO U W W Z 2 ° c 7 m Y U Q K all f K f I .1050 ' 965 : 34.76 203 122 2d 35 , 210 1046 617 1 69.43 203 131 46 38 288 V 4 96!18 ° 324 - 90.W 157 a92 39 32 192 38061 TEMECUTA 985 505 52.33 173 148 59 50 201 38061- Vote by Mail Rapading 965 274 28.39 107 110 30 33 135 38063 TEMECUTA 649 356 54.8 115 71 48 47 157 ' ~I ll9 649 183 . 282 68 46 25 26 88 7 14 E 7¢@ + 54.76 287 199 , 89 93 338 I , •2f4(o2 440 ' 31.31 178 -109 48 60 221 36065 TEMECULA 863 421 48.78 153 100 47 33 193 38085- Vole by Mail Reporting 883 308 35.69 151 112 40 42 151 38066 TEMECUTA 1006 542 53.88 196 133 60 57 227 - 4 ' 1008 : 339 33.70 151 113 42 40 155 g- 4 Milled . 479 53.34 154 104 50 63 213 - Ilrq ? 898 304 33.85 122 75 23 33 181 38089 TEMECUTA 1129 551 48.80 193 134 69 64 239 38069- Vote by Mail Repoiling 1129 330 29.23 129 109 32 28 167 38070 TEMECULA 933 406 43.52 141 93 31 40 181 ..,IP@9Rd08 -,933 384 39.01 188 111 25 53 191 r$j.7 1084 544 49.]3 203 146 44 47 258 . _ I ReIt0r809- _ 1094 342 31.26 136 116 33 36 182 36078 TEMECUTA 1437 ON 46.49 236 176 47 6e 341 38078- Vote by Mall Repodlrg 1437 520 36.19 258 156 56 58 260 tff1847 _ 1 42052 21023 49.99 8100 6881 1872 2175 9885 _ q,Rep9rvn9 Tdlels ] `42052 14353 34.13 8812 4611 1391 1605 7671 Grand Totals 42052 35376 84.12 14912 10472 3363 3780 17256 451n CoNrascional Dlsidcl 1437 1188 82.67 694 332 103 124 691 ~I3lsldol 40616 42052 34188 35376 84:1 - 84:1 14418 - 14812 10140 104]2 3260 9383 3656 3180 18855 17258 y 8.913 58]6 85.08 2643 1824 465 560 2974 fi6ih Assembly Di5bicl 35139 29500 83.95 12369 8698 2898 3220 14262 3rd SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 42052 35376 84.12 14912 104]2 3363 3]89 17256 Cityof Temecula 42052 35376 84.12 14912 104]2 3363 3)80 1725fi CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 ITEM NO. 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 18, 2008 There being no Closed Session, the City Council convened its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Council Members: Comerchero, Edwards, Washington, Naggar Absent: Council Members: Roberts PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by the Musicians Workshop INVOCATION The invocation was provided by Pastor Brent Yim of Temecula Community Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Edwards Ninth Annual Community Candlelight Tribute Day Proclamation Proclaiming Saturday, December 6, 2008, as "Remembering Those We've Loved and Lost" Mayor Naggar encouraged all citizens of Temecula and surrounding communities to participate in the Ninth Annual Community Candlelight Tribute Day to be held at the Promenade Mall. Happily accepting the proclamation and thanking the City Council for its ongoing support of the tribute, Ms. Linda Mejia and Sergeant Barragan, retired USMC, invited the public to attend the event. Family Niaht in Temecula Proclamation Because strong families create strong communities and promote healthy social conditions, Mayor Naggar proclaimed Monday, November 24, 2008, to be Family Night in Temecula. Thanking the City Council for recognizing the importance of Family Night in Temecula, the Interfaith Council accepted the proclamation and invited the public to attend the Night of Gratitude on Monday, November 23, 2008, at the Temecula United Methodist Church at 7:00 p.m, Council Member Washington applauded the Interfaith Council and gave kudos to the Community Services Department for its implementation of FAM night. RAMinutes1111808 Mayor Naggar advised that the following businesses are offering discounts to families on Monday Nights: • Islands • White Lime Frozen Yogurt • Phillies Best • Dip-n-Dots • The Bank • Baja Cactus • The Taco Shop • Rubios • Pat and Oscar's • Pizza Factory - French Valley location • Wolf Creek Grill • Tacos Tijuana • Painted Earth • Yogurt Factory • Perks - Temecula location • Juice It Up • Easy Take Out • Rosa's Cantina • Kapani Island Grill & Sushi • La Salsa The following individuals represent the Murrieta/Temecula Interfaith Council: • Mr. Rudy Martinez, Temecula United Methodist • Ms. Su Billings, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints • Mr. Ed Langton, Christian Science Society • Ms. Nancy Lewis, Christian Science/Temecula • Mr. Larry Slusser, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints • Ms. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints • Ms. Gayle Byrne, Temple Beth Shalom/Menifee • Mr. Mahmoud Harmoush, Imam Islamic Center/Temecula • Mr. Mike Torretti, St. Martha Catholic/Murrieta • Rabbi Barry Ulryeh, Congregation B'Nai Chaim Mayor Naggar thanked the Interfaith Council for attending the meeting PUBLIC COMMENT A. Mr. John Collins, as Ebenezer Scrooge of the Temecula Valley Players, invited the public to attend the production of "A Christmas Carol', noting that opening night will be on Friday, November 30, 2008, and advising that discounts will be available to sworn officers, fire fighters, teachers, and military with proper identification. B. Congratulating the reelected Council Members, Mr. Bernard Truax, queried on the status of the future freeway interchange. With respect to Mr. Truax's query, Mayor Naggar suggested that he contact the City Manager with respect to a status of the future freeway interchange. RAMinutes1111808 2 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Council Member Washington relayed his sincere gratitude to the residents of Temecula for allowing him to continue to serve the City of Temecula; provided a special thank you to his wife, Kathy. In light of information that he has received from the residents, Mr. Washington expressed a desire to create a community volunteer program and requested that the City Manager explore potential ways of facilitating such a program. B. Supporting Council Member Washington's suggestion of a community-based volunteer program, Council Member Comerchero congratulated Mayor Naggar and Council Member Washington on their reelection. C. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards as well congratulated Mayor Naggar and Council Member Washington on their reelection and advised of the upcoming Winter Wonderland Event on Friday, December 12, 2008, from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m., noting that more information could be found at www.pennypickles.org. D. Thanking the citizens on his reelection, Mayor Naggar relayed his dedication to continuing to move forward as a community; announced that Chapman College will be locating at Mt. San Jacinto Education Center; advised that the subcommittee for Cal State San Marcos will be recruiting board members to explore locations for a campus in the region; and requested that staff ensure that the City's ancillary services are up to standards. E. With respect to the fires in Sylmar, Mayor Pro Tem Edwards thanked Mr. Fred Perkins for donating his time and much needed supplies to the cause. 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 October 14, 2008; 2.2 Approve the minutes of October 28, 2008. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A RAMinutes1111808 4 City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 2008. 5 Review of City Conflict of Interest Code RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE 6 Request for approval of a one-story height increase for the Truax Building, Planning Application No. PA08-0008, located at the northwest corner of Mercedes and Second Streets RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A HEIGHT INCREASE OF ONE-STORY FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA08-0008, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MERCEDES AND SECOND STREETS (APN NOS. 922-043-012 AND 922-043- 017) 7 Tenth Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Tenth Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 8 Second Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Environmental Impact Report E( IR) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve an Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with ESA in the amount of $20,000 to complete the preparation of an Administrative Final EIR, including responses to comments for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. RAMinutes1111808 9 Community Grant Agreement with the Temecula Sister City Association RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve a grant in the amount of $7,500 for the Temecula Sister City Association for fiscal year 2008-2009. 10 Membership Appointment on Riverside County Solid Waste Management Advisory Council RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING REPRESENTATION ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL 10.2 Direct the City Manager to appoint a representative to the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Advisory Council. 11 Approval of the Pre-Qualified Contractors for Structured Data Cable for the Old Town Civic Center, Project No. IS 08-08 (Phase 2) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the list of data cable vendors, outlined below, as Pre-Qualified installers with CommScope SYSTIMAX certifications and eligible to submit bids for Structured Data Cable for Phase 2 of the Old Town Civic Center Project. 12 Temecula Valley City County Schools Partnership (at the request of Mayor Pro Tern Edwards and Council Member Washington in conjunction with Temecula Valley Unified School District Board President Barbara Tooker) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ESTABLISH THE TEMECULA VALLEY CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP 12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SUPPORT EMANCIPATING FOSTER YOUTH THROUGH THE TEMECULA VALLEY CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP RAMinutes1111808 13 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Santa's Electric Light Parade on December 5, 2008, and Delegate Authority to issue Special Events/Street Closures Permit to the Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES FOR JEFFERSON AVENUE AND ABUTTING STREETS FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO OVERLAND DRIVE AND ALSO THE LOW FLOW CROSSING AT VIA MONTEZUMA AT DIAZ ROAD FOR SANTA'S ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER 5, 2008, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES 14 Acceptance of certain Public Streets into the City-Maintained System within Tract Map Nos. 29798-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -9, -10, -F (Located southeasterly of the intersection of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road (within the Wolf Creek Subdivision) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT MAP NOS. 29798-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -9, -10, -F) 15 First Amendment to a Reimbursement Agreement Associated with the Old Town Infrastructure Projects, PW06-07 (C & E) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement with the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) in the amount of $55,038.75, for relocation of sewer laterals associated with the Old Town Infrastructure Projects, PW06-07 (C & E) and authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment. 16 Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal-Aid Projects Master Agreement and Program Supplement Agreements RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RAMinutes1111808 RESOLUTION NO. 08-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MASTER AGREEMENT ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 08-5459R AND ALL PERTINENT PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS 17 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 08-10 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 15.04.030 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE MOTION: Council Member Washington moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Roberts who was absent. At 7:40 p.m. the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:42 p.m. the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 23 Long Range Planning Project No. LR08-0039, proposed Development Code Amendments Amending Zoning Standards Applicable to Educational Institutions and Schools and Amending the Temecula Municipal Code RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS AND AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE Junior Planner Lowrey, by way of PowerPoint Presentation, highlighted the main components of the staff report, addressing the following: • Background • Current Commercial Zoning • Analysis At this time, the public hearing was opened. RAMinutes1111808 Mr. Larry Markham, representing Julian Charter School, relayed support of the proposed Ordinance. At this time, the public hearing was closed. The City Council thanked staff for its efforts with regard to this Ordinance. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance 08-11. MOTION: Council Member Washington moved to approve staff recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards seconded the motion and electronic reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Robert who was absent. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 24 Community Services Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Appoint one applicant to serve a full three-year term on the Community Services Commission through October 10, 2011. City Clerk Jones provided a brief staff report (of record), advising that the subcommittee comprised of Council Member Comerchero and Mayor Naggar recommended the re- appointment of Commissioner Meyler to serve a full three-year term through October 10, 2011. Commenting on the impressive resumes submitted for the Community Services Commission, Council Member Comerchero thanked the applicants for their interest and expressed his support of reappointing Commissioner Meyler. MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to reappoint Commissioner Meyler to serve a full three-year term on the Community Services Commission through October 10, 2011. Mayor Pro Tern Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Roberts who was absent. 25 Public/Traffic Safetv Commission Annointments RECOMMENDATION 25.1 Appoint two applicants to serve full three-year terms on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission through October 10, 2011. City Clerk Jones provided a brief staff report (of record), advising that the subcommittee comprised of Mayor Naggar and Mayor Pro Tern Edwards recommended the reappointment of Commissioners Ramos and Youmans to serve a full three-year terms through October 10, 2011. As well commenting on the highly qualified applicants, Mayor Naggar encouraged the applicants to continue applying for future Commission openings. Commenting on a past issue of limiting terms of Commissioners, Council Member Washington relayed his desire of being mindful of allowing opportunities to new highly qualified individuals to serve on the City Commissions and requested that in light of crime statistics and public safety in RAMinutes1111808 8 the City, that more dialogue between the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and City Council be initiated. MOTION: Mayor Naggar moved to reappoint Commissioners Ramos and Youmans to serve full three-year terms on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission through October 10, 2011. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Roberts who was absent. 26 Massage Ordinances RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MASSAGE SERVICES, AND AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE Police Chief Williams provided a staff report (of record), advising that along with the Police Department, Planning Department, Code Enforcement, and the City Attorney's office, the proposed Ordinance was created; that the proposed Ordinance will transfer responsibility for the background investigation of massage permits from the Planning Department to the Police Department; that it will allow more thorough background checks and tracking by dedicated Special Enforcement Team Personnel working in conjunction with City Code Enforcement; and that it will allow the City to license, test, and perform background checks on all massage technicians working within the City of Temecula. Understanding the intent of the proposed Ordinance, Council Member Comerchero expressed concern with the number of required training hours (720) to maintain the education portion of the Ordinance. In response to Council Member Comerchero's concern, Chief Williams stated that research indicated that 720 training hours appeared to be the industry standard for massage training; that most of the massage schools recommend 720-hour courses as a level of training and advised that a massage therapist with 100 hours of course training may work with the stipulation to retain the required amount of hours to continue working. Council Member Comerchero also expressed concern with language in the Ordinance not allowing massage therapists the ability to continue out call services (provision 29c) and, therefore, supported deleting this provision. Chief Williams noted no opposition to the deletion of provision 29c; advised that although Senate Bill 731 has been signed by the Governor, it will not be effective September 2009; and that the adoption of a City Ordinance would allow local authority to enforce in 2009. City Attorney Thorson advised that Section 5.22.160 Violation and Penalty and Section 5.22.020 Massage Establishment permit required will give the Police Department maximum enforcement, noting that it will be unlawful for any person to engage and/or carry out a massage establishment in violation of these chapters. The following individuals spoke against the proposed Ordinance RAMinutes1111808 • Ms. Pat Camp, Temecula • Ms. Lisa McKay, Temecula • Ms. Denise Grandi, Temecula • Mr. John Glenna, Temecula • Ms. Lisa Hayes, Temecula • Ms. Louise Burns, Murrieta • Ms. Carol Rosales, Murrieta The above-mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed Ordinance for the following reasons: • That the proposed regulations will significantly impact massage therapists who have not yet attained the 500 training hours • That elderly clients depend on the out-call service • That requiring a designated manager on the premises at all times will cause a burden on independent therapists causing them to no longer afford to work independently • That the fee increases will cause financial hardship • That years of experience should be grandfathered into the required training hours; that the increased training hours will cause a significant financial burden • That the requirement to add elevators would be a concern Chief Williams stated that although Senate Bill 731 was signed by the Governor and will be effective September 2009, the implementation date would not be anticipated for some time after that date and, therefore, the adoption of the proposed local Ordnance would allow the Police Department to begin enforcement in 2009. Understanding the concerns of the speakers, it was the consensus of the City Council to amend the following: • That the 720 hours of certified training be reduced to 500 hours of certified training (as required per State Ordinance) • That the one-year (1) time period to acquire the 500 hours of certified training be increased to two (2) years or at the implementation date of the new State Ordinance which every comes first • That provision 29c (out-call massage) be deleted from the proposed Ordinance • That the Massage Ordinance fees not be imposed at this time to allow the Citywide User Fee Study to be updated • That the provision to impose that a designated manager be required on the premises at all times be deleted from the proposed Ordinance With respect to the elevator concern, City Attorney Thorson stated that the City's proposed Ordinance would not impose the installation of elevators to existing buildings. For the City Council, Police Chief Williams noted that the primary goal of the proposed Ordinance would be to ensure that all massage facilities and massage therapists are in full compliance with all requirements. Adding more information, City Attorney Thorson advised that the proposed Ordinance would as well address safety issues such as injuries to clients as a result of improperly trained and/or educated massage technicians. RAMinutes1111808 10 Council Member Comerchero relayed his desire to modify the condition obtaining the required amount of training hours from two (2) years to three (3) years or at the implementation date of the State Ordinance. The City Council concurred with Council Member Comerchero's amendment. Chief of Police Williams noted that in order for the Police Department to issue permits, the establishment of a baseline of training hours would be helpful. Mayor Naggar advised that all newly permitted massage therapists will be required to hold 500 hours of certified training; and that all existing permit holders will be grandfathered in and will be required to obtain their 500 hours of certified training in three (3) years or the implementation date of the State Ordinance. At this time, City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance 08-12 and made the following changes to the proposed Ordinance: 1. That Section 5.22.020 Paragraph A, delete the language "misdemeanor" 2. That Section 5.22.060 B, that 720 hours to be amended to reflect 500 recommended hours as well as any other language pertaining to 720 hours 3. That Section 5.22.080 26 Manager on premise - that this section will be intentionally deleted from the Ordinance 4. That Section 5.22.080 (29c outcall massage) - that this Section be deleted 5. That Section 3 shall be amended to reflect that the existing and validly permitted massage practitioner or technician permit holder shall have an additional three (3) years from the effective date to meet and comply with the 500 hour training and testing requirement or until the State implements it massage regulations, whichever comes first Adding some clarification, Finance Director Roberts stated that staff, at this time, is not proposing the revision of fees; that staff will be revising fees in line with the updated User Fee Study, noting that existing fees will not be changed at this time; and that future changes to fees will be forwarded to the City Council at a future meeting. For the City Council, Chief of Police Williams advised that he would be in agreement with the proposed amendments to the Ordinance as indicated by City Attorney Thorson. MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation, subject to the above mentioned changes to the Ordinance as indicated by City Attorney Thorson. Council Member Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Roberts who was absent. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report at this time. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there was no report at this time RAMinutes1111808 11 ADJOURNMENT At 9:25 p.m. the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 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. ATTEST: Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Michael S. Naggar, Mayor RAMinutes1111808 12 ITEM NO. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: December 9, 2008 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Leah Thomas, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA 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 List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE 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, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $542,488.47. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 9th day of December, 2008. Michael S. Naggar, 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. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 11/20/2008 TOTAL CHECK RUN TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 12/09/2008 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 477 CFD- RORIPAUGH 170,349.64 264.00 108,772.14 69,750.47 8,546.50 48.90 4,788.80 256.74 142,502.45 5,078.40 4,309.66 14,580.61 368.55 1,473.85 11,397.76 $ 542,488.47 $ 542,488.47 $ 542,488.47 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 542,488.47 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 1112012008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127894 11/20/2008 008698 ADVANCED APPLIED Jul eng design:79S Park & Ride 900.00 900.00 ENGINEERING 127895 11120/2008 004767 ALERT ALL CORPORATION Educational promo items: Fire Prev 2,607.55 2,607.55 127896 1112012008 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT equip rental:Harvest Carnival 587.54 587.54 127897 11120/2008 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI & drug screenings: Police 270.00 DUI & drug screenings: Police 656.00 926.00 127898 11120/2008 000101 APPLE ONE INC temp help ppe 1111: Ortiz, V 655.20 655.20 127899 1112012008 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY staff uniforms: TCSD 411.48 411.48 127900 11/20/2008 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN Membership: 12428679 JH 47.00 47.00 CALIF 127901 11120/2008 012557 BARRETO, LORENA refund: security dep CRC 1111 150.00 150.00 127902 11120/2008 010354 BATTERIES PLUS #316 misc supplies: Theater 96.20 misc supplies: Theater 135.77 231.97 127903 11120/2008 012559 BELL, MELISSA refund: security dep CRC 1111 150.00 150.00 127904 11120/2008 012075 BYRD, CRYSTAL Refund: All Star Cheer- Hailey 35.00 35.00 127905 1112012008 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials 1,330.46 PW patch truck materials 243.35 1,573.81 127906 11120/2008 012564 CALIFORNIA NEON PRODUCTS refund: permit electrical fee 76.00 76.00 127907 11120/2008 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks rental/refill:TCSD 42.96 42.96 127908 11120/2008 009815 CARD QUEST INC ID Card Printer Ribbon: CRC 190.79 190.79 127909 11120/2008 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC Oct Claim adjuster services 1,131.41 1,131.41 127910 11120/2008 010434 CATERERS CAFE refreshments:Team Pace mtg 1018 91.55 refresh ments:S.Mgta Annex Mtg 194.99 286.54 Page:1 apChkLst 11120/2008 2:21:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127911 11120/2008 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION Oct online dbase subsc:Police 167.90 167.90 127912 11120/2008 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel: Police 2,449.51 2,449.51 127913 11120/2008 004609 CINTAS DOCUMENT Oct document shred svcs: Police 32.50 32.50 MANAGEMENT 127914 11120/2008 005417 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY First aid supplies: PW Maint 344.01 First aid supplies: PW Maint 107.08 451.09 127915 11120/2008 000912 CITY CLERKS ASSN OF CALIF 08109 mb:Jones, Ballreich, Flores 350.00 350.00 127916 11120/2008 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET Repair:PW Traffic Bucket Truck 100.00 Repair:PW Traffic Bucket Truck 2,282.92 Radio equipment: PW Maint 240.29 Radio equipment: PW Maint 407.50 veh radio docking stations: B&S 9,991.89 13,022.60 127917 11120/2008 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC Computer equip: Info Sys 1,724.00 Laserjet Printer: Info Sys 495.00 2,219.00 127918 11120/2008 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL maintenance supplies: Theater 98.59 DIST. electrical supplies: TCSD Parks 119.71 218.30 127919 11120/2008 011692 CONVERGINT TECHNOLOGIES, Cabling Svcs: Info Sys 1,025.00 1,025.00 LP 127920 1112012008 012293 CORNER SQUARE GROUP site rental: teen dance 1118 700.00 700.00 127921 11120/2008 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE misc supplies: Theater 137.23 misc supplies:TCSD Camp Fire Ngt 71.32 misc supplies: Info Sys 52.83 vehicle maint supplies: Stn 84 215.42 476.80 127922 11120/2008 004524 CRAFCO INC-ABSOLUTE Asphalt patching material:PW 1,697.06 1,697.06 ASPHALT 127923 11120/2008 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC HVAC maint: Old Town 450.00 450.00 INC 127924 11120/2008 001393 DATA TICKET INC Oct parking citation svcs: Police 2,461.99 2,461.99 127925 11120/2008 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES Nov-Dec Federal Lobbyist svc:CM 7,000.00 7,000.00 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 11120/2008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127926 11120/2008 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Nov portable toilet svc:Rdhwk Pk 55.78 SRVCS Nov portable toilet svc:Vail Rch Pk 55.78 Nov portable toilet svc:Veterans Pk 55.78 Nov portable toilet svc:Lng Cyn Pk 55.78 Nov portable toilet svc:Riverton Pk 55.78 278.90 127927 11120/2008 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS Recognition Mugs: HR 52.37 52.37 INC 127928 11120/2008 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER Nov 95366-02 Deigo Dr Ldscp 132.01 132.01 DIST 127929 11120/2008 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA, TCSD Instructor Earnings 616.00 AILEEN TCSD Instructor Earnings 308.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 196.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 280.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 224.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 392.00 2,016.00 127930 11120/2008 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY Nov State Lobbyist svcs: CM 3,500.00 3,500.00 LLC 127931 11/20/2008 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Sept CEQA Cnslt Svcs: Planning 412.00 412.00 ASSOC. 127932 11120/2008 003665 EXCEL COMMERCIAL Oct long distance phone svcs 53.23 53.23 127933 11120/2008 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING Novjanitorial svcs:PD Mail Strfnt 410.00 410.00 CONTRACTORS 127934 11120/2008 012369 FIT LIFE 1 TCSD Instructor Earnings 272.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 272.00 544.00 127935 11120/2008 011466 FRAZIER, VIRGINIA Presentation:Old Town ESG 1118 250.00 250.00 127936 11120/2008 011967 FULL VALUE ENTERTAINMENT sttlmnt: Battle of the Bands 357.00 357.00 127937 11120/2008 001937 GALLS INC uniforms: Police Volunteers 7.50 uniforms: Police Volunteers 10.00 17.50 127938 11120/2008 012066 GEOCON INLAND EMPIRE INC Sept Geotech Svcs:Pchga Pkwy 21,821.50 21,821.50 127939 11120/2008 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC sttlmnt: Instruments & Voices 679.06 679.06 SOCIETY Page:3 apChkLst 11120/2008 2:21:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127940 11/20/2008 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS Video Prod Svcs:Yth Job Fair 2,100.00 2,100.00 127941 11120/2008 012521 HALL, JR., JOHN Presentation:Old Town ESG 1118 250.00 250.00 127942 11120/2008 011625 HOLTS, ROBERT sttlmnt: 11116 event 2,596.80 2,596.80 127943 11/20/2008 001517 HORIZON HEALTH Nov Emp Assistance Pgrm: HR 875.60 875.60 127944 11120/2008 004525 HUMANSCALE CORPORATION Ergonomic equip:Cashier Office 457.74 457.74 127945 11120/2008 011342 1 A C ENGINEERING INC. Oct Const:Murrieta Creek Trail 94,657.26 94,657.26 127946 11/20/2008 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY pool sanitizing chemicals:CRCffES 680.55 680.55 INC 127947 11120/2008 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE Oct tape storage: CC/Records 502.50 502.50 127948 11120/2008 004884 J & W REDWOOD LUMBER CO Lumber Supplies: PW Maint 22.41 22.41 INC 127949 11120/2008 012295 JAMESON MANAGEMENT INC rollup door repair: CRC 930.07 930.07 127950 11120/2008 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Glass Svcs: Police 1,800.94 1,800.94 127951 11120/2008 000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC Hardware supplies: PW Maint 106.50 106.50 127952 11120/2008 012134 LEE, ANTHONY refund: "Certain Prey" 24.95 24.95 127953 11120/2008 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC medical supplies: Paramedics 1,838.30 1,838.30 127954 11120/2008 002634 LITELINES INC Park Light Pole: Sam Hicks Park 17,838.50 17,838.50 127955 11120/2008 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS misc street signs: PW Maint 787.22 787.22 127956 11120/2008 004141 MAINTEX INC Custodial Supplies: TCSD Parks 503.95 custodial equip maint: TCSD 52.01 555.96 127957 11120/2008 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC credit:High Country magazine -323.25 printing/High Country magazine:tcsd 4,670.96 4,347.71 Page-.4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 11120/2008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127958 11/20/2008 011179 MC MILLIN REDHAWK LLC TCSD Instructor Earnings 630.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 560.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 196.00 1,386.00 127959 11120/2008 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS INC. reimb expenses:E.S.G. event 91.58 91.58 127960 11120/2008 005684 MEREDITH, MARILYN Presentation:ESG event 1118 250.00 250.00 127961 11120/2008 011440 MILLMORE'S WAX CREW Mobile car wash: PW 75.00 Mobile car wash: PW 125.00 200.00 127962 11120/2008 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS business cards:police 213.90 213.90 127963 11120/2008 001892 MOBILE MODULAR Nov Modular bldg rental:TCC1OAC 832.41 832.41 127964 11120/2008 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEER S 7127-8123108 Consulting Srvc:Fv Pkwy 12,006.14 12,006.14 127965 11120/2008 005575 NATIONAL MULT. SCLEROSIS refund:room rental/library 63.00 63.00 SOC. 127966 11/20/2008 009337 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC 8129-1012108 eng dsgn:ped bridge 863.80 863.80 127967 11120/2008 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Oct recruitment ads: Human Resources 1,697.85 Oct advertising:theater 972.68 Oct public ntc ads: City Clerk/Pin 555.74 3,226.27 127968 1112012008 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Oct newspapersubscr:mpsc 29.90 29.90 127969 11120/2008 010289 NUMARA SOFTWARE INC Track It Software Maint: Info Sys 3,961.25 3,961.25 127970 11120/2008 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:tcc 10.44 10.44 DIV Pagea apChkLst 11120/2008 2:21:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127971 11120/2008 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE vehicle repairlmaint: TCSD 151.16 vehicle maintlrepair: TCSD 129.39 vehicle maintlrepair: TCSD 347.29 vehicle maintlrepair: Code Enf 36.27 vehicle repairlmaint: PW Traffic 79.37 vehicle repair/maint: PW CIP 55.00 vehicle repair/maint: PW CIP 91.27 vehicle repairlmaint: PW Maint 1,466.03 vehicle repairlmaint: PW Maint 87.50 vehicle repairlmaint: PW Maint 55.00 vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint 75.00 vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint 79.37 vehiclerepair/maint: PWMaint 1,110.15 vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint 1,500.25 vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint 36.27 5,299.32 127972 11120/2008 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Misc supplies:Holiday Craft Workshop 149.80 149.80 INC 127973 11120/2008 009712 P S JOBS LLC Recruitment Ad:Asst Fin.Director 119.00 119.00 127974 11120/2008 002498 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC Sep geotech srvcs:murr creek trails 1,890.00 1,890.00 127975 11120/2008 012563 PETTITT, ANGELA refund:sec.deposit/crc 1112108 150.00 150.00 127976 11120/2008 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 206.58 206.58 127977 11120/2008 011660 PLANNET CONSULTING Oct cnslt svcs: Civic Cntr Plan 92.33 92.33 127978 11120/2008 000253 POSTMASTER Oct express maillpostal svcs:City 86.33 86.33 127979 11120/2008 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY credit: cleaning chg 3x10 mat -3.50 Oct uniform svcs: TCSD/PW 1,342.06 1,338.56 127980 11120/2008 009623 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK PARMA mbrshp:Cardenas, Robert 100.00 100.00 MANAGERS 127981 11120/2008 002612 RADIO SHACK INC misc software supplies: Library 69.65 69.65 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 11120/2008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127982 11/20/2008 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Oct Various Water Meters 545.97 Nov Various Water Meters 449.99 Various Water Meters 18,856.39 Oct 01-06-99000-14 Pujol St 7.32 Various Water Meters 344.57 20,204.24 127983 11120/2008 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR WASH Oct Car Washes: City Dept 262.50 262.50 127984 11120/2008 002110 RENTAL SERVICE Equip rental: PW Maint 83.10 83.10 CORPORATION 127985 11120/2008 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON Sep 2008 legal services 107,860.01 107,860.01 127986 11120/2008 006483 RICHARDS, TYREOSHA I. TCSD Instructor Earnings 462.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 49.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 24.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 252.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 49.00 836.50 127987 11120/2008 012148 RICHARDSON TECHNOLOGIES HVAC repair & maint: CRC 120.00 INC HVAC repair & maint: TV Museum 232.00 HVAC repair & maint: Harveston Pk 120.00 HVAC repair & maint: PBSP 185.00 657.00 127988 11120/2008 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW STN Fall Rod Run patrol svcs 10/10-11 19,643.38 Race for the Cure patrol svcs 10119/08 6,465.75 26,109.13 127989 11120/2008 011101 RIVERSIDE LAND Oct Consulting Srvcs:Open Space 1,238.40 1,238.40 CONSERVANCY 127990 11120/2008 005329 SAFE ALTERNATIVE FOR Council Community Srvc Grant Funding 500.00 500.00 EVERYONE 127991 11120/2008 012562 SARNOFF INFORMATION TECHN. refund:room rental library 75.00 75.00 INC 127992 11120/2008 012560 SCHLICHTER, ROSE refund:"The Peddler's Gift" 15.99 15.99 127993 11120/2008 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD Instructor Earnings 252.00 252.00 127994 11120/2008 010089 SECURITAS SECURITY SRVCS Oct security srvcs:Harveston Lake 3,307.50 USA Oct security srvcs:Redhawk Dog Park 1,890.00 5,197.50 127995 11120/2008 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC sttlmnt: Drew Simpson Quartet 273.00 273.00 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 11120/2008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 127996 11/20/2008 012561 SHINDLEDECKER, LORENA refund:Cartooning/Pencil Portrait 5.00 5.00 127997 11120/2008 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW "waste pickup" banner patch/tcsd 48.90 48.90 127998 11120/2008 004460 SILVERADO BLUEGRASS BAND Entertainment : ESG event 1117 500.00 500.00 127999 11/20/2008 000645 SMART & FINAL INC Misc supplies:teen dance 1118108 92.86 Misc supplies:theater 100.52 193.38 128000 11/20/2008 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Nov 2-28-171-2620 Police Mall Stn 397.78 Nov 2-01-202-7603 arterial st lights 25,519.81 Nov 2-01-202-7330 various mtrs 69,750.47 Nov 2-02-351-5281 CRC 4,517.71 Oct 2-00-397-5059 various mtrs 12,374.53 Oct 2-10-331-2153 TCC 1,043.35 Nov 2-30-608-9384 Harveston Dr 321.03 Nov 2-26-887-0789 various mtrs 1,481.30 Nov 2-28-397-1315 Redhawk Pkwy 18.65 Nov 2-27-560-0625 Deerhollow Way 4,294.11 Nov 2-30-296-9522 Rancho Vista Rd 1,248.30 120,967.04 128001 11120/2008 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Nov 015 575 0195 2 Fire stn 92 156.66 156.66 128002 11/20/2008 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 08109 Emissions Fee 109.00 08109 Ann'I Op Fees F91588 293.21 402.21 128003 11120/2008 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL pest control:Temecula Duck Pond 84.00 INC pest control: M arg arita/Pau b a Rd 94.00 pest control:The Villages 94.00 pest control:Temeku Hills Park 94.00 pest control:RRSP 188.00 pest control:Stn 84 80.00 634.00 128004 11120/2008 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC rfrshmnts:skaters challenge 1118 85.18 rfrshmnts:teen youth council 1114 60.08 145.26 128005 11120/2008 009805 STANDARD PACIFIC OF INLAND refund: permit wall fee 23.00 23.00 128006 11120/2008 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS Oct transcription srvcs:Police 1,061.92 1,061.92 TRANSCRIPTION 128007 11120/2008 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Misc supplies:csd teen room 250.00 Misc supplies:csd camp fire night 102.14 352.14 Page:B apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 11120/2008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 128008 11/20/2008 009500 TEMEC ELECTRONICS, INC Misc equip & tools: IS/PW 175.49 175.49 128009 11120/2008 008292 TEMECULA DIESEL AUTO & Vehicle repairlmaint:PWTrucks 448.78 448.78 TRUCK 128010 11120/2008 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Sunshine Fund/Theater Event 523.45 523.45 128011 11/20/2008 012558 TEMECULA HILLS CHRISTIAN refund:sec.depositlrental crc 1217108 709.00 709.00 128012 11120/2008 009194 TEMECULA VALLEY NEWS Nov advertising:theater 286.40 286.40 128013 11120/2008 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Oct locksmith svcs: TCSD Parks 26.83 26.83 CENTR 128014 11120/2008 012399 TIMBERWOLFF CONSTRUCTION refund:permit fees/40758 A Wnchstr Rd 696.72 696.72 128015 11120/2008 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE INC street traffic painting: PW Maint 2,643.31 2,643.31 128016 11120/2008 012367 TRI STATE HOSPITAL SUPPLY Medical Supplies: Paramedics 113.00 113.00 CORP 128017 11120/2008 010276 TW TELECOM Nov high speed internet Fire stn 92 41.95 Nov high speed internet City Hall 188.13 230.08 128018 11120/2008 004759 TWIN GRAPHICS City Veh Graphics: Police Units 565.69 565.69 128019 11/20/2008 010169 UNITED TOWING SERVICE, INC command post towing srvcs:Police 250.00 250.00 128020 11120/2008 004261 VERIZON Novxxx-1341 Theater 415.62 Novxxx-5072 general usage 4,858.23 Novxxx-5473 Moraga Rd 33.54 Novxxx-8573 general usage 33.54 Novxxx-3143 PD Overland Office 37.53 Nov xxx-3910 1 st St Irrigation 36.55 Nov xxx-1941 PTA CD TTACSD 136.58 Nov xxx-0682 Civic Center Camera 91.48 Nov xxx-23721Mf Crk Irrg Cntrl 33.54 Novxxx-6812 General usage 87.94 Novxxx-7562 irrigation controller 35.48 5,800.03 128021 1112012008 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Nov long distance phone Svcs 991.85 991.85 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 11120/2008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid 128022 11/20/2008 009101 VISION ONE INC Oct ticketing software license:theater 1,175.20 128023 11120/2008 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC tree trimming svcs: TCSD Parks 1,988.00 128024 11120/2008 010193 WOOLSTENHULME, LUCIA TCSD Instructor Earnings 95.90 128025 11/20!2008 003776 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION misc medical supplies: Paramedics 386.00 misc medical supplies: Paramedics 529.41 Misc medical supplies: paramedics 541.61 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Page: 10 Check Total 1,175.20 1,988.00 95.90 1,457.02 542,488.47 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 1112012008 2:21:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA 132 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 542,488.47 Page:11 ITEM NO. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 08-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS AND AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. B. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2008, to consider the proposed amendments at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to the matter. C. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-41 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. D. On November 18, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments at which time all persons interested in the proposed amendments had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters, and following receipt of all public testimony closed the hearing. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Municipal Code amendments in Long Range Planning Project Number LR08-0039, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or are described in the text of the General Plan. B. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions contained therein. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff concluded that there is no possibility that the Code amendments may have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed Development Code Amendments are minor policy changes and clarifications to Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the land use impact for a school does not change based on whether the school is public or private. Since private schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where public schools are not permitted and since public schools are permitted in certain Zoning Districts where private schools are not permitted, an Amendment is proposed to establish "Educational Institution" as the term for purposes of maintaining consistency between public and private schools in all zoning districts. Staff has further determined that all Educational Institutions, including kindergarten through grade twelve schools, and colleges and universities, shall be required to process a Conditional Use Permit which will require a site-specific review and CEQA analysis. The proposed Amendment will strengthen the City's ability to conduct a CEQA review for future Educational Institutions since certain Zoning Districts did not previously require a Conditional Use Permit analysis for Educational Institutions whereas the proposed amendment will require that no Educational Institution shall be permitted without analysis of a Conditional Use Permit, which requires a site-specific CEQA review for every application including colleges and universities where the City is the lead agency. These proposed amendments are minor clarifications of the Code and will ensure compliance with CEQA. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.34.010.E by replacing the term "Educational institution" to read as follows: ""Educational institution" means a private or public kindergarten through grade twelve school, or college or university, to give general academic instruction." Section 5. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.34.010.S by adding the term "Trade or vocational school" to be inserted alphabetically to read as follows: "Schools, trade or vocational" means a commercial establishment limited to offering specialized instruction in technical, commercial or trade skills, including but not limited to cosmetology school, mechanical school, driving school, real estate or other specialized instruction. This definition does not include a community college or university." RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 2 Section 6. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.12.030 by deleting the rows "colleges and universities", "schools, public (elementary, jr. high, high school)" and "Schools, private" in their entirety; deleting the word "(Reserved)" immediately after the subheading "E"; and adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" (for conditionally permitted) inserted into the Public/Institutional District (PI) column to read as follows: Table 17.12.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses-Public/Institutional Districts Description of Use Public/Institutional District (PI) E Educational institution C Section 7. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Religious institution, without a day care P P P C P C C center or educational institution I ~ ~ I ~ I Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Religious institution, with an educational C C C C C C - institution Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 3 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Religious institution, with a day care C C C C C C - center Section 10. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.08.030 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12)" in its entirety. Section 11. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.08.030 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" (for conditionally permitted) inserted within the NC, CC, SC, PO and BP columns and a dash (for not permitted) inserted within the HT and LI columns to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP Ll E Educational institution C C - C C C - Section 12. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.08.030 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Schools, trade or vocational - P P P P P C Section 13. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.24.040 by replacing the rows "Elementary and junior high school", "High school" and "Trade school, business school, adult education" in their entirety with new rows to read respectively as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 4 Table 17.24.040 Parking Spaces Required Description of Required Number of Spaces Use Educational Facilities Elementary and 1.5 spaces/classroom, plus 1 space/5 fixed seats in junior high school auditorium, gymnasium or similar public assembly facility (35 (kindergarten SF = 5 fixed seats) through eighth grade) High school (ninth 8 spaces/classroom through twelfth grade) Trade or vocational 2 spaces/3 people based on maximum number of students school and staff, or 1 space/35 SF of instruction GFA Section 14. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.12.050.6.3 to read as follows: "3. The height limits of this section, with the exception of corner visibility areas, shall not apply to fences constructed around recreational facilities within educational institutional properties, public parks and recreation areas, or properties with jail or detention facilities." Section 15. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.10.020.A.1.b.v to read as follows: "v. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy feet from any adjacent residence, day care center or educational institution, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures." Section 16. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.10.020.A.1.d to read as follows: "d. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred feet from any public streets or highways, day care center, educational institution, park, property line to a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site." Section 17. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.10.020.6.3 to read as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 5 "I Businesses selling alcoholic beverages and requiring a conditional use permit shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. This distance shall be measured between the main entrance of the alcohol selling business and the closest public entrance to the religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. This requirement shall not apply when the alcohol-selling business and the religious or educational institution, day care center or public park are both located within commercial or industrial zones." Section 18. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 19. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Religious institution, with an educational institution C Section 20. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Religious institution, with a day care center C Section 21. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.106 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12)" in its entirety. Section 22. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.106 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 6 "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and a dash (for use prohibited in the district) inserted into the PDO-1 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 E Educational institution - Section 23. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.106 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District -1 Description of Use PDO-1 Schools, trade or vocational - Section 24. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlav District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 25. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlav District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Religious institution, with an educational institution - RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 7 Section 26. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlav District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Religious institution, with a day care center - Section 27. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.126 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12)" in its entirety. Section 28. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.126 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" (for permitted by conditional use permit in the district) inserted into the PDO-3 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlay District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 E Educational institution C Section 29. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.126 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.126 Schedule of Permitted Uses Northwest Corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads Planned Development Overlav District - 3 Description of Use PDO-3 Schools, trade or vocational _ RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 8 Section 30. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.136B Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District - 4 Description of Use PDO-4R PDO_4V Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C - institution Section 31. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.136B Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Develonment Overlav District - 4 Description of Use PDO-4R PDO-4V° Religious institution, with an educational institution C - Section 32. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.136B Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Develoament Overlav District - 4 Description of Use PDO-4 PDO-4V° Religious institution, with a day care center C - Section 33. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.136B by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12)" in its entirety. Section 34. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.136B by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and a dash "-"(for use prohibited in the district) inserted into the PDO-4 and PDO-4V columns to read as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 9 Table 17.22.13613 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay District - 4 Description of Use PDO-4 PDO_4V6 E Educational institution - - Section 35. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1366 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.13613 Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlav District - 4 Description of Use PDO-4 PDO-4V° Schools, trade or vocational - - Section 36. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.1866 by deleting the specific rows "Schools, private", "Schools, public (elementary, jr. high, high school)" and "Colleges and universities" in their entirety. Section 37. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.1866 by deleting the word "(Reserved)" immediately after the subheading "E" and adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C"(far permitted by conditional use permit in the district) inserted into the columns entitled Area 1A & B (El), Area 2 (ER) and Area 3 (PI) to read as follows: Table 17.22.18613 Schedule of Permitted Uses Linfield Christian School Planned Development Overlay District - 7 Description of Use Area Description of Use Area 1A 2 re a Area 3 & 1B L R ) (PI) (El) E Educational institution C C C Section 38. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.1866 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 10 Table 17.22.18613 Schedule of Permitted Uses Linfield Christian School Planned Development Overlay District - 7 Description of Use Area Description of Use Area 1A Area 2 Area 3 &1B (ER) (PI) (El) Schools, trade or vocational C C C Section 39. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 40. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Development Overlav District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Religious institution, with an educational institution - Section 41. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Religious institution, with a day care center - RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 11 Section 42. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.196 by deleting the row "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12)" in its entirety. Section 43. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.196 by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and a dash (for use is prohibited in the district) inserted into the PDO-8 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 E Educational institution - Section 44. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.196 by replacing the row "Schools, business and professional" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.196 Schedule of Permitted Uses De Portola Road Planned Development Overlav District - 8 Description of Use PDO-8 Schools, trade or vocational p Section 45. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216(6) by replacing the row "Religious institution, without a daycare or private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.216(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlav District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Religious institution, without a day care center or educational C institution Section 46. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216(6) by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a private school" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 12 Table 17.22.216(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlav District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Religious institution, with an educational institution C Section 47. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216(6) by replacing the row "Religious institution, with a daycare" in its entirety with a new row to read as follows: Table 17.22.216(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlav District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Religious institution, with a day care center P Section 48. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.216(6) by deleting the specific rows "Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12)", "Colleges and universities (private and public)", "Schools, business and professional", and "Trade and vocational schools" in their entirety. Section 49. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends specific sections of Table 17.22.216(6) by adding a new row beneath the subheading "E" with "Educational institution" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "C" (for permitted by conditional use permit in the district) inserted into the PDO-10 column to read as follows: Table 17.22.216(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Development Overlay District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 E Educational institution C Section 50. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends a specific section of Table 17.22.216(6) by adding a new row beneath the subheading "S" to be inserted alphabetically with "Schools, trade or vocational" inserted into the Description of Use column and the letter "P" (for Permitted by right in the district) inserted into the PDO-10 column to read as follows: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 13 Table 17.22.216(B) Schedule of Permitted Uses Temecula Education Center Planned Develonment Overlav District - 10 Description of Use PDO-10 Schools, trade or vocational p Section 51. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 52. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 9th day of December, 2008. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 14 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 Ordinance No. 08-11 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 18th day of November, 2008, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-11 15 ITEM NO. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 08-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE FULL SERVICE HOTELS, REVISE THE INTENSITY BONUS JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS WHOSE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDS THE TARGET FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWED IN THE ZONE, ADD NEW PARKING STANDARDS FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS, AND ADD PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR TANDEM PARKING SPACES FOR FULL SERVICE HOTELS WHEN VALET SERVICE IS PROVIDED (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR08-0043) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The proposed Amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. B. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on November 5, 2008, to consider the proposed Amendments at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to the matter. C. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-48, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Amendments to Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. D. On November 25, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Amendments at which time all persons interested in the proposed Amendments had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters, and following receipt of all public testimony closed the hearing. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, in approving the proposed Municipal Code Amendments in Long Range Planning Application No. LR08-0045 hereby makes the following additional findings as required by section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to the General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-13 A. The proposed Amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or are described in the text of the General Plan. B. The proposed Amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. C. The proposed Amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions contained therein. Section 3. Environmental Findings. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed City Council Ordinance No. 08- is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. There is no possibility that the Code amendments will have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed Development Code Amendments are minor policy changes and clarifications to Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the Development Code in context to their environmental impacts and determined that there is no potential for an adverse impact on the environment. The proposed amendments do not allow for additional development to occur or allow for significant adverse changes to the physical environment. The proposed amendment will strengthen the City's ability to conduct CEQA review for the future development of full service hotels within the City since the Development Code Amendment requires the preparation of a traffic study for projects which exceed the target intensity (Floor Area Ratio). As a result, site-specific CEQA review will occur for every development application for full service hotels. The proposed amendments are minor clarifications of the Code and will ensure compliance with CEQA. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code will have a significant effect on the environment. As a result, staff has concluded that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15061 (b) (3), as it has been determined, with certainty, that there is no possibility that the Development Code Amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.08.050 (A) of the Temecula Municipal Code by replacing it in its entirety to read as follows: A. Commercial/Office/Industrial Incentives - Increases in the Floor Area Ratio. As part of the process of reviewing and approving an application for a Development Plan or Conditional Use Permit, the approval authority may consider an increase in the maximum allowable intensity as indicated in Tablel 7.08.040A. The amount of the increased intensity shall not exceed the maximum of the density range or floor area ratio stated for the specific land use designation. The requested increase R:/Ords 2008/Ords 08-13 2 may not be approved if the City's traffic engineer determines that the increased intensity would create an unmitigatable impact upon traffic circulation or would overburden any utilities serving the area. To be eligible for an increase in the floor area ratio, the applicant must meet the following: 1. A traffic impact analysis shall be prepared for the project as determined by the City's traffic engineer. 2. All projects, {with the exception of "full service hotels", for which separate justification requirements are provided below in Section 17.08.050 {3}} shall provide for FAR increase justifications from Table 17.08.050A as follows: a. Projects proposing an FAR increase of 0.01 to 0.10 shall incorporate two justifications from Category I, one justification from Category III, and one justification from Category IV of Table 17.08.050A. b. Projects proposing an FAR increase of 0.11 to 0.20 shall incorporate two justifications from Category I, one justification from Category II, one justification from Category III, and one justification from Category IV of Table 17.08.050A. C. Projects proposing an FAR increase of 0.21 to 0.30 shall incorporate two justifications from Category I, two justifications from Category II, two justifications from Category III, and two justifications from Category IV of Table 17.08.050A. d. Projects proposing an FAR increase of 0.31 or more shall incorporate two justifications from Category I, three justifications from Category II, three justifications from Category III, and three justifications from Category IV of Table 17.08.050A. 3. Full service hotel projects, must provide FAR increase justifications from Table 17.08.050 A as follows: a. Full service hotel projects proposing an FAR increase above the target FAR allowed for the zone shall incorporate one justification from Category I, one justification from Category II, one justification from Category III and one justification from Category IV, of Table 17.08.050A. RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-13 3 Table 17.08.050A Justifications for an FAR Increase Category I Category II Category III Category IV Amenities Landscape & Art Community Benefit Conservation Uses which generate Utilize LEED Provide Provide trees at significant sales tax, or (Leadership in Energy bicycle 40% 36" box, uses that generate and Environmental lockers or 40% 24" box, and transient occupancy tax Design) eligible recycled lockable 20% 15-gallon building materials (such indoor sizes with all as exterior siding, storage, street and parking roofing changing lot tree sizes at a materials, and carpet - rooms, and minimum 24-inch 20% minimum recycle showers box size at the content) time of planting The project generate Utilize LEED eligible Provide a Increase a significant number of energy efficient location for landscaped open higher paying jobs materials and design to an on-site space area (higher paying jobs are include: roofing, daycare (increase must be considered skilled and insulation, exterior facility or equal to or professional jobs that siding, shading from provide a greater than 2% provide awnings and deep location for a of the site area incomes of at least one- recessed windows, daycare for each 0.05 half the median automated sensors and provider increase in FAR) household income for the controls for lighting, city of Temecula) heating, and air conditioning, waterless urinals, low-flow toilets and faucets, and aerators and timers on faucets Provide enhanced public Provide for on-site Provide Increase facilities that are needed renewable energy parking landscaped by the city beyond (minimum of 10% of the designated setback (at least required facilities energy needs) as a park two feet mitigation impact and ride additional for measures. Examples facility each 0.05 include: the increase in FAR) provision of community meeting centers, enhanced transportation improvements, police or fire stations, and public recreation facilities R:/Ords 2008/Ords 08-13 Table 17.08.050A Justifications for an FAR Increase Category I Category II Category III Category IV Amenities Landscape & Art Community Benefit Conservation Utilize "green roof' Provide a Provide an on- technology landscaped site public art courtyard feature of equal open to a or greater value public street than required by (minimum the city's public area equal art to 10% of ordinance and in the ground compliance with floor area) the city's public art ordinance Provide water quality mitigation in excess of minimum NPDES requirements Provide all air conditioning equipment at a SEER rating that exceeds the minimum California Building Code requirement Section 5. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends subsection 17.24.020 to add a new section 17.24.020 (F) to follow Section E, to read as follows: F. Tandem Parking/Valet Parking. Tandem parking for commercial uses may be approved provided that the tandem parking is limited to the following purposes: 1. Valet parking areas associated with a full service hotel. Tandem parking spaces associated with valet service may be counted toward meeting the minimum parking requirements for the use. 2. Valet service shall be provided to and from the main entrance of the hotel. A passenger loading and unloading zone, as approved by the city's traffic engineer shall be provided near the main entrance. 3. Availability of valet service shall be conspicuously posted inside and outside the establishment near the main entrance. RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-13 5 4. All designated valet parking area in which the automobiles are to be parked shall not be farther than 800 feet from the main entrance. Section 6. The City Council of the City of Temecula amends table 17.24.040 "Parking Spaces Required" to add a new row for "full service hotels" under the "Commercial Uses- Retail and Service" column, and by adding 1 space/guest room or suite (ancillary conference rooms, meeting rooms and ballrooms within the hotel shall be parked at 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area," under the corresponding row under the "Required Number of Spaces" column, as follows: Commercial Uses-Retail and Service Furniture stores, bulk goods, floor covering, 1 space/500 SF of GFA home improvement General retail with less than 25,000 SF-GFA 1 space/300 SF-GFA General retail with 25,000 SF or greater See shopping center Hotels and motels 1 space/guest room plus 1 space/10 rooms for guests and 2 spaces for resident manager Full Service Hotel 1 space/guest room or suite (ancillary conference rooms, meeting rooms and ballrooms within the hotel shall be parked separately at 1 s ace/300 SF GFA Laundromat 1 space/3 washing machines Plant nurseries 1 space/500 SF indoor GFA, plus 1 space/1,000 SF gross outdoor retail area Outdoor sales, including lumberyards, car 1 space/1,000 SF gross outdoor sales area, sales, salvage yards plus 1 space/300 SF of indoor sales area Restaurants Dine-in 1 space/100 SF-GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces in all cases Fast food 1 space/75 SF-GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces in all cases Shopping center (25,000 SF-GFA or 1 space/300 SF-GFA with the following greater) additions: Cinemas in shopping centers 1 space/5 seats Restaurant areas occupying greater than 1 space/100 GFA 15 percent of total shopping area GFA Section 7. The City Council of the City of Temecula adds to Section 17.34.010 "Definitions and Illustrations of Terms," a new definition for full service hotels under subsection "F" Definitions and Illustrations, to read as follows: "Full Service Hotel" means a hotel which provides lodging facilities and full service on- site restaurant facilities and meeting space, such as a ballroom; along with additional ancillary services within the facility, which may include health club/spa services, concierge services, room service, valet service, or similar hospitality related amenities, as determined by the Director of Planning. RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-13 6 Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 9. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 9t" day of December, 2008. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-13 7 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 Ordinance No. 08-13 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 25th day of November, 2008, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk RJOrds 2008/Ords 08-13 8 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM NO. 7 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT NOVEMBER 25, 2008 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:25 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No reports at this time. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 12 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the minutes of November 18, 2008. 13 Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for the Temecula Community Center Expansion Grading, Project No. PW06-05 Phase 1 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the Temecula Community Center Expansion Grading, Project No. PW06-05 as complete; 13.2 Direct the City Clerk to 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; 13.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. RAMinutes\112508 Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for the Roller Hockey Rink Dasher Board System, Project No. PW07-12 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Accept the Roller Hockey Rink Dasher Board System, Project No. PW07-12 as complete; 14.2 Direct the City Clerk to 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 months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Director Roberts seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Roberts who abstained on Item No. 12. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No report at this time. CSD GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No report at this time. CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No additional comments. CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:27 p.m., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 9, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. for a Closed Session with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] RAMinutes\112508 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM NO. 8 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 28, 2008 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:27 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments at this time. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 15 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the minutes of November 18, 2008. MOTION: Agency Member Washington moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Agency Member Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Roberts who abstained on Item No. 15. RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No reports at this time. RDA AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No reports at this time. RAMinutes1112508 RDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:28 p.m., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 9, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. for a Closed Session with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California Ron Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] RAMinutes1112508 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: December 9, 2008 SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Resolutions/Ordinances for Santa Margarita Area Annexation PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTYAND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225 AND PA07-0226) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCALAGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS TO EXTEND THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO THE TERRITORY DESCRIBED AS THE SANTA MARGARITA SPHERE EXPANSION AREA COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,443 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (PA07-0225) 3. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (PA07-0225) 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO INCORPORATE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) AS THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) 5. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION PRE-ZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) WITH ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) 6. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY ADOPTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) AND ADOPTING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FORA PRE-ZONING OF THE SANTA MARGARITAAREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) CHRONOLOGY: • January 2007: City Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study for a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation of the SMAA. • March 2007: City Council approval of a Resolution to initiate proceedings forthe annexation of the SMAA. As a result, staff began to prepare for the submission of an application and associated materials to the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation. • February 2008: Preparation and circulation of the first Draft Environmental Impact Report. • September 2008: Preparation and circulation of the Second Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address comments received on first Draft EIR. • November 2008: City of Temecula Planning Commission considered the project and Draft Environmental Impact Report at a duly noticed public hearing. The Commission recommended approval of the project and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report bythe City Council. A summary of public comments and Commission discussion is provided in the "Planning Commission Summary"section of the staff report below. • Future: Local Area Formation Commission hearing. BACKGROUND: The Santa Margarita Area Annexation (SMAA) consists of approximately 4,997 acres and is located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County border. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and in pristine condition. Over 85% (4,284 acres) of the propertywithin the SMAA boundaries has been conserved as a part of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER). The preservation of the SMER and its surroundings is an integral part of preserving and protecting the entire Santa Margarita River. This vital ecological feature is one of the last free flowing rivers in the coastal southern California region. As such, the annexation area represents a significant area of value for native wildlife, and a great variety of sensitive biological resources that are known to exist, or potentially exist, within the undeveloped portions of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. In orderto protect the SMER and to keep the vital ecosystems existing on the property intact, for both environmental and educational purposes, a buffer of land needs to be maintained around this property. The City's purpose in annexing the 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Annexation project area is founded upon a number of goals, policies and implementation programs identified in the City of Temecula General Plan which clearly indicate that the annexation of this area has been anticipated since the City's inception. The goals and polices are as follows: • Require that the City maintain and enhance the resources of the Santa Margarita River to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement (General Plan Open Space Element, page OS-2; Policy 3.7). • Recognize that the topographical features including the western escarpment, southern ridgelines, and environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should be protected from incompatible development and activities (General Plan Open Space Element, page OS-26 and 27). • Indicate that the public views to these topographical areas should be maintained, and require conservation of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process (General Plan Open Space Element, page OS-26 and 27; OS Policy 5.1). • Promote the preservation of the hillsides surrounding the community through the following actions: implement hillside grading standards to naturalize the effects of grading, require the preservation of unique natural features, encourage a broad range of architectural and site planning solutions, develop hillside development standards that considerthe site constraints in determining the location, type, and intensities of development along the western escarpment, and other surrounding hillside areas (Land Use Element Implementation Program, LU-19). • Identify the importance of the acquisition of open space, and where feasible, seek to secure permanent open space through the dedication of easement or other acquisition mechanisms (Open Space Element Implementation Program, OS-19). • Identify need for open space protection by taking steps to permanently protect critical open space (Open Space Element Implementation Program, OS-25). ANALYSIS: Prior to submitting the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation applications to LAFCO, the City of Temecula City Council must adopt a Resolution to allow staff to submit these applications. Additionally, the City Council must also adopt a Resolution to approve the General Plan Amendment, adopt an Ordinance to approve the Pre-Zoning/Zone Change for the SMAA, and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report that has been prepared for these actions. Currently 554 acres of the SMAA are located within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence boundaries, with the remaining 4,443 acres located outside the City's Sphere of Influence boundaries. The Sphere of Influence and Annexation applications, if approved by LAFCO, will ultimately incorporate the 4,997 acre project site into the City's boundaries. The initiation of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is contingent upon the approval of the annexation by LAFCO. If LAFCO allows for the annexation to occur, the existing County land use designations and County zoning designations will be changed to the City's proposed land use designations and zoning designations for the property. If the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation is approved by LAFCO the following land use designation changes will occur as a result of the City Council's approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: Santa Margarita Area Annexation Proposed and Existing Land Use and Zoning 11 Approximate Acreage** Description Existing City of Temecula Sphere of Influence Proposed Expansion City of Temecula Sphere of Influence Proposed Total Annexation Area Total Project Area 554 4,443 4,997 County of Riverside Land Use Designation -Open Space-Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) 318 3,966 4,284 .Rural Mountainous (RM) (1 du/10 acres) 236 477 713 County of Riverside Zoning -Rural Residential (RR) (1 du/0.5 acre) 529 4,350 4,879 -Residential Agricultural (RA-20) (1 du/20 acres) 24 94 118 City of Temecula Land Use Designation -Open Space (OS) 318 3,966 4,284 .Hillside Residential (HR) (1 du/10 acres) 236 477 713 City of Temecula Pre-Zoning • Conservation-Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) 318 3,966 4,284 -Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR-SM) (1 du/10 ac) 236 477 713 As noted above all acreages referenced in the table above are approximate. The numbers referenced in the table have been rounded and do not add up to the exact total acreage referenced in the "Total Proposed Annexation Area" column). General Plan Amendment Approximately 4,284 acres of land designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) under the County of Riverside's General Plan will change to Open Space (OS) under the City's General Plan land use designation. Approximately 713 acres of land designated as Rural Mountainous (RM) under the County of Riverside's General Plan will change to Hillside Residential (HR) under the City's General Plan land use designation. Zone Change Approximately 4,879 acres of land currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), and 118 acres of land currently zoned Residential Agriculture (RA) under the County of Riverside's zoning will change to Hillside Residential Santa Margarita (HR-SM) and Conservation Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) under the City's zoning designation. The proposed Zoning Amendment will follow the same boundaries as the General Plan amendment to ensure consistency between the City's General Plan land use designations and zoning designations. As such, 4,284 acres will be zoned Conservation Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM), and the remaining 713 acres will be zoned Hillside Residential Santa Margarita (HR-SM). Hillside Development Standards As a part of the proposed Pre-Zoning/Zoning Amendment, the City of Temecula proposes Hillside Development Standards to guide any development that may occur in the future within the SMAA. These standards would be added to the City's Municipal Code, but would only take effect in the annexation area after the annexation process is approved by LAFCO, and the pre-zoning takes effect. The City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element has always anticipated the implementation of these Hillside Development Standards to ensure the aesthetic quality of the hillsides surrounding the City. The General Plan indicates that the City will preserve the natural quality of the hillsides and reduce potential hazards associated with hillside development by incorporating Hillside Development Standards into the Development Code (General Plan Land Use Element, page, LU-39). The Hillside Development Standards identify requirements related to the protection of wildlife and biological resources, requires native landscaping and the protection of native plants and plant communities, requires sensitive grading techniques and MSHCP consistency to ensure context sensitive development occurs in this area. In addition to the shift in land use jurisdiction, municipal services will shift from the responsibility of the County of Riverside to the responsibility of the City of Temecula. Upon annexation, municipal services forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation propertywill be provided bythe Cityof Temecula. A Municipal Services Review (MSR) has been prepared for the project and will be submitted to LAFCO. The MSR evaluates the delivery of municipal services by the City of Temecula, upon the approval of the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation of the SMAA into the City's boundaries. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The proposed project and Draft EIR was considered bythe Planning Commission on November 19, 2008. At this meeting the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project and certify the Final EIR. There were 45 speakers on the items; 21 who spoke in support of the project and 21 who spoke in opposition of the project. Three speakers were neutral. Those who spoke in support of the project identified the following reasons for support: concern about loss of open space, concern about poor air quality and health concerns, concerns about traffic and noise related to the potential quarry operation. Many of the individuals who spoke in support of the project identified their desire to maintain open space and the integrity of the hillsides surrounding Temecula. They also indicated that they have concerns with health issues and negative air quality impacts related to a potential quarry operation. Two Sierra Club representatives spoke in support of the project. They discussed their hopes to develop a trail system along the Santa Margarita River. They also indicated that they had met with the County and the County indicated that a trail system is not a priority. The speakers indicated that this was concerning to them. They also indicated that trails have always been a high priority of the City of Temecula. One property owner who lives in the annexation area indicated that he believes that the Citywill provide a better level of service than the County because the County is far removed from the property. A number of speakers identified their affiliation with SOS Hills, Save our Southwest Riverside County (SSRT), URGE, and Save Walker Basin. Many of these individuals expressed concerns related to the loss of open space, and concerns with potential negative impacts to open space if the City does not have land use jurisdiction in this area. Many of the group members indicated that they have a long history of being involved with the preservation of open space around in and around the Temecula Valley. Dr. Matt Rahn, Director of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve also spoke in favor of the annexation based upon 45 years of on-going scientific study that takes place on the reserve. He also emphasized that the SMER is the last piece of pristine untouched coastal/inland habitat in the greater Southern California region, and thatthis property contains the last wildlife migration corridor between the Palomar Mountains, Santa Ana Mountains and San Jacinto Mountain. This is the only remaining wildlife linkage in Southern California. Two other speakers also made this comment. Many of those who spoke in opposition to the project were concerned with the aggregate shortage in the region and indicated that the quarry operation will result in a number of jobs which are needed in the area. Many of these speakers identified themselves as those that work for Granite Construction, Caltrans, work in the construction or building industry, or represent associated labor unions. Many of these speakers discussed that that the quarry in this location will reduce truck miles traveled because itwould serve an underserved area in need of construction material. They also stated that the quarry in this location would reduce air quality impacts because quarry material would not have to be trucked or shipped as far. A few property owners within the project area also spoke in opposition to the project. They voiced concerns related to the "taking" of their property and loss of property value as a result of the change of zone and land use designations from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. These speakers also questioned the ability for their properties to be developed due to lack of water, lack of paved access to the properties and lack of available infrastructure. They also voiced concerns with the development of homes in prominent ridgelines that would have a negative impact on the hillside. A few speakers indicated that they have concerns with the Draft EIR and voiced concerns about lack of water and infrastructure available to develop the 81 units that could potentially be constructed in the SMAA. They questioned why the Draft EIR and fiscal impact study analyzed development that would most likely not be feasible. They also questioned the lack of analysis related to truck trips from having to truckwater into the area to support the proposed development. One speakerthought that that the alternatives analysis in the Draft EIR was not adequate in relation to the loss of mineral resources resulting from the Annexation. Another speaker indicated that prohibiting a mining operation in the SMAA would result in a loss of state funding which would provide fiscal support to teachers in the State. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Environmental Study was prepared and determined that the project has the potential to result in a significant impact on the environment. The preparation of an EIR was then completed. Following the circulation of the Draft EIR in April 2007, a number of comments were received by the City which spurred the preparation of a second Draft El R which was circulated in September 2008. Staff has received a number of comments for the second Draft EIR. Staff has responded to the comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Staff has adequately responded to comments and is requesting that the City Council consider and certifythe Final EIRfor the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be adopted for all of the impacts that are significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission has considered and reviewed the Draft EIR and recommend that the City Council certifythe Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. The following impacts are identified in the second Draft EIR as Potentially Significant, but their impacts can be mitigated to less than significant level: -Biology -Cultural Resources -Land Use and Planning -Public Services -Recreation -Utilities and Service Systems The following impacts are identified in the second Draft EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, and which cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level: -Air Quality -Mineral Resources -Noise -Transportation/Traffic Air Quality The proposed zoning contemplates the construction of single family homes in the HR-SM zone. Blasting is likely to be necessary to construct the homes and infrastructure. The concurrent blasting and grading activities result in the project exceeding the SCAQMD's regional air quality emissions thresholds for NOx (a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides). It is the combination of site preparation activities and blasting that would cause the NOx thresholds to exceed the allowable thresholds permitted bythe SQAQMD. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, NOx would continue to exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds in the short-term, as a result of concurrent blasting and other site preparation activities. Therefore, the impacts are significant and unavoidable. Mineral Resources The proposed project may 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. The proposed project will result in land use designations and zoning designations that do not allow mining operations. Most of the annexation area is located within an MRZ-3 zone. MRZ-3 means that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. A portion of the site (the proposed Liberty Quarry) has recently been re-designated from an MRZ-3 zone to an MRZ-2 zone by the State Geologist. An MRZ-2 zone is classified as an area for which adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or there is a high likelihood for their presence. This zone also indicates that development should be controlled. The prohibition of mining of the known aggregate resources located within the project area would result in regional demand for aggregate resources being met by other existing and planned aggregate mine facilities/deposits. No mitigation is available. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. Noise Future development in the project area may involve short-term construction, grading and blasting activities associated with development and infrastructure improvements. Construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment. Blasting could potentially substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences, within the SMER site, and impact other properties within the annexation area. Therefore, construction noise could at times result in short-term significant and unavoidable impacts. Traffic and Circulation The proposed project has the potential to allow 81 new residential dwelling units. These homes will generate approximately 775 trips daily, with 60 trips in the AM Peak hour and 82 trips in the PM Peak hour. Project-related and cumulative impacts upon Interstate 15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Boulevard intersection will be significant because the mitigation is beyond the control of the City. It is possible thatthe required improvements will not be constructed to mitigate the project's impacts to this intersection to a level of less than significant. A Statement of Overriding Consideration is proposed to be adopted for the project for all of the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts of this project have been identified in the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation in May of 2007. According to this report, the annual fiscal impacts to the City of Temecula for the proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation are as follows: A recurring surplus of approximately $186,000 is projected for the total annexation area if the project were built-out based upon recurring revenues of about $272,000 and recurring costs of about $86,000. The City of Temecula Community Services District (CSD) recurring revenues are estimated at $20,000 after the build-out of the project area. ATTACHMENTS: CC Resolution (Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report) Exhibits A-C CC Resolution (LAFCO Sphere of Influence)] Exhibit A CC Resolution (LAFCO Application) Exhibit A CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment) General Plan Amendment Resolution Attachments Exhibits 1-4 CC Ordinance (Pre-Zoning) Pre-Zoning Amendment Ordinance Attachments Exhibits 1-4 CC Ordinance (Development Code Amendment) Planning Commission November 19, 2008 Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA ANNEXATION AREA, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225 AND PA07-0226). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study of an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Expansion of approximately 4600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita River and northerly of the San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Annexation Area"). B. On March 6, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-23 to initiate proceedings for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. C. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA07-0225 (a General Plan Amendment, Zone Text Amendment and Pre-Zoning) and Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 1-15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside County boundary (collectively, the "Project"). D. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for approving the Project and making application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"). F. On April 13, 2007, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners and tenants. The NOP requested comments, and the comment period was extended through May 18, 2007. On May 10, 2007, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. G. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in a Draft EIR. H. Upon Completion of the Draft EIR dated February 15, 2008, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. 1. The Draft EIR, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code Sec. 21000 et. seq., and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et sq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"), and circulated for public review from February 22, 2008 through April 7, 2008. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City's library and made copies available for review at the City offices and the City's website. J. Based on various comments submitted regarding the Draft EIR, the City decided to revise certain aspects of the Draft EIR and provide an additional opportunity for the public and responsible agencies to comment on the environmental documentation for the Project. K. On July 28, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Revised Notice of Preparation (the "RNOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners and tenants. The RNOP requested comments, and the comment period was extended through August 26, 2008. L. In response to the RNOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft EIR. 2 M. Upon Completion of a revised Draft EIR (the "Recirculated DEIR" or "RDEIR") dated September 22, 2008, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the RDEIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. N. The RDEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public review period. Copies of the RDEIR were sent to public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the revised Draft EIR at the City's library and made copies available for review at the City offices. 0. In response to the RDEIR, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. The City responded to all written comments, including comments submitted on the initial DEIR. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR). The Final EIR consists of the RDEIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the RDEIR in response to comments. P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all comments on or before November 26, 2008. Written responses to public agency comments were provided on or before November 26, 2008. Q. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on November 19, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. R. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 08-53, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions related to the approval of the Project. S. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an environmental impact report is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 3 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A of this resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A of this resolution. W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A, of this resolution. X. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this resolution. Y. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Z. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached 4 hereto as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. AA. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the EIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. BB. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California, exercising its independent judgment after considering the administrative record, hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopts the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. Further, the City Council hereby imposes each mitigation measure as a condition on the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Project, and directs City staff shall implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2008. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE } ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Susan Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 08- was duly adopted and passed as an ordinance at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2008 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 6 EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 1. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation Project (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final EIR. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") and all of its contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the EIR, and staff and consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. II. Project Objectives. As set forth in the RDEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. To integrate the Santa Margarita Area Annexation ("SMAA") into the City's General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development within the study area. 1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. A-1 B. To preserve public lands within the SMAA in natural open space; while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands. C. To protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation in April of 2007 to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a Project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Aesthetics, (B) Agriculture Resources; (C) Biological Resources with the exception of those areas studied in the February 15, 2008 EIR; (D) Cultural Resources with the exception of those areas studied in the February 15, 2008 EIR; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Noise; (1) Population and Housing; (J) Public Services; (K) Recreation; and (L) Utilities and Service Systems. However, on July 28, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a revised Notice of Preparation and initial study ("RNOP"). Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant in the RNOP: (A) Air Quality; (B) Biological Resources; (C) Cultural Resources; (D) Land Use and Planning; (E) Mineral Resources; (F) Noise; (G) Public Services; (H) Recreation; and (1) Transportation and Planning. Thus, any impacts in the following issue areas were determined to be less than significant based on the RNOP: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Agricultural Resources; (C) Geology and Soils; (D) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (E) Hydrology and Water Quality; (F) Population and Housing; (G) Utilities and Service Systems. During the processing of the Project, comments were made regarding alleged job loses should the Project go forward, which could be construed as related to population and housing. The basis for the comments was a proposal made to the County of Riverside for a mining operation within the Project Area. Because the annexation would maintain the existing condition, which does not presently have an existing or entitled mining operation, the City Council finds that the annexation would not have an impact on the number of existing jobs within the annexation area, and thus would not have impacts related to population or housing. A-2 IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR The September 22, 2008 RDEIR found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the EIR. A. Air Quality 1. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. 2. With regard to long-term operational emissions, the Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3. The Project will not exceed the localized significant threshold (LST) for long-term operation emissions. 4. Localized carbon monoxide hot-spots would not result due to increases in localized traffic volumes. 5. The proposed Project will not result in a significant impact with regard to Greenhouse Gas Emissions either in the short-term construction phase or during the long-term operational phase of the Project, in part due to the limited amount of development that is contemplated and in part due to the energy efficiency criteria and other control measures incorporated into the Project. 6. Regional air quality emissions resulting from the construction of the proposed Project and the construction of other related cumulative projects would not significantly impact existing regional air quality levels on a cumulative basis. 7. Regional air quality emissions resulting from the operation of the proposed Project and the operation of other related cumulative projects would not significantly impact existing regional air quality levels on a cumulative basis, except a mitigation measure is provided below to ensure a less than significant impact with regard to CARB recommended siting guidelines. 8. The Project, which would generally allow only rural residential and open space land uses, will not create objectionable odors. B. Cultural Resources A-3 1. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5. C. Land Use and Planning 1. The Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of the County of Riverside or the City of Temecula (including the general plan and zoning policies and regulations) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. During the processing of the Project, certain commenters assert that the Project would result in a significant land use and planning impact. First, the baseline is the existing condition in the Project Area, and this project will not change the existing land use in the area, but would only change the governing entity and the rules that would apply to any future development. Second, the land use designations proposed by the Project are generally consistent with the Riverside County General Plan land use designations. Although commenters suggest that the proposed City zoning regulations are inconsistent with County rules, the proposed zones are consistent with the County General Plan designations, and the City finds that the limitation on mining contemplated by the City's proposed zoning does not rise to the level of a significant land use and planning impact, particularly because there are no land use entitlements for any such use in the Project area. Finally, the contemplated change with respect to mining has been fully disclosed. D. Mineral Resources 1. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, because neither the City or County general plans, or other applicable plans, delineate the resources in the area as locally important. E. Public Services and Utilities 1. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with school facilities. 2. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with park services. 3. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with library facilities. 4. The Project will not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. supply. The Project will not have significant effect with regard to water A-4 6. The Project will not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and will have not impact to available wastewater treatment facilities. 7. No impacts are anticipated that would affect the wastewater treatment provider's current capacity or existing service commitments. 8. Construction of the Project will not cause solid waste to exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the Project site. 9. Operation of the Project will not cause solid waste to exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the Project site. 10. No impact will result from the Project to federal, state or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. 11. The Project will not cause an adverse impact by requiring or resulting in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. 12. The Project will not impact electrical, gas, and communications facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. F. Transportation and Traffic 1. The Project, along with the existing traffic conditions plus ambient growth, will not cause a significant impact with regard to the deterioration in level of service (LOS) levels below the applicable threshold for the intersections as identified in Tables 3.7-13 and 3.7-14 of the RDEIR, with the exception of the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd intersection identified in Section VI below. 2. The Project, along with the existing traffic conditions plus ambient growth, will not cause a significant impact with regard to an increase in volume to capacity (v/c) ratio above the applicable threshold for all project studied roadway segments as identified in Table 3.7-15 of the RDEIR. 3. The cumulative traffic conditions (the Project plus related cumulative projects, plus existing traffic conditions along with ambient growth) will not result in a significant impact with regard to the deterioration in LOS levels below the applicable threshold for the intersections identified in Table 3.7-16 of the RDEIR with the exception of the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection as detailed in Section VI below. 4. The cumulative traffic conditions (the Project plus related cumulative projects, plus existing traffic conditions along with ambient growth) will not result in a significant impact with regard to an increase in v/c ratio above the applicable threshold for project studied roadway segments as identified in 3.7-17 of the RDEIR, A-5 with the exception of the 1-15 Roadway Segments and the Rainbow Canyon Road roadway segment as detailed in Section VI below. G. Noise 1. Traffic associated with operation of the Project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways 2. Increases in traffic from Project in combination with other development would not result in a cumulatively considerable noise increase. H. Recreation 1. The proposed Project would not 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. 2. The proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level The RDEIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, public services and utilities, recreation, and transportation and traffic. With the exception of specific impact to air quality, mineral resources, transportation and traffic, and noise, discussed in Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project. A. Air Quality Short -Term Construction Emissions Short-term emissions consist of fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction-related vehicles. Short-term impacts will also include emissions generated during construction as a result of operation of personal vehicles by construction workers, asphalt degassing, and architectural coating (painting) operations during construction. As described below, A-6 these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Rock blasting and air quality impacts thereof are discussed separately in Section VI below. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects during the short-term construction period. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's short-term construction emissions impact remains less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: General contractors shall implement a fugitive dust control program pursuant to the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2c: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction emissions should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2e: All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on and off-site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings and solvents that are consistent with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of A-7 this project (approximately 718 acres of developable land), a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification might be required, depending upon the size of the individual development proposals. Further, SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the volatile organic content (VOC) in paints and paint solvents. This rule dictates the VOC content of paints available for use during building construction, thereby reducing impacts. Short-term emissions were evaluated using the URBEMIS 2007 for Windows Version 9.2.4. The URBEMIS model however, does not calculate emissions from rock blasting. Blasting emissions were calculated separately and combined with the URBEMIS calculations. The air quality impacts of blasting could violate air quality standards, thus impacts from blasting could be significant and that issue is discussed in Section VI below. In order to prepare a worst-case analysis of potential air quality impacts for the proposed Project, the total construction of the development allowed by the proposed Project was assumed to occur concurrently, and is expected to require approximately 1 year, from February 2009 to April 2010. Development-specific information regarding the precise location and size of individual dwelling units has not been determined because to do so would require a high degree of speculation. In addition, several assumptions relevant to model input for short-term construction emission estimates are as follows: • The project site is currently mostly vacant (with the exception of a handful of existing residences that will be incorporated into the Project); therefore, demolition emissions were not analyzed. • The grading will occur concurrently in 2009. Building construction will begin one month after grading begins. • Construction will take 14 months. Painting and asphalt can occur during the same time as construction, and the resulting emissions added to the construction emissions. Table 3.1-4 in the EIR indicates that daily worst-case emissions from construction of 81 dwelling units would result in exceedances of the SCAQMD regional air quality emissions threshold for NOX, due to concurrent blasting and other site preparation activities. Site preparation activities would not result in exceedance of standards, however, inclusion of blasting would cause an exceedance of NOx (See Section VI below for a discussion of the significant and unavoidable impact caused by blasting emissions). It should also be noted that construction would likely be less intense (be spread out over a longer period of years) than predicted for this analysis, which would result in lower daily emissions and disclosed in the RDEIR. However, SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded in the short-term; therefore, the impact from emissions produced during project construction will be significant and mitigation is required. The inclusion of Mitigation Measures 3.1-2a through 3.1-2f will ensure a less than significant impact for activities other than blasting. A-8 2. Short-Term Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) In addition to the analysis of air quality impacts under the assumption that all 81 units would be constructed simultaneously as a means to disclose a worst case and most impactful scenario, the RDEIR also analyzed the potential impacts through the LST method established by SCAQMD. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard to be exceeded, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each Source Reception Area (SRA). The Project is located within SCQAMD SRAs 25 and 26. The emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NO2, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Because the LST analysis focuses on smaller scale projects, the assumptions for this analysis differ from the worst case scenario assumptions described above. Specifically, the assumptions for the LST analysis include that development of the residential structures would occur over time rather than as a single project of 81 units. Therefore, smaller areas of disturbance are assumed for the LST analysis. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant short-term LST emissions of the Project. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the short-term LST emissions of the Project remain at a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2e: All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on and off-site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings and solvents that are consistent with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. (b) Facts in Support of Findings For short-term construction emissions, it is estimated that the maximum daily area to be disturbed would be 2.5 acres a day. Under the LST analysis methodology, only the on-site emissions need to be considered. SCAQMD has developed a series of worksheets for use by projects in order to determine the pollutant emissions for LST analysis purposes. SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts for projects 5 acres or smaller. As mentioned above, it was assumed that the maximum daily area to be disturbed would be 2.5 acres a day. The closest sensitive A-9 receptors (i.e. residences) are located approximately 100 meters (328 feet) away from potential development area. In order to perform a localized analysis, an LST was assumed using a 2-acre site and a 100 meter receptor distance in SRA No. 25. As shown in Table 3.1-7 of the EIR, PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and CO localized construction emissions would not exceed California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, short-term construction emissions of non-attainment pollutants and precursors generated by project construction are below SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Potential localized impacts from construction emissions are less than SCAQMD significance thresholds, and will remain less than significant with the incorporation of the above mitigation measures. Operational Cumulative Impacts Although operational impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the operation of other projects in the region will cause a less than significant impact, in order for the Project to comply with CARB siting guidelines, the mitigation measure set forth below is proposed. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically the following mitigation measure has been imposed to ensure the Project is in conformance with CARB siting guidelines, and to ensure the less than significant operational cumulative impact remains less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Residential uses shall be located at least 500 feet from the edge of the 1-15 freeway, consistent with CARB siting recommendations. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (March 2005) provides important air quality information about certain types of facilities (e.g., freeways, refineries, rail yards, ports, etc.) that should be considered when siting sensitive land uses (e.g., residences). A key air pollutant common to these sources is particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB identifies diesel particulate matter (DPM) as both a carcinogen and long-term chronic TAC. Gasoline exhaust also results in additional TAC emissions (e.g., 1,3 butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, etc). Because living near sources of air toxics may increase both cancer and non-cancer health risks, CARB recommends that proximity be considered in the siting of new sensitive land uses. CARB's recommendations are A-10 based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposure can be reduced as much as 80 percent with recommended separation. The CARB recommends that site- specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. The recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined "buffer zones." In addition, the CARB recognizes that site-specific analysis is preferred over use of the recommended site distances, which is similar to a screening level approach. Where possible, CARB recommends a minimum separation between new sensitive land uses and existing sources. However, this is not always possible, particularly where there is an elevated health risk over large geographical areas (e.g. urbanized areas of southern California). The CARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The basis for the recommended distance is a southern California study that showed measured concentrations of vehicle-related pollutants drop dramatically within approximately 300 feet of the Interstate 710 (1-710) and Interstate 405 (1-405) freeways. Another study looked at the validity of using distance from a roadway as a measure of exposure to traffic related air pollution. This study showed that concentrations of traffic related pollutants declined by 70 percent at a distance of 500 feet. CARB concluded that these findings were also consistent with air quality modeling and risk analyses done by CARB staff. According to a visual site survey and search on the SCAQMD Facility Information (FIND) database, no permitted TAC sources are located within the advisory recommendations promulgated by the CARB. However, the actual project boundary is located within 500 feet of the 1-15 freeway. Since residential uses may potentially be located within 500 feet of the freeway, a mitigation measure will be added to ensure the project is consistent with CARB siting guidelines. As such, carcinogenic risk to on-site sensitive populations would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project may introduce residential uses near the 1-15 freeway and expose residences to TACs from the freeway. Thus, a mitigation measure has been included to ensure the project is consistent with CARB recommended siting guidelines, and to ensure the operational cumulative impact remains less than significant. B. Biological Resources 1. Impact on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Future development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species found within the area. Potential impacts to these species would include an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat). Individuals A-11 present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could potentially be killed or displaced by construction activities. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically the following mitigation measures have been imposed upon the Project, to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Future projects in the annexation area shall pay a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to support the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other requirements of the MSHCP including any Additional Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas outside the MSHCP Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plant Species Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, which covers additional survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (UrbanAA/ildiands Interface Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the fee and compliance with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and NEPA, Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b: In order to avoid violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, site- preparation activities (removal of trees and vegetation) shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) of potentially occurring native and migratory bird species. If site-preparation activities are proposed during the nesting/breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-activity field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone. If active nests are not located within the project area and appropriate buffer, construction may be conducted during the nesting/breeding season. However, if active nests are located during the pre-activity field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected (under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird nests (non-listed), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until the nest is no longer active. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project site lies within the MSHCP. The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the CDFG allows signatories of the IA to issue "Take" authorizations for the 146 species covered by the MSHCP (termed "covered species"), including state and federally listed species A-12 as well as other identified sensitive species. The "take" authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the covered species. A project that complies with the MSHCP meets federal and state endangered species requirements and meets CEQA criteria for less than significant impacts to the covered species and their habitats, per the MSHCP EIR. Because the sensitive plant and animal species located in the annexation area are MSHCP Covered Species the USFWS has determined that these species are adequately conserved through implementation of the MSHCP. (Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE088609-0 dated June 22, 2004.) Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 a will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Some of the bird species that have been documented on site are protected under the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that prohibits take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs (in particular raptor species). If it is found that any of these species has subsequently established an active nest on the project site and that the nest would be lost as a result of site- preparation, it may be in conflict with these regulations. In order to avoid violation of the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, general guidelines suggest that project related disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle (generally February 1 to August 31). Should eggs or fledglings be discovered on site, the nest cannot be disturbed (pursuant to CDFG guidelines) until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. The majority of the project area proposed for annexation will be designated "Open Space" and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 718 acres which will be designated "Hillside Residential" is limited to 1 DU/10 AC which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. As this development occurs, the loss of the portions of the project site as habitat will be an adverse, but not substantial impact on region-wide populations of these species. The proposed project's potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species will be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP and the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a and 3.2-1 b. 2. Impact on Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities The vast majority of the riparian habitat within the annexation area occurs on the SMER, and is therefore conserved. Therefore the project will not result in a substantial adverse impact to riparian habitats. Other natural communities present within the project area include chaparral, Costal Sage Scrub (CSS), and oak woodland. The majority of the area of these communities within the project area is conserved on the SMER. Impacts to the remaining areas of these communities could occur as part of the development of the 718-acre developable portion of the project area. A-13 (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically the mitigation measure requiring compliance with the MSHCP will ensure a less than significant impact Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Future projects in the annexation area shall pay a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to support the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other requirements of the MSHCP including any Additional Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas outside the MSHCP Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plant Species Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, which covers additional survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the fee and compliance with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and NEPA, Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). (b) Facts in Support of Findings Although CSS has no sensitive designation under the federal and state endangered species acts, it is considered to have a special conservation status by the CNDDB. This community is also the preferred habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), which is a federally threatened species with documented on the SMER and with the potential to occur within other areas of the project site. The portion of the Project site that will retain the potential for approximately 81 dwelling units will be developed in accordance with general plan and the proposed pre-zoning designations. The proposed General Plan policies and relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (the HR-SM zone) require any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions) include regulations to buffer the SMER from subsequent residential development, avoid interference with linkages for the species in the area, and preserve habitat for sensitive species. The city of Temecula General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures that apply to potential future activities within the project site are incorporated by reference in Section 3.2-6 of the EIR. Development within the 718- acre developable portion of the proposed annexation area will add to the overall loss of CSS caused by development within western Riverside County, however, compliance with the MSHCP will mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community A-14 identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or by the USFWS would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. 3. Impacts on Wetlands The five-mile stretch of the Santa Margarita River that flows through the project site has a diverse array of plant and animal species whose habitats are contingent on the flow of the river. The Santa Margarita River and its tributaries have the potential to be Water of the U.S. Infrastructure associated with residential development has the potential to impact Waters of the U.S. Any future projects that have the potential to impact the river or its tributaries will need to be evaluated to determine their jurisdictional status. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on wetlands. Specifically, compliance with the following regulatory requirements articulated in Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Potential impacts to Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State will be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance: • Prior to any activity in the project area subject to the Corps jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the Corps that no permit would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms and conditions of the Corps permit shall be implemented. • Prior to any activity in the project area subject to CDFG jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for construction activities. Should an agreement be required, all the terms and conditions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be implemented. • Prior to any activity in the project area subject to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that no Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) or Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms and conditions of the WDR permit or Water Quality Certification shall be implemented. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Due to the speculative nature of any development within the annexation area, the extent of impact that may occur to federally protected wetlands A-15 cannot be definitively determined. If the Waters of the U.S. are to be filled, prior to grading, the future residential projects will be required to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. By complying with regulatory requirements, including the implementation of any compensatory mitigation required by the permitting agencies, the project will have less than significant impacts to waters under federal and state jurisdiction. Therefore, potential impacts to waters under federal and state jurisdiction will be less than significant with the incorporation of the articulated mitigation measure. 4. Impact on Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species, and Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors The MSHCP identifies five geographic locations within the city and surrounding areas that contain potential regional wildlife corridor linkages, including French Valley, Lower Tucalota Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and Murrieta Creek. Upon annexation, the Santa Margarita River would then also be a potential regional wildlife corridor linkage within the city in addition to the previously identified five potential wildlife corridors. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Specifically, compliance with the Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures, will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: See Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1: The City shall require discretionary development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS, the CDFG and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-2: The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-4: The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement or gift; dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with A-16 other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-3: The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-6: The City shall continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-8: The City will require proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to minimize impacts to CSS, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-9: The City shall require proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-10: The City shall review future discretionary implementing projects with development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: a. Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished A-17 using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. b. Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented. c. Lighting: Night lighting 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 light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase. d. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. e. Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area. f. Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. g. Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The southeast corner of the Project site is located within a designated "Special Linkage Area." A-18 The MSHCP describes the special linkage area as follows: This Special Linkage Area will contribute to assembly of a portion of the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage (SAPML) for the benefit of Covered Species. Tribal coordination regarding American Indian Lands will be necessary in this area. The SAPML includes locations within and outside the MSHCP Plan Area. Features of the entire linkage area are described in the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage Conservation Design Plan Working Draft (SDSU Field Station Programs and South Coast Wildlands Project, February 2003). A working draft of the Conservation Design Plan is attached to Comment Letter X3 in Volume V, of the MSHCP. The SAPML straddles the San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the MSHCP. The SAPML provides the only remaining natural habitat connection for the coastal Santa Ana Mountains to inland ranges. There are eight (8) existing culverts that traverse 1-15 in the vicinity of the project site and the identified Special Linkage Area, that are large enough to support large mammal movement between the east and west sides of 1-15. Large mammal wildlife movement has been documented by camera monitoring stations installed by the SDSU Field Station Program. Implementation of the proposed Project could result in increased impacts to wildlife movement. The majority of the area proposed for annexation is preserved as part of the SMER and designated OS and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 718 acres which will be designated "Hillside Residential" is limited to one dwelling unit per 10 acres which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. Development within this area has the potential to impact wildlife corridors. The precise location of grading and dwelling units and driveways is speculative and therefore, the extent of the impact upon wildlife corridors cannot be determined at this time. However, compliance with the MSHCP and the conditions of the Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 3.2.6 and relevant provisions of the proposed HR-SM prezoning, which requires any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions, which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 5. Project Consistency with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan The Project is under the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and has the potential to be inconsistent with the plan unless development is consistent with the MSHCP. (a) Findings A-19 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, the Project will be required to comply with the following mitigation measures to ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a: See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 a Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b: Pursuant Western Riverside County MSHCP, within 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, future development projects in the project area shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and the results of this presence/absence survey shall be provided in writing to the City of Temecula. If it is determined 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 qualified biologist shall be required. The City of Temecula shall be consulted to determine appropriate translocation sites. Occupation of this species on the project site may result in the need to revise grading plans so that take of "active" nests is avoided or alternatively, a grading permit may be issued once the species has been actively relocated. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP establishes "Criteria Area" boundaries in order to facilitate the process by which properties are evaluated for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Criteria Area is an area significantly larger than what may be needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area, within which property will be evaluated using MSHCP Conservation Criteria. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool, which assists in determining which properties to evaluate for acquisition and conservation under the MSHCP. The Santa Margarita Area Annexation is primarily located outside of identified criteria areas. In accordance with the MSHCP, proposed projects outside of the criteria area are to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 ("Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool' guidelines), the Section 6.1.3 ("Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species" guidelines), Section 6.1.4 ("Guidelines Pertaining to the UrbanAfVildlands Interface") and the Section 6.3.2 ("Additional Survey Needs and Procedures."). Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based on their value in the conservation of MSHCP Covered Species several of which have been found or have the potential to occur on the project site. The Project site includes the Santa Margarita River and drainages tributary to the river. Although most of the sensitive riparian/riverine portion of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which will allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Future development within A-20 this area has the potential to impact riparian/riverine resources. However, potential impacts resulting from any future development of discretionary projects within the project area can be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with the MSHCP and the Temecula General Plan EIR conditions listed in Section 3.2.6. Additionally, through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, it can be determined that the Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP focuses on the protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species. One narrow endemic plant species, San Miguel savory (Satureja chandlers) has been reported in the vicinity of the Project site. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA project will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which will allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Development within this area has the potential to impact narrow endemic plant species at such time that development occurs. The precise location and extent of impact cannot be determined at this time. Additionally, the future location of narrow endemic plants cannot be determined at this time. Potential impacts resulting from any future development of discretionary projects within the Project area can be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of the listed mitigation measures. Through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, potential impacts are reduced to below the level of significance and the project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.3. Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sets forth guidelines which are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where applicable. Section 6.1.4 states that "As the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, 'hard-line' boundaries shall be established and development may occur adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Future development of discretionary projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in Edge Effects that will adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize such Edge Effects, the following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The SMAA Project site is primarily located outside of identified criteria areas. A small portion of the Project site is located within Criteria Cell 7512 along the Project's northern boundary, and the southeast corner of the Project site is located within a designated "Special Linkage Area." The majority of the Project site is located outside of designated criteria areas. The Project site is located in proximity to three subunits: Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) to the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and Pechenga Creeks) to the east and Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) also to the north. Due to the Project site's partial inclusion within an identified criteria cell and a special A-21 linkage area, future development in the Project area may need to comply with the policies set forth in Section 6.1.4. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which would allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Development within this area has the potential to require compliance with the "Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface" as described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, at such time that development requiring discretionary approval is proposed. Local policies and zoning include regulations to buffer the SMER from adverse effects of development, avoid interference with linkages for the species in the area, and preserve habitat for the common and sensitive species in the area. Through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, potential impacts are reduced to below the level of significance and the Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.4. Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP also requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in criteria areas shown on Figure 3.2-6, MSHCP - Criteria Area Species Survey Area (MSHCP Figure 6-2), Figure 3.2-7, Amphibian Species Survey Areas With Critical Area (MHHCP - Figure 6-3), Figure 3.2-8, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas With Criteria Area (MSHCP - Figure 6-4) and Figure 3.2-9, Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area (MSHCP Figure 6-5) of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) for plants and mammals, although one CASSA plant species, the threadleaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) has been observed within the project boundaries. However, the southeast portion of the project site is located within the area shown on MSHCP Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey). A portion of the Project area falls within the area for burrowing owl habitat assessments as required by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The identification of areas inhabited by burrowing owls is a goal of the Western Riverside County conservation efforts, as existing information on burrowing owl distribution is limited. Suitable habitats for the burrowing owl include non-native grassland, shrub lands and agricultural use areas, which compose much of the project site. Burrowing owls typically inhabit burrows made by mammals such as ground squirrels or badgers, and can also be found in openings of man-made structures. Focused burrow surveys are required if suitable habitat is found on site. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA project will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which would allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. The precise location of development and whether or not a development site contains occupied burrowing owl habitat cannot be determined at this time. Additionally, due to the migratory nature of the burrowing owl, there is a possibility that although burrowing owls may not be located on a particular property at any point in time, they could occupy the site prior to actual project construction. Development of A-22 future discretionary development proposals within this area may require compliance with MSHCP Section 6.3.2 through the preparation of burrowing owl habitat assessments and focused burrowing owl surveys, and compliance with the listed mitigation measures for projects that occur on the portions of the projects site where burrowing owl assessments are required. The proposed Project has the potential to have a significance impact associated with burrowing owl habitat. However with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a and Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b the Project impacts would be below a level of significance. Based upon the above analysis of consistency with the MSHCP, and implementation of the listed mitigation measures, the proposed Project is consistent with the provisions of the adopted MSHCP. For these reasons the proposed project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan. C. Cultural Resources 1. Impacts to Unknown Cultural Resources The proposed Project has the potential to impact unknown cultural resources on the portions of the Annexation area that have not been surveyed for cultural resources. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect to unknown cultural resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measures will ensure that no significant impacts occur to unknown cultural resources. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: All areas not previously assessed for cultural resources within the 718 acres to be designated as HR-SM must be assessed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of Hillside Development Plans, and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. (It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to its prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area). Should any future change in land use designation occur for areas designated by the current project as "Conservation" such areas must also be assessed for cultural resources prior to the approval of development plans and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b: During ground-disturbing activities, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes. If any find is determined to be significant, the project proponent and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation A-23 with local appropriate Tribes, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. If there is a dispute, the Lead Agency will make the final determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All significant cultural materials recovered will be relinquished the appropriate local Native Tribe for appropriate treatment. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Fifteen previous cultural resource studies were completed within the Project area. The majority of the areas to be assigned a "Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita" zoning designation, as illustrated in Figure 2-8 of the RDEIR document, have been surveyed for cultural resources. However, some parcels within the planned "Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita" areas have not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. Also, only an approximated 18 percent of the total 4,997 acres within the current project area have been previously evaluated for cultural resources. Therefore, any future development within the overall project area not previously assessed for cultural resources could result in the adverse impact to unknown cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 a and 3.3-1 b would minimize this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Impacts to Known Cultural Resources The proposed Project could adversely affect known cultural resources, including unique archaeological resources and historic resources. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect to known cultural resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measure will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, P33-14894, the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, and all sites concerning Pechanga's creation and origin should be avoided and preserved. If avoidance is not feasible, further investigation of these resources by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate local Native Tribe, will be required to determine the significance of these resources that have not been fully evaluated. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report evaluating each known cultural resource, noting the significance determination of the resource. The report will make recommendations for treatment of each resource. A Cultural Resource Treatment Plan should be developed for identified significant cultural resources, particularly the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District and sites concerning Pechanga's creation and origin, in consultation with the appropriate local Native American Tribes and a qualified A-24 archaeologist, prior to the commencement of any future development within the current project area. (b) Facts in Support of Findings A cultural resources records search and subsequent document review indicated that four previously recorded cultural resources are within portions of the Project area to be assigned a "Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita" zoning designation (CA-RIV-4284, P33-14892, P33-14893, and P33-14894). The re-zoning of the Project area could result in a significant adverse impact to known cultural resources. Likewise, the archival record search, Native American consultation, and document review determined that the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, a listed resource on both the California Registry and the National Registry is within a portion of the current Project area. The portion of the Project area that includes part of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District will be classified as "Conservation" land use and therefore, potential impact to this resource by the current Project is minimal in light of the limitations on land uses within that zone. In addition, the purpose and intent of the development standards under the proposed HR-SM zone is to protect the value of the community and the subject property of ridgelines, prominent landforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities, and other natural, biological, and scenic resources. In addition, it is the intent of development and design under the proposed HR-SM zone to preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of hillsides from the surrounding community as well as promote and encourage a variety of high quality, alternative architectural and energy efficient development designs and concepts appropriate for hillside areas by utilizing the highest quality of prescribed standards. Lastly, the proposed HR-SM zone is intended to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare and specifically protect the public and property from hazards such as seismic, geologic, and fire. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would minimize this impact to a less than significant level. 3. Impacts to Areas of Traditional Cultural Significance to Local Native American Individuals and Groups - SIB 18 The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on areas that have cultural significance to local Native American tribes. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on areas of land with cultural significance to Native American tribes. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.3-3 will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Consultation will occur with the local appropriate Native American Tribe regarding any future development to occur within the project area. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by A-25 a qualified archaeologist on behalf of the project proponent and in consultation with the appropriate local Native American Tribe. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. If agreement with the Tribes cannot be reached, the Lead Agency will determine the required treatment. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Both the Pechanga Band and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians recognize the Project area as having cultural significance. Pechanga tribal cultural traditions including oral histories, songs, and creation accounts directly refer to the project area and its immediate environs. According to SB 18, the Lead Agency is required to consult with Native American tribes to identify any Native American sacred places or geographical areas within which sacred places may be located. SB 18 likewise requires the development of appropriate treatment or management plans to ensure the protection and preservation of such sacred places. The near proximity of the Project area to a large Native American village complex`exva Temeeku, which is within the listed Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, further supports the significance of the current Project area. Specific landmarks, places, and destinations of Luiseno ancestors identified by the Pechanga Tribe as within the Project area could be impacted by future development of the Project area. However, compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, set forth above, will ensure a less than significant impact. 4. Impacts to Unidentified Human Remains The proposed Project could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen any potential impact to unidentified human remains. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.3-4 will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project proponent will contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The most likely descendant A-26 shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code 5097.98. (b) Facts in Support of Findings There is no indication that any particular site in the Project area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. Therefore, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered as a result of the proposed Project. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. However, this impact would be minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, as set forth above. 5. Paleontological Resources The proposed Project has the potential to cause a significant impact on paleontological resources. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect on paleontological resources. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.3-5 will ensure a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the project proponent for review and approval prior to implementation. Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) for the project, the project proponent shall retain Tribal monitor(s) from the appropriate local Tribe. The Tribal monitor(s) shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, including archaeological testing, and shall also have the authority to stoop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. A-27 (b) Facts in Support of Findings The Riverside County General Plan's, Paleontological Sensitivity Map (Figure OS-8) defines areas that have undetermined to low potential for finding paleontological resources. The undetermined to low rating is based upon an inventory of geologic formations known to potentially contain paleontological resources. Low potential areas encompass "lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrates as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse impact." Previous geological mapping of the proposed annexation area is located almost entirely upon a surface of Cretaceous granitic rocks, including tonalite and heterogeneous tonalite. None of these rock units has potential to contain significant fossil resources, and so these rocks are assigned low paleontological sensitivity. Based upon the records search and background research, the proposed annexation's potential to impact paleontological resources is determined to be low. It is possible that future development within parcels of the current project area to be assigned a "Hillside Residential" land use designation could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. However, with the implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-5, any potential impacts to paleontological resources will be below the level of significance. D. Public Services and Utilities 1. Fire Protection Services The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on fire protection facilities, but not to a level of significance. However, mitigation is provided for project compliance with the City Development Impact Free (DI F) program for the payment of fire mitigation fees. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that lessen the already less than significant impact on fire protection services. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.6-1 is required of the Project to comply with the City's DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Although the proposed Project's impacts upon fire services are less than significant, development in the Project area will be required to comply with City DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees. Fees collected through the development of single-family detached homes will be utilized to upgrade or develop new fire facilities and could total approximately $46,533.69 (81 d.u. @ $574.49 per single-family detached dwelling unit). A-28 (b) Facts in Support of Findings With annexation, fire protection services will be the responsibility of the City and emergency responses will be handled in the same manner as currently provided throughout the City. Fire protection services are provided under contracts between Temecula and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. The Project site will be primarily served by Station 12 (28330 Mercedes, Temecula, 92590). This station is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the project site. It is staffed with a minimum of four fire fighters. This station has one engine and one Cal Fire Type 3 engine. If the Riverside County Fire Department is called to respond to an emergency within the annexation area, the call is also routed to Cal-Fire, San Diego Unit; emergency response teams from both Station No. 12 and from Red Mountain Station, located on Mission Road in North San Diego County will respond. Upon annexation of the area, emergency responses would be handled in the same manner under a new contract between the City and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. The only difference would be payment for services would come from the City rather than the County. During the processing of the Project, concerns were raised that the City's costs of service may exceed the new revenue generated from the annexed property. This issue, however, is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue because adequate services would be provided in any event. Pursuant to the City development code, policies and standard conditions of approval, future development proposals will be assessed for the availability of fire hydrants, building code compliance for fire-resistant exterior building materials, development of fire protection zones from high fire areas, all-weather access, street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting and other security features. Additionally, water service in the area, serving residential development, will require a minimum fire flow. Chapter 15.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code sets forth the fire-flow requirements for single-family residential development. All lots of record pulling new permits or future subdivisions within the annexation area will be required to comply with these requirements. Homes served by wells will need to put in a tank system that meets the requirements. These measures will address fire and public safety issues by reducing the potential for fire damage to properties in the Project area. With the limited potential for additional dwelling units and compliance with city and state building codes and the city's established development review, and building permit procedures, the proposed Project will not require a change in existing fire protection services provided within the Project area. Therefore, the Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and will not create the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services. Project impacts upon fire services will be less than significant. However, A-29 Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is required of the Project to comply with the City's DI F for the payment of fire mitigation fees. 2. Police Facilities The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on police protection facilities, but not to a level of significance. However, mitigation is provided for project compliance with the City DIF. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that lessen the already less than significant impact on police protection services. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.6-2 is required of the Project to comply with the City's DIF. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Although the proposed project's impacts upon police services are less than significant; development within the project area will be required to pay the DIF. Fees collected through the development of single- family detached homes will be utilized to upgrade or develop new police facilities and could total approximately $19,593.90 (81 dwelling unit @ $241.90 per single-family detached dwelling unit). (b) Facts in Support of Findings The Riverside County Sheriff Department currently provides law enforcement service through a contract with the City and would continue to provide service to the Project site through an amended contract. The Southwest Station located at 30755 Auld Road, Murrieta, is the closest primary response facility to the proposed project, although, there are two storefront offices located in the city at 27540 Ynez Road, Suite J-9 and 28410 Old Town Front Street, Suite 105. The project area is almost entirely vacant land with the potential to permit approximately 81 single family dwelling units. Temecula General Plan Policy GM/PFE 3.1 requires that development does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting police services and to ensure an adequate response time for emergencies and to strive to provide one full- time officer per 1,000 residents for police (sheriff) protection services. If the project built to its maximum capacity the area would result in an estimated additional 263 persons living within the project area, which equates to the need for approximately 0.26 of an additional police officer. The Temecula Police Department employs officers at the rate of approximately 1 Officer per 930 residents. Additionally, the Temecula General Plan EIR states that the city has 107 sworn officers. At this ratio the city can absorb the additional population without the need to add an additional officer. With the limited increase in population growth and the current staffing levels, impacts to the police protection services will be less than significant. Therefore, the Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and will not A-30 create the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. However, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is required of the Project to comply with the City's DIF. During the processing of the Project, concerns were raised that the City's costs of service may exceed the new revenue generated from the annexed property. This issue, however, is economic in nature and does not raise an environmental issue because adequate services would be provided in any event. VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of air quality, mineral resources, traffic and transportation, and noise, there are instances where environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Air Quality 1. Blasting Emissions Blasting emissions of the proposed Project are significant and unavoidable because such activity exceeds the SCAQMD regional air quality threshold for NOX. (a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the El R. Specifically, although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts from blasting emissions, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Evaluation of the above table indicates that daily worst-case emissions from construction of 81 dwelling units would result in exceedances of the SCAQMD regional air quality emissions threshold for NO,, due to concurrent blasting and other site preparation activities. It is the combination of site preparation activities and blasting that would cause an exceedance of NOX. Blasting emissions are calculated outside of the URBEMIS 2007 model, but are included in the overall construction emissions inventory. Therefore, in order to assess the potential impacts resulting from blasting activities, emission factors from U.S. EPA AP-42, Chapter 13.3 were used to calculate blasting emissions. Blasting emissions cannot be mitigated, and other construction techniques would likely be ineffective given the type of soil and rock A-31 material present on the site. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation measures 3.1-2a through 3.1-2f articulated in Section V above, NOX would continue to exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds as a result of concurrent blasting and other site preparation activities. B. Mineral Resources 1. Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources of Value to the Region and Residents of the State The proposed Project will lead to the inability to mine mineral resources within the annexation area, which means that approval of the Project will result in the practical loss of availability of known mineral resources within the Project area that would be of value to the region and residents of the State. No portion of the Project area, however, is designated as an area of Statewide or Regional Significance by the State Mining and Geology Board pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 2790. Further, although mining of the material may not be permitted, the resource itself would remain in place. (a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the El R. Specifically, although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts upon mineral resources, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. Allowing mining would alleviate the impact on mineral resources, however, if mining were allowed, other significant environmental impacts would result. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The County of Riverside currently zones the majority of the project site as R-R, which allows for mining operations subject to appropriate Surface Mining and Reclamation Act related permits. The majority of the annexation area (4,284 acres) currently has a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of OS- CH; while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM, with a 10-acre minimum lot size. The proposed Project will conserve approximately 4,279 acres, including the Santa Margarita River and adjacent land that contain sensitive environmental resources by designating the property OS and through the adoption of OS-C-SM zoning. The approximately 718 acres of developable land within the project area will be designated and zoned HR-SM. These proposed zoning classifications do not allow for mining and quarry operations. Aggregate use in the Temecula and southwestern Riverside County areas has risen as population and housing has grown. It is estimated that Riverside County will have an aggregate demand of 10 to 13 million tons per year. San Diego County is estimated to have an aggregate demand of 15 to 19 million tons per year. It is estimated that existing regional aggregate production will be insufficient A-32 to meet anticipated aggregate demand in Riverside and San Diego counties. However, undeveloped aggregate resources exist throughout Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial counties. Many of these materials are of sufficient quality to be used for Portland cement concrete materials, and may be located in areas that are not as environmentally sensitive as the Project site. Nonetheless, the amount of available aggregate resources is unknown at this time, cannot be accounted for with respect to this Project, and is beyond the scope of the EIR for the Project. In addition to development of resources existing in the southern California region, imported aggregate from Canada and Mexico likely will continue to be supplied to the region at comparable costs to the current production. Although currently available supplies may be insufficient to meet projected demand; factoring in the undeveloped resources that exist in the region, there is not shortage of aggregate resource even if there is currently less production than demand. Although most of the annexation area is classified as a MRZ-3 area (a State Mining and Geology Department classification meaning that available geologic information indicates that mineral resources are likely to exist, but the significance of the deposit is undetermined) a portion of the site (Liberty Quarry) has recently been classified as a MRZ-2a zone (a State Mining and Geology Department classification meaning that adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development that could limit future access to the resource should be controlled). However, no part of the Project area has been officially designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as of statewide or regional significance pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2790. The proposed Project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations that do not allow mining operations being placed upon the project site. Prohibition of mining of the known aggregate resources located within the Project area would result in regional demand for aggregate resources being met from other sources such as existing deposits and planned aggregate mine facilities. The inability to mine mineral resources within the annexation area as a result of the proposed Project would result in the loss access to known mineral resources within the Project area that would be of value to the region. Although other sources are available, and although there is currently no resource production existing or permitted in the Project Area, impacts to mineral resources are nonetheless considered to be significant. During the processing of the Project, various commenters suggested that the RDEIR analyze alternate locations for mining and the potential impacts of such alternate locations compared to impacts of a quarry in the Project area. However, the Project under consideration is annexation of the Project area and establishing the land use regulations that would be applicable upon annexation. The Project does not propose a quarry. If the Project was a proposal to develop a quarry, it might be appropriate to study alternate locations, but that is not the Project under consideration. As discussed below, and in the RDEIR, a range of alternatives to the Project was considered, including two alternatives that would involve the potential for mining activities. The City Council finds that analysis of the various other locations that might be available for mining to provide materials similar to those expected to be A-33 produced from the mining operation currently proposed in the Project Area is 1) beyond the scope of the analysis for this Project because it would require assessment of the where in the region similar materials might be present, and 2) would require undue speculation as to when and where other such mining facilities might be approved, permitted, and put into operation. Further, commenters suggest that alternate sites for mining operations could result in traffic or air quality impacts due to transport operations. Analysis of such impacts also 1) are beyond the scope of this Project, which is not proposing a quarry and which would not change the fact that there is no quarry presently permitted or in operations, and 2) would require a high degree of speculation as to where the sources may be, where the construction site using the material are located, the economic ramifications of multiple producers in a market area and other factors. Finally, such comments are premised on the faulty assumption that mining is already authorized in the Project Area, which is not the case. While the mining use can be permitted under County land use regulations, a discretionary approval must first be obtained, for which environmental review must be completed. That has not occurred. Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts upon mineral resources. No feasible measures were identified that could reduce the impacts from loss of mineral resources to below the level of significance. C. Transportation and Traffic With regard to traffic, there is one intersection where the Project will cause both a direct significant impact as well as a cumulative significant impact. 1. Direct Impact - 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard (A.M. Peak Hour: LOS F) The addition of the Project will cause the intersection of 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard, which during the AM peak hour will operate at LOS E under the existing condition and at LOS F during the existing plus project condition, to worsen to LOS F. Because the Project adds more than 5 vehicles to the critical movement at this intersection, a direct project impact results. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 will be imposed to alleviate this impact. However, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency (the County of San Diego) and not the agency making the finding (the City of Temecula). Specifically, although Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such changes or alterations in the traffic control at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection A-34 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Temecula. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the El R. Specifically, without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is infeasible. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: This impact can be mitigated by installing stop signs on all approaches at this intersection. Although this mitigation measure, is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies including California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San Diego County. Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that the improvements will be made in a timely manner to mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the improvements, the Project's cumulative impacts on this intersection are significant and unavoidable. (b) Facts in Support of Findings 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard is located in San Diego County. This is an unsignalized intersection. Therefore, a significant impact occurs if the project adds more than 20 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS E or more than 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS F, according to the San Diego County thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. Tables 3.7-13 and 3.7-14 in the EIR also document the intersection operations of these facilities. As shown in this table, the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection operates at LOS E or LOS F. A significant impact occurs at this location since buildout of the development that could be permitted in the Project Area would add more than 5 vehicles to the critical movement at this location. Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that the Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 will mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the improvements, the project's impacts on this intersection is significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative Impact - 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard (A.M. Peak Hour: LOS F) The Project in conjunction with cumulative projects in the region will cause a significant cumulative impact at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard intersection. A-35 (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant cumulative environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 will be imposed to alleviate this impact. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Specifically, although Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such changes or alterations in the traffic control at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Temecula. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the El R. Specifically, without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation Measure 3.7-2, which is the same mitigation required by measure 3.7-1, is infeasible. Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: See Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. (b) Facts in Support of Findings 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Boulevard is located in San Diego County. This is an unsignalized intersection. A significant impact occurs if the project adds more than 20 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS E or more than 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS F, according to San Diego County thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. As shown in Table 3.7-16 of the El R, the intersection of 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd is projected to operate at LOS F and the project adds more than 5 trips to a critical movement at this intersection. Therefore, a significant impact at this intersection occurs under the Cumulative Scenario, which includes the Project and the additional traffic expected from the list of cumulative projects set forth in Table 3.7-10 of the RDEIR. Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 will mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the improvements, the Project's cumulative impacts on this intersection are significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Impact - Roadway Segments on 1-15 The Project contributes to traffic on roadway segments of Interstate-15 and is projected to exceed the target LOS. A-36 (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the Rainbow Valley roadway segment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 will be imposed to alleviate this impact. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Specifically, although Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such changes or alterations in the traffic control at the Interstate-15 roadway segment are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Temecula. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the El R. Specifically, without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 is infeasible. Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Based on our review of available documents, no plans currently exist to widen 1-15, which would be required to improve operations. Therefore, it would not be feasible to mitigate the project impacts on the segments of I- 15. Additionally, if there were feasible mitigation measures, they would require the concurrence of both Caltrans and Riverside County to be implemented. As such, the City of Temecula would not be able to guarantee the implementation of any mitigation measures, even if any mitigation measures were feasible. (b) Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.7-17 of the RDEIR, all of the Riverside County roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, which exceeds the target LOS. For the segments of 1-15, it is projected that these segments would operate substantially above the anticipated capacity with V/C ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.41. According to available information, 1-15 is not planned to be widened at this time. As this roadway segment exceeds the target LOS and no mitigation is available, a significant impact would occur on the segments of 1-15 located in Riverside County. Even if implementation of mitigation requiring widening or other capacity enhancements of 1-15 were found feasible, the widening of Interstate 15 would require the concurrence of both Caltrans and Riverside County to be implemented. Thus, any widening is outside of the City of Temecula's jurisdiction. Because no feasible mitigation is within the City's jurisdiction to implement, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. A-37 4. Cumulative Impact - Riverside County Street Segments - Rainbow Valley Roadway Segment and 1-15 The Project contributes to traffic to Rainbow Canyon Road and 1-15 traffic levels, which is projected to exceed the target LOS. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the Rainbow Valley roadway segment and 1-15. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 3.7-3 and 3.7-4 will be imposed to alleviate this impact. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Specifically, although Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Therefore, such changes or alterations in the traffic control at the Rainbow Valley roadway segment are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Temecula. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the El R. Specifically, without cooperation and approval with Caltrans and San Diego County, Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 is infeasible. Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: The Riverside County General Plan anticipates that Rainbow Canyon Road would be widened from two to four lanes at some point in the future with the Build-out of the Riverside County General Plan land uses. With this widening the roadway would operate at an acceptable LOS. As this widening is anticipated to occur by the Riverside County General Plan, it can be considered to be a feasible mitigation measure. There are several barriers to the timely implementation of this mitigation measure; however. First, this improvement is not funded by the regional traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear to be available funding for this improvement based on our review of available documents. While the Project could make a contribution to the widening of this improvement, there is no guarantee that the contribution would ensure the timely implementation of the widening. In addition, this improvement would be partially implemented by Riverside County instead of entirely by the city of Temecula. As such, the city of Temecula would not be able to guarantee that this mitigation measure is implemented in a timely fashion. [Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 is also included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as 3.7-5 and 3.7-6, but is not duplicated here.] (b) Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.7-17 of the EIR, all of the Riverside County roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, which exceeds the target LOS. A-38 Rainbow Canyon Road is projected to operate at LOS F. According to Riverside County, a significant impact occurs in the cumulative scenario on a roadway segment if the following condition is met: when cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through the TUMF network (or other funding mechanism), project conditions of approval, or other implementation mechanisms. While the Riverside County General Plan anticipates that this roadway could be widened to four lanes, it is unknown at this time whether this roadway widening would be completed in a timely fashion. Additionally, this roadway is not included in the regional TUMF, which further indicates that this widening is unlikely to occur within the timeframe of the Cumulative Scenario. Based on these indications, it can be concluded that there would be significant impacts at these locations. The necessary mitigation measures are not feasible and are outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. D. Noise 1. Project Construction Project construction has the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of the applicable City of Temecula Noise Standards and the County of San Diego Noise Standards. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise impact. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 a through 3.8-1 f will be imposed to alleviate this impact. No other feasible mitigation measures exist to further reduce this potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in the San Diego County Code, and the City noise ordinance, that no construction may occur during the following hours: A. 6:30 pm - 7:00 am, Monday through Saturday. B. At any time on Sunday or any legal holiday. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. A-39 Mitigation Measure 3.8-1d: The applicant shall ensure that all signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, a contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the City Building and Safety Department project manager, in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at the exterior of the existing residences or at the SMER site. In that event the City shall have the right to require limiting the number of noisy pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible level. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1e: Implement "quiet" pile-driving technology (such as pre drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1f: A blasting plan for construction must be prepared and followed that includes the following: 1) The Blasting Plan must meet the approval of the appropriate City department with jurisdiction over the project and blasting. 2) Primary components of the Blasting Plan shall include: a) Identification of blast officer; b) Scaled drawings of blast locations, and neighboring buildings, streets, or other locations which could be inhabited; c) Blasting notification procedures, lead times, and list of those notified. Public notification to potentially affected vibration receptors describing the expected extent and duration of the blasting; d) Description of means for transportation and on-site storage and security of explosives in accordance with local, state and federal regulations; e) Minimum acceptable weather conditions for blasting and safety provisions for potential stray current (if electric detonation); f) Traffic control standards and traffic safety measures (if applicable); g) Require personal protective equipment; h) Minimum standoff distances and description of blast impact zones and procedures for clearing and controlling access to blast danger; i) Procedures for handling, setting, wiring, and firing explosives. Also procedures for handling misfires per Federal code; A-40 j) Type and quantity of explosives and description of detonation device. Sequence and schedule of blasting rounds, including general method of excavation, lift heights, etc.; k) Methods of matting or covering of blast area to prevent flyrock and excessive air blast pressure; 1) Description of blast vibration and air blast monitoring programs; m) Dust control measures in compliance with applicable air pollution control regulations (to interface with general construction dust control plan); n) Emergency Action Plan to provide emergency telephone numbers and directions to medical facilities. Procedures for action in the event of injury; o) Material Safety Data Sheets for each explosive or other hazardous materials to be used; p) Evidence of licensing, experience, and qualifications of blasters; and q) Description of insurance for the blasting work. 3) A Blast Survey Workplan shall be prepared by the blaster. The Plan shall establish vibration limits in order to protect structures from blasting activities and identify specific monitoring points. At a minimum, a pre-blast survey shall be conducted of any potentially affected structures and underground utilities within 500 feet of a blast area, as well as the nearest commercial or residential structure, prior to blasting. 4) The survey shall include visual inspection of the structures, documentation of structures by means of photographs, video, and a level survey of the ground floor of structures or the crown of major and critical utility lines, and these shall be submitted to the City. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual owners prior to any blasting operations. The City and impacted property owners will be notified at least 48 hours prior to the visual inspections. 5) Vibration and settlement threshold criteria (for example peak particle velocity of 0.5 inches per second) shall be submitted by the blaster to the City for review and approval during the design process. If the settlement or vibration criteria are exceeded at any time or if damage is observed at any of the structures or utilities, then blasting shall immediately cease and the City immediately notified. The stability of segmental retaining walls, existing slopes, creek canals, etc. shall be monitored and any evidence of instability due to blasting operations shall result in immediate termination of blasting. The blaster shall modify the blasting procedures or use alternative means of excavating in order to reduce the vibrations to below the threshold values, prevent further settlement, slope instability, and prevent further damage. A-41 6) Air blast overpressure limits and monitoring shall be conducted at the property line closest to the blast and at other above ground structures identified in the Plan for vibration monitoring. Air blast overpressure limits shall be in accordance with applicable law and shall be established to prevent damage to adjacent properties, new construction, and to prevent injuries to persons on-site and off-site. 7) Prior to full-scale production blasting, the blaster shall conduct a series of test blasts at the sites where blasting is to occur. The tests shall start with reduced charge weights and shall increase incrementally to that of a full-scale production round. Monitoring shall be conducted as described in the Plan. 8) Post-construction monitoring of structures to identify (and repair if necessary) all damage, if any, from blasting vibrations. Any damage shall documented by photograph, video, etc. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual property owners. 9) Reports of the results of the blast monitoring shall be provided to the City, the local fire department, and owners of any buried utilities on or adjacent to the site within 24 hours following blasting. Reports documenting damage, excessive vibrations, etc. shall be provided to the City and impacted property owners. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment could generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving and blasting), which can be particularly annoying. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the proposed project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 7.5 dBA is assumed. A total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; onsite fire department water storage requirements (120,000 gallons per dwelling) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. It is considered highly unlikely that any residential parcel could meet these development requirements on an individual basis. On-site Residences Pre-existing homes on the project site could experience construction noise approximately as close as 200 feet (worst case) , due to the new A-42 hillside residential land use and the required setbacks. Average home separation would probably be 500 to 1,000 feet apart and would prohibit mass grading and wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes. Also, a reasonable phasing assumption would entail development of 5 homes per year, which would require 16 years to construct all 81 single-family dwelling units allowed under the proposed planning applications. Table 3.8-5 in the EIR states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, residences at 200 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 100 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. The City noise ordinance states that no person shall conduct construction activity when the site is within one-quarter mile from an occupied residence between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Mitigation measures 3.8-1 a through 3.8-1 f would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels. Off-Site Residences The nearest off-site sensitive receptor is located 240 feet south of the middle portion of proposed general plan hillside residential area in San Diego County. Due to required setbacks, construction of the nearest new residence could occur approximately as close as 440 feet from this off-site receptor (worst case). Table 3.4-6 in the EIR states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 440 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 64 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 440 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 77 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, residences at 440 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 91 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. In San Diego A-43 County it is unlawful for construction to take place between the hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction is allowed between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm as long as noise levels at the property line of a legal dwelling unit do not exceed a 75 dBA average. Pile driving would be approximately 77 dBA and blasting would be approximately 91 dBA, but both would only be intermittent and not occur for an average of an hour. Therefore construction noise levels at nearby residences in San Diego County are less than significant. Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Site The SMER itself is considered a sensitive land use. On a daily basis, numerous ongoing research projects take place within the SMER area. The area is used to study southern California ecosystems. The reserve maintains classrooms and laboratories, and databases which are all considered sensitive receptors to noise impacts. Sensitive research projects and biological resources on the SMER site could experience construction noise approximately as close as 200 feet (worst case), due to the new hillside residential land use and the required setbacks. Table 3.8-5 in the EIR states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the SMER site would experience noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the sensitive land uses at the SMER site would experience noise levels of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, sensitive land uses at the SMER site at 200 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 100 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels. The noise levels from construction would exceed daytime ambient levels and could interfere with sensitive research projects on the SMER site. Mitigation measures 3.8-1 a through 3.8-1 f would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels. Although Mitigation measures 3.8-1 a through 3.8-1 f would reduce the impacts to less than significant, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment and blasting that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences and the SMER site. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the EIR A-44 The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as discussed below. In determining what alternatives to analyze, the City considered, but rejected, one other potential alternative consisting of an alternative location. An alternative location alternative was determined not to be feasible because annexation of different property into the city of Temecula would not achieve any of the Project's objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected as infeasible. Further, during the public comment period, suggestions were made regarding other alternatives to be considered, however each of the suggested alternatives were found to be infeasible and thus were not the subject of further analysis. A suggestion was made to consider an alternative that would annex lands other than the SMER, however, this alternative would not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts because of the limited development potential within the SMER conservation area. Further, such a project would not meet the project's objective of integrating the annexation area into the City's general plan, would not preserve public lands in the area in a natural condition, and would not protect the SMER via controls on incompatible development. For these reasons, the alternative was rejected. An alternative consisting of the annexation with a more limited range of development permitted, or even restriction of the entire annexation area to open space uses was proposed. Part of the basis provided for this alternative was that it would "reduce future impacts to mineral resources to less than significant." First, an objective of the project is to preserve public lands "while retaining the existing rural residential / agricultural character of the privately-owned lands." Establishment of more strict standards would not meet the objectives of the Project, although more strict standards might have the effect of reducing the maximum number of residences that could be constructed in the area. Further, the Project proposes more strict control than under the County regulations, and in particular with respect to non-residential uses. The effect of more strict development regulations would have a similar impact on mineral resources in that development of extraction facilities would not be required. Finally, establishing the entire area as open space would likely have the effect of disallowing any further development of any significance, and as such would be the same a the No Project- No Development alternative analyzed in the RDEIR. Because the proposed alternative does not meet project objectives and would not reduce the impact on mineral resources, this alternative is rejected, further analysis is deemed unnecessary because of the range of reasonable alternatives already studied. During the processing of the Project, various commenters suggested that the RDEIR analyze alternate locations for mining and the potential impacts of such alternate locations compared to impacts of a quarry in the Project area. However, the Project under consideration is annexation of the Project area and establishing the land use regulations that would be applicable upon annexation. The Project does not propose a quarry. If the Project was a proposal to develop a quarry, it might be appropriate to study alternate locations, but that is not the Project under consideration. As discussed below, and in the RDEIR, a range of alternatives to the Project was considered, including two alternatives that would involve the potential for mining A-45 activities. The City Council finds that analysis of the various other locations that might be available for mining to provide materials similar to those expected to be produced from the mining operation currently proposed in the Project Area is 1) beyond the scope of the analysis for this Project because it would require assessment of the where in the region similar materials might be present, and 2) would require undue speculation as to when and where other such mining facilities might be approved, permitted, and put into operation. Further, commenters suggest that alternate sites for mining operations could result in traffic or air quality impacts due to transport operations. Analysis of such impacts also 1) are beyond the scope of this Project, which is not proposing a quarry and which would not change the fact that there is no quarry presently permitted or in operations, and 2) would require a high degree of speculation as to where the sources may be, where the construction site using the material are located, the economic ramifications of multiple producers in a market area and other factors. Finally, such comments are premised on the faulty assumption that mining is already authorized in the Project Area, which is not the case. While the mining use can be permitted under County land use regulations, a discretionary approval must first be obtained, for which environmental review must be completed. That has not occurred. The EIR analyzed four other project alternatives. These four alternatives were considered, but rejected for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the EIR 1. Alternative One - No Project - No Development Alternative (a) Summary of Alternative The No Project No Development Alternative would retain the project site in its current primarily undeveloped state. The 718 acres of privately- owned land would remain primarily vacant and in its natural state, with the exception of the four existing single-family residences. Approximately 4,279 acres located within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) would continue to be conserved. This alternative evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from a continuance of the project site with existing but no new development. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The No Project No Development Alternative would result in similar or less impact than that of the proposed Project with regard to air quality, biological A-46 resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, public services and utilities, and transportation and traffic. This Alternative would result in comparable impacts to that of the proposed Project with regard to agricultural resources, geology and soils, land use and planning, mineral resources, and recreation. The significant and unavoidable mineral resources impact would remain, but the unmitigable air quality blasting emissions impact, short-term construction noise impact, and transportation and traffic impact to the 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection will be avoided. This No Project - No Development Alternative however would not meet the project objective of integrating the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Area into the City of Temecula's General Plan. This project objective would involve the City of Temecula adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development within the study area. Because this alternative would not involve the annexation of the Project area into the City of Temecula, this project objective would not be met. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two - Existing County General Plan - Residential Only Alternative (a) Summary of Alternative The Existing County General Plan - Residential Only Alternative would result in development of the project site in accordance with its current Riverside County general plan designation. Within the project area 4,284 acres have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of "Open Space-Conservation Habitat" (OS-CH) while the remaining 713 acres are designated "Rural Mountainous" (RM). For the purposes of this analysis, the Rural Mountainous-designated property would be developed with single-family residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per ten acres. Since each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit; when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20-acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 80 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area under Alternative two. The "Open Space- Conservation Habitat" designated property would remain in open space and not be developed. This alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project, and would not contemplate any mining activity in the Project area. Further, the Alternative discloses the level of impact expected if the annexation project did not proceed, and the mining activities were not proposed or were not approved under County jurisdiction. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative Two, the Existing County General Plan, Residential Only Alternative will have exactly the same level of impacts as that of the proposed Project, assuming the implementation of the same mitigation measures as those A-47 imposed on the proposed Project. However, alternative two will fail to satisfy one of the project objectives. More specifically, it would not meet the project objective of integrating the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Area into the City of Temecula's General Plan. This project objective would involve the City of Temecula adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development within the study area instead of the leaving the areas under County control. Because this alternative would not involve the annexation of the Project area into the City of Temecula, this project objective would not be met. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three - Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus Surface Mining Reclamation Plan Alternative (a) Summary of Alternative The Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative would result in development of the project site in accordance with its current Riverside County general plan designation. Within the project area 4,284 acres have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of "Open Space- Conservation Habitat" (OS-CH) while the remaining 713 acres are designated "Rural Mountainous" (RM). For the purposes of this analysis, the 414 acres of the Rural Mountainous-designated property would be developed with a surface mining operation for the extraction of aggregate resources and 299 acres of the Rural Mountainous- designated property would be developed with 25 single-family dwelling units. Upon completion of mining excavation activities, a reclamation plan of the site would be implemented. The reclamation plan could generally consist of the quarry being developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be determined. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative Three, the Existing County General Plan, Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative will cause greater impacts than that of the proposed Project for all environmental issues, with the exception of mineral resources and recreation, which impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project. Further, alternative three will not meet any of the three project objectives. Specifically, alternative three will not allow for the integration of the Santa Margarita Area annexation area into the City of Temecula's General Plan by allowing the City to adopt general plan and zoning amendments to establish the general framework for development in the study area. This is so because this alternative will maintain the annexation area in the County's jurisdiction and subject to the County's general plan. Second, alternative three will not satisfy the projective objective to preserve public lands within the annexation area in natural open space, while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately owned lands. The A-48 introduction of surface mining operations would bring a higher level of human activity into the area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to noise, blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. Although the significant impact of the Project on mineral resources would be avoided, the City Council finds that significant increases in the other impacts render the Project preferable to this Alternative 3 from an environmental and policy perspective. Lastly, this alternative would not meet the final project objective of protecting the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. As indicated, the mining operations would add more human activity into the area thereby causing indirect impacts on surrounding natural open space. These indirect impacts would adversely affect the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining. Because the impacts will increase under this alternative and this alternative will fail to meet any of the project objectives, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 4. Alternative 4 - Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative (a) Summary of Alternative For purposes of analysis, the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would result in the annexation of 554 acres into the city of Temecula and the balance of the project site remaining in unincorporated Riverside County. The property annexed into the city of Temecula would consist of approximately 236 acres of privately-owned property designated Hillside Residential and developed with 21 single-family dwelling units, and 318 acres designated as Open Space. Property remaining in unincorporated Riverside County would include approximately 232 acres developed with 27 new single-family dwelling units, 250 acres developed with a surface mining operation and 3,966 acres of open space. It is assumed under this alternative that surface mining operations would be similar to that under the Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative (Alternative 3) with the same intensity of operation, but that such operations would occur within a smaller project site. Due to the smaller area available for the excavation of mineral resources, surface mining operations would exhaust available resources sooner and therefore would extend over a shorter overall period of time. Similar to Alternative 3, upon completion of mining excavation activities, a reclamation plan of the site would be implemented. The reclamation plan could generally consist of the quarry being developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be determined. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative A-49 Alternative 4, the Annexation of Existing Sphere alternative will cause greater impacts than that of the proposed Project for all environmental issues. The environmental area where the impacts of alternative four compared to that of the proposed Project will be less is mineral resources and recreation. Further, Alternative 4 will not meet the three project objectives. Specifically, Alternative 4 will not allow for the integration of the Santa Margarita Area annexation area into the City of Temecula's General Plan by allowing the City to adopt general plan and zoning amendments to establish the general framework for development in the study area. This is so, because this alternative will maintain 232 developed acres, and 3,966 acres of open space of the annexation area in the County subject to the County's general plan, while the City would only annex that within its sphere of influence which is 236 acres of privately owned property and 318 acres of open space. Second, Alternative 4 will also not satisfy the projective objective to preserve public lands within the annexation area in natural open space, while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately owned lands. The introduction of surface mining operations would bring a higher level of human activity into the area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to noise, blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. Although Alternative 4 would eliminate the Project's unmitigable impact on mineral resources, the City Council finds that the substantial increases in other environmental impacts associated with Alternative 4 render the proposed Project preferable to Alternative 4 for environmental and policy reasons. Lastly, Alternative 4 would not meet the final project objective of protecting the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. As indicated, the mining operations would add more human activity into the area thereby causing indirect impacts on surrounding natural open space. These indirect impacts would adversely affect the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining. Because the impacts will increase under Alternative 4 and this alternative will fail to meet any of the Project objectives, the City Council rejects Alternative 4 as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative Of the alternatives evaluated above, the No Project - No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative with respect to reducing impacts created by the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Of the three remaining project alternatives, the Existing County General Plan - Residential Only Alternative (Alternative 2) meets most of the project objectives while A-5Q being marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project. The Existing County General Plan - Residential Only Alternative would retain the proposed Project's allowable land uses of open space and large-lot residential development, although it would result in one fewer single-family dwelling unit than would the proposed Project. Implementation of this alternative would be virtually identical to the proposed Project, but would keep the entire project site within unincorporated Riverside County, rather than annex it into the city of Temecula. Project-related impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project, with marginally reduced air quality impacts and PM Peak Hour traffic impacts. However, this Alternative would still have significant unavoidable impacts to mineral resources and transportation and traffic. Most of the project objectives would be met under this alternative, with the exception of the integration of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area into the City's General Plan. Of the four alternatives, the Existing County General Plan - Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative and the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative are the only alternatives that completely avoid or substantially reduce the proposed project's significant unavoidable adverse impact upon mineral resources by including surface mining operations. However, due to the adverse impacts related to surface mining operations, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 and 4 are not environmentally superior to the proposed project. D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project is described in detail in the EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR and has compared them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals. More specifically, the Project as proposed would integrate the Santa Margarita Annexation area into the City of Temecula's General Plan by adopting general plan and zoning amendments that will establish a general framework for ultimate development within the study area. Further, the Project as proposed will preserve public lands within the annexation area in natural open space, and will also retain the existing rural/agricultural character of the privately owned lands. Finally, the Project will ensure that the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve A-51 is preserved by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. A-52 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area Project (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, mineral resources impacts and transportation and traffic impacts. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts, and do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation area Project will provide the City of Temecula with control over the possible uses at the Project site and will ensure that the land is used according to City of Temecula General Plan designations and zoning requirements thereby ensuring the type of ultimate development. C. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation area Project will provide the City of Temecula with 4,278 acres designated as "Open Space - Conservation Habitat" for the enjoyment of the City's residents. D. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation area Project will protect and maintain the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve benefiting the City and the State by ensuring the research potential in the Reserve. B-1 The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the individual Santa Margarita Annexation Area Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. B-z EXHIBIT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C-1 z Q_ a x W z Z a a w a a a c~ a a Z d N CL.,-- E ~ o U y o 5 c ~ o wN m 7 co - m - 0 C ° U ° U C E Ua) E U cQ ~ ;Q a~ v 0 L 0 0 O a > > (A o 0 m CM c `o ° `o ° c N . + C O) N . + it . U ca C . Co C oU a Cp)OE cC4-6E _ •U'OE :1 = a C 5 (n (n U 12 a C °1 c O co 6 (n c c Y m O :r- m 0 L d N L W .E m 1 0) m a a) ) '-c5 = C) 0(L ` 0 w nYm a3 ~ a C~ U ° C7 a T a) O _0 N > CO 0) M v a O In C 0 .s -°p ~ uj r C Q N N CL w -t- N c U) ca o 0 c U) co ai a) C: a) d 0 > c ° 7 a5 O a ca C: N - m UI E - LO a3 CM N O N E a) 0) lC m a) ° ca a c c 07-- O co N E0 n'n Nca)om NC RSA 00 ca Q Q C 0 In 'a a) N a) 0) N a) = co O N N " O U L ca U L E C3 E V 'p co L a) O L a N N • a) N c O. :E a) N - 'S N O 's co N V u -o a N o v ~ N _ ca G N Q 7 O c 0 7 -6 N C 'O O O~ n Co > N N r 0 E C u a) ca N E N N O UL c m- c -0 c C1 c 0 a) O O L CJ a) c V) O 0 O U 0 N=p 0 U O) -0 U O UQ a E a3 O c ~ 0 LZ Q Q ~n> c ~ 3 c Q c m c o ° Co c E N C 0 ° °3 Q U . 0 D o :W3 N o U N C N O O C°° ( N N C N Q Of L M 7 N N N a5 a) r j c _0 -0 L 1: V) -0 - U) . co r r L L E L O Co a) 0-0 L E N D U5 C CD L O 0) 9) L fn 0) 3~ L a) O L 7 7 2 7 •c Ca 7 aY rn ca ' N 7, 7 O 7 7 0 N N N 01 N - 5 U N to S N- N U N O N 01 c d 0° 0 •c ° a) ro O N L- 0 a) N N din d N y M E c c cc n ~-0 -Q M M M a) -'00 C C 2 C -0 C O .O D = N C N C Ot r O C C O O Z O c O ii L u c O N O c O U O E O 0 -0 2 2 N N n c . E O) m m m ) V C m O 0) a Q) O a) L 0 l C O m a) ~ L co 0 c U o a) O ca c > N m -2 l4 N Co C U - 0 O L co (n F a) C C C N -OO 0 cC ca U O fV O T '67 r -o- co . > C' A N N w d C p_ > O) w> a O N ° c E rya Y o a) ~ U Q ~ 0)(n :3 M-0 a) a N 2 0; rn > T co in 2 iC 'Oo CO .ca w c E m ca 7 , ' -0 0 12 a a a N c a U N N a n 75 E C E O m E O O . R L O 5 a 5 L c U . O E 0 7 0 c N a 7 c E X w_ Q _0.0a'o 000c _aUvU. 03 mco NO~ a)a),-a r ns a 0 C Q a` m m ) m U E m `o ch U W d iC y E C o _ U 0 c~ o v7 U ~ 4= rn a) M i V o O C T 0 4 U N n ~ L O (AA a m o c m 4 v ~ 6 ~ O v C. C of Q C o y •o U y co C iA w ~ O R m 0 c m w C d c o t5 > CL c w v O Q' id 0 0 •m m c rn y 'p C Y c6 a ~ mm c c a ns a ca n (h y O 'E O C U m O a) t ~ (D c ca Q y 4 U) O w w L, U) ca o'o v w LL y L O O. C Z a 'c a U) ccon .0 0 10 L) 0 r 7 O~ c _r x c Co U -du)=.2 ° c c E U LM: o E, c~ Q ca -O ° ac --5 m"a a0i-0W a'Oooa~c°-tc EC •L~ U a~~ oo0a c> 0> C U 2 U Q co a yU ~d c ~LUA=~ y o v a T c a3 a U C co U •0 C (CQ O ca .V L .O a5 LL y o ana_ mw 0 vi? "Latin Ua0a ° c N~ U °W-0 ()2 ca cW > yZ 'D C ~ " L 0 tin U O o 7 C a LL T.y O U) c C o ca Im lT1 2 a) d Od d' y .3 ca =U .-m 'D y `Qa a2 2 w N Z 'U 0. ° Uy c NvoU)T_ 0)UA~oWW ri m ~ g E (D 70 U c~ c a) E n ns ro E C 'V L C CO lb O y O C L. o 2- 0 0 w d E c p N v o Q O -:E -0 nY 0 LP U) c 0c a G j t N E ,C U •.0-. N E C O co c-~O,2a^Uo v ~Q LM ro O L L c r a E E W n Y M n o 5 w _ T o.. o=. m m o 2-- lC O ~ _T N U E H d n O N a~ 0 o a CF) (n co r c _ C Ma E co C 7 a5 (h co C5 rn C y a ~ U a3 C m ca ~ a (D E 0 L y> L Q N C O ca - O j U n v cC N Q C o N O N C a ro a 0 p• N c O Z P O0 'C o T N o ry co y EQ o - 0.Q 2 w o r w c=c 6 M~ Eo(q- m of c y O j N a a) c a c ,~T c '00 'O o - no•o ~o~ ova'> ~ ° of a~ . o.?0o~° ~-0cvo3oUc m 11 co O M ° c 0 V7 - W m a O > cp V; v( OR .2 ° c ~ v ay cl- a w ~ o rnanYC) a~ m QmQ n2~ no m~ML o 4D M 75 _I'D 0 0 r- ca (D T a c t 6> O E O in 0 y-o (n.oa O 0 (D V Oa OULa L) -B ca C -2 -2 co -o -0 E -0 U 0 co T(n OCI -=O n5 a) "~6 N N w 0 0 v aC7cc 0 c, ,-o ~ ° o ya o o y Q'Utt 'IDD ai 7 a mac N o C d N O~ C R lb y lb w LL N U7 c N m L C O Q7 N L O cC E U m (n a L 01 v_ o y a) (n as ca 0 C c a uyiL>=32 cLL °co ac T:'2ic. o.~oycL)00 (n a00 mcDas.• a) cn (n p C) 4) a u) - a•- c a ca ° y 9 U co c c •=o w 0 :E 0 o 2 a1 O d- c a) ~ C y a) U o a N y ) ~2 co a3 co y C a) CO UN ° a) N a) O -C O O 0 .V C.L.. -0 > L3 m M a) co c U3 RIO (n a y N Q ° (n t; pL pr= 270. y O E ° o ° ~ o ~~ULL U) 0.0 (n o E ya cn y y_ a~0D R o O _T N U aEi H t n O N 0 46-0 a rncn U c _ E l0 ~ ~ C Noma 0 CD C ~ y 'p C Y a3 a ~ mm c c a ca Icoa a ca n y o y E O C U ca O a) 0yL:- C Q ca O 4 U U a) y co TO L a3 O C a) p O LL in ~ O a co -r- U) C. 4) C O lC V o 'o O° O d O c_ N axi EFL 0u) EEcQ c c U)d co y m d QUA c nsw mc- as OaW U W a7 a~ Un w0- o o>- o=UV o c c~a-O -c U== OQ y T y T.•y+ d U C U) N N q co O co V L d a) LL N .oU ~ y a~ 3~-o a~ a 0-~d c(~~ ~ vi Ewa(!) TU a ca C C > O Z _ W L~ y = N 7 c a a) S V O O U) LL T> 0 c E a) Va L a) d Od y .3 aS ca a"co ago LQa n S caNZ d O c N ca `o U) T~`''a~(A7> aW W m y 2 mco~La ca ~~ccl) o Ey C.L. r- ca cc 4) - - co R LC 'o ~ ..L. . CO Q N ° 4 -C O m a) y y o~~ y~ y U c o ooa:E'D cc ~ cU~°~E(2 G7>a•`-~S~N n~°-•-U U .0 A Q 0 co M C -0 a' cr 0 0 W co y af o 2 ca m af V a) m •c ~ a) _ co lC c (n L U ° a lL C C l6 T~ F a) O O O N n LL D co co T L a m a7 O U) N n> .ro co ° C ` V C ID CO c c O j C O Q 0 O U) C O _ m a y U' n E L) C 7 LL O 5a aim c E_ cn ~C] o~ cc ID o a~ a 0 (n a5 L VI V . c - a i U N N O) N E o- U m o ~ O N w ~ 4= ~ 0 C _ - 0 c ° U 0 oa m B n ~ L O G. a > m (D o w m .6 o E C C C N o a moo) o a E N c[ c o N lL C9 m ZA I/) O Y out C~~L ~ m V O So ca - w L ~ "O ~ ~ ~ ~ a) a) c w O 0 co c r cr ` 3 ° -a a) ca ms ca ° 3 - E = E , -3~ Cl -0 CL - 0 D V 0 (n p a) C .U E p CM N c (0) N i4 o~EN a,L~ n .~mo.° oiLNoro:o c0 oQ°- C9ca)~ 0.3000E n U co is >.§.E ay °'pm ~r mQ M--5- 0 . co (1) a) O U - U ca -o (q aci ° a) Cr O ro DLO'CL p O (9 c 0 O .0c N tl ca -0 [y 3~ :E O a)O t ui _ a) U 0 (1) O > '0' U 0 o ° E ~ O as D. N O n 7 N 7 N= 7 C ~q O C E -O a) C0 N~> CL N .L.., (n ~ 0.2 7 U ~ o - O `p -O a) S co U Q V) (a a) E LL a) .r 0 0 i~ 0 a) O •C E RS C C O ca co N ~ O"O a) 0 0= v O o U U p V O a3 O 0 a) ova) ~ a)a)Za) tea) a).,3~ Eocc a (D c c on 2 *6'.G caw C, p ay M ID O co N o o o m c0 ~ w N n co a) -r- C (D 0 Z- y, 0 .5 10 r 0. r C c-- (h 0 L, a) 1.5 0 10 ri. E 3z c o ".o ca 2 0 0 c o N, m 0 a) 0 7 as c ` L a0+ C (1) O > N 0 N N 0 O 0 > CO a) w, a) > _ E 75 a~)ai mE 'O U moO'O V E Co U) 7 a) •c ~L on Tc T~ 2 ca T ~q-a co D' Tc ca 10 O 0 0~ N U ca ° a) N CO cC 2 N- CO U u) cu o) o 6 3 •I L o)'=O c p c -0 a p 0 c .0 p t- ro v u~ E o•- Lm Via) o>.