Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
022310 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title III AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2010 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. --Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government:Code Section: 1) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to, Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City' Attorney. has determined that a point has been reached'where.there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and City related entities based on existing facts and circumstances. ` 'Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City'and,various parties maybe ac uired by reviewing the public documents held b the yClerk. Next in Order: Ordinance: 10-04 Resolution: 10-12 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Breanne Barnson Invocation: Rabbi Barry Ulrych of Congregation B'Nai Chaim of Murrieta Flag Salute: Council Member Roberts ROLL CALL: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation to Dr. Combs Certificate of Appreciation to Dr. Arthur C. Kalfus Presentation to exchange students traveling to our Sister City Leidschendam-Voorburg 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five minute (5) time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 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 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of February 9, 2010. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approval of 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 5 Prooertv Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the City of Temecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with Travelers Insurance Company and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company for the period of February 26, 2010 through February 26, 2011, in the amount of $275,310. 6 2010 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the contract with the City's current workers' compensation provider, Travelers Insurance Company, as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier for 2010 for an estimated premium cost of $311,131. 7 Approve the Sponsorship Requests for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run and the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Event Sponsorship Agreement in the amount of up to $39,100 in city support costs for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 7.2 Approve the Event Sponsorship Agreement in the amount of $26,775 for the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. In addition, the Festival requests that the City will provide temporary logistical support of the traffic control signs and devices to assist the public safety during the Festival estimated at $3,200. Authorize Temporary Street Closures for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run Event (Old Town Front Street, between Moreno Road and Second Street, and other related streets) scheduled for March 12 and 13, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close Old Town Front Street and other related streets for the "2010 TEMECULA SPRING ROD RUN EVENT' 9 Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with RBF Consulting for Additional Engineering and Landscape Architecture Design Services Associated with the Winchester Road/Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification — Proiect No. PW06-15 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the agreement with RBF Consulting in an amount not to exceed $4,200 to provide additional engineering and landscape architecture design services for Winchester Road/Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification — Project No. PW06-15. 10 Resolution to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Proiect French Valley Parkway / Interstate-15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER -CROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PW02-11 AND PW07-04) AND APPROVING THE PROJECT 11 Approval of the Drawings and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Bids from Pre - Qualified Vendors for the Audiovisual Integration of the Old Town Civic Center— Proiect No. IS-02 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the drawings and specifications and authorize the Department of Information Systems to solicit bids from Pre -qualified Vendors for audiovisual (AV) integration for Phase 2 of the Old Town Civic Center Project. 12 Massage Appeal Hearing Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPEAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR APPEALS RELATING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS 13 Autism Awareness Program (at the request of Council Member Mike Naaaar) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize staff to work with Council Member Naggar to create an Autism Awareness Program. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 10-01 Resolution: No. CSD 10-01 CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington 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 14 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the action minutes of February 9, 2010. 15 Approval of 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Adiustments RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS 16 Replace Existing Play Structure and Surfacing at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve an agreement with Miracle Playground Sales in the amount of $54,974.19 to replace playground equipment, safety surfacing, and shade fabric at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park. CSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 17 Community Services Department Monthly Report CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 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. TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 10-01 Resolution: No. RDA 10-03 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 18 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve the action minutes of February 9, 2010. 19 Approval of the 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 20 Redevelopment Department Monthly Report RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 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. E 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. 21 Consideration of approval of Resolutions/Ordinances for Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 (LR09-0024) 21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 BY APPROXIMATELY 4,126 ACRES TO INCLUDE ALL TERRITORY OF THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX-HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 56000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 10 21.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO/RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX- HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 56000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 21.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY (LR09-0024) 21.5 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 PRE -ZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 WITH ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) (1-1109-0024) 11 21.6 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 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 NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (LR09-0024) CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 22 Implementation of existing 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Contract Provision — PERS Contract Amendment/Early Retirement Option RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22.3 Certify PERS Form CON-12, Certification of Governing Body's Action; 22.4 Certify PERS Form CON-12AA, Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507; 22.5 Approve a second early retirement option for City employees for 180 days from July 1, 2010 to December 27, 2010. 12 23 Authorization for prepayment of the Civic Center Certificates of Participation (COP) Bonds RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Authorize the City Manager to initiate the prepayment of up to $12 million of the Certificates of Participation Bonds. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 24 Public Works Department Monthly Report 25 City Council Travel/Conference Report - January 2010 26 Planning Department Monthly Report 27 Economic Development Department Monthly Report 28 Police Departmental Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 13 PRESENTATIONS City of Temecula Certificate of Appreciation Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: Dr. Walter Combs for his extraordinary humanitarian efforts providing countless hours of medical services to the people of Haiti. Dr. Combs, in partnership with the Haiti Endowment Fund, a nonprofit organization dedicated to feeding and educating the poverty-stricken residents of the country's rural villages, has personally travelled to Haiti over 40 times in the past 14 years. Through the establishment of a medical clinic in Hinche, the people of Haiti, some who have never even seen a doctor, are provided basic medical care, medicine, and critical care. With the recent devastation caused by the earthquake in Haiti, the situation has worsened. As the Managing Partner of Rancho Family Medical Group, Dr. Combs has rotated physicians to Haiti to assist with relief efforts. These are characteristics in an individual that are valued in our community. As Mayor, I am proud and honored to recognize Dr. Combs for his selfless service to humanity. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-third day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of Appreciation Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: Dr. Arthur C. Kalfus The City commends Dr. Kalfus for his willingness to give up his dental practice of 20 years to serve a Congressional appointment to the United States Navy. This appointment has been accepted by Dr. Kalfus even though he has no prior service in the armed forces. The City wishes to recognize the extraordinary, unselfish, personal commitment and dedication that Dr. Kalfus shows his country. IN WITNESS WBEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-third day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY 9, 2010 — 7:00 PM pursuant to Government Code Section: 1) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and City related entities based on existing facts and circumstances. With respect to such matter, the City Council will also meet pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to decide whether to initiate litigation. 2) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of pending litigation to which the City is a party. The title of the litigation is "In the Matter of the Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) for a Permit to Construct Electrical Facilities with Voltages between 50kV and 200 kV. Triton Substation Project' now pending before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC Case No. A.08-11-019). Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. At 6:00 P.M., Mayor Comerchero called the Closed Session meeting to order. The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Susan Miyamoto Invocation: Pastor Dominic Rivkin of Trinity Lutheran Church Flag Salute: Council Member Roberts ROLL CALL: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS City Service Awards: • Old Town Local Review Board Member Peg Moor — 10 years • Public/Traffic Safety Commission Member Tomi Arbogast — 5 years PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Bridget Blanton - Temecula - Temporary Homeless Shelter at Mountain View Church • Lance Allen - Santa Fe Springs - representing Ray Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. - previous slurry seal projects throughout the City • Tom Wiggins - Temecula - representing Qualified Patient Resource Center - Medical Marijuana • Carol Monroe - Temecula - Margarita Road slopes • Tom Vining - Temecula • Perry Peters - Temecula - representing Friends of Ronald Reagan Sports Park • Duke Seino - Temecula • Fred Grindle - Temecula - Temporary Homeless Shelter at Mountain View Church CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of January 26, 2010. z 3 List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2009 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2009. 5 Approval of Projects for Annual Federal Appropriation Requests for FY 2011 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A LIST OF PROJECTS TO BE SENT TO FEDERAL LEGISLATORS REQUESTING ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS 6 Letter to County Auditor specifying how the Redevelopment Agency intends to fund the 2009-2010 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("SERAF") - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the letter to the Riverside County Auditor specifying how the Temecula Redevelopment Agency intends to fund its Fiscal Year 2009-2010 SERAF shift payment. 7 Letter of Intent for University Hills Development; 270.8 Acres West of Puiol Street Owned by John and Juanita Firestone - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Letter of Intent (LOI). CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 Discussion of the Blue Ribbon Committee Selection Process for the Qualitv of Life/Temecula 2030 Master Plan (at the request of Mayor Pro Tern Roberts and Council Member Washington) -Approved Staff Recommendation as amended to include the faith -based community on the Committee (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Establish a Blue Ribbon Committee for the Quality of Life/Temecula 2030 Master Plan, approve the process for appointing members to the Committee, authorize the Quality of Life/Temecula 2030 Subcommittee to proceed with forming the Blue Ribbon Committee. Senior Management Analyst Middlecamp provided the staff report (as per agenda material). CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT With respect to the two Closed Session litigation items, City Attorney Thorson advised that there was no action to report. It was noted that City Manager Nelson did not participate in the Closed Session litigation item regarding the SCE Triton Substation because his wife is an employee of SCE and, therefore, removed himself from the room during the discussion. ADJOURNMENT At 8:16 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney /V Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: February 23, 2010 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. 