~ `o- ~ `o_ m E° E' 3,L°, a` °oaL°.Ln a`C7 acr a) a) a~ L 0 N ° 0 0 V L w ~ a) > i L U E co O 'D CF) C C7 O lC N -p 0 "O N 'O O 7 0 O O E M N-0> ro -0 c~ c CO v 0 -p U c _ co > C 0 O CO r- G ~L c 02(6 io O~~''•'. n.c O O nryl O O O ca O cro a) c Q E -d 2 ~ Qa~~°~U)co E- O -b a co w ~Q°NNa~3aUUc>0-c.5E ca O U E H `m n O > a) 0 i N o o -o E 0 C N v ~ n ni "a N cC ~ C9 ~ ~ C 'O N m Q7 C l b O I U w O C U o, a a) m .C N -0 C VCF) Co N N j w lC m R5 O c Cp m C9 a mQ U Q N U rN p U,E c a) ~Tcw c E u ° nr :E :1 E c Co co °''c `o) U C O . = U (n-0 ~ as a) ca o l d oa) o) Na7~- 2 m e ca VAC N~ ,a-LL- -3c°0 >0>Co N mp~~(Ds ca cc,a =L a i 4O;~c ~c Co co ca m N0~ °E~' N c)nco 3 occ~"ay Z -0 Q> (n Co _ i° (0"c Um 121 rp) a) N N LO 'a ay CS) C3) a) U nay N L L c N H a) d o V co c-2 L H Co" cur O Co N co L 0 v p CV C c ° O l5 E OR i O m l0 V V) 0 n m V C m x '00 co p a0) U 0 C_ ~e Co O 0 m 00 0 M2 L f b) a) = . ` 7 N NS fi as 0U0 Vc 0 ca E O 4).0 ai 7 w 7 L v0f H N N N O c CIS 4) go) 0 T O p N Of O ..-Y •@ ) co a) a) Z5 O d 3; co V L L Y 0. Co m 45 -L- 0 CF) = .2 L - - N. N m0-0-a0c 2 O)N ca mo co V'NNO_ (t) CO 0 R co a c 0- a c a. ~L~ 7 0 L0 -0 0 R 0- N > co co " rn- 0 co cad °5N w o m wa)m~'a'rn> w .c _ c r.2 p C co 0- a) T -0 = u. CO ) p '77 4T o^ aCL ~c aEo3 atvccEca 75 ~ ° o (A m C7`N-om0ccc~..~ C7a)3unite C7 DU) ca'co-a cco a) 0 vi 0,2 (n 0 N C ° a) 0 C'p E'2! i~l p w- L L 0 N a) 0 T O 0 NZ N CV a ~ w a) = ~ 'S O ~ ~ -O 0.ro c u Q lb T VI ° c 0 ~ c O O a) t5 0, ro E 0 15 w N a) N CL a 75 A EL.=ECE33CEcp)-3 m a) O1 c 0 c a m m ) U N m F `o V d m y a _ro E C O - U 0 c~ o N U ro w U) d m c a O C N oa d •N 7~ C i O m as N d w m c c o G OM 0 - cU C jA 0 N N 0 c m m c d E c . o .5 > a wc E ro O ~ _T N U ~ t n O > a~ 0 - N o o -0 E v c , U m n m m~ V) o - N ca ° c a m 6c-~ c ro ro c m 0) c_ lb V O 0) C1 .0L ~C~ c~ CO N 'p U 01 Ca N N B w E2 m co O C 0 m ~ t7 a m Q U c m° p N ° '00 d vi_ N V N 10J1 y m O 7 U C v O L .N..- r- U L O QN ro vI L L 7 s-p O O L m 0 m 0 p.. 0-.0'Q O c ~ n cCw co 0)ca o ON CM 0 '0 = 4) U a) c co co L) 0) v N N V N 7 N-O N 0 > 00 0 2 m gv'c Vc co m- i.L.. 4) O 4) E .0 "O C L CF) 7 N co v c a) v C 7 N"O Q) C L N U) LO 4) ` w 0 1If .0 c c c c o f N C d -a.O d ~ o m 4>-0 (D ~ v N 3 0_.== ro C m L c Co NN mm ca)c 'cNU°--ovU Q60) V-3 L> iro2 ~ U-o~v°-vw'o-ENHVc ~m~ ~Ev~ ~~~03vv" ro -'~dc dW~p -N0 0 ~vui~~v -mom N -3 n o6s~ y>.61- -0-,o 0Ez0 mpU~ U'9 v6. co oro~E CO 0) C m rot c"'Nro N roU•--o='.. L NSQ 20-06 NN0.04 N L O N 7 L OS c - N N O -6 U L N c U ca -O N 4) ° m c N N C "O O N C N 3 U c L - m N U O L -6 a 01 0 N U) o {2 N v -r N 0 01 U 0 ro N T O O N c am ~O w L O w c O p c CO m O 'c 7 (U aci n7 U N 0 (D 0 ca v 0- 0 c= - U m lb Ca 0) ~..LC" C OQ U Q_ -0 CF) nN co 0 N E.L.. N G _TNZL co N N~ 4)'U 01mO` N> 3 N n co 4) 1 3S - L v N N "0 0 0 ; L a L '7 N ro U 3 V> O vi O c c L v ~ L c L 01 0 ..-L 0)02 .v 6 0 H 0, 0'-6 .E N E N ca co -0 2 -2 v =0 O H N c O H O m H,c - c E= 0 6 N c N-Q m•_ m`O on Q-- U O N 7 O cvv E may-3. 06-, w_-_ cv3 'xEin om=ac50 -0 c ~t1 0... 0 fD > O co N C N O 0 N c N-0 •o 0 3 v V mU OL mT0 >.J 6 NC V C V O C ro'- C..-. nC(~ m E c m-va ma`~~ mEvN m m mEc~rov NN m~cL~ c'6~ Na~aN>` 4) ~ 0 p y N 6 W-2 ,2 o U ro.>.. d O m 0 N 0.-.LO.. O 4f _ y CO ~ 7 70 C: :3 p i ro a0 E LU'°"0-6 ° ~ .0 7 c0 0 ~ n L U ro _O -a •co =w E . a a) O ~ N ~ N 7 3 - N `nom is 0-p - ~ O 2 L 0) ° N 'O c N U N E v 'O 7 -Q ro 7 N c c N -6 L N N N C c N N (Q c N m p c m'- c Tc N 0 v~ N•Qc m c m ro m in > o co CO _ c Q 6L 6 m'T m.~ c mron dm~ m ~m d omo cc vr,wv E~E'oL> o En.o -6v M ca N 0 ci c`co T v E> ~'v cw a2= ca 6C0) c o m c 6 c m 3 c o~ m o m Q c o ~ ° c 3 a c° o v~ o =w D~ N o a~ nmw ° c m c oL o'- 2 ui ro o:r E o vyE co s c c° N E- v N v 0 E v a" v g ° N U cs co L ~ •ro o co m m v 0 m 0 3 vi -o c ay n N d v is N v - ° 0 N lC E (n co lC S 0` 6 E ca ca y ~ E v r 0 c ca v L._ cn 'w~ p _ w m ` c m00.> _mNvV.> - - ~ m y _mN R. -0L c m._. m ~c m-- c> mwo-m3>m a co -a 0'Q c v p E.- L> v - E N 5 ca a) m - o c 0) ca m U c v0 c N c vi p o 0 E E E N 0) M vE 0 ~ 5) N ID (h ro c~ 2 U) 0 E u) cu v m0 avi c c c~ cv ~ra~ oc :.c Op0 ca NN ~O0 v N ~c c _ a ic~ a'~mL as~c p_ro Nd p0-c=rocmro V - ro L ~cEai r wEM w °oo c~•°a0i~ w a° ~cc wEa~iQ= a`ocv :o~ro0`o~ m ~p u c ca mC.c _ m c p C) m m N L C p y 0 5 -C 3 c° O p 0 S c O D a w m N 0-NOv dv o d O_ °-c0 a0 a for.' m- Ncv ac 0>~ coo ma.mc -cOi~•°~EE nis aci U c n v v N m p m a' a v N d 6.2 - w R .2 a o c' c m is Z> cn a? > a~ v o o a> 7 0 006 d U lm4 N O U O (4 °3 U .m d O V E U 6 ro~ ° CD ~ U ~ f yC N 0~ 0 .C CO 0 U) E N con-'i C:-c =aro a0)'T) 2N Caro Sao-N'y C US`~O ro..7NNNNm~NOy7 o0055`o `m m mint = ~ami.~ d on0OfA ~ a~cyo d N(n~0 caw. 0X 0 00 (o(00 'DaE C9a.E UEo >N 0Q V~.S 3ro- 0 '52.0 corozvVN7U ovromo N U N Q. ~ E O - U o ~ O N O U w 4= ~ d C a O C o oa N 7~ a L O f4 as N m Ge _ m N C C O U O. U -a E as c •O y E O O ~ m ° I m C d E c , o -5 > a wc E lC O _T N U m t a O > a~ 0 - N o :L- 8 E O c N U Ca a ro c OI N LO ~ c~ s 'o m c~ c LO 2 ro O U O C lb V Q) CO N 'p •7 U o1 co N ro m m O C co 0 ca 0 ~ (C N C C N ~ c c c~ c 0 a) N a5 01C N O 2 O c O N v O O c-"o o c ~ M co N 0 E-- ro N E L_ m 0 m0 L Z ro~ ~L as- c a)70 a._ c a) a.N- c v N N `O C O L D- 0 "O N = E c .0 N c 0 9) .C ° is -OO - .T ° "0 N - N= N U co i c c- > L N O 0 c 0) 6.2 : -Z6 0 O c O o UJ a) c a N C > a) N c u co Q c U N 0.0 0 N: a 0 a- -o N C o ca v) ca .O d d E ca O N N c .L-. (C 0 'O U a) 2 ay c O L -o a) a) N U O .S ca N C O U N N =~L Ui~o•~ w~'oZ CF) n=vim djonroco crow vet 2 cca E0 N ~ O 002-o 2 c~ c U o ma oN_i ~ ~ Uc 020O wN ayN aAa)O ~?.E V Oa a) N a 2 .F a u w U O a c ui is (A cc d a) N id c x - a) c ca N N o ns `o N Q as N a a~ ° 0° N cU ° `m ~t o cn 3 ° c = N ca 2 N (fi co .L.-3 N T -a "a L N 'a c 0 fn 7 Y N O a jI O (D a7 c4 -6 0.- -o 0 d 'o U•O -(DN ro2-m Eca c i c N 00 -ca c ~ U N a ° c. 4 2 0 0 m Q~ mL co ~ v o m ~ c`n > C 0 00-0 •o c j x 2 a) 0 O 'p N m N N VUI c 'C E (U4 d( caw 0 ca ca -o o) - a) c C a5 A L a7 a) .U 01 O o1 N N c lb O O co ca V o L C "o N 7 N 0 Q >r a) `p U C y C co 2 N O 0 m C "06 C ca (on a) u) N -o Q co N a) N C a a ro 0 a) N a) O d L Ol 0 co L - a) U 0.0 c N N .o a L U U° i~ N O > 0 .C E N 5 L N rn 0 2 N > cO .L.-~ 'S = 0 L C o°co a) a'°~~a>i ~~~0°~ 2 u-oo (n (n O. N a) 7 O C O 01- a N ns a Y N co l~4 L OI a c C 7 .C 7 co U> 0 c o a) c O N d O a) a) E 0 - wO L m L O 'a N D? C N c = 0 = O M- c cc ~10xrca ~m°.- c 0co N~-~ 0 O- cd Q .N 0 ~ b> ru.2c~U z~ma Q-cca c: oao }S(Dca~ °aa) ro0 co ° x O~~ c o - `o c L ca a as p v E w :3 ca Q1 T N N a).2 ca 2 U N a) N 7 N a) 0 V7 2- c -2 0 -a 0 a) 'a D-o a) N LO '0 w U a N a ca (D L) C) u N E ca o O O a c_ N a) O 15 I ~ 0 0 7 L N a ..1 O ~O N U Z O L. N m a m N -S 0 2 2 c f= m L .C i Q O N Q na a 6 U~ E ti U ~ S 6 U z a N Q; ca M N E c co 6 a ca LO N d m axi m m m m U N N F O _A V d i0 y E C O . U a c~ o N U ~ 4= U) 0 Co 0 V O p C T L) 0 4 U E Q C L O a (A 0 0 d ~ E vc c 00- 0 M = p I o ~ m - co Q c O y- -U - m C ~ 0 w N a L 7 R a) c O m w C d E C t, o 5 > Q. C W CD c m N "a ,C Y a3 'p ~ 7 L a) m C ~ "o a3 0 T c Q co 0 d 0 V 0 N Q 0) CD 0 L c ~5 T~ r N c O O 0 aNy ~M U) c -a co _0 U 0a N LL LL QW ~a U Q Im On=o O N 3~0 > EI 10 0 7 (n c 2( "o E z N C4 ° U a) 0 W U ca c a o 0 r- E 01 M cC a3 ' Z D_ 0 0 13 0 C O U) N V) ro ~jEOU-OwOo= -a a c aT C'4 - w- "=o L W W aO,-- gn(6 cQ a)ID "U U co c 0) 2 'E C ca p U d O U p as T O O ~ (n U IS (n cc a3 CD ca (n - co (n C) 0.C c.L. 4-- ~ 0 c.a - N D y cm "O o 0 0 c ,Lno~ ~ aci0m,c O5'a(D c O a"c.~=Q ~oQ0=0- -0010OW IC co 0 O E (v 0 ` a) 0 LL LO c a N t fn U N O O a) a) co U) N c4 0 p -L) 0 0 y d X 0 ca" T c N w i i D U 0-0 _0 a 0 .0 C O .m a) f4 co c 0 ca r fn -0-0 0 0 0-0 C 0 y M c .N+ (n O a O U a) 0 co 0 0 a._._ ~U o 0 > - E c d aO 0 a1a`'iUU `cam c ~UU m< o _ -o= ` C UQ== - CE U) ~3 U) U) 70 Q.L. m<2>0- 3?22WU a) CL w U a L Uaaioc F V._ Cz O co -,g ko 0 -6 O d Q c N Q~ N i D. O (On r i_0 c c ca -a) c uOi N 2 O R O-o.- L_ Q- 2 o p 0 0 0 m ca o -o ac) O ca 8 m a Co O U H t n O 0 co E o a) a U cn c0 .C N ca m CD c_ N ~ U L a) C c ~ ~a a ~I T O a3 . O c N c O 0 -r- CO L n 3 w O O y (n O w i 70 N L 0 C.) -o N a3 .N U N~ T. Qo 0 c C.) j (O t0 0- co 7 Q CO -0 a E OU w L T N N T L n 0 0 0 0 0 - O Ln uu)i E 0 0 0 0 v w > o) 0- V U c N co 0 M- N E c .-c-o d N C N .Q O 0 C 1a V N D- C :0 c Q (1) CF) -0 as CO (D > (n O1 L O M D L -o ' 0 u) , C o) 0 O N V N U co d¢ 0.45.c - co O V C- N 5 V L 0 0 0 c4 N w p_ 7 0 U a) .L.. C 6! a) - N?: p` E 0 10 0 O. Y O.L.-N f0 0 CO c N a5 w 0- .C L O N > N co E U -0 O D O O~ p, a3 T CF) ID a p.O +L-~~O cm 0 0 y._ D. N c L O c- V O D O N w ~ 0 0 I- V) 0 i° a3 D. .L.. T D U j 007.0 a) N 0 a) Q C c "o a) Co N 7 _o 0 L cn 7 .0...-'..a N i 'a U N C O.L.+ C S co (~j) O co ro L O 0 a) 0 T N( - 4) y~ M O U N .C .Q a) a) D p N ,N a) 0 Q a) Q)._ "a C .Q co O Q E N 0 w C .D O Q .L.. 0 co (nn o_ _a QE a) U-0a U C N_ a) cO~o°ID Q .2 0) cn :3 2 > 5 .2 15 -6 ^2~"a O. o "aN ca 0.0-0 aro O CO N d N E o- U m o ~ O N w ~ V .m., 4= ~ d m m 0 - - 0 ° U ° U oQ m B 0 0 0 o m oa > > m o 0 oiu o o o o ° N C C N 01 +a) ° ryl m a) O- N V > n~ ~,c N E L: c Cs o Co M 22 co E u) O'a E o °a 0 N• m EL aa(n Q c o O' O uNi co a a O ca U N E N L) - U Q D V o 0 0 0 _0 U ' 0) C i C S.0 -0 Z ~ N yS m i o m a ° `o) N 01'j N m C a) Q) C C = C O CL 7 U Do N 7 l9 :Q .a a) c C ~ ~ N Uj -0 C C ~ N a) N L` O "0 IJ1 Q a) UO~ .U-m 7 a) a) O 7 ;0 o i4 a1 o o- - S N -0 ~ a~-o_0-0- L 0 U~o-E' Q -00 °in (nZ0c'0 C U c N 0() co'- o a=c E - 0a 6 v o -0 ~2 m cam o o U) o m 0 a c m c m> a) 0 T v _ L a0 0 0- CO (a) E o i.a.E-o 5-Q 0 o V m00'- w:E - ~~0 ~ ° L (4 L NU)Ca ~~a°iN c a ~ ~ ~-2 50Y~j~o~`ZQ (Nam Qn~n o c N m rnmw ° O m c o " ca E o N co c7.=Qa- C7m Qlm(n c.0-0 L0 ON-cNN5 a)N c ro Co m o T m o N a) m Q N 0 m u (D O° 0 a E co a~cua~~ a~~o3'cc_o3~0c'Sm~ :3 0 a~iw o~U E v N N z c co 0C) o co ro P p- 0 c U m ~ 0a a) •o N c a) c N a) 0 -0 C C- Co E -ma> 0 :ECoamv o_ c~QO50Z5a)Q ID C)- ~ o o c Z (A 0 :1 -i5 0)QC03a'°OE 5 o - Oar caa~c wom~ 0 N "a N O c w N> .0+ in O a) "a CO N (n at N N n N N . 'at = m ° N t- [0i m -00 vi at ~ CO m ~ ~ - '0 J O 0 E ~ d w O O~ m row Um cc~LU._E3>a~',n0o>mc: moo NCC(c30ca 0- oNC~oym >0 L) < 'n 0 a ca '0 Cc CIO is U L c W 0 oa co is N o> M:30) O LO (n p 'a Q a) CO w N 0 0 (y-co ID CO 0) a -0co.>--am"rno (nz CO -0 :E -E cD -0 ~_Noc~n'°c ID0 a>a' N UI m C m 2-0 m .L.. (4 0) i N c m co v) 70 a N E O a) 02 0 (D - 7 7 0 aC L V N .0. a) 0 a 0 .c w v m a) N N a) O- Z = D. N N m- k U 7 7 N 0. N VI 'V m w w a) m ami omi t co a°i mo co ~ a o o - 4)i ~ > ~ a g .0 0 M CF) 0) :E , '0 0 a) ~ .0o0.ro -a~TC~a oa- ~o0a°i~aNicce~ o~ C C m- C U N Q O O N 0)E v m a .O m e I- aci O c Q ca .T .L.. N m m~- 5 75 m 0 0 p at U j 0 m N CO a) o O O N E 2 a 0 O 70 N m a7 O N> N .J C E m 0 N.L.+ j> O p• .m -6 c O. 0 m w w ID at " i of 2 - ca 075O'w °a 0 aco.0 z aa E °aC~ coo cn (aLn a U m N C N 0 O "0 a 7 V a) w = 0 Q.O. U m -0 L 7 E d M o T C.7 .2 co 0 N 0) (n (Ai ~ C'7 .U c ai a) C m = m > > Co > Q 'S Q o c 0 E 0 v°i a E L) E V m 7 0- :3 m p L O _T N U a~ 00 as M 0 0 0 N a a1 m m c c N co C7 m c ~ Y m ~ U 01•> ~ ~ U .C a) 'a a C ja' mop m D ~ a O N a) _0 U lC y N w (D Q- a) M o N 0 07 U L.L.. O am °-c r- - 0 - a°~ 0 O din O c cL 0-0 ID N 3 0 ~ (a ca r_ m'mao0020w~UMoWD ~ a~ w c co E 2 = M co O y w w v U¢ .L.+ ca 'E E 0-0 N'6 mCO CF) C: o o~ is oU mc -.L co (n 0 a) :a 0) 0'2 Na v-p c ~'S O ~c 75 G me 5 O 0 m0 ~(7~Ua)~~ co0 co 2L `mc.C cFE aQc °E 03i (cco o V L) C m C V N a) CD :3 -~e 0 N 5° 0 of m L 0 0 ` c M •a IT o O c of M~ ~ co 0N N U O F Co 0° a) 2-0 0 co (1) o (1) i o o O co c L - 0) N d m Q` O C.L.+ C j i U U c c o ciu O> 0 N N T Q E a' ° E m E c 0 0-0-~j2 0 0Qi0 MN cw= c U CO C = V co c'-0 co > Ow O m a) m U > Q E N- a Z N V a t o co C v~ i4 U aw a~-- L (mac o 0 0 ° -0 0. E o.L.sNN'~NNca)c0c E i> U m U HE E V U O a V V 0) O Z O ~ O 6 O N °L o w co c a) N N m M U a) N 0 Q 0 -L- ~~0L2 2a'a2H200 V L m "a N U ~ N a) (L4 U m -0 V CS 0-N.0 C 5 co U°i -0 > 7 0 O N a) (D co U V ° 2.2 m 070 :3=) co :3 C Oa O 75 0 N ,C V~ Ln E a 0 Y m 2 c I- a~ 0) 0 axi a m U) U E m `o V d iC y E C O - U 0 c~ O N U ~ 4= v) d W 0 V O O c T ~ O Q U N ~ L 0- as > d (D o w m v c C a) a) c'~!d Ua .°_c,o ra 4 c o 0, ° -U 6 c iA 0 w ~ O O M e. l~ N O Q M is C d c O U > Q. C W 0) C Y ~ U Ur L U a) C c Co ~ a O a) w is ~ N O ~ `p c c!E N ro a) OL .L,,, c ~ N ~ a) E a) p' •p p•.0 '6 .c 0 a) 5) a co --p°'-Fa 0E cu 5' 5 - c E~ 0 0 L 16 O WE - O O y •0 V N C y C a) - o ca -5 .L-. 0-0) 0 E O N ' aS LL! -0 .0 O 0 N c c E a) C 0 0 > > icm't Q a) U> Q lb Z C Uj ; G O O U V 0 3 a E Cc o -ca 7"0' a) a) c a3 O N y y 2-, yca0 o L C C3)i L CO cn y y O Q. a) 0 a) p- 7 o U "0 C 0) ` O O 0 a) O a ca Qo c0id N, U O L ca co N` N O O N 70 M al , ca , c U a) 2 --of a3 C U a) c4 a) M ro L N V o. 7 S C 7 C 0 0,(n U c. y~ C U fS ~ •N - a) V a) mca< mFaz-:FNE a5 p -ca O Q ca a) O a) d U O-Eaowoa) •14 N U 2 C N :.-•p N.L.. i 01 > N N ' N L •9 O N C al c` •~o- 0' Z `0.•a w w a3 E m 3 T s N y p - U -0 O C N F U N N ~ c N > 0 U"0w ca -0 0 - c a) co N U V N N N= M Q N l0 O 0 - co a0 7 R 0-0 ; 0) > 0 Q tC C p. tCtl 'O C > 0 C Q.0 (n Qv 77'Z(n l0 O _T N U E H t n O N 0 C: Z5 0 0 0 ° 0 "m ° a) p' U U mEo-2> pacc c' ~2~co-~m~ E (n Nam oQ v'n Qy L) U 0 0 'O U -0 0 0) C c_ O ~ U a3 L N c~ O ~U c O ~ ~c ~a~ cn a) a) 0) co .L.. E .C o_ -0 co ac' T N C - U • N ~ > c C m~(o a)2 a7 O L "O ~ 2-06 7 co O CO: a N N-0 c U 0 C:, < 00 C f•Cfl 0 U) E O .0 0-5 N C ro - > -L-o _p - uca, E c0pa) 0 o C V a) O p a ~ U W L C .U m'-0 a)"'U) EF• 7 ~0"(,oacivwd0)a N ca N O O p OI.C c C O U 0" U co c '0 OU O C p. : "O L L Q a 0 0 ca 0 a) Co 0 2= = -0 U U) LO n v; L 'C w Q c -0 O a) N a) a3 0 3i m N 2 (h w ca 0 0 -0 7 0 0 0 .0 22 ID 0 N V a) V 0 U E D U C 0.-0 a) .L.. 0 y 0 O a) c cUL.. a) U v o G 'a C~ U ° a5 .0 Y co a) .lC U 'Fn 111 lV O 0 a J E E O)N a) ~UZ O O N(D U L) 'o co c O N co a~ ca CO Ca 2i Ei c ._Nc N = 0 ~ H N O E M 0 p a M U N w, N N a3 lC (D C•E'aE o m c `C'a O ~ T _ N U E H d Q O a c o - 0 V t V V 2 0).2 N 2.0-0 V 'o- E U ccc E a u) m E c o ca a c~ c4 N. Er a) N u-yN oQ U p_y v U 0 0 o O '0 U .2 0) C C O ~ U M i C o Q `O L ~ N -0 -0 c~ a s c .L.. a) a3F N 0 =_w N_ w 0 V) 0- SO o~OL'Dlo m(n 0 C, o O p N e w a5 p 0~ 0 c O N o a a~-°~ TC O - oa ° no O O 7 U s D N 0- y V ca L Q "2 0 042 N ' L aC" a) p_ 0- E 0 H 0 N o cti c o 0-0 '0 O O )S a) -r- C 01 CO Q to 0 _0 LO o isN ° =rnna),EE-0 a)•o ~TNTDEc0.-c l4 0 C c O w OL ~ c a) lC~aNooo0OEai•0caE~ L yO c 0> O a) > p =O O ID 45 ID C o (A C c > - cC L) O -0 -0 N O= V V u") O O N c0 a) O L c R c 0 'S is c N E O cz 0 °cmoQ-c0c a'uo m o .2) c f") U U N -0 O i s p- N U O p N p O U o Q y a) N ,.2 a) i p N o U c0 o c p a- O p" 0- N c 0) C Q OU p. = co 14 N 'S ld a) ' .v p" a) 'S O' O C N ~ O U D O V Q O •O .Z' -0 O O O a) a) O W O p o 'aa O 3 a o U 0 ~ O C V N O U N E E V N c C O L ca 'N 3 Q N l6 - O N co `O F `p O N U .N 1(j N V p O 0 M N "NO 2 58a°) e1 , p N CD N '6 U N N C i N N R O N 0 0 0 0 0 O C~ 0 'E C E s 2 0 `O N i c as O O L V > a M 2M O U X C L2 a) mN a) a) m a) V ro O M M a) '.2 ncn m o 0 a) `p (D co O :E :E C O EO E N v~ O N O E O N 0 -0 N ~.C oO U cC4 m L 0) o 0.0 c E a) vi Op c~ C8 Zw U OF l0 > O O O C N ro Q U co 0) c ` C L ca .2_ Y 7 L_ y0 lC C ca I N O a) 'S a) ELY c C 75 C 0 o H &L 5 co 2 O 0 0-0 c a` a F co ou 00 N d Vi E o_ U m o ~ O W w ~ d m i V O :3 C C _T N O Q U N m B Q rL a > as ~ a _ m 4 y C C oy N m o a ca Qcc (no u 00 CD c C y ~ V 0 7 0) I/I m V C C im m O a N -0 O N - ID 0 -0 Q ~ - m L V w y m u O 0 yO E L la T N Q O U U7 U N L m - N O O a1 "O c O c O T C y N oS - m O E N (n Q O O E 47 a) T 0 = Q N co V > -.G -co -0 N (n LO L O ` Ef3 pp11 0 0 N N 7 L ~LL ~ c'o 3 01~ T 0 0 (n m cma 0 ~ M.L.- ,+L-+70 M O M 'S CD 0) N O LO L L O V 0 ~ Ot m 64 d d m O p O! T~ c O cO .(OD0 c 0 E O O! 07 N '7 N N CF= ^2 m ^2 w V •7 m'O 7 (D -0 T N .2 0 N C i = O -O -0 N m N L p o) _ C L V_ y n C ,U U_ td U N y ~ 5> U L N- N t!i > w Q tll N o) c v r °~~n3`~LnNmca~°~o EEo E E CG n -O O O y c - w O m M ~o.E ayc~ ~o :E v)cm mE c~ oa~iyv fA c c is m o m vi 0 > 0 .0 > CL CL (n V) 0 (n 0. w a E o.~aifl.mia'00C) V)0- (n 00U) O _T N U E H t Q O > os a o E 0 N ~a c m c (n a m m c V 7 0) m L m c m ~a a ~0 coo ~ Q7 ~ C Q1 .N+ 'O E Q c ro ao ° a~ ao) N >'S ~ w 0 N 10 ~ L N O ~ ~ (tea M c ' 'O0 O O Q OL L .J c (n a :E ~ ~ 2 ~ n2 ~ cr > 0 0 T _ m 'O N _ m 'S w E -0 m N k o) - Q m 0 c LL L 01 m N y L.L 1If N "O a c E o T N N O E SD =L~ m M 7o OV N d N co Q L 01 7 R co N N .N d 'p (n N c 9--0 c 2 "E- .r 4) (n co co 010Q ON V cm U 64 ^2 Q ~ VI Q N L y O o) N N L Z O -0 O -0 L.L O m P-; 0.2 F U..+ N y ~ o) o) ~ N c 0 N > U L O N Uf O N (n 0 -p a m Q. N O O N O_.§ c _-.O }3 - N m LO N N E LO N" c N c U .O w m E 0 0 c> ~.o j c o~ m a y Mac cooiaVa-`a vc 0 t:: ° o_ "oa .~E 2m .V ~ woUw vO V cm v; .0 V) 0 0-11 0 E 0 n V) c0e> 00 ~cE 00-'-: a3 v, am aQac av, 0 0 y 0 E 0 o 0 rn a~ ro d 0 Q m m m N U m m F `o V C C L T C C L T c tl) L . 7 N C L N N N la 7 N E E N N E la jn U~ N L 0 U - N -a C) L .L..,U C 7 - C O' C 7 N C S L L L c O ~ v . ~ a O a - m 0 ca m . N-c a) 4 o = as 0 74 m . N ,L•, a) ' N L 3 t , U 30 E .p E'o._ ~U 30 E•- E O ' 2-5 2- o - N N L L C 7 . E C C . CU O N N O o 0-0 U 0 N E C C C o o N O co N 'S C ' _ 0 C " " c C O c p C O N -0 ) la O O N fa ( CL m p O N caU N (n ID 0 L p N C N c 0 p U E 0 E p C c c o ca U v 0 p C C w C N C U O tU O N c N U e m O , m O o lb O o N C N o 0 0 C co N- I ~~v RcEE.. E>~Q-a)woUa~cEE.. E> EM np)000 w U) N 0 c N r. N > C N U N O C m N N > C N U C U p C O co > m C- U p C O w> N a 0 (L C =p ca U O N n ~ 7 r C) C .2.0 U D. U O N n a U a LE E a H c_ a nE E ca OF c' m > C 1 ca a m ' c ca E ? co m c E c o o U) U) ' vi o ca vi O ca - - w O i i U g N- O v v ca N o C p c _T N D _T N C m m c c U UU 0i W c c o aU No.--~ in ac mU U ac mU U C i o ,a O >;O O >;O 0~ E 0~ E m 0)) co c= H b ~a = H oU(l5 ~ oU(!~U o o d O :E p p v~ _ ~ T~ ~ c c ~ T~ ~ c c L L O m O ) mow, 2 !a p a U U o-o • .2 o -o • ro m N:. N O c 0 6 N c v •n'5E a = U 0 n m= U 0 n c NE~U m0 NE~U ca0 Q c 0 - N d- O N (n N `N - O m 65 V - a~ Q c - a~ a c ~ 0 0 i m V m V w !a C ~ 7 L 0 0 0 CI. O O U U c Oa O N co Y 0 U C N N L 0 C 7 T .O m m N N V E: U m y U N . . Im 7 > n a~i U co C.) _ V 45 0 0 la 07 O` 7 a E N N la N c :E 7 C c W U m ' ro N O > ca co m N N o Y Nia=_ E N-=U_, N N iATC E ~U) U C w O O N -0 L CO C C ca 0 N r- ~ N w - • L • ~ co C ' ' C C co T m p a i 'v O 0 E 7 N ~ 0 . ~ N ca U T .2 An N L y0 0 is (a o 0 to 'a z- (D co F C Q -0 w V U T E L O Q CO N . 0 m O) U " a OS 'C la N O 0 N T O O ~ C N O 0-6 00 m- - ~E ado a LU E 0 ~ L 0 . 0 p -0 Z- r U 0 c > m p 0 n E r -a ~ c ( w CO CF) 0 E ca c m U) ca E _ N la N fl= co (n C a O C p : -0 Q' •E O T C E 2 n R5 "O la a N N a) c cu ro 2 G N O U C T C N C m U C C ca .p N E E 'E o - > c ~ = O ro U Q (D 0, o o - la L O N O 7 ~~~VaiUUEoLNO asCoco"3~~~ CCU- Nw 0'';- v. O O N ~w N nw n CF) o)oco 3 i5> NN(a 60 5 ca Ec 0 E>, c CL ay.IV c c'- > m`ow 0 ro _rn 0) o F- U., m n~ c c 0 C nac.? a> >•o N - 'O 0 co a5 O `O N 0 M co O l a C O n U) co 2 co - a N o L N la ca E U 0 N N N L L a . ID ID 'D O E .0 N 0 cco n C :1 `O c 0 r` N 0 c c L :F co o U O - N .p N N M O- C L N O C w M= O a L d N _ ` _ CD CL) O) 7 C N C (a O la C ' C N ~ 7 = C S ( a . ca - co N U (a U la r O c "p L N N U) C Ca R 0 la •N R Q U N R T E C~ C C n-0 0 G' 0 c - -0 015 0 .215 c -Z E 0 E C - (n - 15 co - O C N: -E C C N N L - C L as > C m O C W 16 C a) > C C O o p C N iR `p r E N O L ' 0 0) CF) N E O N N T ro N n 0 " O Pa 01 O - a 0 2 ~ v 6 O j> n N N m.-_ ~ E ~ 01 N N O L N .0 E Q co m m o N ca C C C C}3 U (a w E L ' N a N ' V C O o n ' a) n N C U =ca fl N 0 ca m E co .0 v~~ .5 ~aC U E~UE LO d N N )t7 O U) C U U- .L.-. C co U T .L.-. C la T N H ID ~ ~ (a lVa la N C O N U L N N •U la Co F N" U L 0 N N w C p . O O co O L [Z ` N .C 0 n O O co O L C) N 0 n n a r 0 N V U O N -0 -0 ~S O ~a U U C; E C o m n O a p c> E n O is a c> E v t7) io C C cn N p1 5 N 07 c C C0 N N Q) N O) ~ m c c cam 0 0 L N ti N C m o p U Z m U c c a m - m > cQ o'N o i N 0 c~ a o) L) ' = 10 0 C~ fa O. w N C C ca V O ca U E u N (D N U _0 O U~ C.7 p N N N f!) U U` X N la lC U L N a> % ` > (n -p co !E ~i m U L N :E a N N 0 E -p 0~ la w c C E i ~ E > O O (a R5 C Lm N w Lm U E -O > o O la la C .J... m N w 2) U la L U .N .N > E > i E W- 1- fR~ U)Ir - ca-Lo s 0 0 0 - ca ..-L . p 0 U) 0 Q(n 0 N a7 o o~ c c c a 0 .3 0 0 c o Z'6 ro O O O ~ol a0 •C. 3 0),Y) = 0 .9 5 ~ ~ N ~R cu :2 'O V O ar N U ar a5 16 E 0 vl ca c a) Q f6 0 = ca 10 (D 0 III t- 0 ca V o r O _ c E U - ~ o ar ar N w U T E c o 4, co d" C) s d H N Co o > J- 0 0) vi 15 ai ca O c +T+ N ° U cvr moo.>U~ o Q C) H m _ B Ui 46 aj T a`rcoo45 C •'T+ o 2 z •N ° U 0 FDFc ~°r ya > o ?U -0 Lo c 0 c iC v -Q 2 -o m p c N 0 c _ cr C CCU: E :E-o L)r- :5 Q C O 0 N 2:9 -U .0 c ~ - O 7 c p N IL O U 0 c N as 6 c ca L c 0 5 0.2 ENV arasarc Tc'Q 0 co " E° 'N c a) is N U O `p_~ OH m 0 > 70 O N 0 ~ 0 - N 'N 0 c ar i ar o ar U c ar a) c c 3° cao Lc- 2 O7 2 2 :s 0 .1°c ar c o ar E :E 0 - ar car -0 O N .0 " C 7 ar O T U N c 02r U° O `L 0 ° -0 a> c IJf 3NcwE~ mc c ca g ar-o 0 c-0z o 2D. 0 CN as m E c -c o 'o c E ca U 0 O 3-0 "O 0 0 (D ar L oui < c ID ES E 32 a cLO -0 4D0 vi mo cZ - -0 car 3 mc5 0.-co O- 0053:0 LM .ro OU -0 3 T Q `i w' c CO °=E Lo - 0 CL E ar -00 aj ar m T .N CO - c 0 E vi r- cn L L N O m~ c° Co O (D :E ~ •X a) a) o 0.-- 0:3 = ID 4) >%.C-- 0cco mr o n5 c E N~ (D 0 E a) 0 o~c °c v ar cE _ p N 0 7 C sc.. 0 h U IC f0 N is 15 m E -a N c O ao.E E cco 3 E (D ETr o E O N :E c c "00 0-2 0C N LO ID 0 NQ p O o c LLB o o i N N V (D 0 .c ? :E U,0 w Co `x Uj T n> U w 0 fn 3 c O !K o o ~0 CO0Lr0 -m o0 U mm~ a _cF2 O N° CO w 0 O ti c N O N O O "~O 0 O~ _T'Or V 0 0 J N' O+ LL O ID .`J a1 T N U t= fn c 0 -0 c1 C 0 E C M o C 3 N 00y o c N LL U T ,N ro o (L 0 V V V 0 T v 0 v Q O m p a) V co O O of 7 'N O v c 12 tC ° U° O c o -j > CL CL EL 022 (n E v m oln~ ° cc n~ N' 0 0" -0 cu x 0 Q> c E E b m 0. O Ktt m °J o'c- o D °L:c o 0 (D M aUr a>r aEi~o - w- - a.. N 0 a.. Nam n 0 a H Us; o.... a o 0 oF- mU r N ar c4 D- o C a U) U N E o V N U C C y a - E C U 0 c~ o U ~ d O N C O o t w 0 y F 70•N w O O .C o T c 7 N O 7 N co E N E E ~5 c S I0) ~rn.°_-000 Om ID T O ' O) c N -L- N L3 U V (a o - O a O Q E w C a O ~ ~ 0 C N O U N C _T tU E°~ >UE oQ 0 F as Q N O 2 4 C T O N o t0i O m c _T N ~a > o . >U (ED pU F 0) - o o ~ ~-:E m o rnU O y.- O w ~ lG ~ C IS!) .0 "O c Q ~ _ N c C N O t5 3 m U :5 E a = E -a u§ ~ 0 a 0 N N c Q c o N o Q~ ca o c ~ 0 w N CO G l~ N 0 Q m w C tD c o t5 > CL C W C 0 ~ U C ~ C C, c U -O- O N L N 0 0c Q ca y i O c O N N Z. .0 (i Cry N> O C •p)-0 j N c 7 _ 0 (G U (c o d 0) c co c m o rn o'm 00w o f To co =01 merle 1° mo~o~20 awU OAT w T .2 ~O ~N ic~o0_ o 0 a) O E O U 2 O 0 O j c E 6.0- 0 - -a 0 C (D 0 o 0 0-0 c ca 0-.= L o aT C7 E> O O- cC Q O 'S 6 c E 0~ ca .2 n3 0.2 c o T'O o N o m OL.. C O C Ca 00c ca oQ Ec > o:- O O N 3S co O O N O O O U 3s G U c 0 -0 a- Q c ~ N -p C M -O -2- O` " N - aci 0 0-- C~ V c N'S o co N TE"O cLL o 0 :2 m 0),- 0 E O L N O .y c N F Q c U ~ d..+ N V O `y w o aj 0 o = E.O~ co 0 0> O E d' ,~T- III F 'O -O_ L O N o ca _ C Y 7 N U co co 0 ca C)):E -0 0 7) N V E E O w -0 L v0i d' U L N`~ O c O O co d O L N C cc LL 0 0 •N O o o E i T w Q c4 Q ' Q 0 (D O c }S d o E '0 N l>4 > V L C O 0.2 0 U .L.+ uj 0 ttl N O y N o 0-< - O 0--. O c N ,E 01 .c N 0 L O c N N NL D-N T~ o c 'o 0 Q C7 ~i ui o° o E N L E 0 C c4 o U7 N O Q c m O ca U 0 N O T lO U L.. w' 0 ro V 0 tU L O ca E L ~E Nd (CU E F EIn d O .n L _0 N O N U d V L ).y L..., L N (D > U U) F 7 0)-0 .C Q ti O N N N N O N e+) U L V L0 > C v ° c o '0 F 0 O V O O N O U T' O 6 2'a X U u) n 5.2 .2 0 0 %'0 a E E2 'a o a U. 0 f o G 0 N N CL ME c o 'c L 2-0 3 m N ca U E w N (D O V c O- U V N co TO 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 R5 N U C c 7 .0 0-0 N C C N ~ V C N L LC O N C Q-0 df > j N .0 O .S to c ca o-c E o ` C L "O N •N > > ca O (9-0 O N C O U O L E 7 •N w O V T O c4 U O (D N co E ca E E ~5.o_-oo0 ~0 16 o~T O~ o)c N 'O U V IC o .2 O O O F E tti T O U o U~ F ND Qj~ 0 O N O U c _T N o > U 0 0U~ F - o - L 1 O (n C4 3~ tU L C 'S c 0 m O N .O U C 0 0 C co 3~ 7 U _ T c0 N N ? O c nao n UO c 0 0) V N p c O U O O v a)~ N "~U) o c O U c N .L.+ O c N N N lL > c j -0m m o m•51.o = 0 S! _ - m V N c 0.0 M O c p) r 0 o E T o o co E m o -0 FEE c~ N ca o 0~ o v o 0 cc 3 o w T a) 0 -.Q c 0 o v o c w a - c 3 ~-o m N 'rtL cc 0-0 O c E O y d C O > rV 0 O .Q 0 0 10 ca 10 =2 -0 N T aL+ li5 C w 7 L O N O 7 N N lC d O 'S Q o c E u0i co Q c c. n~ o;J c Nom' m U C f > 0 m 0 .L. 0 0 0 0 M C y :3 N N O O C O "0 OJ C 0 Q' C N 0 L LO C c4 'O 2 .@aco0o E(D 00.-"coc0ic cad' o co E TE-0 c.Q:1 m L_U N N ,3)- c: c o>Q o O'c- -0EE N N L 0 30~ 0 w 0 0- o o o ~ E-a M co ca o_ D O E p_ c c c.- E O .N r_- O cs N L C Y 7 N T U N Lt 1 V ro Ur ro Q y ..-LL N cC 0) "L"' L N 7 EEO o 0 0 -0 L N vi co -0 co > :2 0 d O U 0 v 0 > ca V c 2 N 2 M D -0 O- b, o N o 0Q c~ o E L 0 0 0 o O O L O E E o 0 O N L Q D- N O_ Cg~ ? ~ a°i ~ ~ ~ o ° o E ° @ E g- L5 o acir~.20 ~ro 0~°~ov aaEir 0-2 G1 N Q F ~03O200..i FE.~ u C: ID -.0 O:E o N O N N L O LO O O N a lL U F 'O X U) ca u T Q ."y 41= U - L (D N (1) O 0) tic N 0 0-E O O -o , o '0) Lo O N N> }3 -0 N N "0 LL " $ T o m W c 0o 2 0 O `0 M q> - 0 c v c`a o O N O' O E2 ,.L. p O N ID O O- M ID ID 5 O. _ N U O_ ..L. ..L. N O. lD - r c4 N Q CF) E c o 'c L 3 0 N ca £ 5 V E w N 0) O V c O- U V N ~ O " 0. a~ ~ 0 0 m N C ~ U > O O 0 ~ C i N O C c O N V '0 C N1 O O c co c 'm on E o ~ C ~"0 N' o > m O 0 0 3 N N a7 d y V O C N O N L w C ro y O N .N w o C. 14 O L d T D c4 3 E 0 9 0 7 N a ~ V o E m . U m o . c , " y. M E cu E N O Q G E ro c c~5 F N O - 0 o o CD V O o) c > a) w a) = a) - U 65 a - w- E y U ca + a) . O F Q E E- ro ro i V T-0 O U O v N ' c i T a) w a) cam °"E o>UV E UV oQ m ;Q _ a)wo ai ro ~ - `m T L3 O V ~ Q- O C i N O T a) Q H 0 cm V O O ro L ro B c O ro O N° c O c V O. r~ 'a E 'D a i c_ ca U p E `O LO) ro T 3 ro U m O 2 0 Qco - vy`m 2 o - . Z U -[L.~ U W im c o) c c o ' - N o v o C ro ` N Q AIL o U 0 M ` Q o a) O N a) p a7 L = c 0 p L c c O c O a) ' T N E .c V '6 a) c C . o c U O a) ca U U V L .L.. a) N Q) > m m (L c a) v 0.2 E Z. .L.. co ( N d E 0 N L i IV i 1!) a1 N L . HO -0 y OTi O m a) ID -0 N C f a) a) ro ~ . .2 c Ca O o- . _ O 2 U Q C a) O L Olz N L c C O O Q) } - 0 o a a) =Ca 0 L E o c L ID - O U U-0 V U N . 'U) i L a) N N O U p w c O O ' .L.. ~ V F -a c 7 a) a) c N co >a) O 5 p O '0'0 C O. O C N C O co 65 U ' 7 V co a) c a) a) U C a) p 117 O N N 72 C w d -0 c 3 Q N ro 0 ca ca L O -Z~ T r O co 0.0 V U 7 L _ - ro ~ m ~ O -o O 'cc 'c c E _CO V -r- 5 E . - n c T . .0 ca c- N ° c 0 0 N E co o E L- V > a) p O .D O '6 ro ro "O = .--0-6- . ° U ro a) ca 00 N 7 D :3 0 ID W C •O ~ O v 0 > o c O 6 0>. ro ccoL~Qc ~ ID w :3.L..CU c: ~cN-oy n wE NcOCO v~ N 0) No mE 0 E0 w. a0)8ro "°v Vc as 0c u i 3a) 0.3 c o ro o _ m ° ~ r i y i w c ' r ca a ~ p ° o 0 U L E c-"5; N ° 2 - c c ;m i co a O Q .C 7 0 T N 0 - C a) 'O C co -0 ca c U N N D.2 N F `n N 7 O U 7 N - Z c ro 0 a co r- O D. J 7 a) V) D 1) E a) a) 7 O .L C ° ° V C N O a) co CO U. a) O E C: cr ° Ir a) CO Q o E V 7 ca U N N T E " O L .L.. L U c cD r-' . m . p . V m w a) O O D a N c E CF) E c co ro Q ' D 2 > o p -Q . 01 a) E E N .C a) a) V-~ a) ° O Q ` ca D_ U p_ D Q Q Q N . . c -:E ID C O v- a) a) E O 2 E ° . N .L%. ~ a 0 i4 ` a a) a) c o V N ~ w D- ' 3 2> 7 O CU a) O T as V CO CO CO a) • ~ - a) O O O 0 L N i6 V a) a) y ro M a) a N V a) ~ E 'O ro ro N O_ > O ro N -U c N L .C co a) L OL ° a) L w a) :E L O C X E N 7 U) (4 O O y N c a) C-0 'S w O ro _ O H 'O C1 D F H y F ro a) N a) -Z c c co of m 0 ° C Y 7 a) U N a) Ca m :E -0 - (n "Z5 ca c D r ca V a a 'a O U3 o a) -0 Q :E ~ E d .L.. o ~ ~ TV- m CO~~m 5 ~ V C OO -O° OR cq o ~E ~27>'i0)~ ° oo~%~ d rop C-0 C C-0 ro -0 a) 7 a7 -.i ro LL H 0 7 tll c C L O V _ N L U D , O c" O a) d U M Q N M Z5 M V C 2 Q O c d c O ro M N L i 7 p CO O Q ro E E O Q E 0 c U c V "0 C 7 T ~ V ~ N ~ N V m C o ro U) 'O r V c N = NC yC d O U a) a) E u > ca V L C O 0.2 ° a) 'N 0) N c c N N D' - U N a) c a Q)'ro0 US N .5; l d t a) N -o O O _ > 3 O~ O -j E E Q 2) >O O C d p_ 0 4) co 4).Q N~ U ca ( A N N y~ -a co o NL a QV ca ca Q co co 0 :E c a) 0 2C7 ° E a 0 on ~ ~~5 o~ ow o0 `5 X> _ o'E E V 10 co . Lo ) ca Ot _ ' . E n . E _ O V E N i . iC Q! f0 w c ' > T 7 E- V V O V 'o . 0 o Q O Q! ro - f4 p)._ n f4 O L CO V D.'- is u) V co O a) 0 -0 2 D c a) - Q F N _ a ) 7 T C w 7 w CF, - w Q .0 T co Ei Q. ~U3o2ccaV FE:~~'.E D3 ^2v)EU) ^2N ~v) ^2.0ca CU)V ~mw0) a) N L) ~C`7LU- N a) d 0 > ° c m 1L- 7 O) - .O Ca~ O N d = N O O ' O 0 -D -p 0 co - 1° 3- O V p v°i ~ U O E ~ o t` V N 10 O a C V) O a c _ L, 0 O C, a) C o ~ C N N Cl) U V t . V i6 > C ) Ni.U D..2 V ca ui U)0T3 0. ~ ID a~ o C N U V U c ro CL D- a' c Q c) C6 O E O U y 20 G N O a) N x- V co E w c O a w cO ca X U a: U! V~ a) ' d v 0 o z O X- E as~ Q ~roH ON co a) O) d 0 m Q m `m m ) m U N N o V ° N •a E o_ U o c~ O N W co a) cm co 'r- 0 o :3 O c T L) O Q C1 0 a m B C L a O m a W m o w v o E c" o ai O - O T v c C a) N tO m O- U L p c p U o 0 a ca a a; N~ a • ma , c - m~~ Q c o 0 ad u' 0 , o m N V) c c im c N C) 0 N Y i N -p m L (1) I!) O N a =0 0 •C N 7 N Of c c - N -o i/) C O m Q 0 0. o SUa 0 `oco U) °a~ ° ° ° `o CF) a O - -6 G ca ai ~O ° ca L.(WD . -p ° ` N Q N V L -o O N N' c- O 0 -o T N a) N > a) c c 0 L O ID Z a) N 0 c 0 Q °a E m U p p i m m L as .Q N 0 "O m 'a w U N O c N U 7 N E> a) d 7 0) 0 (n 0 U U) 1!) a) w a V C) N (D ° °o_ "O c a) ca co t ~ 1!) -o E co N U) a) "O O Co 'O -O 0 a co m .N CO o) C L E n H N 7 U (C a c c co "o c ID O N O c w L 0 O N r1 !n N 0 (n 'D (D l4 C7 ° a) m .d O Qj 'p m ` a) O 0 m O O" N m co N U 0 10 c 0 0)c = co N o- c O c V p a 0 co co ca -0 a) N N 0 .LO ..:5 03 i N ° V S Ei a) c a7 w m O C Co O c c- ca U 0 0 N W Y j i 0 ~y~~~m~o o~E o~a-o~ ~ ELF a~N O c~ ~~E o o w c= Ewa m~ N o T aca m10 0 c m rn~y a cr -o c N m ~o Tc ~~-a>r c coLLo m a) a) oc NE~a) m_3 ccco ti Lov :r N0N.c -00) ca Qcpi Ea- L U c' co O a Caw co M C m 246 i0 V O c E O- N a o) -o i c c O U m a V N f Q- N d N 4-- If c U a -o 2 a c c - co co ' a) O N a) N Q m Q7 L Q- a CF) C a) m c p m o -0 N co O _ -0 V 0 co c m c 0-0 (ii >,,0 a'O U 7 cr c 0 0) N VI (n 0) c a a) > d `p c a) O a .N. T Cl N a) N 'O - i6 N O U r' a) m U .C a) C m E O O N 4- a) a) _ a) c U) ~ E U) U 7 7 co V O T "o a) N •O V• O m 0_ a) N 0 .O N O 0-0 U L C> N C N wp N 0 O N N .Q 2 N N m V- U N N "O CO co m U m N E O Vl O .2 c a) o= O a° t~~~ N~ Q O° L O m o O C ~ N 0 N CO m m~ a~ L U V) 2 N •C c CO L O V N 16 c 0 1a ~ E c ~ LU aam N..0 'O O (n •C c C a)•6 .O)0 2L 2 o mw U) ~c C O'0 a- O r co 0 -0 in 0- (2- a) c co -o :610- 0 a) a> > d m m'o c ca m c,r ca w :E 7 V N m o N o c a) a) N m y TO x co C m o U L C) N (n m e 'U m N N N Y N O O ,O co co 0-a ALL o ° acid `p E E045 00i a vi E (n cm o mo v Ea aai a CD m w c o o o p c 0 x U N '3 m a~ v o o m 0 co c E m Q 0 -0 - 0 N 0- d a° ca U 0 O C w (n m N u) N N N m 0 0 c T O a) 0 7 'D 4 aRi m° U) E X45°coc).00oEcoaE 2 2 m°~ ocm c 0 U) (n 4) Z'roOL 'v N L U •n .N U` 70 70 N N U O 0 O O).2 CE lC N ,o- T 0 L N c cm m~ ONTO NU~ a ~ 0~OQ~L~ON c°~ a)0a(n > °=m O'D m E 0maa~0 0.~IrS 0.a 0~u) o~ ax>CS 0 Dw'o.=~ Ewo Fn L cm a0 v iv o) F a a` ~a a -o 4 2 _ Y cE c o aQ Q co m .0 ^2 D. r•VO N M N . _0 7 a) 0 ~ 0 N w 7 .N a°=mLm~,C7= O Q ry a) C6 0 a) (n O p U 0 a a3 _ _ C}, v p•p 0 a O V V i N c` U U U c m _ (D -o > a Q- C 0. c a) a E 05 C w 0 8 01.=_ co H 0 N v N a7 d N Q. ~ E O. U o ~ c~ O N O U w d Co i V O O C p Q U N a ~2 N C i n O m (D ((AA a d o m LOI E N O LO N C ~ ~ V ma o 0 M co a m Q = o - N -U NC~•~ m N N 2 Y - iv N-p > m i N N O L O •C N o CL u) 0 C C O N 7 N 01 ~U m ~ ~ c a . O- Ud "O O O m c O LT m C d E c , o t5 > a wc E a~ O - a N U N •V m V D i N N m n Q 0 0.0 V 7 O O 2 N O O O O U N CL U O CL L O -0 V) Q v; C ~ > C V O O O co V 0-0 N 0) T O p O O N O c N y- 01 N vi N N L O U C N C 0 i L m .L... N C C N N C N = m U a1 co 0, N.2 O N X N N N .L.+ E C ILIf :E m co 0 o `-'o c m m a~-o a > i 0~ m' aD m E o OZ D.= 'o O N O CO N~ a) N 'o m N O' N O N Qt Q S O N ccEoLV co 4 Ow0~U)im°O?N"NC° DEro v`p ~co co m ,C Y m w 0 m }j O C l4 L U 2 ? N m m V i L N O U N co y V OI G O C L 7 N Q N.L.' U N ' +_N O "°O m N O_ y O C N co co O 0-0 C O CO N- V N 7 C N.~= > N c o N S CO E 15 0 co ~ m Q n v E C > ol -v U) :3 a~ c> o= CO U 0 a~ a>i - v CO2 .L 0 C: 0) v c g E m -O ° U 3- o o~_ o m E `o- E Ow L £ U c_0 -ca o o L o LN `-p N O N.-'~ ~ 01 i O C n "6 U C N 0 d C m V O L w O p 0 O E- =p N Q"O O m 7 p Q O p) 7 p 0 0) L a N .O C- - m N p c Qt Co Q 'O V .Q U C C O > "O C D Q- o o nw o co -N'y 4> 0 E_0 ^ co c ccc 3 a~ o' N ai.N N' .0.. N N N N N E O C O :E C N O N tL C L N C "O o `o ° c - a-o E rno ° c o O~ c o $ co cc ~N m co - 0 N~ .o o a'°a o" c 0' O N V6 N~ > p O_ m O ro C N N 6 c p L 2 s +U O E` in O c~ i E m o V) cnm E m cQ c op E `m m.~ w oo v a~-0 a o~ L c -0 m 0 a~w c m v_ E 0 m c N c a~ 7 N'~ T aNi °c g ~i~ ` C, N u, o Q-o o mr o ~w~ o o c~ O N N~ uj Y OU O N m -mc Q N O m~ mm a c O d N l4 N aNi O c c 0 N m F N N O c) N E .a ~ c m c O o ca L m 15 c- Ln o me -c aL >o (3 c > , c a' .LE ~ v w a) :3 -00 L m ~ ° o ci cL... U V ON 0 EQax=6 5 o3 N O 'm 2 !E 'O O E N o N L C E 0°> = V N 'p En N O m Z N O N C C m 0 N in 7 C m p c N E 0 N VI C N V C N m y N l6 l4 0 N `V O p L n N d-0 c co N 3 fl. N N Q O CO 0 0 -O Q_ co N U c m O T c pn i U N co N 'a C m m N- m p N p V N C V ` C~ c 'S - N C -S 'S ID N V O N > U U M(n .L.-01 i d L D CN t N N Q C N m > O .N 7 lC N C N c L p N E N lb lb c co N CO c O 0 i v L N a~ in ~ c pn o o 0 co jL S, c .C u) ° co N N . N O O c N w 0 tL w jn E d C N LO a ( 0 UY Q. v y . E 7+ d U .O 0 N E N o s > N N 'O O .+U p N O N E 3 N O. N F chi ~ = m o `O 2 E co a>i Q o 0 -'p 0 C.) a~ a~ c o v°au'i~mFa Ln>U5;46i5 FaXia atL U)a.= ti°3~'Uia mc10b- :E N0. LO N 0 Q U) U N N F o _A V DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS TO EXTEND THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO THE TERRITORY DESCRIBED AS THE SANTA MARGARITA SPHERE EXPANSION AREA COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,443 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE- EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (PA07-0225) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council directed staff to study the feasibility of a Sphere of Influence expansion and annexation of approximately 4600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita River and northerly of the San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). B. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA07-0225 (a General Plan and Change of Zone Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside County boundary (collectively, the "Project"). A legal description of the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion and proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. C. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("El R") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental DRAFT Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") and circulated for public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public review. D. The Planning Commission, considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2008, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify concerning the Draft EIR and the proposed Project. E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project and the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify a Final EIR for the Project dated September 22, 2008, adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. F. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record of information received at the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-53 recommending that the City Council (1) approve a Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element to incorporate Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) as the General Plan Land Use Designations within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation; (2) approve a Pre-Zoning Ordinance for the pre-zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation; and (3) approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code and amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR- SM) and Conservation District-Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards. G. On December 9, 2008 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project and the proposed Final EIR, at which time all persons interested in the proposed Final EIR, proposed General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Amendment, as well as the proposed Sphere Expansion and proposed Santa Margarita Annexation, had the opportunity to comment on and testify about the proposed Final EIR and proposed Project. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the Project and the proposed Final EIR, the City Council certified the Final EIR prepared for the Project, adopted Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA. H. At this same hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Code Amendment, and all the comments and testimony thereon and the entire record concerning the Project, and the City Council adopted Resolution No. adopting the General Plan DRAFT Amendment and gave the first reading of the Pre-Zoning Ordinance No. _ and Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance No. 1. On [INSERT DATE], the City met with the County to discuss the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion [STATE OUTCOME OF MEETING]. J. On October 23, 2008 the City gave notice to LAFCO that the Planning Commission would be considering the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion on November 19, 2008 and that the City Council would hold a hearing to consider the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion on a subsequent date, and on November 20, 2008, the City gave notice to LAFCO that it would be considering adoption of a proposed resolution requesting that LAFCO consider its application to expand its Sphere of Influence as described above and shown in the map referenced above. K. After considering all the information in the record and the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council determined that it wished to pursue the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion for the following reasons: (1 } The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is now partially within the City's Sphere of Influence and the City believes the entire Reserve should be located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Placing the entire Reserve and some surrounding areas in the City's Sphere of Influence would facilitate annexation of the entire Reserve and surrounding areas to the City. This would allow the City to ensure the protection and preservation of the Reserve and ensure that development in the surrounding areas does not occur in a manner that is incompatible with the Reserve; (2) To protect and preserve the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve as Open Space and an educational resource and protect and preserve the Santa Margarita River; (3) To protect the biological resources located within the Annexation Area. 181 animal species and an additional 331 plant species have been documented and observed within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve including 20 sensitive species identified by the Department of Fish and Game as occurring within or in proximity to the proposed Annexation Area. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby requests the Local Agency Formation Commission to take all proceedings necessary for Sphere of Influence expansion to include the entire Santa Margarita Reserve and the surrounding areas as described above and shown in Exhibit A and directs the City Manager to file this Resolution and any necessary application documents with LAFCO. DRAFT PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, 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 day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk DRAFT EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SANTA MARGARITA PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION AREA AND ANNEXATION AREA EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 THROUGH 28 INCLUSIVE AND SECTIONS 33 THROUGH 36 INCLUSIVE, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN AND ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA RANCHO, SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF VIA GORRION AND CAMINO ESTRIBO AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP NO. 6835, ON FILE IN BOOK 29, PAGES 27 THROUGH 41 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 73' 40' 46" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CAMINO ESTRIBO, A DISTANCE OF 282.62 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE 1Q SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN BY RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 56 PAGES 39 THROUGH 41 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 39' 48' 32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, O A DISTANCE OF 1694.79 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4 IN SECTION 24 AS SHOWN BY RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 56 PAGES 39 THROUGH 41 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 00' 00' 00" ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 0 QUARTER OF SECTION 24, A DISTANCE OF 2731.93 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER OF SECTION 24 PER SAID RECORD OF SURVEY; O THENCE SOUTH 00' 19' 01" EAST ALONG THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2654.01 FEET TO THE CENTER OF SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 00' 02' 43" WEST ALONG THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF O5 SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2697.75 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER OF SECTION 25; © THENCE SOUTH 00' 24' 22" WEST ALONG THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 2658.14 FEET TO THE CENTER OF SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 00' 23' 04" WEST ALONG SAID CENTER SECTION LINE OF SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 2646.09 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER O THEREOF, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH AS SHOWN BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MONUMENTATION MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY IN BOOK 205 PAGES 134 THROUGH 144 INCLUSIVE; PAGE 1 OF 4 ® THENCE NORTH 88' 55' 36" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE, A DISTANCE OF 2659.40 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE NORTH 89' 55' 18" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 5259.28 FEET TO THE O9 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35 AS SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN PAGE 8832 OF RECORD OF SURVEY MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 89' 59' 23" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND SOUTHERLY 10 LINE OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2741.72 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 88' 59' 17" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND SAID 11 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2721.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 89' 40' 46" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND SOUTHERLY 12 LINE OF SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2707.45 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE NORTH 89' 27' 23" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND SAID 13 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2694.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE NORTH 00' 16' 35" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 33, A DISTANCE OF 2637.86 FEET TO THE WEST 1 /4 CORNER THEREOF, AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 00' 22' 47" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 15 1331.69 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 89' 50' 20" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 16 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2653.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1 /2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 00' 22' 10" WEST ALONG THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF SAID 17 SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 1313.47 FEET TO THE NORTH 1 /4 CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 89' 26' 32" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 18 SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2636.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 00' 29' 50" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 28, 19 A DISTANCE OF 1344.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SANTA ROSA RANCHO AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 56 PAGE 39 THROUGH 41, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; PAGE 2 OF 4 THENCE NORTH 67' 19' 58" EAST ALONG SAID SANTA ROSA RANCHO BOUNDARY 20 LINE, A DISTANCE OF 12997.33 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 92 PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE SOUTH 00' 00' 20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 999.86 FEET TO THE 21 SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT NO. 109720 RECORDED 12-13-1967, ALSO SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE NORTH 51' 51' 46" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EASEMENT LINE, A 22 DISTANCE OF 815.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3100.00 FEET; 23 THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASEMENT NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10' 25' 39", AN ARC LENGTH OF 564.