10- 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. 10- 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 $8,542,829.37. 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 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 02/04/2010 TOTAL CHECK RUN 02/11/2010 TOTAL CHECK RUN 02/04/2010 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: $ 749,849.53 7,344,928.72 448,051.12 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 02/232010 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 8,542,829.37 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,957,894.34 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDING 932.94 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 18,708.90 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 231,635.50 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 75,524.34 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 9,778.59 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 2,957,189.32 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 5,512.74 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 7,157.35 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 1,069,743.38 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 1,614,135.34 300 INSURANCE FUND 18,192.19 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 77,081.46 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 7,706.53 340 FACILITIES 25,693.48 477 CFD- RORIPAUGH 7,700.98 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA BE RETIREE-GASB45 10,190.87 $ 8,094,778.25 001 GENERAL FUND $ 270,333.63 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10,817.74 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 105,113.13 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 137.49 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 4,373.06 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,342.09 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 1,245.86 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 380.16 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 4,163.43 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,310.62 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23,280.16 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 5,448.96 340 FACILITIES 8,841.02 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA BE RETIREE-GASB45 11,263.77 448,051.12 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 8,542,829.37 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1412 02/04/2010 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM Blue Shield HMO Payment 0.00 PERS Health Admin Cost Payment 77,219.66 77,219.66 1413 02/04/2010 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 25,946.01 25,946.01 1414 02/04/2010 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 16,609.34 16,609.34 SOLUTION 1415 02/04/2010 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 115,169.38 115,169.38 RETIREMENT) 1416 02/04/2010 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Child Care Reimbursement Payment 9,165.30 9,165.30 1417 02/04/2010 000283 INSTATAX(IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 82,711.21 82,711.21 1418 02/04/2010 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT Support Payment 578.84 578.84 1419 02/04/2010 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment 2,226.38 2,226.38 SOLUTION 136668 01/21/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 100.00 100.00 136774 02/03/2010 010939 CALIF DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL elevator inspections: 42051 Main St 210.00 210.00 136775 02/04/2010 003552 A F L A C AFLAC Cancer Payment 3,502.30 3,502.30 136776 02/04/2010 013394 ABILLE, LUCIA MAE refund:sec dep:rm rental mpsc 150.00 150.00 136777 02/04/2010 013395 ADAWI, LAURIE refund:CPR/AED class 8250.102 20.00 20.00 136778 02/04/2010 008552 ADKINS DESIGN CONSULTING Dec graphic design secs: theater 978.75 978.75 136779 02/04/2010 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES Piano tuning & repair: Theater 1,600.00 1,600.00 136780 02/04/2010 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES Dec DUI & drug screenings: Police 632.00 (AFN) Dec DUI & drug screenings: Police 592.50 1,224.50 136781 02/04/2010 012985 ANDERSON & HOWARD Jan Cabling Svcs: Civic Center 44,630.19 44,630.19 ELECTRIC INC Pagel apChkLst 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136782 02/04/2010 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS 136783 02/04/2010 004623 AQUA TECH ENTERPRISES 136784 02/04/2010 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE 136785 02/04/2010 012834 AUDIO ADDICTION INC 136786 02/04/2010 013400 BAHOU, NADIM 136787 02/04/2010 010354 BATTERIES PLUS #316 136788 02/04/2010 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 136789 02/04/2010 012583 BLANCAYPRICE Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Description Dec animal control services pool supplies: TES billing adj: web hosting fee Grant Reimb:Cultural Arts Master Plan backup camera maint: Fire refund:eng dep:43864 calle de velardo batteries: Theater Dec DUI & drug screenings: Police Dec DUI & drug screenings: Police 1/9-29 Lndscp Pln Ck Svcs:Planning Amount Paid 13,000.00 879.24 -39.90 2,972.20 35.00 995.00 21.74 1,456.99 342.00 1,720.00 Page: 2 Check Total 13,000.00 879.24 2,932.30 35.00 995.00 21.74 1,798.99 1,720.00 136790 02/04/2010 005384 BOYZ refreshments: Council mtg 1/12 266.44 266.44 136791 02/04/2010 013396 BRAIDS IN THE CITY, LLC refund:sec dep/rm rental CRC 2/6 271.00 271.00 136792 02/04/2010 013349 BRENT,EDEN theater performance: 2/5/10 2,790.00 2,790.00 136793 02/04/2010 013401 BROOKSTONE CONSTRUCTION refund:eng grad dep:31107 mariposa 5,995.00 5,995.00 136794 02/04/2010 005055 BROWN, STEPHEN Retirement Medical Payment 695.00 695.00 136795 02/04/2010 009047 BUTTERFIELD STATION refund:eng grad dep:PM31454 995.00 995.00 136796 02/04/2010 009971 C S N STORES dining chair replacement:Stn 92 1,440.00 1,440.00 136797 02/04/2010 013398 CADDY, KEITH Release Claims Agreement Payment 659.11 659.11 136798 02/04/2010 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials PW patch truck materials 473.73 605.89 1,079.62 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description 136799 02/04/2010 005321 CALIF ASSOC OF CODE '10 CACEO mbrshp:Johnston, R '10 CACEO mbrshp:Cole, Tom '10 CACEO mbrshp:Ching, Maria '10 CACEO mbrshp:Voshall, Jean 136800 02/04/2010 005321 CALIF ASSOC OF CODE medical mj/legal tm 1/25:Parker, M medical mj/legal trn 1/25:Ball, D 136801 02/04/2010 001159 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE billing adj: credit balance on acct Nov Fingerprinting Svcs:Police Dec Fingerprinting Svcs:HR/PD 136802 02/04/2010 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY welding supplies: PW Maint 136803 02/04/2010 013399 CAMPBELL, ALICIA Release Claims Agreement Payment 136804 02/04/2010 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Jan copier lease pmt: Fire INC 136805 02/04/2010 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC Dec liability claims mgmt svc:finance 136806 02/04/2010 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel: CM 136807 02/04/2010 004609 CINTAS DOCUMENT Jan doc shred svcs: Citywide MANAGEMENT Dec doc shredding svcs:Citywide 136808 02/04/2010 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 136809 02/04/2010 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS alarm repair: Maint Facility 136810 02/04/2010 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC Shortel Software Maint:City Hall technical consulting: Info Sys 136811 02/04/2010 013389 CORONA FIRE SAFETY Juvenile FireSetter trn 222 Rialto FOUNDATION 136812 02/04/2010 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE 136813 02/04/2010 013379 COUSSOU, CELINE 136814 02/04/2010 003986 COZAD & FOX INC Artist hospitality supplies: theater Artist hospitality supplies: theater misc supplies:cultural arts pgrm TCSD Instructor Earnings Jan Survey Sv¢Snta Mgita Annex Amount Paid 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 65.00 65.00 -32.00 3,687.00 2,680.00 CM- 1 98.09 182.55 2,846.09 120.58 57.76 128.64 106.00 150.00 16,722.04 225.00 10.00 328.96 183.75 274.19 106.40 5,640.00 Page: 3 Check Total 300.00 130.00 6,335.00 36.31 98.09 182.55 2,846.09 120.58 186.40 106.00 150.00 16,947.04 10.00 786.90 106.40 5,640.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136815 02/04/2010 013016 CR STUDIO 4 TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00 168.00 136816 02/04/2010 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Feb storefront lease: PD Old Town 2,847.92 2,847.92 136817 02/04/2010 001393 DATA TICKET INC Dec parking citation svcs: Police 1,872.90 1,872.90 136818 02/04/2010 012600 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES INC Dec cnslt svcs: Butterfield Stg Rd 12,390.50 12,390.50 136819 02/04/2010 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Feb restroom svc:Vail Rnch Park 52.88 SRVCS Feb restroom svc: Veterans Park 52.88 Feb restroom svc:Lng Cyn Park 52.88 Feb restroom svc: Riverton Park 52.88 Feb restroom svc:Redhawk Park 52.88 264.40 136820 02/04/2010 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: Code Enf/Pln 507.59 507.59 INC 136821 02/04/2010 003754 DOWNTOWN R & D CENTER 1 yr subscr: Downtown Promo Rpt SN 186.50 186.50 136822 02/04/2010 011203 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING Jan janitorial svcs: TCSD Parks 5,315.00 5,315.00 136823 02/04/2010 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING Jan janitorial svc: police mall office 625.00 625.00 CONTRACTORS 136824 02/04/2010 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES INC Misc Supplies: High Hopes Prgm 308.77 Misc Supplies:High Hopes Pgrm 137.91 446.68 136825 02/04/2010 011967 FULL VALUE ENTERTAINMENT sttlmnt: Live at the Merc 1/22 182.00 182.00 136826 02/04/2010 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC Dec exchg osmosis washer:Stn 73 64.17 64.17 136827 02/04/2010 011283 GABRIEL ROEDER SMITH & Dec emp benefit valuation:HR 2,092.57 2,092.57 COMPANY 136828 02/04/2010 013107 GRANT, GLENN broadcasting: Old Town holidays 1,000.00 1,000.00 136829 02/04/2010 006916 GREYSTONE HOMES refund:eng grad dep:TM 31276 PGP 995.00 995.00 136830 02/04/2010 013402 GRUBB & ELLIS refund:eng grad dep:TM 30208 995.00 995.00 Page:4 apChkLst 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136831 02/04/2010 013049 GUIDANT CORP refund:eng grad dep:PM 23354 995.00 995.00 136832 02/04/2010 008081 HALL & FOREMAN INC 11/28/09-1/1/10 Eng Svc SGC 2,835.30 2,835.30 136833 02/04/2010 012954 HANEY, JOHN THOMAS 1/4-1/8 Plan Review Svcs: B&S 5,957.70 billing adj: recalculated bldg fees -513.19 5,444.51 136834 02/04/2010 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies: PW Maint 147.96 Hardware supplies: PW Traffic 378.58 Hardware supplies: TCC 5.52 Hardware supplies: MPSC 57.39 Hardware supplies: TCSD Parks 1,012.77 Hardware supplies: Ch Museum 427.67 Hardware supplies: Maint Facility 13.04 Hardware supplies: City Hall 1,102.85 Hardware supplies: Aquatics 41.57 Hardware supplies: Ch/TV Museum 24.94 Hardware supplies: Old Town 21.30 Hardware supplies: Theater 146.88 Hardware supplies: Fire 865.53 Hardware supplies: Info Sys 25.52 4,271.52 136835 02/04/2010 007371 HARVESTON, LLC refund:eng grad dep:harveston/chatham 995.00 refund:eng grad dep:TM 32436,1 995.00 1,990.00 136836 02/04/2010 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Earnings 409.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 591.50 1,001.00 136837 02/04/2010 010596 HODSON, JACK Retirement Medical Payment 251.09 251.09 136838 02/04/2010 000963 HOGAN, DAVID Retirement Medical Payment 695.00 695.00 136839 02/04/2010 006492 HRUSKA, ROSEANN Retirement Medical Payment 474.58 474.58 136840 02/04/2010 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 6,835.31 6,835.31 303355 136841 02/04/2010 004406 IGOE & COMPANY INC Jan flex benefit plan pmt 320.00 320.00 136842 02/04/2010 013290 IRIS GROUP INC, THE printing svcs:theater brochure 1,378.30 1,378.30 136843 02/04/2010 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC Jacob's House Charity Payment 300.00 300.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136844 02/04/2010 010173 KAL PACIFIC & ASSOCIATES, INC refund:eng grad depTM 3752 lot 25 995.00 995.00 136845 02/04/2010 012920 KING-CLIFFORD, TRACI refund: Worst... Scenario bk 14.95 14.95 136846 02/04/2010 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS Rescue Equip: Fire Truck 73 76.67 Returned Rescue Equip:Fire Truck 73 -155.07 Rescue Equip: Fire Truck 73 230.01 Rescue Equip: Fire Truck 73 155.07 Rescue Equip: Fire Truck 73 5/20/09 310.16 Rescue Equip: Fire Truck 73 7/13/09 310.16 927.00 136847 02/04/2010 013188 LINFIELD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL refund:eng grad dep:linfeld school 995.00 995.00 136848 02/04/2010 008610 M C R STAMPS Dj services for High Hopes 01/15/10 25.00 25.00 136849 02/04/2010 013405 M J W CONSTRUCTION INC. refund:eng grad dep:temecula villages 995.00 995.00 136850 02/04/2010 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS Misc signs: PW Maint 165.30 165.30 136851 02/04/2010 004141 MAINTEX INC Misc custodial supplies:crc 59.42 59.42 136852 02/04/2010 004307 MARINE BIOCHEMISTS Jan water maint srvcs:Haw/Duck Pond 3,900.00 3,900.00 136853 02/04/2010 000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC Fiber optic modem:PW Traffic Division 2,127.83 2,127.83 136854 02/04/2010 013403 MERITAGE HOMES CORP refund:eng grad dep:tm 31053-1 995.00 995.00 136855 02/04/2010 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MetLife Dental Insurance Payment 7,978.50 7,978.50 136856 02/04/2010 013390 MILLER, JOSHUA TCSD Instructor Earnings 105.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 455.00 560.00 136857 02/04/2010 012962 MILLER, MISTY TCSD Instructor Earnings 759.50 759.50 136858 02/04/2010 012580 MINUTEMAN PRESS Printing services: Planning Dept 24.86 Printing services: Planning Dept 177.30 Misc. printing: b&s dept. 42.17 Misc. printing: b&s dept. 118.05 362.38 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136859 02/04/2010 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. TCSD Instructor Earnings 336.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 147.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 63.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 21.00 567.00 136860 02/04/2010 006415 MISSION POOLS, INC. refund:permit withdrawn 290.40 290.40 136861 02/04/2010 001892 MOBILE MODULAR 1/11-2/9 modular lease: The Pantry 1,042.91 1,042.91 136862 02/04/2010 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS Nov Consulting Srvcs:F.V. Off Ramp 48,460.52 48,460.52 136863 02/04/2010 011329 MOGHADAM, ALI Retirement Medical Payment 650.72 650.72 136864 02/04/2010 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Feb media broadcasting signal: FOC 101.66 Feb Music Broadcast Old Town 69.11 170.77 136865 02/04/2010 013375 MYERS-RUSSO, ERICA TCSD Instructor Earnings 252.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 420.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 117.60 TCSD Instructor Earnings 373.80 TCSD Instructor Earnings 52.50 1,215.90 136866 02/04/2010 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS City vehicle parts & supplies: Sta 84 29.12 29.12 136867 02/04/2010 013404 NGUYEN, DAVE VAN refund:eng grad dep:31744 calle girasol 995.00 995.00 136868 02/04/2010 013056 NORM REEVES TEMECULA refund:eng grad dep:26755 ynez rd 995.00 995.00 136869 02/04/2010 011254 NORMAN, FLINT ee computer purchase prgm 1,972.32 1,972.32 136870 02/04/2010 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:children's museum 13.62 DIV Misc office supplies:children's museum 5.19 Misc office supplies:children's museum 34.23 53.04 136871 02/04/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 833.18 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 58.21 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Wndstar 90.36 1,018.32 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136872 02/04/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW CIP 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Land Dev 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Land Dev 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW NPDES 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Traffic 171.81 City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Traffic 80.07 City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Traffic 80.07 478.23 136873 02/04/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:City Mgr 36.57 36.57 136874 02/04/2010 013386 PARK RANGERS ASSN OF CALIF PRAC memberships:M.Clark/P.Jackson 100.00 100.00 136875 02/04/2010 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPANY Equip repair & maint:tcsd 233.25 Equip Repair & Maint:CSD Maint 314.57 547.82 136876 02/04/2010 013397 PEREZ, CANDI refund: First Aid class 8300.102 20.00 20.00 136877 02/04/2010 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 169.04 169.04 PROGRAM 136878 02/04/2010 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS pool supplies/chemicals: crc & tes pools 504.40 504.40 INC 136879 02/04/2010 012251 PORTRAIT PRODUCTIONS TCSD Instructor Earnings 63.00 63.00 136880 02/04/2010 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC PrePaid Legal Services Payment 460.35 460.35 136881 02/04/2010 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN Jan plancheck srvcs:fire prevention 2,349.99 2,349.99 136882 02/04/2010 009525 PROVIDENCE ORTHODOX Deposit:Promise Proven Life 01/26/10 53.00 53.00 136883 02/04/2010 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Dec dsgn:redhawk parks improvements 5,807.75 5,807.75 136884 02/04/2010 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Jan water meters:30650 pauba rd 105.47 Jan water meters:30650 pauba rd 14.38 119.85 136885 02/04/2010 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN City vehicle parts & supplies: Stn 84 5.64 5.64 MERCURY 136886 02/04/2010 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Misc electrical supplies:library/parks 224.59 Misc electrical supplies:theater 115.36 Misc electrical supplies:city hall 64.79 404.74 Pageb apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136887 02/04/2010 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL Weed AbatementCitywide R-O-Ws 19,975.00 19,975.00 MANAGEMENT 136888 02/04/2010 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION Tool and equipment rental: PW Maint 20.82 Tool and equipment rental: PW Maint 21.14 41.96 136889 02/04/2010 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF renew permit FOC 1,098.00 1,098.00 136890 02/04/2010 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Dec'09 Co-op Agrmnttemecula trolley 25,000.00 25,000.00 136891 02/04/2010 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC Misc maint supplies:pw traffic 1,003.14 1,003.14 136892 02/04/2010 005842 RODECKER, ERIC Retirement Medical Payment 367.83 367.83 136893 02/04/2010 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD Instructor Earnings 808.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 196.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 819.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 315.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 980.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 598.50 3,717.00 136894 02/04/2010 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Misc supplies:recreation pgrm 98.12 98.12 136895 02/04/2010 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL Misc lighting supplies:theater 34.38 34.38 LIGHTING 136896 02/04/2010 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment 933.00 933.00 136897 02/04/2010 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment 12.50 12.50 136898 02/04/2010 009980 SANBORN, GWYN Temecula Live! January 2010 3,294.04 3,294.04 136899 02/04/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV- CENTRAL Support Payment 200.00 200.00 136900 02/04/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 100.00 100.00 136901 02/04/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 100.00 100.00 136902 02/04/2010 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ the Merc 1/21/10 504.00 504.00 Page9 apChkLst 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136903 02/04/2010 010079 SIMPKINS, KATHLEEN 136904 02/04/2010 004534 SKYTERRA 136905 02/04/2010 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 136906 02/04/2010 013273 SMITH, JAMES 136907 02/04/2010 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total Retirement Medical Payment 695.00 695.00 Jan EOC Stn Satellite Phone Svcs 147.38 147.38 Misc supplies:cultural arts pgrm 357.36 Misc supplies:dog house pgrm 42.85 Misc supplies:dog house pgrm 86.26 486.47 Retirement Medical Payment 349.99 349.99 Jan 2-27-371-8494:42189 winchester 28.42 Jan 2-20-817-9929: Police 227.88 Jan 2-29-45&7548:32000 rncho cal 268.93 Jan 2-29-857-2332:45538 redwd PED 20.89 Jan 2-29-953-8447:31738 wolf vty 19.55 Jan 2-30-220-8749:45850 n wolf crk 311.58 Jan 2-00-397-5042:city hall 4,814.57 Jan 2-02-351-4946:Senior Ctr 737.16 Jan 2-19-171-8568:41970 moreno rd 77.48 Jan 2-29-223-8607:42035 2nd st PED 516.35 Jan 2-25-393-4681:41951 moraga 627.18 Jan 2-31-282-0665:27407 diaz PED 21.86 Jan 2-18-937-3152:28314 mercedes 562.68 Jan 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT front 1,687.11 Jan 2-29-295-3510:32211 wolf vty rd 829.20 Jan 2-29-224-0173: Fire Stns 1,602.31 Jan 2-31-536-3655:41904 main st 1,011.31 Jan 2-31-536-3481:41902 main st 417.48 Jan 2-31-031-2616:27991 diaz PED 21.26 Jan 2-29-807-1093:28079 diaz PED 22.66 Jan 2-29-807-1226:28077 diaz PED 21.41 Jan 2-29-933-3831: FOC 1,683.88 Jan 2-29-657-2787:41638 winchester 20.59 Jan 2-14-204-1615:30027 frnt st radio 30.41 Jan 2-31-419-2873:43000 Hwy 395 22.61 Jan 2-29-807-1382:43485 bus pk irrig 13.85 Jan 2-29-953-8249:46497 wolf crk ped 19.55 Jan 2-30-520-4414:32781 tem pkwy 514.32 Jan 2-29-953-8082:31523 wolf vty 22.12 Jan 2-00-397-5067:water meters:tcsd 1,968.11 18,142.71 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136908 02/04/2010 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Jan 095-167-7907-2: FS#84 409.58 Jan 101-525-1560-6:27415 enterprise 672.32 Jan 091-024-9300-5:30875 rncho vista 4,236.29 Jan 129-582-9784-3: FOC 330.43 Jan 091-085-1632-0 T.E.S. pool 16.77 Jan 181-383-8881-6:Museum 188.08 Jan 125-244-2108-3: Library 1,057.93 Jan 133-040-7373-0 Maint Fac 168.75 Jan 101-525-0950-0 Comm Ctr 244.92 Jan 021-725-0775-4:Sr Ctr 444.18 Jan 196-025-0344-3:C. Museum 275.61 Jan 026-671-2909-8:Theater 620.94 8,665.80 136909 02/04/2010 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE Mandatory Life Insurance Payment 9,922.94 9,922.94 COMPANY 136910 02/04/2010 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE Voluntary Supp Life Insurance Payment 667.00 667.00 COMPANY 136911 02/04/2010 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCES Storm water permit:rrsp desilting basin 375.00 375.00 136912 02/04/2010 013393 STRICKLAND, LEIGH ANN release claims agreement pmt 180.00 180.00 136913 02/04/2010 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 10/31-11/27 Dsgn Srvcs:W.Bypass Bridge 36,131.98 36,131.98 136914 02/04/2010 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Union Dues Payment 4,983.00 4,983.00 136915 02/04/2010 010848 TEMECULA PLANTSCAPE Jan plant lease srvcs:Library 200.00 200.00 136916 02/04/2010 010493 TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER Feb lease pmt:police mall storefront 1,458.33 1,458.33 ASSOC LP 136917 02/04/2010 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Feb high speed internet:42081 main st 58.29 58.29 136918 02/04/2010 012725 TRZOP, NICHELLE TCSD Instructor Earnings 2,016.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,344.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,344.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 2,016.00 6,720.00 136919 02/04/2010 000199 UNITED STATE TREASURY Support Payment 250.00 250.00 136920 02/04/2010 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 36.00 36.00 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 02/04/2010 3:10:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid 136921 02/04/2010 004864 V N W CIRCLE OF CARE INC FY 09/10 Community Service Funding 5,000.00 136922 02/04/2010 002109 WHITECAP INDUSTRIES INC Misc maint supplies:pw maint div 47.89 136923 02/04/2010 013272 WILLIAM LYON refund:eng grad dep:TM 31053-2 995.00 136924 02/04/2010 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL reimb:Team PACE supplies 2/4 75.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Page: 12 Check Total 5,000.00 47.89 995.00 75.00 749,849.53 Page:12 apChkLst 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136925 02/11/2010 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD instructor earnings 760.00 760.00 136926 02/11/2010 000434 ACCELA.COM Accela software maint 7/10-6/11 29,297.07 29,297.07 136927 02/11/2010 008552 ADKINS DESIGN CONSULTING Jan graphic design svcs: Theater 2,242.97 2,242.97 136928 02/11/2010 005068 ADKISSON, CANDICE reimb: High Hope Valentine's supplies 69.58 69.58 136929 02/11/2010 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL Oct police K-9 training: Casper 141.67 INC Jan police K-9 training: Casper 141.67 283.34 136930 02/11/2010 009033 ALLEN, STEVEN L. photography svc:20th anniversary 300.00 300.00 136931 02/11/2010 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT equip rental: 20th anniversary 800.99 equip rental: teen dance 122 225.11 1,026.10 136932 02/11/2010 012943 ALPHA MECHANICAL SERVICE HVAC svcs: City Facilities 3,072.00 3,072.00 INC 136933 02/11/2010 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES Feb Stand By Fee: Police 1,200.00 (AFN) 1/9 DUI & drug screenings: Police 79.00 1/7-1/8 DUI & drug screenings:PD 79.00 1,358.00 136934 02/11/2010 012951 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT Dec Cnslt Svcs:Quality Of Life Plan 4,313.31 4,313.31 ECONOMICS 136935 02/11/2010 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled wtr svcs: Fld Op Ctr 98.45 Bottled wtr svcs: Library 59.10 Bottled wtr svcs: Theater 27.92 Bottled wtr svcs: TCC 9.44 Bottled wtr svcs: Ch Museum 23.93 Bottled wtr svcs: Skate Park 8.69 Bottled wtr svcs: TV Museum 18.13 Bottled wtr svcs: CRC 55.41 Bottled wtr svcs: Maint Facility 149.77 Bottled wtr svcs: City Hall 233.44 Bottled wtr svcs: PBSP 28.52 Bottled wtr svcs: VRMS 8.69 Bottled wtr svcs: CM 12.64 734.13 136936 02/11/2010 013366 ASME safety code books:fre prevention 905.65 905.65 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136937 02/11/2010 012834 AUDIO ADDICTION INC vehicle backup camera install: Fire 339.63 vehicle backup camera install: Fire 305.87 645.50 136938 02/11/2010 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIF Membership: 18594333 MH 47.00 Membership: 53956093 PR 47.00 94.00 136939 02/11/2010 004205 BALLET FOLKLORICO TCSD Instructor Earnings 157.50 157.50 136940 02/11/2010 013408 BAUTISTA, MARIA refund:sec dep:rm rental crc 150.00 150.00 136941 02/11/2010 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS sand/silt removal:deportola channel 9,365.00 INC sand/silt removal:Jedediah/79 S 7,815.00 sand/silt removal:j warner ret pond 4,620.00 21,800.00 136942 02/11/2010 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES DUI & drug screenings: Police 945.00 945.00 136943 02/11/2010 013380 BIRTH, BREASTFEEDING & TCSD Instructor Earnings 70.00 70.00 BEYOND 136944 02/11/2010 009082 C B C TECHNICAL INC light rental: teen dance 11/13/09 198.88 198.88 136945 02/11/2010 000924 CALIF ASSOC OF PUBLIC 3/1 G-2/11 CAPPO mb: RC/MV 260.00 260.00 136946 02/11/2010 000413 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME CEQA doc fling: FV Pkwy Intrchg 2,010.25 2,010.25 136947 02/11/2010 004248 CALIF DEPT OF DUI & drug screenings: Police 2,275.00 2,275.00 JUSTICE-ACCTING 136948 02/11/2010 007185 CALIF STATE UNIVERSITY CSUSM funding:32225 Pio Pico Rd 1,600,000.00 1,600,000.00 136949 02/11/2010 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Recreation Supplies: MPSC 118.87 Helium tanks rental/refill:TCSD 47.92 166.79 136950 02/11/2010 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC Jan liability claims mgmt svc:finance 636.94 636.94 136951 02/11/2010 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION Jan investigative dbase subsc: PD 158.95 158.95 136952 02/11/2010 004609 CINTAS DOCUMENT 1/22 doc shred svc: Police 34.13 MANAGEMENT 1/29 doc shred svc: PD/CC 128.64 162.77 136953 02/11/2010 003997 COAST RECREATION INC slide: Meadows park 1,219.24 1,219.24 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136954 02/11/2010 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC cabling:civic center prkg structure 7,326.17 network svcs cnslt: info sys 1,846.30 network svcs cnslt: info sys 61.17 9,233.64 136955 02/11/2010 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING Dec geotech svcs: Civic Center 12,792.00 12,792.00 136956 02/11/2010 013410 CORE COMMUNICATIONS refund:overpmt for PA09-0321 35.00 35.00 GROUP 136957 02/11/2010 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE misc supplies:Team PACE 114.98 misc supplies:Team PACE 997.54 1,112.52 136958 02/11/2010 004524 CRAFCO INC-ABSOLUTE temp asphalt product: PW Maint 1,712.81 1,712.81 ASPHALT 136959 02/11/2010 003962 DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES INC Jan Ldscp Insp Svcs: Pchg Pkw li 1,163.75 1,163.75 136960 02/11/2010 013411 DE LA ROSA, SABRINA reimb partial fingerprint fee 1/30 32.00 32.00 136961 02/11/2010 013409 DEAN, JOSH partial refund:field lights 1/19 56.00 56.00 136962 02/11/2010 008943 DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES state CMAS admin fee:park equip 1,055.92 1,055.92 (DGS) 136963 02/11/2010 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Feb restroom svc: GOHS 52.88 SRVCS portable restroom:ice skate rink 260.65 313.53 136964 02/11/2010 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: B&S 316.48 INC Fuel for City vehicles: Code Enf 541.95 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Maint 1,409.27 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Lnd Dv 338.35 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Traffic 119.75 Fuel for City vehicles: PW CIP 153.28 Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 1,484.16 Fuel for City vehicles: Police 73.64 4,436.88 136965 02/11/2010 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT silver spnsrshp business summit 4/28/10 1,500.00 1,500.00 CORP 136966 02/11/2010 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY LLC Jan state lobbyist cnslt svc: CM 3,500.00 Feb state lobbyist cnslt svc: CM 3,500.00 7,000.00 136967 02/11/2010 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Dec cnslt svc:Old Town EIR 5,303.50 5,303.50 ASSOC. Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136968 02/11/2010 003665 EXCEL COMMERCIAL (Continued) Description Amount Paid Jan long distance phone svcs 54.64 136969 02/11/2010 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 1/8 express mail secs: citywide 136970 02/11/2010 008784 FIRE ENGINEERING 1 yr subsc: Dehart, C Fire Prev 136971 02/11/2010 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES JC regist:NLC ann'I cf:3/13-17 007028 AMERICAN AIRLINES JC airfare:NLC cf 3/13-17 Wash DC 007028 AMERICAN AIRLINES RR airfare:NLC cf 3/13-17 Wash DC 004479 HAMPTON INN & SUITES RR htI:SCAG cf 1/7/10 Los Angeles 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES RR regist:NLC ann'I cf:3/13-17 006952 PAYPAL GR verisign payflow pro trans 013412 BAY AREA TAXI MANAGMENT GR taxi svc:'10 Tax AIIc RDA Bonds SF 013413 LA MAR CEBLOHERIA PERUANA GR meal:'10 Tax AIIc RDA Bonds SF 007053 LIN DBERGH PARKING SAN DI EGO GR aiport pkg:'10 Tax Allc RDA Bonds SF 001060 HYATT 001060 HYATT 013414 SF TOWN TAXI INC. 013414 SF TOWN TAXI INC. 013414 SF TOWN TAXI INC. 013417 PRO AUDIO VIDEO INC. 136972 02/11/2010 003281 FOREMOST PROMOTIONS 136973 02/11/2010 007866 GCS SUPPLIES INC 136974 02/11/2010 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT 136975 02/11/2010 001937 GALLS INC GR htI:PR'10 Tax Allc RDA Bonds SF GR htI:GR'10 Tax Allc RDA Bonds SF GR taxi svc:'10 Tax Allc RDA Bonds SF GR taxi svc:'10 Tax Allc RDA Bonds SF GR taxi svc:'10 Tax Allc RDA Bonds SF HP mirror ball motor heavy duty:TCSD Promo Items: Pd Crime Prevention Ink/Toner Cartridges: Info Sys Ink/Toner Cartridges: Info Sys DJ secs: Father/Daughter Date Ngt uniform svc:police volunteers uniform svc:police volunteers uniform svc:police volunteers uniform svc:police volunteers uniform svc:police volunteers 413.95 29.95 445.00 374.80 344.80 119.90 445.00 59.95 71.38 41.92 47.00 378.53 368.58 60.00 6.00 -6.00 59.23 2,023.50 681.86 754.73 300.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 2.90 10.00 Check Total 54.64 413.95 29.95 2,816.09 2,023.50 1,436.59 300.00 25.90 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136976 02/11/2010 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office Supplies: TCSD 1,534.30 1,534.30 INC 136977 02/11/2010 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY sttlmnt: Classics @ Merc 1/10 717.50 717.50 136978 02/11/2010 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE 3/10-2/11 GFOA mb: GR, PB, RG 840.00 840.00 OFFICERS 136979 02/11/2010 001135 HEALTHPOINTE MEDICAL GROUP pre -employment physicals: HR 25.00 INC pre -employment physicals: HR 160.00 185.00 136980 02/11/2010 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD Procurve Switch 24G Intel: IS 5,739.83 Procurve Gigabit LX LC: IS 1,289.78 7,029.61 136981 02/11/2010 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE maint supplies: children's museum 39.02 39.02 136982 02/11/2010 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE maint supplies: Theater 73.16 73.16 136983 02/11/2010 001517 HORIZON HEALTH Jan Emp Asst Program: HR 752.40 Feb Emp Asst Program: HR 756.80 1,509.20 136984 02/11/2010 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE graphic design svcs: econ dev 152.25 152.25 136985 02/11/2010 002701 HUB INT'L INSURANCE SERVCS Jan special events premiums 1,408.37 1,408.37 INC 136986 02/11/2010 000193 ICMA '101CMA mb: Yates, Grant 1,400.00 1,400.00 136987 02/11/2010 010766 INLAND VALLEY YOUTH sttlmnt: Around the World 214 943.62 943.62 SYMPHONY 136988 02/11/2010 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT Dec copier maint/usage:citywide 3,671.95 SOLUTIONS Dec copier maint/usage: Library 709.66 4,381.61 136989 02/11/2010 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING '101CSC mb: Nelson, Shawn 100.00 100.00 136990 02/11/2010 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE Dec storage:city/IS backup tape 350.08 350.08 136991 02/11/2010 012295 JAMESON MANAGEMENT INC Door Repair: MPSC 201.00 201.00 136992 02/11/2010 013200 JAROTH INC Feb pay phones:crc,library,duck pond 637.92 637.92 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description 136993 02/11/2010 010412 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS generator maint: city hall 136994 02/11/2010 008715 KRAMER FIRM INC telecom app cnslt: Planning/PW 136995 02/11/2010 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC equip repair: police laser 136996 02/11/2010 000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC misc supplies: PW Maint 136997 02/11/2010 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS water vac replacement: Sta 73 136998 02/11/2010 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY&WHITMORE Dec HR legal svcs for TE060-01 136999 02/11/2010 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC 137000 02/11/2010 004087 LOWES INC 137001 02/11/2010 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 137002 02/11/2010 011179 MC MILLIN REDHAWK LLC 137003 02/11/2010 010979 MEDIA STOP medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: paramedics medical supplies: paramedics medical supplies: paramedics misc supplies: police misc supplies: police Misc signs: PW Maintenance TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings deposit/video srvcs:every 15 min pgrm 137004 02/11/2010 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS INC. Feb mrktg & promo srvcs:old town Reimb exp:old town marketing pgrm Reimb exp:old town marketing pgrm 137005 02/11/2010 007210 MIDORI GARDENS Mainline repairs:Redhawk Park 1/13 137006 02/11/2010 012580 MINUTEMAN PRESS business cards: m. parker 137007 02/11/2010 001892 MOBILE MODULAR 1/23-2/21 modular bldg rental:OATC 137008 02/11/2010 013415 MOLDING INTERNATIONAL, & refund:overpmt:bus lic penalty fee ENGINEERING Amount Paid 1,470.20 4,000.00 153.94 215.76 318.31 972.00 215.25 1,455.64 1,623.76 567.10 191.67 306.14 4,149.90 630.00 490.00 168.00 1,600.00 1,500.00 28.47 225.00 210.46 45.37 619.88 70.00 Page: 6 Check Total 1,470.20 4,000.00 153.94 215.76 318.31 972.00 3,861.75 497.81 4,149.90 1,288.00 1,600.00 1,753.47 210.46 45.37 619.88 70.00 Pages apChkLst 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 137009 02/11/2010 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Sand/silt removal: Vallejo Chnl 1/2l}22 13,786.00 Sand/silt removal: Vallejo Chnl 1/25-26 27,320.00 Via Lobo Channel sand/silt removal 37,042.00 78,148.00 137010 02/11/2010 010990 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN NoV Dec Youth Master Plan: Csd 77.56 77.56 INC 137011 02/11/2010 012757 MUND, KELLEY ROSE TCSD Instructor Earnings 420.00 420.00 137012 02/11/2010 006077 N T H GENERATION COMPUTING Enterprise Equip:Civic Center 30,408.00 INC Enterprise Equip:Civic Center 699,965.04 730,373.04 137013 02/11/2010 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION Nat'l Fire Codes subscr: Fire Prev 880.87 880.87 ASSN 137014 02/11/2010 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 2010 City membership dues 6,697.00 6,697.00 137015 02/11/2010 008528 NICHOLS, MELBURG & ROSETTO Dec dsgn:old town infrastructure 7,755.11 Dec Eng Srvcs:Civic Center Ph li 38,698.66 Dec Reimb Expenses:Civic Center Ph li 1,775.61 48,229.38 137016 02/11/2010 010273 NIXON PEABODY LLP Jun'09 reimb legal services 3,448.67 3,448.67 137017 02/11/2010 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Advertising:temecula special games 323.82 323.82 137018 02/11/2010 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:police old town 613.18 613.18 DIV 137019 02/11/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs Code Enf 192.60 192.60 137020 02/11/2010 006552 PAINTED EARTH Recreation Supplies:Dog House 274.05 274.05 137021 02/11/2010 010012 PARENT PROJECT INC Parent Project Workbooks:police 1,473.56 1,473.56 137022 02/11/2010 002099 PASCOE MANAGEMENT LLP Feb Old Town Restroom Lease 826.00 826.00 137023 02/11/2010 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 379.11 379.11 137024 02/11/2010 011660 PLANNET CONSULTING Dec audio/visual consulting:civic center 12,000.00 12,000.00 137025 02/11/2010 008159 PROVAC SALES COMPANY Facility vacuum pump:children's museum 1,523.43 1,523.43 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 137026 02/11/2010 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY Dec uniform/flr matftwl rental:City 1,523.15 1,523.15 137027 02/11/2010 009623 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK '10 membership dues:R.Cardenas 100.00 100.00 MANAGERS 137028 02/11/2010 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Jan water meters: Wolf Crk Dr S 67.19 Jan water meters:Pechanga Pkwy 38.78 Jan var water meters: Fire Stns 550.46 Jan water meters: Wolf Crk Dr N 87.10 Jan water meters: Wolf Crk Dr N 55.25 Jan water meters:closing:bus prk dr 38.67 Jan var water meters:28922 pujol 81.61 Jan various water meters:TCSD 357.34 Jan various water meters:TCSD 12,365.72 Jan water meter:landscape:main st 48.40 Jan water meters: Wolf Crk Dr N 24.07 Jan water meters: Wolf Crk Dr N 92.61 Feb water meter :rda:28640 pujol 7.19 Jan floating water meter: PW 355.14 Jan water metertown square main st 53.50 Jan water meters: civic ctr:prkg struct 14.38 Jan water meters: civic ctr prkg struct 221.37 Jan water meters civic ctr:mercedes 14.38 Jan water meters:41000 main st 1,860.85 Jan water meters: civic ctr prkg struct 37.19 16,371.20 137029 02/11/2010 005062 RAWLINGS, PHIL reimb:medic supplies 53.74 53.74 137030 02/11/2010 000271 RBF CONSULTING Dec eng srvcs: 1-15/79S Ult. Intrchg 87,828.75 87,828.75 137031 02/11/2010 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Misc electrical supplies: children museum 66.16 66.16 137032 02/11/2010 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON Dec 2009 legal services 90,861.25 90,861.25 137033 02/11/2010 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK& record of survey:pw0408115-79S 1,100.00 1,100.00 RECORDER 137034 02/11/2010 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 11/5-1212/09:law enforcement 1,333,493.71 Rythms teen dance patrol srvcs 1/23 509.11 Dec'09 booking fees 5,552.16 1,339,554.98 137035 02/11/2010 009980 SANBORN, GWYN Country @ the Merc 123 & 1/30 538.00 538.00 Pageb apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 137036 02/11/2010 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ the Merc 02/04/10 210.00 Jazz @ the Merc 01/28/10 346.50 556.50 137037 02/11/2010 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Jan 2-31-936-3511:45647 pechanga 160.61 Jan 2-29-974-7899:26953 ynez LS3 110.17 Jan 2-02-502-8077:Maint Fac 1,143.25 Jan 2-28-629-0507: Library 5,566.58 Jan 2-27-805-3194:Theater 2,882.71 Feb 2-30-066-2889:30051 rncho vista 19.55 Jan 2-29-657-2563:42902 butterlield 163.05 Feb 2-10-331-2153:28816 pujol st 614.63 Feb 2-20-798-3248:C. Museum 1,010.72 Feb 2-02-351-5281:CRC 3,399.74 Jan 2-01-202-7603:arterial stlt 27,061.21 Jan 2-01-202-7330:var LS-1 allnite 75,382.44 Jan 2-29-479-2981:31454 tem pkwy tcl 102.09 Jan 2-31-2590:28301 mcho cal Is3 48.17 Jan 2-05-791-8807:31587 tem pkwy Is3 10,579.48 128,244.40 137038 02/11/2010 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET Water extraction:city hall 285.00 285.00 CLEANING 137039 02/11/2010 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS Jan transcription srvcs:Police 264.18 264.18 TRANSCRIPTION 137040 02/11/2010 003840 STRONGS PAINTING Pool rehab:waterslide at CRC pool 11,300.00 11,300.00 137041 02/11/2010 013416 SUNSTONE COMPONENTS refund:overpmt:bus lic penalty fee 70.00 70.00 GROUP INC. 137042 02/11/2010 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Equip purch:camera for CSD 304.39 Misc recreation supplies:mpsc 70.32 Misc recreation supplies:mpsc 63.77 438.48 137043 02/11/2010 001035 TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL Jul-Dec'09 trash hauling services 2,955,818.76 2,955,818.76 137044 02/11/2010 006305 TEMECULA SISTER CITY ASSN annual student sponsorship 4,800.00 4,800.00 137045 02/11/2010 004260 TEMECULA STAMP & GRAPHICS pre -inked stamp: Fire Prev 25.88 25.88 137046 02/11/2010 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF fy 09/103rd qtr agreement pmt 34,065.00 34,065.00 137047 02/11/2010 007340 TEMECULA VALLEY FIRE EQUIP. Fire Extinguisher Service: B&S/Code Enf 117.25 117.25 CO Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 02/11/2010 2:11:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 137048 02/11/2010 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & irrigation/plumbing supplies: var parks 58.01 58.01 SUPPLY 137049 02/11/2010 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith Service-Sta 95 105.00 CENTR Lock repair: Sta 92 145.00 250.00 137050 02/11/2010 011090 TEMECULA VALLEY Holiday Lights Bus Tour:12/12/09 618.60 618.60 TRANSPORTATION 137051 02/11/2010 003862 THYSSENKRUPP Jan -Mar elevator maint srvcs:city facs 2,490.00 2,490.00 ELEVATOR.BRNCH 37 137052 02/11/2010 012344 TRANSPORTATION CONCEPTS Shuttle srvcs:rod run event 10/10/09 4,464.00 4,464.00 137053 02/11/2010 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE Nov'09 postage meter deposit 2,228.98 2,228.98 137054 02/11/2010 004261 VERIZON Feb xxx-5180 gen usage:79S irrig ctr 38.65 Feb xxx-4200 general usage 980.99 Feb xxx-7530 general usage:Library 427.11 Jan xxx-0049 gen usage:comerchero 35.65 Jan xxx-1999 general usage 40.94 Feb xxx-6400 general usage 1,534.62 Feb xxx-8900 gen usage:Library 806.87 Sept xxx-8573 general usage 35.52 3,900.35 137055 02/11/2010 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Jan long distance phone svcs 75.81 Jan long distance phone svcs 21.64 97.45 137056 02/11/2010 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL Reimb:supplies for csd events 67.75 67.75 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 7,344,928.72 Page:10 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval of 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Adjustments PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009- 2010 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET BACKGROUND: Each year, the City conducts a mid -year review of its operating budget. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the City maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Finance Department staff has performed an analysis of revenues. All City departments have reviewed their operating budgets and have identified any material adjustments required. The mid -year budget review includes the General Fund, Gas Tax Fund, State Transportation Fund, Recovery Act Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Fund, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Law Enforcement, Debt Service, and the Internal Service Funds. Activity in each of the funds is presented in accordance with the following schedules: Summary of Revenues. Expenditures. and Chanaes in Fund Balances FY 2009-10 Midvear Budget: Presents a summary of prior year and FY 2009-10 to December 31, 2009 actual activity, as well as the FY 2009-10 current and revised budget amounts. Also included is a schedule of beginning and estimated ending fund balance based upon the revised budget activity. Revenue Detail: Presents detail of prior year and FY 2009-10 to December 31, 2009 actual revenues, as well as the FY 2009-10 current and revised revenue estimates. GENERAL FUND: Revenues: The projected General Fund revenues reflect a $3,296,590 or 5.8% decrease from the current budget. Significant Estimated Revenue adjustments are as follows: ➢ Sales and Use Tax - Decrease of $1,284,281from the State due to a statewide economic downturn especially in the sale of new motor vehicles, general consumer goods, lumber and building materials as well as the closing of some local businesses. There is also a reduction of $649,891 in the Triple Flip Payment for sales tax primarily due to the State anticipating negative growth in fiscal year 2009-10 and reducing advance receipts for all California agencies; ➢ Community Development— Netdecreasetotaling $411,953inpermitfeeactivityforthe following departments: Planning $165,449, Fire $13,737, Land Development $77,936 and Building and Safety$154,831. This is due to a reduction in permit fee activity as the result of a higher than anticipated slowdown in new residential, commercial, and industrial development caused by the current state of the economy; ➢ Property Tax —A decrease of $153,325 in Supplemental Tax due to a continued decline in the value of properties. There is an additional decrease of $133,741 in Property Transfer Tax due to the continued decline in residential sales prices. This is partially offset by an increase of $129,021 in unsecured Property Tax due to an increase in assessed value for unsecured property; ➢ Motor Vehicle In Lieu -A $374,310 decrease in Motor Vehicle in Lieu which is based on assessed valuation of property values within the City which have continued to decline; ➢ Transient Occupancy Tax - A $518,952 decrease due to a downturn in the travel industry, which resulted in a reduction in occupancy rates of approximately 10-15% as well as decreases in room rates Citywide; ➢ Vehicle Code Fines —A $213,610 decrease due to a reduction in traffic citations written within the City as a result of a provisional change in the deployment of Motor Officers; ➢ Operating Transfers In — An increase of $159,110 is due to an additional carryover of $132,300 in Measure A funds which were unspent in the prior fiscal year. These funds are programmed to be spent in the current fiscal year. There is a reduction of $29,984 in Proposition 42 Local Streets and Roads due to a decline in anticipated revenue received from the State and an additional $49,536 in Gas Tax funds due to the higher consumption of fuel this year; ➢ Investment Interest — A decrease of $151,013 is due to a general downturn in the investment market. This is partially offset by $122,760 in proceeds from the sale of property. The remaining modifications represent minor adjustments to various revenue line items in the General Fund. Appropriations: A total reduction in appropriations of $2,006,440 or 3.6%from the current budget is requested. It is important to note that there will not be a reduction in essential public services that are provided to the community with these reductions. A summary of these appropriation adjustments are as follows: ➢ Fire Department - Decrease of $347,100 due to County cost reducing measures which have resulted in savings for Contract Cities; Police Department - Reflects an $859,680 decrease due to the department further tightening restrictions on training, overtime, and equipment purchases. In addition, there is additional savings in directed overtime due to State and Federal grants which are funding overtime operations to reduced DUI's and juvenile crime. There are savings in personnel expenditures due to position vacancies due to transfers, sick time and other interim conditions. There are also savings in communications expenditures due to Sheriff's department cost reducing measures which have resulted in savings for all Contract Cities; ➢ Non -Departmental —A net reduction of $493,393 which reflects a $416,368 decrease in REST contribution primarily due to a reduction in library contract expenditures and accumulated fund balance reserves in TCSD; ➢ Economic Development - $22,500 decrease due to reducing advertising and sponsorships and eliminating non -essential training; ➢ Planning - $192,582 decrease due to reduction in consulting services, and salary savings due to not backfilling positions vacant due to retirements; ➢ Building and Safety - $104,691 decrease due to not backfilling positions vacant due to retirements and reduction of consulting services and non -essential tools and supplies; ➢ Land Development - $13,351 decrease due to eliminating non -essential temporary staffing and overtime; ➢ Public Works - $71,888 increase which is due to $100,938 in emergency repairs and maintenance as a result of recent heavy rainfall. This is partially offset by a $29,050 reduction in consulting and temporary staffing as well as a reduction in the purchase of non -essential tools. This increase is funded by additional available Gas Tax funds; ➢ CIP Admin - $22,431 decrease due to reduction of temporary staffing, consulting services, and overtime; Gas Tax, State Transportation, Recovery Act JAG Funding, and CDBG Funds: The Gas Tax Fund has been increased by $49,536 due to an increase in gasoline consumption statewide. The City is expected to receive $30,045 less in Proposition 42 Local Streets and Roads allocation due to a reduction in revenues anticipated from the State. The Recovery Act JAG funding is anew fund set up to maintain $119,338 in Federal Recover Act grant funds. This grant is being used to partially fund the Southwest County Youth Court for four years. CDBG Funds are anticipated to remain unchanged. Law Enforcement Funds (AB3229 COPS): -The Law Enforcement Fund has been increased due to an increased allocation of $7,258 under this grant funded program. These funds are transferred to the General Fund to provide for task force officers. Internal Service Funds: - There will be a combined reduction in Internal Service Funds of $37,958 due to a reduction in investment interest. The Information Systems budget has been reduced by $16,954 as a result of reducing non -essential training and meetings as well as savings in the purchase of capital equipment. The Insurance budget has been increased by $199,500 as a result of increased legal fees associated with processing claims. Authorized Positions: - There are no proposed additions or deletions to the Schedule of Authorized Positions. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed mid -year budget adjustments will result in a decrease of $3,296,590 in General Fund Revenue and a decrease of $2,006,440 in General Fund Expenditures. This results in overall $14,067 Revenues over Expenditures. As a result, there is no plan to use any General Fund Reserves at this time for operating expenditures. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 10- Mid -Year Budget Amendment 2009-10 General Fund Mid -Year Budget 2009-10 Gas Tax and State Transportation Funds Mid -Year Budgel 2009-10 CDBG Fund Mid -Year Budget 2009-10 Recovery Act JAG Fund Mid -Year Budget 2009-10 Law Enforcement Fund Mid -Year Budget 2009-10 Debt Service Fund — Civic Center COPS Mid -Year Budget 2009-10 Internal Service Funds Mid -Year Budget RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the City maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Section 2. That each year a mid -year review is conducted of City operating budgets. Section 3. That the mid -year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the attached schedules for the City's General Fund, Special Revenue and Internal Service Funds. Section 4. That the Fiscal Year 2009-10 General Fund Annual Operating Budget is hereby amended in accordance with the attached, hereto as Exhibit A, General Fund Mid -Year Budget. Section 5. That the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Gas Tax, State Transportation, Recovery Act JAG Funding, CDBG, Law Enforcement, and Debt Service Fund Annual Operating Budget are hereby amended in accordance with the attached, hereto as Exhibit B, Gas Tax, State Transportation, Recovery Act JAG Funding, CDBG, Law Enforcement, Debt Service Fund Mid -Year Budget. Section 6. That the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Internal Service Funds Budgets are hereby amended in accordance with the attached, hereto as Exhibit C, Internal Service Funds Mid -Year Budget. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Tiii1989 CITY . TEMECUI.A Exhibit A FY 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Total Revenues Expenditures by Dept City Counal Community Support City Manager Economic Development City Clerk City Attorney Finance Human Resources Planning Building & Safety Land Development Public Wort¢ CIP Admi n Police Fire Animal Control Non -Departmental: REST Contnbution Retiree Medical Contribution Sales Tax Sharing -Redhal Property Tax Admin CFD 88-12 Tax Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out: Debt Service -Civic CenterCOPs Total Revenues overCivic CenterCOPs Transferto Capital Improvement Fund Total Revenues ovel-ClP Transfer Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed Audited Curren[ Yearto Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 59,218, 184 51,249,978 23,153,775 53,953,388 (3,296,590) -58% 391,609 441 421 204,135 432,621 (8,800) -20% 153,060 155,400 11,203 155,400 - 00% 1,181,249 1,267994 580553 1,264,194 (3,800) -03% 861, 809 978,962 378,795 956,462 (22,500) -23% 1,101,028 1,030,100 451304 1,028,600 (1,500) -01% 806912 821 300 318,361 821,300 - 00% 1,960,809 2,094,958 919,853 2,094,958 - 00% 559, 082 551,614 234,083 549, 114 (8,500) -15% 2,799,116 2,339,178 1,150,511 2,146,596 (192582) -82% 2,604,936 2,431,644 1,064,667 2,332953 (104,691) -43% 1574,Off 1,464,093 703,575 1,450,742 (13,351) -09% 5,518,824 5,946,231 2,148,437 6,018119 71,888 12% 2,111,939 2,469,035 1,076,649 2,446,604 (22,431) -09% 19,708,231 21,170,169 8,016964 20,310,489 (859,680) -41% 2941,983 4,504,423 2,178,513 4,151,323 (341,100) -17% 187537 171000 73,542 171,000 - 00% - 00% 5,843,035 6,019,309 3,168,183 5,602941 (416,368) -69% 314,733 350,000 73,000 309,500 (40500) -116% 566360 - - - - 00% 216,196 225,570 189,045 189,045 (36525) -162% 1526,423 1 501 360 750,680 1,501,360 00% 53607542 55945761 23,758119 53 939 321 is006440) -00% 5,610,642 1,304,217 (604,344) 14,067 (1,290,150) (1,111,916) (1,540,387) (1, 000,000) (1 ,540,387) 4,498726 (236170) (1, 604,344) (1526,320) (1 290 150) (14,143,324) (810,951) (14,143,324) 4,498726 (14,379,494) (2,415,295) (15,669, 644) (1 290 150) 4498726 (14379494) (2415295) (15669644) (1290150) Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Revenues Expenditures Operating Transfers Out: Debt Service Capital Improvement Fund CIP Open Space Acquisition Estimated Budget Savings Fund Balance, End of Year Detail of Fund Balance: Reserved for longterm advance to RDA Reserved for deposits and prepaid items Reserved for inventory Reserved for encumbrances Unreserved Designated for continuing appropriation Designated for economic uncertainty (20% of Appropriators) Secondary designated fund balance reserve (Civic Center Savings) Designated for comprehensive annual leave Designated for open space/Dutch Villages Designated for Liberty Quarry EIR Designated for future CIP Designated for unrealized gains Designated for COP Prepayment Undesignated 2008 09 200910 200910 200910 Proposed % Audited Current Yearto Date Revised Increase Increase Acmals Budget Accords Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 44,123,341 49,222,067 49,222,067 49,222,067 - 00% 59,218,184 57249,978 23,153,115 53,953,388 (3,296590) 58% (53,601,542) (55,945,761) (23,758,119) (53,939,321) 2,006,440 36% (1,111,916) (1540,387) (1,000,000) (1540,387) - 00% - (13,926,324) (810,951) (13,926,324) - 00% - (211,000) - (211,000) - 00% 49222067 34842573 46806112 33552423 (1290150) 00% 37% 870176 668187 668187 668187 - 00% 41,123 101,959 101,959 101,959 - 00% 3,088 3,586 3,586 3,586 - 00% 9,999,751 - 9,251,826 - - 00% 200,543 200,543 200,543 200,543 - 00% 11,016,910 11,189,152 11,189,152 10,781,864 (401288) 36% 9,700,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 8,433,754 (1,266,246) -131% 1,635,574 962,864 962,864 962,864 - 00% 361,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - 00% 200,000 266,908 266,908 266,908 - 00% 4,668,498 - 4,668,498 - - 00% 796,927 796,927 796,927 796,927 - 00% - - - 11173,831 11173,831 00% 9715811 10796447 8834322 (10796447) -1000% 49,222,067 34,842,573 46,806,112 33,552,423 (1,290,150) -37% General Fund Revenue Detail FY2009-10 Mid -Year Operating Budget ACCT NO 001GENERALFUND FY 08 09 ACTUAL REVENUE FY 09 10 YTD@ 12/31/09 FY 0910FY CURRENT BUDGET 09 10 MIDYEAR ESTIMATES $CHANGE %CHANGE DEPT 4083 -Grants DEPT 161 PLANNING -Various 473,659 173,328 651811 486,428 (165,449) -2538% DEPT 162 BUILDING&SAFETY - -Various 1,713,437 632,847 1575,803 1,420,972 (154,831) 983% DEPT 163 LAND DEVELOPMENT - -Various 658,709 173,628 406301 328,365 (11936) -1918% DEPT 164 PUBLIC WORKS -NPDES Permit Fee 22,241 - 11585 1,655 (9930) -8571% DEPT 170POLICE 4055 -Citations and Bookings 175,326 64,823 200,682 219,646 18964 945% 4059+406 -Miscellaneous 129,419 65,351 112525 116111 3586 319% 4067 -Vehicle Impound Fees 146,566 78,762 129950 157524 27574 2122% 4076 -Reimbursements 117087 75,651 102500 131,682 29,182 2847% 4083+422 -Grants 191,519 10,954 108,032 118,986 10954 1014% DEPT 171 FIRE 000% -Various 702107 253128 453,262 413,768 (39,494) -871% 4083 -Grants 16,545 16,505 11620 37377 25,757 22166% DEPT 199NON DEPARTMENTAL 4010 -Property Tax 5,757958 2,722,943 4,722,360 4,722,360 - 000% 4012 -Property Tax (Unsecured) 40,854 234,022 115,000 244,021 129,021 11219% 4013 Supplemental Tax -AB2345 338,811 61,299 214,624 61,299 (153325) -7144% 4016 -Property Transfer Tax 444127 226,011 497906 364165 (133,741) -2686% 4018 -Franchise Fees 3322,981 1337726 3,441333 3,441333 - 000% 4020 -Transient Occupancy Tax 2,088,823 934382 2336,801 1,817849 (518952) -2221% 4023 Sales and Use Ta:-TripleFlip 6155113 1,961,938 5 257 541 4,607650 (649,891) -1236% 4024 Sales and Use Tax State of Calif 17172,257 6,866,424 18,699,059 17414,118 (1,284281) -687% 4025 -FEMAGrants 11,480 - - - 000% 4028 -Homeowner Property Tax Relief 75,458 36,924 75,825 73,848 (1911) -261% 4043 -Motor Vehicle in Lieu-TripleFlip 6,782156 2,984,519 6 343 349 5,969,039 (374310) 590% 4046 -Motor Vehicle in LieuStateof Calif 797994 68,654 540,874 541,984 1,110 021% 4047 -Vehicle Code Fines 845,929 254143 864,923 651313 (213,610) -2470% 4053 - Bids&Proposals 39,673 3,730 11000 11,000 - 000% 4056 -Business Licenses 318,240 127153 319,000 319,000 - 000% 4059 -Right of Way Advertising 21,930 12360 25316 22,800 (2516) 994% Various -Miscellaneous 238,907 12,423 11,500 140,260 122,760 70149% 4065 -Investment Interest 1,543,900 591,918 1,114,511 963,498 (151,013) -1355% 4545 -Change in Fair Value of Investments 692,427 (227497) - - - 000% 4069 -Interest Earnings RDA Loan Repayment 238,633 238,633 238,633 - 000% 4076 Reimbursements Tribal Gaming Mitigation Fund 954,050 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 000% 4076 Reimbursements Miscellaneous 98363 59180 30,000 159,079 129,079 43026% 4082 Reimbursements Redevelopment Agency 110,000 55,000 110,000 110,000 - 000% 4083 Reimbursements Capital lmprvmnt Prgrm 2,798,859 1,049,821 2,469,035 2,446,604 (22,431) -091% 4090 Operating Transfer In GasTa: 1,603,881 825,233 1,618,207 1,661,143 49536 6u0s 4090 Operating Transfer In Prop42 864,250 437854 875,707 845,723 (29984) -342% 4090 Operating Transfer In Measure A 511,519 627418 1254,837 1 387 137 132300 1054% 4090 Operating Transfer In 145,912 10,021 100,000 107258 7258 726% 4400 -Financing Reimbursement 192,500 96,500 192,500 192,500 - 000% 4402 Prop HE 825,217 000% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 59,218184 23153,115 57249,978 53,953388 (3,296590) 5]6% Exhibit B FY 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Gas Tax Fund State Transportation Fund Recovery Act JAG Fund CDBG Fund Law Enforcement Fund Debt Service Fund Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Gas Tax Fund 2008 09 200910 200910 200910 Proposed % Audited Current Year toDate Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Accords Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 1,603,440 1,618,207 825,984 1,661,143 49,536 31% 00% 1,603,440 1,618,207 825,984 1,661,143 49,536 31% (1603881) (1618207) (825233) (1661143) (49536) 31% (441) 751 441 Fund Balance, End of Year 751 Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out To General Fund To CIP Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Fund Balances, Beg. of Year Fund Balances, End of Year State Transportation Fund 2008 09 200910 200910 200910 Proposed % Audited Current Year to Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 2,323,246 960,707 9,329 930,662 (30,045) 31% 00% 2,323,246 960,707 9,329 930,662 (30,045) 31% (864,250) (875,707) (437854) (845,723) 29,984 34% (1543,935) (88,000) (1543,935) 1,458,996 (1,458,935) (516,525) (1,458,996) (61) 1,458,996 1,458,996 1,458,996 1,458,996 61 942,471 Recovery Act JAG Fund 200809 200910 200910 200910 Proposed % Audited Current Year toDate Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues - 119,338 7028 119,338 - 00% Total Expenditures 119,338 7028 119,338 00% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures - - - - - 00% Fund Balances, Beg. of Year Fund Balances, End of Year Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out CIP Fund Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Fund Balances, Beg. of Year Fund Balances, End of Year CDBG Fund 2008 09 200910 200910 200910 Proposed % Audited Current Year toDate Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Accords Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 1 143 147 2,011,309 589133 2,011,309 - 00% 45 672 56180 33 371 56180 00% 1,097475 2,021129 555,762 2,021129 - 00% (1,097475) (2,021,129) (555,762) (2,021,129) 00% 00% Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers 01 To General Fund Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Fund Balances, Beg. of Year Fund Balances, End of Year Law Enforcement Fund 2008 09 200910 200910 200310 Proposed % Audited Current Year to Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 145,471 100,000 43 107258 1,258 73% 00% 145,471 100,000 43 107258 1,258 73% (145912) (100000) (21) (107258) (7258) 73% (441) 441 22 22 00% Debt Service Fund —Civic Center COPs 2008 09 200910 200910 200910 Proposed % Audited Current Year toDate Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues 20,201 12,000 2089, 6,562 (5,438) 453% Total Expenditures 1115,341 1,578,113 1,005129 1,578,113 00% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (1,095140) (1,566,113) (1,003,040) (1,572,211) (5,438) 03% Operating Transfers In: General Fund 1111,916 1,540,387 1,000,000 1,540,387 - 00% Operating Transfers Out CIP Fund (30660) (30660) 00% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out 16,116 (57046) (3,040) (62,484) (5,438) 95% Fund Balances, Beg. of Year 840010 856786 856786 856786 Fund Balances, End of Year 856786 799740 853746 794302 Other Funds -Revenue Detail ACCT NO 100 GAS TAX FUND FY 08 09 ACTUAL REVENUE FY 09 10 OLD@ 12/31/09 FY 09 10 CURRENT BUDGET FY 0910 MIDYEAR ESTIMATES $CHANGE % CHANGE 4065+454 -Investment nterest 1,437 751 1,639 896 (6,743) -8827% 4700 -Gas Tax 2106 310229 166,589 335,531 336,399 868 026% 4701 -Gas Tax 2105 559,067 279,494 542198 560,763 18,565 342% 4702 -Gas Tax 2107 722,707 379150 722,839 759,685 36,846 510% 4704 -Gas Tax 21075 10,000 10,000 10,000 000% TOTAL GAS TAX FUND 1,603,440 825,984 1,618207 1,661,143 49,536 306% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 0910 ACTUAL OLD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 101 ST. TRANSPORTATION FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065 -Investment nterest 1128 1321 4,828 20,743 15,915 32964% 4160 -Traffic Congestion Relief 858183 955,879 909,919 (45,960) 481% 4165 -Proposition 1B Streets/Roads 1,455,935 000% TOTAL ST. TRANSPORT. FUND 2,323246 9,329 960,707 930,662 (30,045) -313% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 0910 ACTUAL OLD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDNG REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4025 JAG Grant 1,028 119,33E 119,338 000% TOTAL RECOVERY ACT JAG FUND 7028 119,338 119,338 000% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 0910 ACTUAL OLD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 140 CDBG FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4081 -Community Development Block Grant 114314 589133 2,011,309 2,011,309 000% TOTAL CDED FUND 1143,147 589133 2,077309 2,077309 000% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 0' 10 FO 09-10 ACTUAL OLD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 160 LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065+454 -Investment nterest 43 43 43 000% 4085 -AB3229(COPS) 145,471 100,000 107215 7215 722% TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND 1 145,471 1 43 100,000 10]258 ]258 ]26% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 0910 ACTUAL VTD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR NO 370 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065 Investment merest 20201 2,089 12,000 6,562 (5,438) -0582% 4090 -Operating Transfer In 1111916 1,000,000 1,540,387 1,540,387 ODO% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1132,117 1,002,089 1,552,387 1,546,949 (5,438) -035% Exhibit C FY 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Internal Service Funds Internal Service Funds Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances 2a208-09 2009-10 2009-10 2a209-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year toDate Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Aduals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues by Fund Insurance 323,711 655,640 341,979 632,465 (23,175) -3.5% Vehicles 352,673 126,395 77,772 119,]]8 (6,617) -52% Information Systems 2,121,850 2,114,839 860,873 2,110,475 (4,364) -02% Ssport Services 289,452 428,217 171,296 424,696 (3,521) -0.8% Facilities 726805 916215 341851 915934 (281) 0.0% Total Revenues 3 814 491 4 241306 1 793 771 4 203 348 (37 958) -0.9% Total Expenditures by Fund: Insurance 701,384 655,794 360,105 855,294 199,500 304% Vehicles 314,516 296,708 164,193 295,708 - 0.0% Information Systems 2,437,027 2,301,491 956,011 2,284,537 (16,954) -07% Ssport Services 304,498 394,688 158,862 391,688 (3,000) -0.8% Facilities 701,118 962,076 32,410 955,076 (7000) -07% Total Expenditures 4 458 543 4 610 757 1966 581 4 783 303 172546 3 7% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (644,052) (369,451) (172,810) (579,955) (210,504) 570% Retained Earnings, Beg. of Year 4 925 507 4 281455 4 281 455 4 281 455 Retained Earnings, End of Year 4 281 455 3912004 4 108 645 3 701 500 Internal Services Funds -Revenue Detail ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 ACTUAL YTD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 300 INSURANCE FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4065+454 -Investment nterest 36,659 6,273 31,340 11,360 (25,980) -6958% 4076 -Charges for Services 275,374 332,901 618,300 618,300 - 000% 4086 Special Event Insurance Fees 1,678 725 725 725 RDIV/OI 4095 -Claims Recovery 10,000 2080, 2080, 2080, RDIV/oI TOTAL INSURANCE FUND 323,711 341,979 1 655,640 632,465 (23175) -353% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 ACTUAL YTD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR NO 310 VEHICLES FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065+454 -Investment nterest 19,539 5,400 16,495 9,818 4076 -Charges for Services 330,592 72,372 109,900 109,900 4550 -Gain on Disposal of Assets 2,542 fkDl V/01 TOTAL VEHICLES FUND 352,673 77772 1 126,395 119,778 ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 ACTUAL YTD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR NO 320 INFO SYSTEMS FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065+454 Investment 14,942 3,259 10139 5,115 (4,364) -0304% 4076 -Charges for Services 2102,622 857614 2104,700 2104,]00 O80% TOTAL INFO SYSTEMS FUND 2121,850 860,873 2114,839 2110,4]5 (4,364) ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 ACTUAL YTD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 330 SUPPORT SERVICES FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065+454 -Investment nterest 8,035 2034, 1,217 3,696 (3,521) 48]9% 4076 -Charges for Services 281,417 169,262 421,000 421,000 000% TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES FUND 289,452 171,296 1 42$21] 424,696 (3,521) -082% ACCT FY 08 09 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 FY 09 10 ACTUAL YTD@ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 340 FACILITIES FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4065+454 -Investment nterest 2,319 1,021 2115 1,834 (281) -1329% 4076 -Charges for Services 724,426 340,832 914100 914100 000% TOTAL FACILITIES FUND 126,805 341 $51 916,215 915,934 (281) 003% Item No. 5 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: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Property Insurance Renewal PREPARED BY: Roberto Cardenas, Fiscal Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the City of Temecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with Travelers Insurance Company and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company for the period of February 26, 2010 through February 26, 2011, in the amount of $275,310.00. BACKGROUND: The City's property insurance policy with Travelers Insurance Company and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company expires on February 26, 2010. In an effort to preserve a competitive rate, staff directed the