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41' 26' 07" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EASEMENT LINE, A 24 DISTANCE OF 333.94 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO GAZAPO AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; 25 THENCE SOUTH 06' 17' 41" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 37.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 45' 00' 21 " EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.00 FEET TO THE 26 SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; 27 THENCE NORTH 87' 14' 44" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1138.19 FEET; 28 THENCE NORTH 60' 47' 31" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 835.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76' 29' 23" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A 29 DISTANCE OF 457.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 97 PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE NORTH 07' 27' 46" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 97, 30 A DISTANCE OF 918.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO POTRO PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE NORTH 28' 00' 57" WEST 466.70 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO ESTRIBO, SAID INTERSECTION 31 BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 28' 00' 57" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID CENTERLINE OF CAMINO ESTRIBO 32 NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15' 00' 28", AN ARC LENGTH OF 157.16 FEET; PAGE 3 OF 4 THENCE NORTH 46' 58' 35" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 714.57 FEET ALONG SAID 33 CENTERLINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET; 34 THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID CENTERLINE NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26' 42' 1 1 AN ARC LENGTH OF 279.63 FEET; 35 THENCE NORTH 73' 40' 46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1016.47 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA = 4,429 ACRES, MORE OR LESS SEE ENCLOSED EXHIBIT "A" PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 PAGE 4 OF 4 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X VICINITY AND/// SHEET INDEX MAP j ANNEXATION BOUNDARY EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY 4,429 ACRES MORE OR LESS i 918001002 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. INDICATES EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE G~ ~E I F TEMP UEN f . O ~ r SHEE72 I \ I SHEET 9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY SAN DIEGO COUNTY VICINITY MAP um 0 0 i Scale 1" = 12,000' r SHEE- SHEET 8 -I- J I I SHEE r I SHEET 7 SHEET 6 TT SHEET 5 -h SHEET INDEX MAP aao0 0 0 m Scale 1 6,000' No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 i J -.D CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" g P ~S 2 PPG AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X C/L VIA EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA C/L CAMINO C/L CAMINO ESTRIBO O _ J c C/L CAMINO POTRO ( ~ ~PNGN w , GSP = SPN~ P ~Pp° ~N R ~IL CPS ~ ® 1 940250002 1 940260004 \1 0 ® 1 NE CORNER OF 1 GOVT LOT 4 940260002 \60005 940250003 "J~ R.S. 56/39-41 940260001 ~ PM 10814 P.M.B. 78 PAGES 5-8 918070014 TO' \41 W ~ ® i SECTION 24 (n I I T.8S, R.3W I 1 918070012 1 918070011 918070018 I 23 24 S 1/4 l 940280006 I SEC 24~ I ~I I 26 25 918080002 1 918080003 918080010 SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 10 FOR COURSE TABLE Soo o soo i oo i Scale 1" = 1,000' 918070019 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX -X SEE SHEET 2 2 6 2 5 918080008 I w 918080009 LLJ I ~ LL SECTION 25 i T. SS, R. 3W Ln ' I L------- O C 1/4 SEC 25 EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF Q 918080010 THE CITY OF TEMECULA O N 918080011 z I -io LL- N O O O u 26 25 S '14- U j SEC SEE SHEET 4 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 10 FOR COURSE TABLE KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 QRpFESS/Oh EXPIRES: 3-31-08 o! O jq10 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE z CD m BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECIONS 23 - 28 w No. 26159 m AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND Exp. 3/31/08 ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA noo o eoo ~P i oo J`I CIVIL RANCHO, SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED STATE NTY OF RIVERSIDE T T Y F THE CO ~ 9r , ERRI OR O U Scale 1" = F OF CA0i 1,000' OF CALIFORNIA LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SHEET 3 OF 10 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 10 FOR COURSE TABLE v~. LO W W (n W /w V 1 _ 26 25 918080010 ,35 36 1 91809 918090007 r -1 r---- 1 918090003 1 1 918090008 918090001 1-- - - - -1 918090006 1- - - - - 1 918090004 1 1 918090009 L_-_J L---- 918090005 1 1 918090010 918060007 ----I---- I 918090011 1 918090012 1918090013 1 918090014 ----T----I----T---- 918090015 1 918090016 1918090017 1 918090018 1 918090020 1918090021 1 918090022 1918090019 - - - -t - - - - I- - - - 1918090023 1918090024 1 918090025 --------+C 1/4 f I I [SEC 36 918090026 1918090027 1 9180900281 918090029 I I 1 918090030 1 918090031 1918090032 1918090033 918060018 -_--1---- I 1 I I 918090034 1918090035 1 918090036 1918090037 I I I ---+----f----+---- 918090038 1 1 1 3 5 36 1918090039 1 918090040 1918090042 918080011 9181000011 918100008 1 9181000021 918100007 1 - - - + - - - 918100012 1181000031 918100006 1 )181000041 918100005 1 I I I 1918110028 I I I I 8110001 918110002 I I I I 918120044 Iv- Q po O~ V ~.4z~ O O. O ~\Q D V ~v - - - EXISTING SPHERE \ OF INFLUENCE OF 918130043 THE CITY OF TEMECULA 918130031 RIVERSIDE COUNTY S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 S 1/4 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEC 3E Q ,GFESS/Oh q o < COI-40 1 A- ui No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31 -08 aoo o aoo 1 0o i Scale 1" = 1,000' EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X I I - 1 918060008 1 I I 1 I 1809002f 918060019 I 918060013 1- - - - - - - - - -I 1 S E C TIiO N 35 1 918060009 1 T.8S,I R. 3W 1 I 1809003d - - - - - - 918060014 i - - - - - - - I I 918060018 - - - } 1 918060021 918060010 1 I I 918060022 ~ 1 I 180900341 I 918060015 Q - - - RAINBOW GLEN I RD. I 918060023 ~ 1 - - - } 3 4 918060011 I 35 1 91809003 W _ RIVERSIDE r 918060024 a COUNTY 1 J 5 36 1 W W ~ S 1/4 W SEC 35 Cn C/O S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 Li w W SAN DIEGO COUNTY W Cn Cn SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 10 FOR COURSE TABLE Wo 0 900 1 00 1 Scale 1" = 1,000' KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED I LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X F- 918060002 I/ % 918060003 I I/ L - 1/ 918060019 918060001 v I I I SECTION 34 T.8S, R.3W I I 918060017 I I Ln 1 1 918060015 33 34 S 1,4 1 34 55 ~ L1J RIVERSIDE I SEC 34 COUNTY ' LiJ W.... Ld _ @ 11 = S. D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 W W W SAN DIEGO COUNTY W (n Ul SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE sm 0 eoo 1 0 1 Scale 1" = 1,000' KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" 16 -C 33 R.S. 10/22 AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SEE SHEET 8 1 918040003 C-N 1/16 I i SEC 33 L-------- 918040004 SECTION 33 T.8S, R.3W W 1/4 SEC 33 I I I I I I I I I I I ® - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I 918040012 918040011 918060017 32 33 SEC 4 1 33 34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE Rao o Rao 1 ro Scale 1" = 1,000' i No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 \l CIVIL F OF W.0.6 W W W W (n KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X ~ J PNG\ A0 C P Fz S P~ R.S. 56/39-41 Q ~ SECTION 28 918050002 T. 8S, R. 3W ~ W W 918050001 cf~ W 9 J28 N 1/4 28 27 SEC 33 2 33 ® 33 34 1 I R. S. 10/22 © 918040004 i 918040003 N 1/16 918060001 SEC 33 C-N 1/16 1® SEC 33 SEE SHEET 7 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE soo o Am 1 Os 1 Scale 1" = 1,000' KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X g P fig. 2 P ~S 2~ p PG C/L CAMINO GAZA~~ ENE o OSP 6 I 918070008 N N~ P s 2 2 2 3 940280006 w SP p~~ ® = w w 918070008 27 26 j w = I= 918050009 918080001 I ~ I I W i R.S. 56/39-41 i w Li i 918050004 i SECTION 26 SECTIION 27 T. 8S, R. 3W T.8S,1 R.3W L - - - - - - - - 1 918050005 918080006 918050002 I ~ I ~ 918050006 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 o 9Rkrj S/ON9` EXPIRES: 3-31 -08 COjgO ~ ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA 0 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE _ Z CD rn BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECIONS 23 - 28 ~ No. 26159 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36. T. 8 S. R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND Exp. 3/31/08 ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA 'm o Ina i o RANCHO, SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED CIV I TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE Scale 1" = 1,000' 9rF OF CP,0~ OF CALIFORNIA ^^T _ EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X COURSE SHEET BEARING DELTA DISTANCE LENGTH RADIUS RECORD DATA PER COUNTY OF RECORD 1 N 73'40 46 E 282.62 2 - S 39-48'32" E 1694.79 RS 56/39-41 RNERSIDE S s 00-00,00" W 2731.93 RS 56/39-41 RNERSIDE 4 S 00' 19'01 E 2654.01 5 S 00-02'43" W 2697.75' 6 S 00'24 22 W 2658.14 205/134-144 RNERSIDE 7 S 00-23'04" W 2646.09 205/134-144 RNERSIDE 8 N 88'55 36 W 2659.40 205/134-14-4 RNERSIDE 9 N 89'5518 W 5259.28 205/134-14-4 RNERSIDE 10 N 89-59'23" W 2741.72 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 11 S 88-59'1 7W 2721.55 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 12 S 89'40'46" W 2707.45 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 1S N 89'27'230 W 2694.63 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 14 N 00'16 35 E 2637.86 RS 10/22 RNERSIDE 15 N 00'22 47 E 1331.69 IRS 10/22 RrVERSIDE 16 S 89'50 20 E 2653.19 IRS 10/22 RrVERSIDE 17 N 00-22'l dW 1313.47 RS 10/22 RNERSIDE 18 N 89'26 32 W 2636.01 RS 10/22 RNERSIDE 19 N 00'29 50 E 1344.23 RS 10/22 RNERSIDE 20 N 67'19'58" E 12997.33 RS 56/39-41 RNERSIDE 21 S 00'00'20" E 999.86 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 22 N 51'51 46 E 815.78 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 23 10'25 39 564.18 3100 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 24 N 41'26 07 E 333.94 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 25 S 06-17'41 E 37.87 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 26 S 45'00'21 E 86.00 PM 29 27-41 RNERSIDE 27 N 8T14 44 E 1138.19 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 28 N 60'47 31 E 835.90 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 29 N 76-29'23" E 457.79 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 30 N 07'27 46 E 918.42 PM 29 27-41 RNERSIDE 31 N 28'00 57 W 466.70 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 32 15'00'28: 157.16 600 PM 29 -411 RIVERSIDE 33 N 46'58'35 E 714.57 E PM 29 27-41 RNERSIDE 34 26-42'11 279.63 600 PM 29 27-41 RNERSIDE 35 N 73'40'46" E 1016.47 PM 29 27-41 RNERSIDE DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (PA07- 0226) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council approved a motion during Council Business of the City Council Agenda to direct staff to initiate a feasibility study of a proposed sphere of influence expansion and proposed Annexation of approximately 4600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita River and northerly of the San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). B. On March 6, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-23 to initiate proceedings for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. C. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA07-0225 (a General Plan and Change of Zone Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside County boundary (collectively, the "Project"). A legal description of the proposed sphere of influence expansion and proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. D. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") and circulated for public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public review. DRAFT E. On October 23, 2008, the City gave notice to LAFCO that the Planning Commission would be considering the proposed Annexation on November 19, 2008, and that the City Council would hold a hearing to consider the proposed Annexation on a subsequent date. F. On October 23, 2008, the City gave notice to LAFCO that the Planning Commission would be considering recommendation to the City Council of adoption of this proposed Resolution of Application to LAFCO requesting that it take proceedings for the Santa Margarita Annexation as described above and in the legal description referenced above. This notice was provided to LAFCO twenty (20) days prior to the hearing as required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 pursuant to Government Code Section 56654. G. The Planning Commission, considered the Draft EIR for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2008, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify concerning the Draft EIR and the proposed Project. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project and the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify a Final EIR for the Project dated September 22, 2008, adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record of information received at the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-53 recommending that the City Council (1) approve a Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element to incorporate Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) as the General Plan Land Use Designations within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation; (2) approve a Pre-Zoning Ordinance for the pre-zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation; and (3) approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code and amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR- SM) and Conservation District-Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards. J. On November 20, 2008, the City gave notice to LAFCO that the City Council would be considering the adoption of this proposed Resolution of Application to LAFCO requesting that it take proceedings for the Santa Margarita Annexation as described above and in the legal description referenced above. This notice was provided to LAFCO twenty (20) days prior to the hearing as required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 pursuant to Government Code Section 56654. K. On December 9, 2008 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project and the proposed Final EIR, at DRAFT which time all persons interested in the proposed Final EIR, proposed General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Amendment, as well as the proposed Resolution of Application to LAFCO for the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion and proposed Annexation, had the opportunity to comment on and testify about the proposed Final EIR and proposed Project. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the Project and the proposed Final EIR, the City Council certified the Final El R prepared for the Project, adopted Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA. L. At this same hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Code Amendment, and all the comments and testimony thereon and the entire record concerning the Project, and the City Council adopted Resolution No. adopting the General Plan Amendment and gave the first reading of the Pre-Zoning Ordinance No. _ and Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance No. M. On December 9, 2008, the City Council for the City of Temecula considered a proposed Sphere of Influence expansion and adopted a Resolution requesting LAFCO begin proceedings to consider expansion of the City's sphere of influence to include the territory described above. N. The proposed Santa Margarita Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District is uninhabited, and a description of the boundaries of the territory is as set forth above. 0. This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence expansion requested in Resolution No. adopted by the City on [INSERT DATE] as noted above. P. The City of Temecula has introduced Pre-Zoning Ordinances for the Annexation Area as of the date of this resolution, copies of the adopted ordinances will be filed concurrently with this resolution and the City's application material, and prepared a plan for providing services to the Annexation Area, a copy of which will be filed with LAFCO with this Resolution and the City's application materials. Q. The reasons for the proposed annexation of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and Surrounding Areas to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District are as follows: (1 } To place the entire Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, within the City's jurisdiction so that one public agency, the City, is responsible for the protection of the Reserve; (2) To protect and preserve the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve as Open Space and an educational resource and protect and preserve the Santa Margarita River; DRAFT (3) To protect the biological resources located within the Annexation Area in which 181 animal species and an additional 331 plant species have been documented and observed within the SMER, including 20 sensitive species identified by the Department of Fish and Game as occurring within or in proximity to the proposed Annexation Area. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby requests the Local Agency Formation Commission to take all proceedings necessary for the annexation of certain territory described herein as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution and directs the City Manager to file this Resolution and all necessary application documents with LAFCO. DRAFT PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, 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 day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk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® EASTERLY BOUN DARY TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835 AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE; PAGE 1 OF 6 THENCE SOUTH 50' 06' 05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1696.11 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MAP, ALSO BEING THE CITY OF TEMECULA O BOUNDARY LINE, TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN BY RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 56 PAGES 39 TO 41 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 39' 48' 32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 4514.27 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE 10 WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 15 AS SHOWN BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MONUMENTATION MAP NO. 436591 THROUGH 436595 INCLUSIVE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY IN BOOK 204 PAGES 710 THROUGH 714 INCLUSIVE; 11 THENCE SOUTH 00' 28' 33" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 680.30 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 07' 15' 21" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 12 OF 230.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15' 37' 52" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 570.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY 13 AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1700.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 82' 44' 00" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTHERLY 14 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18' 12' 22", AN ARC LENGTH OF 540.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79' 03' 38" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE 15 EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 79' 03' 38" WEST; 16 THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, ALSO BEING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTHERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03' 55' 38", AN ARC LENGTH OF 123.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14' 52' 00" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 17 OF 421.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04' 14' 48" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 18 OF 623.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 46' 48" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 19 OF 895.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 07' 36' 10" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 20 OF 847.81 FEET; PAGE 2 OF 6 THENCE SOUTH 15' 38' 32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 580.13 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 15 AS SHOWN BY CALIFORNIA 21 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MONUMENTATION MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY IN BOOK 205 PAGES 134 THROUGH 144 INCLUSIVE; 22 THENCE SOUTH 15' 55' 50" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 869.08 FEET; 23 THENCE SOUTH 71' 29' 54" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 158.64 FEET; 24 THENCE SOUTH 16' 04' 34" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 827.48 FEET; 25 THENCE SOUTH 20' 27' 36" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1009.31 FEET; 26 THENCE SOUTH 49' 15' 12" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 743.87 FEET; 27 THENCE SOUTH 17' 33' 26" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 614.79 FEET; 28 THENCE SOUTH 02' 24' 49" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 352.02 FEET; 29 THENCE SOUTH 36' 58' 02" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 925.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63' 37' 47" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 30 OF 185.44 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 00' 23' 04" WEST ALONG SAID CENTER SECTION LINE OF 31 SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 132.29 FEET TO SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; 32 THENCE NORTH 88' 55' 36" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE, A DISTANCE OF 2403.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 36; THENCE NORTH 89' 55' 18" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 5259.28 FEET TO THE 33 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35 AS SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN PAGE 8832 OF RECORD OF SURVEY MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 89' 59' 23" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND THE 34 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2741.72 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; PAGE 3 OF 6 THENCE SOUTH 88' 59' 17" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND SAID 35 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 34, A DISTANCE OF 2721.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 89' 40' 46" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND THE 36 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2707.45 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1 /4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE NORTH 89' 27' 23" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND SAID 37 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2694.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE NORTH 00' 16' 35" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 38 33, A DISTANCE OF 2637.86 FEET TO THE WEST 1 /4 CORNER THEREOF, AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 00' 22' 47" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 39 1331.69 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1 /2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 89' 50' 20" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 40 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2653.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1 /2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 00' 22' 10" WEST ALONG THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF SAID 41 SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 1313.47 FEET TO THE NORTH 1 /4 CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 89' 26' 32" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 42 SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 2636.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 00' 29' 50" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 28, 43 A DISTANCE OF 1344.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SANTA ROSA RANCHO AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 56 PAGE 39 THROUGH 41, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 67' 19' 58" EAST ALONG SAID SANTA ROSA RANCHO BOUNDARY 44 LINE, A DISTANCE OF 12997.33 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 92 PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE SOUTH 00' 00' 20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 999.86 FEET TO THE 45 SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT NO. 109720 RECORDED 12-13-1967, ALSO SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE NORTH 51' 51' 46" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EASEMENT LINE, A 46 DISTANCE OF 815.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3100.00 FEET; PAGE 4 OF 6 47 THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASEMENT NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10' 25' 39", AN ARC LENGTH OF 564.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41' 26' 07" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EASEMENT LINE, A 48 DISTANCE OF 333.94 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO GAZAPO AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; 49 THENCE SOUTH 06' 17' 41" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 37.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS THEREOF; 50 THENCE SOUTH 45' 00' 21 " EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; 51 THENCE NORTH 87' 14' 44" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1138.19 FEET; 52 THENCE NORTH 60' 47' 31" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 835.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76' 29' 23" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A 53 DISTANCE OF 457.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 97 PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE NORTH 07' 27' 46" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 97, 54 A DISTANCE OF 918.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO POTRO PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE NORTH 28' 00' 57" WEST 466.70 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO ESTRIBO, SAID INTERSECTION 55 BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 28' 00' 57" WEST; 56 THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID CENTERLINE NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15' 00' 28", AN ARC LENGTH OF 157.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46' 58' 35" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 714.57 FEET ALONG SAID 57 CENTERLINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET; 58 THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID CENTERLINE NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26' 42' 1 1 AN ARC LENGTH OF 279.63 FEET; 59 THENCE NORTH 73' 40' 46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1016.47 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA = 5,015 ACRES, MORE OR LESS SEE ENCLOSED EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 5 OF 6 PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE r civic REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 4, F Ec EXPIRES: 3-31-08 OF CAIN PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X VICINITY AND SHEET INDEX MAP LEGEND ANNEXATION BOUNDARY EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY 5,015 ACRES MORE OR LESS 918001002 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. INDICATES EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY F SHEET 2 SHEE71 0 F SAN DIEGO COUNTY VICINITY MAP eo0 0 ow, > > Scale 1" = 12,000' I SHEET 5 I SHEET 8 F~ SHEET 7 -FF SHEET 6 SHEET INDEX MAP 3,000 0 3.000 00 Scale 1 6,000' No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X ~C) b~~ ©I I O Q ti C/L VIA GORRION \\O y 3 4 pM 2° P.O.B. O O O p Mc r~j C/L CAMINO ESTRIBO ® 940250006 Pc'~ tp 40250002 Cp. O ~ ® 1 9407.60004 11 p ~ ® 1 C/L CAMINO ESTRIBO r 1 EXISTING CITY O 1 1 ® 940260002 940260005 OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY C/L CAMINO POTRO 940250003 0 NGN~ R.S. 56/39-41 W SP FZP / ® 940260001 I ~ PM 10814 P.M.B. 78 ; W N / n S o R~cI~ ~P~`N ® 9 1 80700 1 4 PAGES 5- 8- I _ w M ® W 24 u~ T. 8 S, R. 3 W 1 918070019 W I 918070011 918070018 1 918070012 I I I 1 j 940280006 1 23 24 I I ~ I 1 918080002 1 918080003 26 25 918080010 1 918080011 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 o Q~OFESS/o414 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 0024,0 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA Z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - w No. 26159 m 28 AND SECTIONS 33 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND Exp. 3/31/08 ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN eao o soo too t J+~ C1V1` ~P THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY iiii~ III i III 9l OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Scale 1" = 1,000' F OF CM-0 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALI FORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SEE SHEET 2 R.S. 56/39-41 EXISTING CITY I OF TEMECULA j PM 10814 1 BOUNDARY P.M.B. 78 o Q ' PAGES 5-8 3: a- F-- 9 1 807001 4 L,J Q ~ :E O \i SECTION 24 I LL- N F- T.8S, R.3W z Ln O w 918070019 ~ i O 918070018 ~ OQO Q L~ I I I 9j~ (j I C) I I , 11 ~O I 918080008 I I 918080010 I 918080011 I J E C, I C O N 2b I I N82'44'00 Wy I 918080009 T.8S, R.3W I ~R~ I ` SEE i SHEET 4 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 Q,?,Of ESS/ON EXPIRES: 3-31-08 o E( COZgo e- ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA y Z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 w No. 26159 m 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND w Exp. 3/31/08 ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA {r RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN Soo u n 1 `r> CIVIC ~P THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY N " IA 9j OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFOR f OF CAt = 1,000 Scale 1 FLAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SHEET 3 OF 12 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE I 918080009 I I •o "W I I 5 9 I I I---- 16 - O I Q ~ I Q ~ 1 SLCTION 25 T.8S, R.3W o o N / 19 / d EXISTING CITY OF TEME 918080010 9100800;1 ~ . CULA BOUNDARY ~ 0 01 W Q o`ti ~ 1 LL I 1 918090007 1918100001 1 9 008 1 I r -r rt -1 1 19180900081 9181000021 918100007 1 1 - l'- 918090006 1 918100012 - 1 1 1 1 1 ® 918090009 918100003 918100006 `V 1 1 918090010 1 918100004 1 918100005 1 O CQ Z_ ® 918090013 918090014 IS E C T I O N 3 6i 918110028 O cO ® R. J~ W 1 T. 8S, ' 918090017 1 9180900188 1 918090021 ± 918090022 918110001 1 918110002 SEE SHEET 5 QRpFESS/0~ KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 ° 0 w No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 1 A.k soo o soo i oo J`J C 1 V I L 9r Scale 1 " = 1,000' OF C Al EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED QD W III W (J7) LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SEE SHEET 1 SEE SHEET 11 FOFORLCOURSE TABLE SEE SHEET 4 26 25 918080010 918080011 2 35 36 1 918090002 1 1 918090007 1 918100001 1 918, 000 081 r----1 1-----t-- ---t----1 1 918090003 1 1 918090008 1 918100002 1 918100007 1 918090001 1- - - - 918090006 1-- - - -4 - - - - - - - - - 918100012 1 918090004 1 1 918090009 1 918100003 1 918100006 1 L ----I L----I - ---1----J 1 918090005 1 1 918090010 1 918100004 1 918100005 1 - 918060007 918090011 1 918090012 1918090013 1 918090014 1 1 1918110028 918090015 1 918090016 1918090017 1 9180900181 1 1 t -1 918110001 1 918110002 1 1 918090020 1918090021 1 9180900221 I 1 Q 918o90019 1-- ---I----1-----I I I 1 918090023 1918090024 1918090025 1 I ( ® O 1 I I I O 918090026 1 918090027 1 918090028 1 918090029 1 1 I I I 918120044 4\ i I I I O' ~ 918090030 1 918090031 1918090032 1918090033 1 918060018 -------1---- I I ~ 918090034 1918090035 1 918090036 1 918090037 1 918130043 1 ( 1 I ~ 918090038 1 I I 1918090039 1 918090040 1918090042 918130031 351 36 I I 1918090043 ,-.h RIVERSIDE COUNTY S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 SAN DIEGO COUNTY o QRpFESS/O* q C 0 -40 c~ U.1 No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 aoo o sari , oo `r1,9 CIVIC Scale 1 ~ = 1,000' lF OF CAI EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X I I - - - I 918060008 918090026 1 918060019 1 918060013 1- - - - - - - - - -I 1 S E C TIiO N 3b 1 918060009 1 T.8S,1 R.3W 1 1 918090030 - - - - - - 918060014 i - - - - - 918060018 - - - I 918060021 1 918060010 1 I 918060022 ~ ~ - - - - - - - - I _ r 180900341 I 918060015 - - - - ` - 1 RAINBOW GLEN I RD. I 918060023 I - - - I 3 4 3 5 1 -1 18060011 1 918090038 1 w RIVERSIDE _ 918060024 1 COUNTY 35 36 1 w ~ LLJ ® S 1 /4 ® ® LLJ SEC 35 (n S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 W Li LLJ SAN DIEGO COUNTY LLJ Un (f) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE wo o wo o i Scale 1 1,000' KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" 100 w w V) Li w LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X 918060002 _ I / I/ % 918060003 - I L I/ - -1/ 918060019 918060001 v I I SECTION 34 I ! T.8S, R.3W I I 918060015 (.D S 1/4 34 35 w SEC 31~~ C O U N IY 4 W ® ® = Cn S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 W SAN DIEGO COUNTY Ld Cn SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE 3 )o 0 am 1 0o i Scale 1" = 1,000' KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED I I I 918060017 I 33,3% 4 i r- r'-1 n, r EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED .......................j LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X SEE SHEET 9 41 1 918040003 C-N 1/16 I i ® SFC 33 I L-------- 1/16 C 33 918040004 R . S . 10/22 SECTION 33 T. 8S, R. 3W 3 F W `1/4 I I SEC 33 I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I I L - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - I I 918040012 1 918040011 918060017 33 I S 1/4 I 33 34 RIVERSIDE SEC 33~ COUNTY W W V Li__1 W (n S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE QROMESS 0 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 CO2q h C7 No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 eoo o eao I goo i `r>9 CIVIC Scale 1 * = 1,000 lF OF CA0' EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X ~PNGN roc 56I~~ SPN~P PAR R.S. 56/39-41 O SECTION 28 T. 8S, R. 3W 918050002 W L_1 918050001 91128 /-SEN 1/4 C 33 21 33 R . S . 10/22 41 918040004 N 1/16 SEC 33 C-N 1/16 ® SEC 33 SEE SHEET 8 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURS E TABLE soo o sa 1 1 00 Scale 1" = 1,000' 28 27 w I (n 33 34 I I 1 918040003 918060001 I I L---------1 KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X g p GAS C/L CAMINO GAZAPO pP 918070008 ~OS~ S~ I 940280006 I N 22 23 ~ ,W 27 26 -r '--L' 918070008 I w I I = 918050009 918080001 I I I W , R.S. 56/39-41 i w w I -------------------------I- w I I I I 918050004 i SECTION 26 SECTIION 27 T. 8S, R. 3W T.8S,1 R.3W I - - - - - - I 918050005 918080006 918050002 ' I I ~ I I 918050006 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE eoo o eoo 1 00 Scale 1" = 1,000' No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 C A1- KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X COURSE SHEET BEARING DELTA DISTANCE LENGTH RADIUS RECORD DATA PER COUNTY OF RECORD 1 N 73'40'46" E - - 387096 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE A 08'03'21 f 421.80 3000 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 3 N 81'44'07" E 499.39 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 4 34'3910 120.96 200 PM 29 27-41 RNERSIDE 5 N 47'04'57" E 329.51 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 6 56'40 03 197.81 200 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 7 N 09'35'06' W 153.94 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 8 S 49'08 24 E 716.40 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 9 S 50'06 05 W 1696.11 PM 29/27-41 RNERSIDE 10 S 39'48'32" E 4514.27 RS 56/39-41 RIVERSIDE 11 S 00'28 33 W 680.30 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 12 S 07'15 21 E 230.22 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 13 S 15-37'52" E 570.32 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 14 18'12'22* 540.19 1700 204/710-714 RIVERSIDE 15 S 79'03 38 W 100.00 204/710-714 RIVERSIDE 16 03'55 38 123.38 1800 204/710-714 RIVERSIDE 17 S 14-52'00' E 421.96 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 18 S 04-14'48" E 623.94 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 19 S 00-46'48" W 895.70 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 20 S 07-36"1 OW 847.81 204/710-714 RNERSIDE 21 S 15-38'324 W 580.13' 205Z134-144 RNERSIDE 22 S 15-55'50" W 869.08 2054134-144 RIVERSIDE 23S 71*29'54" W 158.64 205/134-144 RIVERSIDE 24S 16-04'34w W 827.48 205/134-144 RIVERSIDE 25S 2927'36" W 1009.31 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE 26S 49-15'1 2W 743.87 205/134-144 RNERSIDE 27S 1-r33'26" W 614.79 205 134-144 RNERSIDE 28.S 02'24 49 W 352.02 05 134-144 E RIVERSIDE 291S 36'58'02 W 925.56 134-144 205 RNERSIDE 301S 63'37 47 W 185.44 205 134-144 RNERSIDE KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 No. 26159 Exp. 3/31/08 C► r -OF C A%-O EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, TEMECULA, AND MURRIETA (AMENDED LAFCO NO. XX-XX-X COURSE SHEET 31 BEARING DELTA S 00'23 04 W DISTANCE LENGTH 132.29 RADIUS RECORD DATA PER 205/134-144 COUNTY OF RECORD RIVERSIDE 32 N 88'55 36 W 2403.10 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE 33 N 89'55 18 W 5259.28 205/134-144 RIVERSIDE 34 N 89'59 23 W 2741.72 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 35 S 88'59 17 W 2721.55 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 36 S 89'40 46 W 2707.45 ROS 883241-26 SAN DIEGO 37 N 89-27'23" W 2694.63 ROS 8832/1-26 SAN DIEGO 38 N 00'16'35" E 2637.86 RS 10/22 RIVERSIDE 39 N 00-22'47" E 1331.69 RS 10 22 RIVERSIDE 40 S 89'50 20 E 2653.19 RS 10422 RIVERSIDE 41 N 00'22 10 W 1313.47 RS 10422 RIVERSIDE 42 N 89-26'32' W 2636.01 RS 10/22 RIVERSIDE 43 N 00'29'50" E 1344.23 44 N 6T19'58" E 12997.33 RS 56/39-41 RIVERSIDE 45 - - S 00'00 20 E - 999.86 PM 29/27-4411 RIVERSIDE 4 6 '5151 46 E W 815.78 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 47 10'25'39" 564.18 3100 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 48 N 41-26'07" E 333.94 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 49 S 06'17'41 E 37.87 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 50 S 45'00 21 E 86.00 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 51 N 87* 14'44w E 1138.19 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 52 N 60-47'31 E 835.90 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 53 N 7629'23" E 457.79 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 54 N 07*27 46 E 918.42 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 55 N 28'00 57 W 466.70 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE 56 15-00-28: 157.16 600 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 57 N 4658'35 E 714.57 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 58 26'4211 279.63 600 PM 29427-41 RIVERSIDE 59 N 73-40-46- E 1016.47 PM 29/27-41 RIVERSIDE KEVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-08 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO INCORPORATE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) AS THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study of an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Expansion of approximately 4,600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita River and northerly of the San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). B. On March 6, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-23 to initiate proceedings for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. C. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA07-0225 (a General Plan and Change of Zone Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside County boundary (collectively the "Amendment"). D. The Amendment was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") and circulated for public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public review. F. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Amendment and environmental review on November 19, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff presented its report and DRAFT interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. G. Following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Amendment. H. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed Amendment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-53 recommending that the City Council approve the Project, including the General Plan Amendment. 1. On December 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Amendment at which time all persons interested in the proposed Amendment had the opportunity to, and did, address the City Council on these matters. Following receipt of all public testimony the City Council closed the hearing. J. On December 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the project and the Final EIR, at a duly noticed public hearing, and by adoption of Resolution No. certified the Final EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopted Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. K. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Amendment, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed Amendment integrates the Santa Margarita Area Annexation into the City's General Plan. The proposed Amendment integrates the Santa Margarita Area Annexation into the City's General Plan by amending the City's General Plan Land Use Map to adopt General Plan Land Use Designations for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation consisting of Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS). Currently, 554 acres of the 4,997 acres of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and are already designated on the City's General Plan Land Use Map with 398 acres as Open Space (OS) and 236 acres Hillside Residential (HR). The Amendment will adopt the remaining 4,443 acres into the City's General Plan Land Use Map designating 3,966 acres as Open (OS) and 477 acres as Hillside Residential (HR). In total, the Santa Margarita Area Annexation encompasses 4,997 acres of which 4,284 acres will DRAFT be designated as Open Space (OS) and 713 acres will be designated as Hillside Residential (HR). The Amendment is contingent upon the ultimate approval by Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO') and, if approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment will integrate the Santa Margarita Area Annexation into the City's General Plan. B. The proposed Amendment implements the direction, goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed Amendment implements the direction, goals and policies outlined within the City of Temecula General Plan. The Santa Margarita Area Annexation encompasses approximately 4,997 acres of which 4,284 acres propose Conservation-Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) as the Zoning District to implement the Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation and 713 acres propose Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR-SM) as the Zoning District to implement the Hillside Residential (HR) General Plan Land Use Designation. -The Open Space Element (Water Resources Pages OS-23 and OS-24) calls for the protection of the Santa Margarita River from development impacts supported by Goal OS-2, Policies 2.1 and 2.9. -The Open Space Element (Biological Resources Pages OS-25 and OS-26) emphasizes permanent dedication of open spaces in and around the community aimed to conserve resources of significance and safeguard viable ecological connections between significant natural areas supported by Goal OS-3, Policies 3.1-3.7 (Policy 3.7 specifically indicates the City's policy to maintain and enhance the resources of the Santa Margarita River to ensure the long term viability of the habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement corridors). -The Open Space Element (Open Space Page OS-26 through Page OS-28) recognizes that topographical features such as the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, as well as natural drainage courses and states that the environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should be protected from insensitive development and activities, supported by Goal OS-5, Policies 5.1-5.3, and 5.8. -The Open Space Implementation Programs of the City of Temecula General Plan including OS-9; OS-10; OS-11; OS-12; OS-13; OS-14, OS-19; OS-20, OS-21; OS-22, OS-25, OS-33; OS-34; OS-35. -The Land Use Element (Natural Resources and Community Aesthetics Page LU-47) indicates the importance of hillsides, which form an aesthetic backdrop for the community, and is supported by Goal LU-6, Policies 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4. -The Land Use Implementation Programs of the City of Temecula General Plan including LU-14; LU-18, LU-20; and LU-21. The propose Hillside Development Standards specifically address LU-19 which states, "Promote DRAFT preservation of hillsides surrounding the community through the following actions: (1) Enforce hillside grading standards to naturalize the effects of grading; (2) Require the preservation of unique natural features, (3) Encourage a broad range of architectural and site planning solutions and (4) Develop hillside development standards that consider site constraints in determining location, type and intensities of new development along the western escarpment and other surrounding hillside areas. The Amendment is contingent upon the ultimate approval by LAFCO approved. If approved, the proposed amendment will establish the framework to ensure development within the project area implements the directions, goals and policies related to the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive resources, habitat and the hillsides area as outlined within the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan Policies referenced herein are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as if set forth in full. C. The proposed Amendment preserves public lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation in natural open space while retaining the existing residential and agricultural character of privately owned lands. The proposed Amendment includes proposed Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation which will establish the framework to preserve public lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation in natural open space while retaining the existing residential / agricultural character of privately- owned lands. Hillside Development Standards will facilitate and permit the orderly development of private and public properties within the HR-SM (Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita) and OS-C-SM (Conservation-Santa Margarita) Zoning Districts of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. The implementation of the Zoning Districts would allow no more than one dwelling unit per ten acres within the HR-SM zone (and limited development within the OS-C-S zone). In conjunction with the proposed Zoning Districts, the Hillside Development Standards will effectively preserve the rural character of the area. It will also protect and preserve natural and biological resources by carefully considering the size, type, location, density and intensity of development based on available infrastructure, the geographic steepness of terrain, presence of unique geographic conditions and constraints, and presence of environmentally sensitive resources and habitat. Furthermore, the development standards will ensure sensitive site design related to grading, landscape architecture and architecture. These standards would be added to the City's Municipal Code, and made applicable to the Annexation Area contingent upon approval of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation by LAFCO. If approved, the proposed Amendment will establish the framework to retain the existing residential and agricultural character of privately owned lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. DRAFT D. The proposed Amendment protects the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. The proposed Amendment includes proposed zoning and development standards, which protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER') by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which approximately 85% of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation boundary has been conserved as part of the SMER. To maintain protection of the SMER, the City's proposes to zone this area as OS-C-SM (Conservation-Santa Margarita), which limits development, The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is designed to serve as a living laboratory or an open classroom. All field stations are within natural areas and scientific monitoring stations are installed at various locations within the Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve Area to assist SDSU with continual research and educational programs. The pristine nature of the project area, as well as the property located within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, has made this area a valuable resource for ecological and environmental research. The need to keep an intact ecosystem for study and education of current and future generations of students also requires buffer lands around the SMER. The Annexation, if approved, in conjunction with associated Amendments to support the General Plan, will preserve the SMER and its surroundings, which is an integral part of preserving and protecting the entire Santa Margarita River. This vital ecological feature is one of the last free flowing rivers in the coastal southern California region. As such, the annexation represents a significant area of value for native wildlife, and a great variety of sensitive biological resources that are known to exist, or potentially exist, within the undeveloped portions of the Santa Margarita Area. Furthermore, the research potential and unique ecological value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is an objective of the City's request for the annexation of this area. The integration of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation into the Temecula City limits will enable the City to adopt the proposed Amendment and maintain consistency and compatibility with the City's goals for this area, including preserving natural conditions and resources as well as the scenic hillsides. Ultimate approval of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation is by LAFCO. If approved, the proposed Amendment will establish the framework to retain the existing residential and agricultural character of privately owned lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. This action will enable the City to limit land uses within and surrounding properties adjacent to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, that are incompatible with this biologically sensitive and ecologically rich property. DRAFT Section 3. General Plan Amendment. A. The property as shown on Exhibit 1, and described in Exhibit 2, is hereby designated as Hillside Residential (HR), which shall become the General Plan Land Use Designation upon annexation of the property to the City. B. The property as shown on Exhibit 3 and described in Exhibit 4, is hereby designated as Open-Space (OS), which shall become the General Plan Land Use Designation upon annexation of the property to the City. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. DRAFT PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, 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 day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Santa Margarita Area Annexation " S' Y P O' . L '.6 ✓ - ~00 CKL E9~~( s~ o° IN r<, o~ 3 ~r w ~ ~ ~ > ST JE~A ~ a~ f - C,YIMD _ T o - 4D~ ~ J VABA i AY a - Rhasl" County I San Diego County Mrgemawu Aia..alon General Plan LaM Use Dnlgnanons br N. Santa Ma,a. Areas Am,.s.b.n ® Hillade Rendental (HR) gel ON City of Temecula - Santa Margarita Area Annexation Exhibit 1 General Plan Amendment Properties with NR Designation Exhibit 2 Assessor Parcel Numbers with General Plan Amendment Hillside Residential (HR) Designation 918090016 918090001 918090039 918100004 918090012 918090006 918090036 918100007 918090026 918090005 918090031 918100006 918090028 918090017 918060022 918090008 918090011 918120044 918060021 918090021 918090024 918090023 918080008 918090013 918060013 918090019 918090043 918090007 918100003 918090010 918060010 918110001 918090002 918100005 918060009 918060008 918090003 918090014 918090033 918090034 918090004 918100008 918090042 918090040 918090025 918090018 918130031 918090037 918110002 918090027 918110028 918090030 918100001 918090009 918100002 918090038 918100012 918090032 918090015 918090035 918090020 918130043 918090029 918060011 918090022 918060023 918080009 918060024 Santa Margarita Area Annexation r9ty - i VT P PTRi$ ~ Efl 2D g:. 47 ~a0 ~ ~ Ei l ~ g ~ ¢y S V F` WLIE E e~'Ra t s m t pI - - I 114 yy c ` ` tea. YM I G S POO _ ~pyEnA _ DNINDE y r . AV 0 N~ D~ y C 6 V° I f MR V e - a ~o M %7'u a~ _ S1 7'a Aa a Oa NA County t gan Diego County MTR MeyMVAna Anrontlan Grcnl Plan LanE Usa Dnignetians OUIMa Mamarlts A- Ann®.enn ~43 open space (os) gel ON City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area Annexation Exhibit 3 General Plan Amendment Properties with OS Designation Exhibit 4 Assessor Parcel Numbers with General Plan Amendment Open Space (OS) Designation 940250002 918070014 940260005 940250003 918070011 940260002 940260003 918050009 940260004 940280006 918070019 918060018 940250006 918080011 918040011 918060014 918050003 918050008 918080007 918080010 918060019 918050006 918050002 918050001 918060007 918070012 918070018 918040003 918070008 918080001 918060001 918050005 918080003 918040004 918060017 918050007 918060020 918060015 918060002 918060003 918080002 918050004 918060006 918040012 918080006 918060016 918060004 940260001 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION PRE-ZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) WITH ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C- SM) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study of an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Expansion of approximately 4,600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita River and northerly of San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). B. On March 6, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-23 to initiate proceedings for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. C. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA07-0225 (a General Plan and Change of Zone Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside County boundary (collectively the "Amendment"). D. The Amendment was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") and circulated for public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public review. DRAFT F. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on November 19, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. G. Following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Amendment. H. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed Amendment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-53 recommending that the City Council approve the Project, including the Pre-Zoning. 1. On December 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the project and the Final EIR, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, and certified the Final EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopted Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. J. On December 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Pre-Zone and Zoning Amendment at which time all persons interested in the proposed Amendment had the opportunity to, and did, address the City Council on these matters. Following receipt of all public testimony the City Council closed the hearing. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Pre- Zoning, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The Proposed Amendment implements the direction, goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed Pre-Zone implements the proposed and existing General Plan Land Use Designations, which ultimately implements the direction, goals and policies outlined within the City of Temecula General Plan. The Pre-Zone applies Zoning Districts within the Development Code to match the boundaries of the proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. The Santa Margarita Area Annexation encompasses approximately 4,997 acres of which 4,284 acres propose Conservation-Santa Margarita (OS-C- SM) as the Zoning District to implement the Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation and 713 acres propose Hillside Residential-Santa DRAFT Margarita (HR-SM) as the Zoning District to implement the Hillside Residential (HR) General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed Pre-Zoning for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation are consistent with goals, policies and implementation programs as outlined in the adopted City of Temecula General Plan including, but not limited to, the General Plan Land Use Policies identified within Table 3.4-3 of the E1R and the General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs as follows: -The Open Space Element (Water Resources Pages OS-23 and OS-24) calls for the protection of the Santa Margarita River from development impacts supported by Goal OS-2, Policies 2.1 and 2.9. -The Open Space Element (Biological Resources Pages OS-25 and OS- 26) emphasizes permanent dedication of open spaces in and around the community aimed to conserve resources of significance and safeguard viable ecological connections between significant natural areas supported by Goal OS- 3, Policies 3.1-3.7 (Policy 3.7 specifically indicates the City's policy to maintain and enhance the resources of the Santa Margarita River to ensure the long term viability of the habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement corridors). • The Open Space Element (Open Space Page OS-26 through Page OS- 28) recognizes that topographical features such as the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, as well as natural drainage courses and states that the environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should be protected from insensitive development and activities, supported by Goal OS-5, Policies 5.1-5.3, and 5.8. -The Open Space Implementation Programs of the City of Temecula General Plan including OS-9; OS-10; OS-11; OS-12; OS-13; OS-14, OS-19; OS- 20, OS-21; OS-22; OS-25; OS-33; OS-34; OS-35. -The Land Use Element (Natural Resources and Community Aesthetics Page LU-47) indicates the importance of hillsides, which form an aesthetic backdrop for the community, and is supported by Goal LU-6, Policies 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4. -The Land Use Implementation Programs of the City of Temecula General Plan including LU-14; LU-18, LU-20; and LU-21. The propose Hillside Development Standards specifically address LU-19 which states, "Promote preservation of hillsides surrounding the community through the following actions: (1) Enforce hillside grading standards to naturalize the effects of grading; (2) Require the preservation of unique natural features, (3) Encourage a broad range of architectural and site planning solutions, and (4) Develop hillside development standards that consider site constraints in determining location, type and intensities of new development along the western escarpment and other surrounding hillside areas. DRAFT The Zoning is contingent upon the ultimate approval by LAFCO approved. If approved, the proposed amendment will establish the framework to ensure development within the project area implements the directions, goals and policies related to the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive resources, habitat and the hillsides area as outlined within the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan Policies referenced herein are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as if set forth in full. B. The proposed Amendment protects the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. The proposed zoning and development standards would protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER') by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which approximately 85% of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation boundary has been conserved as part of the SMER. Section 3. Pre-Zoning. A. The property as shown on Exhibit 1, and described in Exhibit 2, is hereby pre-zoned Hillside Residential - Santa Margarita (HR-SM), which shall become the zoning upon annexation of the property to the City. B. The property as shown on Exhibit 3 and described in Exhibit 4, is hereby pre-zoned Open-Space Conservation Santa Margarita (OC-C-SM), which shall become the zoning upon annexation of the property to the City. Section 4. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, but will not become effective unless and until the Annexation of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation is approved by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. DRAFT PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, 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 Ordinance No. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , , and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk X X } WRS x WRSx x x RI.1" County n an Ch"o County 05tH aMa moms ArNgn~aaMlm at, as Ta vW CoMmd. Ul z 2o"I'0esl9nasons b~Me Same Mal ar A-Mnexaton rXn „wsM gel City of Temecula - Santa Margarita Area Annexation Exhibit 1 Pre-Zoning Amendment Properties with MRSM Zoning Designation Exhibit 2 Assessor Parcel Numbers with Pre-zoning Designation of Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita District (HR-SM) 918090016 918090001 918090039 918100004 918090012 918090006 918090036 918100007 918090026 918090005 918090031 918100006 918090028 918090017 918060022 918090008 918090011 918120044 918060021 918090021 918090024 918090023 918080008 918090013 918060013 918090019 918090043 918090007 918100003 918090010 918060010 918110001 918090002 918100005 918060009 918060008 918090003 918090014 918090033 918090034 918090004 918100008 918090042 918090040 918090025 918090018 918130031 918090037 918110002 918090027 918110028 918090030 918100001 918090009 918100002 918090038 918100012 918090032 918090015 918090035 918090020 918130043 918090029 918060011 918090022 918060023 918080009 918060024 Exhibit 4 Assessor Parcel Numbers with Pre-zoning Designation of Conservation-Santa Margarita District (OS-C-SM) 940250002 918070014 940260005 940250003 918070011 940260002 940260003 918050009 940260004 940280006 918070019 918060018 940250006 918080011 918040011 918060014 918050003 918050008 918080007 918080010 918060019 918050006 918050002 918050001 918060007 918070012 918070018 918040003 918070008 918080001 918060001 918050005 918080003 918040004 918060017 918050007 918060020 918060015 918060002 918060003 918080002 918050004 918060006 918040012 918080006 918060016 918060004 940260001 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY ADOPTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) AND ADOPTING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PRE-ZONING OF THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,997 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (PA07-0225) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 23, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study of an Annexation and Sphere of Influence Expansion of approximately 4600 acres westerly of Interstate 15 southerly of the Santa Margarita River and northerly of the San Diego County (the "Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). B. On March 6, 2007, the City of Temecula City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-23 to initiate proceedings for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. C. On August 1, 2007, the City of Temecula initialized Planning Application No. PA07-0225 (a General Plan and Change of Zone Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA07-0226 (a Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County and Riverside County boundary ("Project"). D. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. DRAFT E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") and circulated for public review from September 22, 2008 through November 5, 2008 for a 45-day public review. F. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on November 19, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. G. Following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-52 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Amendment.. H. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed Amendment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-53 recommending that the City Council approve the Project, including the Zone Text Amendment. 1. On December 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Amendment at which time all persons interested in the proposed Amendment had the opportunity to, and did, address the City Council on these matters. Following receipt of all public testimony the City Council closed the hearing. J. On December 9, 2008, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the project and the Final EIR, at a duly noticed public hearing, and by adoption of Resolution No. certified the Final EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, adopted Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 2. Table 17.03.010 (Planning and Zoning Approval Authority) of Section 17.03.010 of Chapter 17.03 (Administration of Zoning) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add a new row immediately following the row entitled "Secondary Dwelling Unit," to read as follows, with all other aspects of the table remaining unchanged: DRAFT Table 17.03.010 Planning and Zoning Approval Authority Application Administrative Approval Planning Director Planning Commission City Council "Hillside Development Permit XV Section 3. A new Section 17.04.060 (Hillside Development Permit) is hereby added to Chapter 17.04 (Permits) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "17.04.060 Hillside Development Permit A. Purpose and Intent. A Hillside Development Permit is required to facilitate and permit the orderly development of property within the HR-SM (Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita) and the OS-C-SM (Conservation-Santa Margarita) Zoning Districts within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. The permit process will ensure that projects comply with a set of hillside development standards aimed a protecting the public health, safety and welfare; protecting and preserving natural and biological resources for long-term benefit of the City by carefully considering the size, type, location, density, and intensity of development based on available infrastructure; the geographic steepness of terrain; presence of unique geographic conditions and constraints; and presence of environmentally sensitive areas. Specific regulations and standards address the following City objectives: B. Application Requirements. Applications for a Hillside Development Permit shall be completed in accordance with the Section 17.03.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code. C. Authority of Hearing Bodies for a Hillside Development Permit. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to hear and act upon a Hillside Development Permit in accordance with the Temecula Development Code. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and act upon any appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 17.03.090 of the Development Code. D. Hearing and Notice. Upon the determination that a Hillside Development Permit application is complete, a public hearing shall be scheduled with the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, date and place of public hearing shall be given as provided in Section 17.03.040 of this Code. DRAFT E. Approval. A Hillside Development Permit may, based on findings set for in this Section, be approved, conditionally approved or denied after a public hearing. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. F. Findings. The Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a Hillside Development Permit only when the following findings can be made: 1. The Hillside Development Permit does not permit uses that are not otherwise allowed in the zone. 2. The proposed use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed use will not adversely affect adjacent residents or structures. 4. The nature and location of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. 5. The Hillside Development Permit places suitable conditions on the project to protect surrounding properties. G. Notice of Decision. A copy of the notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Section 17.03.040.E of the Temecula Municipal Code. H. Revocation. A Hillside Development Permit may be revoked or modified by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.03.080 of the Temecula Municipal Code." Section 4. A new subsection H (Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR-SM) is hereby added to Section 17.06.020 of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other portions of Section 17.06.020 remaining unchanged: "H. Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR-SM). The Hillside Residential- Santa Margarita zoning district is intended to provide for development of very low density residential uses within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation boundaries. This includes properties that have severe development constraints such as areas with slopes over twenty-five percent, biological resources and, limited emergency access. Typical lot sizes in the HR-SM district are equal to or greater than 10 acres." Section 5. A new column entitled "HR-SM" immediately following the column entitled "H," along with a new footnote 9, is hereby added to Table 17.06.030 DRAFT (Residential Districts) of 17.06.030 (Use Regulations) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other portions of the table remaining unchanged: Description of Use "HR-SM9 Residential Single-family detached P Duplex (two-family dwellings) - Single-family attached (greater than two units) - Multiple-family - Manufactured homes P Mobilehome park - Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or neglected children (six or fewer) P Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve) C Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (six or fewer) P Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (seven or more) C Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or more) C Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly 6 - Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities - Secondary dwelling units 7 P Granny flat P Guest house P Family day care homes-small P Family day care homes-large C Day care centers C Bed and breakfast establishments 6 C Emergency shelters C Transitional housing C Non-Residential DRAFT Description of Use "HR-SM9 Agriculture/open space uses s C Religious institutions C Public utility facilities C Educational institutions C Libraries - Medical marijuana dispensary - Museums and art galleries (not for profit) - Kennels and catteries 6 - Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats 6 P Temporary real estate tract offices P Recreational vehicle storage yard 3 - Parking for commercial uses - Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls - Convalescent facilities - Golf courses - Home occupations P Construction trailers 5'6 P" Notes: "9 Development within the HR-SM zoning district is subject to Section 17.06.080 Hillside Development Standards." Section 6. A new column entitled "HR-SM" added immediately following the column entitled "H," is hereby added to Table 17.06.040 (Development Standards - Residential Districts) of Section 17.06.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other portions of the table remaining unchanged: DRAFT Table 17.06.040 Development Standards - Residential Districts Residential Development Standards "HR-SM Lot Area Minimum net lot area (square feet) Minimum net lot area (acres) 10 Dwelling Units per net acre Lot Dimensions Minimum lot frontage at front property line (feet) 50 Minimum lot frontage for a flag lot at the front property line (feet) 40 Minimum width at required front setback area (feet) 100 Minimum average width (feet) 100 Minimum lot depth (feet) 150 Setbacks Minimum front yard (feet) 40 Minimum corner side yard (feet) 40 Minimum interior side yard (feet) 25 Minimum rear yard (feet) 25 Other Requirements Maximum height (feet) Subject to Section 17.06.080 Maximum percent of lot coverage Subject to Section 17.06.080 Open space required Subject to Section 17.06.080 Private open space/per unit Subject to Section 17.06.080" Section 7. A new Section 17.06.080 (Hillside Development Standards) is hereby added to Chapter 17.06 (Residential Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code and Chapter 17.06 to read as follows: DRAFT "Section 17.06.080 Hillside Development Standards. A. Purpose and Intent. This Section is established to achieve the City's objective to facilitate and permit the orderly development of property within the HR-SM zone in the Santa Margarita Area Annexation through a set of hillside development standards aimed a protecting the public health, safety and welfare; protecting and preserving natural and biological resources for long-term benefit of the City and the broader community, recognizing the inherent value in the properties subject to the HR-SM Zone; allowing size, type, location, density, and intensity of development based on available infrastructure; the geographic steepness of terrain, presence of unique geographic conditions and constraints; and presence of environmentally sensitive areas; and optimizing the use of sensitive site design, grading, landscape architecture, and architecture, all to achieve the City's objectives. Specific regulations and standards address the following City objectives: 1. To protect the value of the community and the subject property of ridgelines, prominent landforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities, and other natural, biological, archaeological/historical, and scenic resources. 2. To preserve the visual and aesthetic quality of hillsides as viewed from the surrounding community. 3. To promote and encourage a variety of high quality, alternative architectural and energy efficient development designs and concepts appropriate for hillside areas. 4. To preserve the public health, safety, and welfare and specifically protect the public and property from hazards such as seismic, geologic, and fire. B. Applicability and Permit Required. This Section applies to all properties within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation that are located within the HR-SM Zoning District. In addition to any other permit or approval required by this Code, any person proposing to subdivide, grade, erect, or construct into, over, or on top of property within the HR-SM Zoning Districts shall first obtain a land use entitlement through the approval of a Hillside Development Permit pursuant to Section 17.04.060 to ensure compliance with this Section. DRAFT C. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings for purposes of this Section- 1 . Accessory Facilities: Buildings, structures, roads, driveways, walls or fences incidental to permitted, or conditionally permitted, use. 2. Disturb: Alter the natural surface of the land or the natural vegetation by any means, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, brushing, grubbing, or landscaping. 3. Graded Slope: All the faces of a graded slope, from the toe of the slope to the top of the slope, whether the faces are covered by natural vegetation, riprap, retaining walls or other material. 4. Hill: A well-defined natural elevation that extends above surrounding terrain. 5. Hillside: The side or slope of a hill. 6. Hillside Development Permit: An entitlement based upon an application which includes all required submittal documents that comprehensively evaluated to determine its impacts on neighboring property and the community as a whole, from the standpoint of the site, landscape design, architecture, materials, colors, lighting, signs, in accordance with the applicable development standards for the zone, as well as the Hillside Development Standards. 7. Hillside Development Standards: The Hillside Development Standards approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula as now exist and as may from time to time be amended. 8. MSHCP: The Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula on December 16, 2003. 9. Peak: The summit of a hill. 10. Restoration: The process of repairing a disturbed site to replicate its natural condition. 11. Ridgeline: A line connecting the highest elevation points of a ridge, running center and parallel to the long axis of the ridge. 12. Site: The parcel on which development is proposed. DRAFT 13. Slope Analysis: An analysis prepared by a California licensed land surveyor or civil engineer based on a topographic map with contour intervals not exceeding 10 feet. D. Exemptions from Hillside Development Permit. 1. The following are exempt from the provisions of this Section: (a) Any development proposal calling for the construction of a structure in a ridgeline area having received approval, pursuant to the adopted regulations in effect at the time of approval, prior to enactment of the Ordinance shall be exempt; however, the requirements of the Ordinance shall be applied if an extension of time is requested. (b) Open space projects and regional or community trails on City of Temecula owned property. (c) City or other governmental projects that receive approval by the City Council of the City of Temecula. E. Environmental Assessment Required. A Hillside Development Permit processed under this Section shall be a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. F. Application Requirements. In addition to the application requirements of Section 17.03.030 of the Development Code, all of the following shall be submitted with a Hillside Development Permit application in the HR-SM Zoning District. 1. A site plan drawn to scale by a California licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer, showing the location of all existing peaks, ridge lines, hills, hillsides and other significant landforms including rock outcroppings, all areas within two hundred (200) feet of a peak or ridge line, the location of all existing watercourses, the location of all existing vegetation including oak trees and the type and quantity thereof, the location of all existing and proposed agricultural areas, the location of all existing and proposed dwellings and the location of all existing and proposed accessory facilities. 2. A grading plan, including a blasting permit, if necessary, subject to the requirements of Title 18 of the Temecula Municipal Code 3. A topographic map of the site, drawn to scale by a California licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing all the items referenced in paragraph 1 above. The scale on the topographic DRAFT map shall be no smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet with contour intervals not exceeding ten (10) feet. 4. A slope analysis of the site showing the following slope categories- 0-15% grade, 16-20% grade, 21-25% grade and over 25% grade prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or a Registered Engineer. 5. Underground utility plan. 6. A biological report for the site addressing the topics enumerated in Section (conservation required) of this ordinance. 7. A Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified by archaeologist. 8. Photographs of the portion(s) of the site that would be disturbed taken from each corner of the site and from all vantage points deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning. 9. A proposed land disturbance plan showing and describing the portion(s) of the site that would be disturbed, and the nature and extent of the disturbance. 10. A proposed erosion and sedimentation control plan showing and describing interim and ultimate erosion and sedimentation control measures. 11. A proposed landscape and habitat restoration plan, including a restoration time schedule, showing and describing how the site would be landscaped and repaired and how the natural conditions of the site would be replicated. A qualified biologist shall prepare the habitat restoration plan. 12. A proposed architectural plan showing how primary and accessory structures would be constructed. 13. A proposed exterior lighting plan showing how primary and accessory structures, and landscaping would be illuminated. 14. A line of sight analysis, visual analysis, geologic study or any other requirement deemed appropriate by the Planning Director. 15. A fuel modification plan consistent with the General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, February 8, 2006. DRAFT G. Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply in the Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita (HR-SM) Zone whenever a Hillside Development Permit is required by this Section: 1. Height. (a) No dwelling, building or structure shall have more than two (2) stories. (b) On a level building pad, the maximum height of a dwelling, building or structure shall be thirty (30) feet measured from the foundation. (c) On a terraced building pad, the maximum height of a dwelling, building or structure shall be forty (40) feet measured from the lowest finished floor level, excluding any basement areas. 2. Lot Area. (a) The minimum lot size shall be ten (10) acres in the HR-SM zone. (b) Development in accordance with this Section may occur on a lot smaller than ten (10) acres in the HR-SM zone if the lot was legally created or previously existed on the effective date of this Ordinance, but no further subdivision of such a lot shall be allowed. 3. Land Disturbance. Land disturbance shall conform in all respects with the land disturbance plan approved by the Director of Planning. A land disturbance plan shall, at a minimum, meet the following requirements, but meeting these requirements does not guarantee approval of the plan. (a) Areas situated within two hundred (200) feet of a peak or ridgeline shall not be disturbed. (b) Natural slopes having a twenty-five (25) percent or greater grade shall not be disturbed. (c) The horizontal distance between a natural or graded slope and a roof, or portion thereof, shall not be less than twenty (20) feet. DRAFT (d) The vertical distance of a graded slope shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet from the toe of the slope to the top of the graded slope, unless a five (5) foot bench is placed between two (2) graded slopes and the bench is planted with vegetation similar to that growing on the portion(s) of the site that have not been disturbed. (e) The maximum height of a graded slope, including required benching, shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (f) The use of blasting for road construction or pad grading shall be strongly discouraged and alternate construction techniques shall be used if feasible. Site disturbance and grading shall be kept to a minimum. (g) Land disturbance shall not exceed the following limitations: Land Disturbance Limitations Table HR-SM Zoning District Parcel/Lot Size Maximum Area That May Be Disturbed 10 net acres or greater 40,000 square feet Less than 10 acres 10% of the lot area (h) Land disturbance shall conform in all respects with the erosion and sedimentation control plan approved by the Director of Planning or Public Works. 4. Landscaping and Restoration. Landscaping and restoration shall conform in all respects with the landscaping and restoration plan approved by the Director of Planning. A landscaping and restoration plan shall be accompanied by a cash deposit equal to the cost of the re- vegetating all disturbed areas. The restoration plan shall be prepared by a biologist with expertise in habitat restoration. The Director of Planning shall retain this deposit until he/she is satisfied that re-vegetation has been successful, but in no event shall the Director of Planning retain the deposit for more than five (5) years. Within the five (5) year period, the Director shall have the authority to use the deposit to complete the required re-vegetation. 5. Architecture. Dwellings and accessory facilities shall conform in all respects with the architectural plan approved by the Planning Commission. DRAFT 6. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall conform in all respects with the exterior lighting plan approved by the Director of Planning. An exterior lighting plan shall, at a minimum, meet the following requirements, but meeting these requirements does not guarantee approval of the plan: (a) Lights shall not be located on the portion(s) of the site that have not been disturbed. (b) Lights shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet from any property line. (c) Lights shall be fully shielded and directed away from areas deemed inappropriate by the Director of Planning. (d) Walls and other architectural elements shall not be lighted for decorative purposes. (e) Tennis and other sport courts shall not be lighted for any purposes. (f) The maximum lighting intensity of the site shall not exceed 250 lumens when measured at any property line. 7. Energy Efficient Standards. Energy efficient standards shall be incorporated during the construction and operational phase of any structure permitted under this Section. (a) Construction of any structure for human habitation permitted under a Hillside Development Plan shall be required to exceed Title 24 standards by a minimum of 10 percent. (b) All structures for human habitation shall incorporate sealed duct systems. (c) All structures for shall incorporate fluorescent lighting where practical. (d) "Energy Star" appliances shall be installed in all structures where applicable. (e) All structures for human habitation shall incorporate high- albedo roofing. DRAFT (f) All structures for human habitation shall incorporate dual pained glass windows (g) All residential structures shall incorporate at least two of the following features to obtain a final building inspection. (1 } Spectrally selective or Low-E glass on all windows and doors. (2) Enhanced insulation which exceeds Title 24 standards by at least 15 percent. (3) A landscape design that utilizes trees or other vegetation to shade the structures sidewalks, patios, and driveways. (4) Solar water heaters. (5) Photovoltaic systems to supply at a minimum 80% of the normal power needs of the structures proposed and existing based on an annual average. 8. Green Building. All residential structures will be required to incorporate one of the following features in order to obtain a final building inspection. (a) Engineered and certified wood, which is harvested in a sustainable manner. (b) Tankless water heaters. (c) Cellulose attic insulation made from recycled materials. (d) Floor coverings made from recycled or sustainable materials. 9. Environmental Protection. Projects within the HR-SM zoning district shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the pre- zoning and annexation of the property to the City. H. Hillside Design Standards. In deciding whether to approve a Hillside Development Permit as required by this article and any subordinate land disturbance plan, erosion and sedimentation control plan, landscaping and restoration plan, architectural plan or exterior lighting plan, the Director of Planning shall certify that the DRAFT plan complies with this Ordinance and the Hillside Design Standards. Applicants are strongly advised to consider the Hillside Design Standards in formulating the above-referenced plans. Relief from Development Standards. Notwithstanding the specific requirements set forth in this Section 17.06.080 above, relief from the development standards may be granted concurrently with the processing of a Hillside Development Permit in accordance with the following procedure: 1. An applicant may file an application for relief from certain development standards with the Planning Department. The application shall be filed on forms and submitted with information as required by the Department. 2. Applications for an relief from development standards shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the submittal requirements of Sections F and G of this Ordinance, and the following: (a) Fees in accordance with the most recently adopted fee schedule. (b) In certain cases, the Directors of Planning, Building and Safety, or Public Works may require the project applicant to provide additional studies, including but not limited to, geological studies and or a visual analysis of the project design either through a project simulation using computer aided three-dimensional modeling coordinated with photography showing before and after conditions or a scaled three-dimensional model showing before and after conditions. 3. The Planning Commission may approve relief from the requirements of Section (G of this Chapter) if: (a) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed alternative complies with and, furthers the intent of this ordinance. (b) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed alternative provides a design solution that is equivalent to or better than the standards prescribed in this ordinance for quality, effectiveness, durability, and safety. 4. The relief from development standards shall be heard at a public hearing of the Planning Commission.