City's property insurance broker, Brown & Brown, Inc., to market the City's property insurance policy. Together with Brown & Brown, Inc., staff validated the inventory of all City buildings and property requiring coverage. In response to the solicitation, the City received three (3) qualified proposals for Basic Property insurance, and eight (8) qualified proposals for Earthquake & Flood Insurance: BASIC PROPERTY INSURANCE CARRIER PREMIUM* Travelers Insurance Company $82,319 Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company $89,492 Firemen's Fund Insurance Company $90,000+ Chubb (Federal Insurance Company) Declined *Deductible Range - $1,000 to $10,000 EARTHQUAKE & FLOOD INSURANCE CARRIER PREMIUM* Empire Indemnity Insurance Company $169,000 Mt. Hawley Insurance Company / Essex Insurance Company $180,000 Endurance American Specialty / Essex Insurance $189,000 Max Specialty Insurance Company / Essex Insurance Company $213,000 *Deductible Range - 5% to 10% Based on the responses, staff recommends that the City accept the proposals from the following carriers: INSURANCE CARRIER LINE PREMIUM* Travelers Insurance Company Basic Property $82,319 Travelers Insurance Company Automobile Physical Damage $1,181 Travelers Insurance Company Inland Marine Auto Physical Damage $11,991 Empire Indemnity Insurance Company Earthquake & Flood $179,819* *Includes fees and taxes TOTAL $275,310 The total premium of $275,310 is an increase of $41,708.00 over last year's premium. The increase is primarily due to the addition of the Civic Center parking structure and the SAFE House. Other factors include the addition of electronic data processing equipment, valuable papers, and the incorporation of Inland Marine Auto Physical Damage. The City's property is valued at approximately $107 million, which is a twenty-nine percent (29%) increase in property values over last year. Travelers Insurance Company is an admitted carrier in the State of California and has a superior (A+ XV) financial size category. In addition, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company has an excellent (A XV) financial size category. Both companies have more than $2 billion of reported capital surplus and conditional reserve funds. Through Travelers Insurance Company, the City will maintain Basic Property coverage with a deductible that ranges from $1,000 to $10,000 (depending on the category of property involved). Through Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, the City will maintain Earthquake and Flood coverage in the amount of $25 million with a 5% deductible. Since total loss is not likely to occur in the event of an earthquake or flood, this coverage amount is considered sufficient and in accordance with the industry standards and practices. The attached proposal summarizes the premium and coverage provided by both Travelers insurance Company and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds for the property insurance premium are available for the remaining four months of fiscal year 2009-10. The Annual Operating Budget for fiscal year 2010-11 will establish additional funding for the remaining eight months of the total annual premium. ATTACHMENTS: Proposal from Travelers insurance Company and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company. Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 Insurance Proposal Submitted For: City of Temecula INSURANCE' PROPERTY AND DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS INSURANCE PROPOSAL Policy Term: 2/26/2010 to 2/26/2011 Submitted by: Mike Bush Senior Vice President This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BROWN& BROWN ... .......................................................................................... 1-2 SERVICETEAM.......................................................................................................3 DISCLAIMER NOTICE........................................................................................................4 NAMEDINSUREDS................................................................................................ 5 PROPERTY............................................................................................................. 6 (Incl. Business Interruption, Boiler & Machinery, Inland Marine, Fine Arts, EDP) ■ Scheduled Locations....................................................................................................... 7.10 ■ Statement of Values...............................................................................................11-1 to 11-4 ■ Property Coverage........................................................................................................12a-12j ■ Premium Summary .............................................................................................................13 ■ Marketing Results...............................................................................................................14 DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS........................................................................15-17 (Including Earthquake & Flood) Statement of Values............................................................................................18-1 to 184 Premium Summary .............................................................................................................19 Marketing Results.........................................................................................................20-21 COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE......................................................................22-23 OPTIONAL QUOTE TO ADD ADDITIONAL AUTOMOBILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE...............................................................................24-25 �Mvn 3'Ci'.1.11 � :•���. � This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal Frahm iriry 19 901n Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 BROWN & BROWN OF CALIFORNIA, INC. VISION, VALUES AND COMMITMENT �1 To provide our clients with the highest level of professionalism through quality service and reliability. To be leaders in our field through new and innovative products, programs and services. ■� To grow and earn a reasonable profit to insure the continuity of the organization, and to provide opportunities for our employees. 0 To attract and retain talented people. �► To recognize that people are important, and to encourage their dedication and commitment through teamwork, education and recognition. ■1 To operate as a marketing/sales organization committed to constant growth. �► To give our customers and employees our unequivocal commitment to integrity in every facet of our behavior. This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 BROWN at BROWN OF CALIFORNIA, INC. OUR TRACK RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF Brown & Brown of California, Inc. is an insurance sales organization comprised of several diverse and self-sustaining corporations. Within one organization we are able to provide sales, claims, adjusting, reinsurance placement, and an excess and surplus lines operation. Each entity is comprised of a team of professionals dedicated to their field of expertise. The Brown & Brown of California, Inc. business concept focuses on specialization and innovation to answer the specific needs of our clients. This distinctive approach, combined with the talents of our people, makes us a recognized leader in our profession. 2 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 928G8 • (800) 228-7975 Thank you for inviting us to develop and present a Risk Solution Program to you. We welcome the opportunity to become involved with your company. We have worked to identify your needs and concerns, and to develop a program for your insurance. Brown & Brown, Inc. is the seventh largest independent agency organization nationally., The company provides a variety of insurance products and services to corporate, institutional, professional and individual clients. Headquartered in Daytona Beach and Tampa, Florida, Brown & Brown is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (BRO) and has been included in Forbes' list of the "200 Best Small Companies in America". The company handles clients' premiums in excess of $1 Billion annually and has approximately 1,500 employees. While size is not the sole criteria for choosing an insurance agent, it does enable us to offer our clients clout in the marketplace and unmatched service capability. Please feel free to visit our website at www.bbinsurance.com. This brief description of insurance coverage is being provided as an accommodation only and is not intended to cover or describe all policy terms. For more complete information on the scope and limits of coverage please refer to the policy document. Specimen policy form(s) are available upon request. I As listed in Business Insurance magazine, July 17, 2008 edition This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 Brown & Brown of California — Spectrum Service Brown & Brown of California is happy to offer all clients a full suite of service not only for your business but also for your personal insurance needs. Spectrum Service provides protection in the following areas: Employee Benefits Medical, dental, vision and life and disability for your employees. Personal Homeowners, auto, collectibles and more. Financial Planning Consultative financial planning �'rlfrn°o : a This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 Account Service Team No matter how comprehensive or price competitive your insurance program is, it is still people who must service it to insure that coverage will respond when needed. Mike Bush Account Executive (714)221-1853 phone (714) 221-4143 fax mbush@bbsocal-corn email Mike Bush is responsible for overseeing all aspects of your program. Peggy L. Coleman Account Manager (714)221-1883 phone (714) 221-4143 fax pcoleman@bbsocal.com Peggy L Coleman will assist with the daily servicing of your account, including endorsements, certificate requests, client services, program design, accounting, quality assurance and market relationships. Judith Villalobos (Backup) Account Manager (714)221-1828 phone (714) 221-4128 fax ivillalobos@bbsocal.com Feel free to contact anyone on this list if you have questions or concerns regarding your insurance policy. 3 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown 8, Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 IMPORTANT NOTICE DISCLAIMER Disclaimer: This proposal/policy presented is based upon the exposures to loss made known to the agency. Any changes in these exposures (i.e. new operations, new products, additional state of hire, etc.) need to be promptly reported to our agency in order that proper coverage(s) may be put in place. The proposal contains only a general description of the coverage(s) and does not constitute a policy / contract. For complete policy information, including exclusions, limitations and conditions, refer to the policy document. Specimen policy forms and endorsements are available upon request. Non -Admitted Carrier Taxes: $ N/A Fees: $ N/A Minimum Earned Premium: Higher Limits may be available upon request V Premiums may be subject to audit Premiums exclude Terrorism Coverage Policy .. Carrier Rating Property Travelers Insurance Companies A+XV;(Admitted) EQ See Earthquake Section for Carriers Ratings Please read your policy for specific details. 4 Rk �i'(111'Il 1 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal FPhninry V) 90in Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 The information obtained from A.M. Best's Rating is not in any way a warranty or guaranty by Brown & Brown, Inc. of the financial stability of the insurer and this information is current only as of the date of publication. A.M. Best Rating of Proposed Carriers General Rating: These rating classifications reflect BEST's opinion of the relative position of each company in comparison with others, based upon averages within the Property -Casualty insurance industry. They are reflective of overall company services and standing within the industry. A++, A+ Superior B++ Very Good C++, C+ Fair A, A- Excellent B, B- Good C, C- Marginal Financial Size Category: The financial Size Category is an indication of the size of an Insurer and is based on reported Policyholders' surplus plus conditional or Technical Reserve Funds, such as mandatory securities valuation reserve, other investment and operating contingency funds and/or miscellaneous voluntary reserves in liabilities. Financial Size Category (in Thousands) Class I Up to $1,000 Class II $1,000 to $2,000 Class III $2,000 to $5,000 Class IV $5,000 to $10,000 Class V $10,000 to $25,000 Class VI $25,000 to $50,000 Class VII $50,000 to $100,000 Class Vlll $100,000 to $250,000 Class IX $250,000 to $500,000 Class X $500,000 to $750,000 Class XI $750,000 to $1,000,000 Class XII $1,000,000 to $1,250,000 Class XIII $1,250,000 to $1,500,000 Class XIV $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 Class XV $1,750,000 to $2,000,000 This information has been provided to you so that consideration is given to the financial condition of our proposed carriers. The financial information disclosed is the most recent available to Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. Brown & Brown does not guarantee financial condition of the insurers listed above. eon1, " This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 Claims Reporting Guidelines Make Brown & Brown, Inc. aware of any and all incidents immediately after they occur, whether it be an auto accident, a theft, slip & fall, even a minor incident that appears will have no future activity. Do not wait for a police report. Gather as much concrete information as possible. For example, police reports, company incident reports, conversation logs, medicals and pictures - anything that may assist in the handling of your claim. Send this information either by mail, e-mail or fax to: Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. 500 N. State College Blvd. Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868 (714)221-1883 (714) 221-4196 fax pcoleman@bbsocal.com If you have any questions or incur any problems, please call our office and we will be glad to assist in any way we can. This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 Named Insureds The following are named insureds on your policies: City of Temecula The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula Temecula Community Services District Temecula Public Financing Authority Industrial Development Authority Please verify the accuracy of each name on this list and update if needed. 5 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 PROPERTY (IncL Business Interruption, Boiler ex Machinery, Inland Marine, Fine Arts, EDP) ♦ Statement of Values ♦ Premium Summary ♦ Marketing Results e This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 City of Temecula Schedule of Locations 1 1 43200 Business Park Dr City Hall Temecula, CA 92590 2 1 30875 Rancho Vista Rd Ronald Regan Sports Park; Community Temecula, CA 92590 & 42659 Recreation Center Offices (CRC); Meeting Margarita Rd Temecula, CA Rooms 92590 2 2 Gym 2 3 Auditorium, Classrooms, Kitchen 2 4 Pool Pool Bldg. 2 5 Skateboard Park 2 6 Roller Hockey Park, 2 7 Restrooms/Playground Equipment Rental Facility 3 1 28816 Pul(o Street, Temecula, Temecula Community Center CA 3 2 Caboose 4 1 41845 6th Street Mary Phillips Temecula, CA 92590 Senior Center 5 1 28314 Mercedes Museum Temecula, CA 92590 6 1 28300 Mercedes Wedding Chapel (Chapel of Memories) Temecula, CA 92590 7 1 42081 Main Street Children's Museum Gift Shop Temecula, CA 92590 Single Occupant 8 1 42051 Main Street Old Town Temecula Community Theater Temecula, CA 92590 8 2 42049 Main Street Mercantile Building 9 1 43210 Business Pork Dr West Wing Maintenance Facility / Office Temecula, CA 92590 10 1,2,3 43230 Business Pork, Temecula, CA Field Operation Center 92591 11 1 30600 Pouba Rd Temecula Public Library Temecula CA 92591 12 1 28690 Mercedes Street Parking Structure/Office - Retail Temecula, CA 92590 13 1 28816 Pujol Street TCC Safe House Temecula, CA 92590 14 Bahia Vista Park Park, Basketball 41566 Avenida De La Reina, Temcula, CA 15 1 Buterfield Stage Park Park, Playground Equipment & Restroom 33654 De Portolo Road Temecula CA 92590 16 Colle Aragon Park Park, Playground Equipment 41621 Colle Aragon Temecula, CA 17 1 Crowne Hill Park Park, Playground Equipment & Restroom 33203 Old Oak Rd Temecula CA 92590 18 1,2 Harveston Community Park28582 Park, Playground Equipment, Restroom, Harveston Dr. I Snack bar 3 Temecula, CA 92590 1 Community Room 19 1, 2 Harveston Lake Park Pork, Playground Equipment, Restrooms, 29005 Lake House Road Lake, Gazebo, Boat House Temecula, CA 92590 20 John Magee Park Park, Playground Equipment, 44576 Corte Veranos, Temecula, CA 21 1 Kent Hintergardt Park Park, Playground Equipment, Restrooms, 31465 Via Cordoba, Snadk bar Temecula, CA 22 Loma Linda Pork Park, Playground Equipment 30877 Loma Linda Road, Temecula, CA 23 Long Canyon Creek Park 40356 Park, Playground Equipment N. General Kearny Rd, Temecula, CA 24 1,2 Margarita Community Park Park, Roller Hockey, Ball Fields, Tennis 29119 Margarita Rd Temecula, CA 92590 25 1,2 Meadows Park Park, Playground Equipment, Restroom 43110 Meadows Parkway Temecula CA 92590 26 Nakayama Park Park, Playground Equipment 30952 Nicolas Rd, Temecula, CA 27 Nicholas Road Park Park, Playground Equipment, 39955 Nicholas Road Temecula, CA 28 Pablo Apis Park Pork, Playground Equipment 33005 Regina Dr, Temecula, CA 29 1 Pala Community Park Park, Playground Equipment, 44900 Temecula Lane Temecula, Restrooms,Snack bar, Boll Fields, Tennis CA 30 1 Palomo Del Sol Park Park, Restrooms, Boll Fields, Snack bar 32099 De Portolo, Temecula, CA 31 Poseo Gallante Park Park, Playground Equipment 32455 Camino San Dimas, Temecula CA 32 1, 2, Potrica H. Birdsall Sports Park Park, Snack bar, Playground Equipment, 3,4 32380 Dean Hollow Way Restrooms, Ball Fields, Courts, Temecula, CA Maintenance Building 33 1,2 Pouba Ridge Park Park, Playground Equipment, Restrooms 33405 Poubo Road Temecula, CA 92590 34 1,2 Redhawk Park F Park, Turf Area, Shelter/Picnic Tables (Redhowk Community Park) 44715 Redhawk Parkway Temecula, CA 35 Riverton Park Park, Playground Equipment 30950 Riverton Ln, Temecula, CA 36 Rotary Park Park; Picnic Tables 28816 Pujol Street Temecula, CA 37 1 Sam Hicks Park Park, Playground Equipment, Restrooms 41970 Moreno Dr Temecula Ca 92590 38 Serena Hills Park Park, Playground Equipment 40747 Wolcott Lane Temecula, CA 39 Stephen Linen Jr. Memorial Park Park, Playground Equipment 44935 Nighthawk Pass, Temecula, CA 40 Sunset Park Park, Playground Equipment 32155 Camino San Jose, Temecula, CA 41 1,2 Temecula Duck Pond Park, Pump House, Restroom, Shade 28250 Ynez Rd & Rancho Facilities and Veterans Memorial California Rd Temecula, CA 92590 42 Temecula Creek Trail Park 33662 Park, Playground Equipment Channel Street, Temecula, CA 43 1 Temecula Skate Park Park, Roller and In -Line Skating (See 42569 Margarita Rd, Location #2 -Buildings #5 & #6) Temecula CA 44 1,2 Temeku Hill Park Park, Playground Equipment, 2 Restrooms, 31367 La Serena Way Snack bar, Ball Fields Temecula, CA 92590 45 Vail Ranch Park Park, Playground Equipment 32965 Harmony Lane, Temecula, CA 46 Veteran's Park Park, Playground Equipment 30965 La Serena Way, Temecula, CA 47 Voorburg Park Park 39960 Nicolas Rd, Temecula, CA 48 1 Winchester Creek Park Park, Playground Equipment, Restrooms, 39950 Margarita Rd Basketball Temecula, CA 92590 49 1 Wolf Creek Trail Park Park, Trail with Par Course 45454 Wolf Creek Rd, Temecula, CA 50 Wolf Creek Park Park, Playground Equipment, Restroom, 45850 Wolf Creek Dr N., Gazebo Temecula, CA 51 1 30650 Poubo Rd. Fire Station #84 Temecula, CA 92590 52 28330 Mercedes Temecula, Fire Station #12 CA 53 27415 Enterprise Cr. West Fire Station #73 Temecula, CA 54 37500 Sky Canyon Dr Temecula, Fire Station #83 CA 55 1 32221 Wolf Valley Road Fire Station #92 Temecula, CA 92592 56 1 32131 South Loop Rd. Fire Station to be occupied upon dispute Temecula, CA 92591 settlement 57 1 32364 Overland Trail Temecula CA 92592 Temecula Citizens Corp & Paramedics 58 1 41951 Morago Rd Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Elementary School, Restrooms 2 Pool Pool Bldg. 59 42075 Meadows Parkway Temecula, CA Temecula Middle School 60 1 30027 Front Street Temecula CA 92590 Prefab Radio Bldg. 61 1 28870 Pujol St. Temecula, CA 92589 Pantry Storage 2,3 Single Family Dwelling 62 1 6th & Front Streets Temecula, CA 92590 Restrooms & Light Standards, Parking Lot 63 1,2 Old Town Temecula Temecula, CA 92590 2 Arches 10 CITY of TEMECULA Special Form, Difference in Conditions, Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-26-10 to 2-26-11 Ixe L"d Oft # Acrin= occupam Buudhv a" vs"Woulul Pb" W4X 91 EE vahate Et>P Ilar�a» E>� EOP OE Yea: Ger>:�Ctlat1 tor. of Prot Arse 1 1 43200 t3ualnass Park Qr TOMMIR GA 9259030875 Cdy He 9.000.000 1.816.600 1.000 74.634 1.000.000 3.000,000 InCtud0d 250.000 1993 SP11 WWDd 2 4 57,000 X 2 1 RAr"a Vista Rd Temewta, CA 925W & 42630 Ronald Regan Sports Park: Communhy Recreation 1.2w.ow 215.000 62,000 37.528 100.000 100,000 Included 10.0W 1094 Spdnklered 1 4 6.000 Margarita Rd Temecula. CA 92590 CeMef Oftes (CRC); 1 Concrete WOO X 2 2 Gym 3.400.000 60,000 1004 Splaklered 1 1 4 16,000 % 2 3 AuNodum. Classrooms, 2,500,000 115,000 5,654 t5.00o Included 10,0w 1904 SpAnkiered 1 4 10,000 Kitchen Crete6100 X 2 4 Poo11 Pool Bldg. 250,000 104 Concrete 1 4 1.000 X 2 5 Skateboard Pant Roder Hockey Pant 197= 130.000 19" SprWdered Contxete 1 4 1.000 X 2 6 X 2 7 Restrooms. Snukbars.Playt;round Wow 30.0p0 1990 1r>wlafaroy 1 1 3.000 Equipment enW F X 3 1 26816 Pulp Street, Temecula. Temecula Cwnmunly 1,100.000 250000 1lowFrl57steeo 1 4 CA 15.000 Included 4,500 d z Caboose $20 000 1 OW X 4 1 1180 61h Street Mary Pitaps 2.000.000 375,000 1,= 30.000 15,000 Included 1085 1985 Steel Sprinldered 1 1 4 4 2,000 8.000 X 5 t Temecula CA 925M 2B311 MercedesMuseum 92590 n Center 1.800,000 50.000 3,000.000 15,000 Included 1098 11Mai Sprtnkleted 2 4 7.200 X 6 1 26300 Mercedes Wedding Chapel (Chapel 250.000 100.000 1998 Sprtnklor°d 1 4 1,509 xTne t 1 42081 Main Street Chltdren's Museum 2.250.000 t.5W.000 25.000 Included Framed. SwtaWod, 4 T"Wcula. CA 92590 f311t shop No Afar Shvie Occupant X a 1 42051 Mam Street Temecula, Old Town Tam�ula 9.000.000 1.000.000 300.000 SWA000 Included 75.WC 2W5 SPIAIdered. 3 4 20.000 CA MW 4ZO+t9 Win Street Theater X % a 9 2 tsercm wo t 500 000 5p 000 2003 Steel Frame 3 Britlt t 1 1 2.184 1 43210 Business Park Or West Wbtg Mabuenance 3.3W.000 500.000 150.000 75,000 Included 10.000 1997 SprtMdered 2 4 13.500 x 10 1.2.3 43230 Busbress Park Temec Aa. Field OperoCion Cater 5.111 U00 425.000 150.000 Included 100,000 2007 Sp Wdesed 2 17,800 82591 $led Frame Composite Membrane and % t 1 1 30800 Pouba Rd Temecula Temecula Public Library 10.00D.000 550.000 200.000 2.000.000 950,000 Inryuded 150.000 2006 Rf�a1 Root SixtWered t 3/.000 CA 92591 S" X 12 28890 Marcedes St. Temeaua. CA Patiting Sliudu e/Ottfrce- 16.700,000 6W.ODC 2010 Reinforced 6, 1 below 4 179,4101 92590 Retail (RE: EDP Hardware 3 3 SSSS Location Locked with card taostedared In lace n place above access d security Comm) contretelstrud Ural steel frame x 13 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula. CA TCC SAFE House 1242.053 175,000 2009 Spflrlldered 1 4 3.600 92590 frame with 11 Bsts9a Vista Park 41566 Park. BasketbeD mew toot Avenida De La Rein. Temcula, CA 1S 1 Buttrbetd Stage Park 33654 Park. Playground 140.400 50.000 19W CanpM to WOO 1 4 1.000 De Portola Road Temecula CA 92M Egtdpmart & Resuoom 16 Caft Aragon Park 41621 Park Playground 15.000 Cafe Aragon 7emec►da, CA Equ`pmert 17 1 Ct0aela Park Park Playground 1411 40.000 2004 Caaurete t 4 t.000 33203 Ord Oak Rd Temecula EqutpmeM 6 Restroanr CA 92590Ft+T1 m42W= 50V Tern 11•1 1 of 4 CITY of TEMECUL.A Special Form, Difference in Conditions. Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-26-10 to 2 26-11 M LW. 4 Btda.0 Add»ss Ofx aluy gumuna BPp *pNYWW-W5 8i EE V EDP Hudwauqp MP EDP EE Yur Coushr n Na of Prot Aria x 18 1,2 Herveston Gormmatiy Park Park, Plsygmum 600.000 40,000 Z004 Cwlzrete 1 4 3,000 28582 Harveston Or, Equlpmerd. Reshoom, r 3 Temecula CA 92590 Uftnumlly Roam 600,000 2004 19 1.2 Hatveston Lake Park 29M take House Road Pant. Playground Equ!pmeal, Restrooms, 500.0W 15,000 2004 Concrole Slock 1 4 1 ON 3.000 Temecula, CA 92590 Lake, Gazebo, Beal House Wood 20 John Magee Park 445T8 Pant, Playground 16.000 Corte Veranos, Temecula, CA Equlpmerd 21 1 Kent HiMMara pant 3140 Park, playground 500.000 15.000 1991 Cor=ete Buck 1 4 3,000 Via Cordoba, Temeada, CA Equipmentd. Restrooms, Snas;kbar 22 t a M Linda pant um" Parts. P10ygraurd 30.000 LOma Linda Road. Temrada, CA Equipmentd 23 Long Canyon Creck Park 40M N. Park 30.0W General Kearny Rd. Temecula, CA Playgmu=[Equpy*% 24 1.2 Margarita COmm=2y Park Park. Ra4w Hockey. Bag 140.400 150.000 29119 Margarita Rd Flews. Temus 1,000 Temccula. CA 92590 25 1,2 Meadows Park Park Playground 140.4001 40,0D0 2003 Conant Black 1 4 1,000 43110 Meadows Parkwmy Temecula EquipmoM. Restroom CA 02590 28 Nakayama Park 30952 Pork. Playground 40.000 Nicolas Rd, Temecula, CA Equipment 27 N,trass Road Park 39955 Pant. Playground 15,000 Nicholas Road Temecu%, CA Egtdp icM. 28 Patch Apts PWk 330Di Park. Playground 40.000 Regina Dr. Temecuto. CA EW4m%sd 29 1 Pala Conrnauily Park Pak PWYWDLMI 500.000 40AW 1992 C mele 1 4 3,000 44OW Temecula Lane Temecula, GA &NMIU al, Bag Fields. 30 1 Palo= Del Sol Park Pant. Restrooms. Btu $00.000 40.000 1.000 8.9W 15,000 Fnnuded 10,000 1991 xmasomy 1 4 3.000 32099 De Pmtola, Temecula. Fields. Snatlow CA 31 Gallanle Park 32455 Park. Playgrouno 15.000 1 JPQM Camino San Dimes. Temecula. CA Equlpmem 32 1.2.3.4 POIC11 H. 91r08911 Span: Park Park, Snackbar, 2.240,000 50.000 100,006 Included 50.000 2008 Cancrele 1 7,18 323B0 Dean Hallow Way Playground Equipment, Temecula. CA Restmoms. Ball Fields, Courts, Malnlanence 33 1.2 Pauba Ridge Park Bulldlno Park playground 140,400 30.000 2W3 Conde Bloo 1 4 1.000 33405 Paubs Road EguIpnent, Reftrooms Temecula. CA 925W 34 1.2 RcWwwk Park F Park Turf Area. 40.000 {Redhav* Cwwwtly Para 447t5 ShenedPicnlc Tables Re&kVWk P&Amay Temenda. CA m:,200902 UN Twn 11.2 2014 CITY OF TEMECULA Special Form, Difference in Conditions, Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-26-10 to 2-26-11 DZC l.oG. �qldgigl - - Address oeePu p, ey t3uildbl 8PP - .. � gi :1EE Valuable � .. la HardNrare EDP EDPEE YearBul Consbuctlan He. a1 : Pret area 35 Riverton Pack Park round ui 4 6 30950 Rlv"on LA. Temecula. Equipment CA W Rotary Part Park; Platte Tables 28816 Pujol Street Temecula, CA 37 1 Sam Hicks Park 41970 Moreno Dr Pack, Playground Equipment. Restrooms 140.400 30.000 12% Concrete Block 1 4 1.000 Temecula MS90 38 Serena Hills Part Park, Playground 40.000 40747 Walcott Lane Temecula, Equlpmerd CA 399 Stephen Linen Jr. Memorial Palk Park, Playground 40,p00 44935 Nighthawk Pass. Temecula. Equipment C 40 Sunset Part Pare, Playground 15.00 32155 Camino San Jose, Temecula, Equipment CA 41 1.2 Temecula Duck Pond Park. Pump House, 200,000 40,000 1905 Concrete Emock 1 4 1.000 28250 Ynez Rd 8 Rancho Reslroem, Shade Facilities California Rd Temecula. CA 92590 42 Temecula Creek Trail Park 33662 Park. Pia"You" 15,000 Channel Street, Temecula, CA Equipment 43 1 Temecula Skate Park Park, Roller and In-Une 42569 Margarita Rd, Temecula, Skating(See Localion#2- CA Buildings its 3 00) 44 1.2 Temaku Hill Park Park. Playground 500.000 30.000 2000 Concrete Block 1 4 3.000 31367 Lo Serena way Equipment, 2 Restrooms, Temecula, CA 92590 Snackbar, Bail Fields 45 Vail Ranch Park 32965 Park, Playground 40.000 rm Haony Lane, Temecula. CA Equipmentr 46 Veteran's Park Park, Playground 15,000 30965 La Serena Way, E4u4uwm Temecula. CA 47 Voorburg Park Park 39M Nicolas Rd, Temecula. CA 48 1 Winchesler Creek Park 39950 Park, Playground 140.400 15.000 1999 JAAasonry 1 4 1.000 Margarita Rd Equipment, Restrooms. Temecula, CA 92590 Basketball 49 1 Wolf Creek Trail Park Park, Trail with Par Course 45454 Wolf Creek Rd, Temecula, CA 50 Wolf Creek Park Pars, Playground 140.400 40.000 2008 Concrete EIJ 1 4 1.000 45950 WAIL Creek Dr N- Temecula. Equlpmom. Restroom. CA Gazebo X 51 1 306M Pauba Rd. Temecula, CA WM Fire Station 984 3,000.000 120.000 15,000 included 1997 Sprnklered 2 4 10,000 Masonry 52 28330 Mercedes Temecula, Fire Station 012 Insured by CAL FIRE 15,000 Included CA X 53 27415 Enterprise Cr. West —7 Fire StaUm #73 1.800.000 96.000 16,000 Included 1988 Type V Wood 1 4 6,000 Tula' CA Frame Stu= rri= oQ WV Ton 11-3 3014 CITY OF TEMIECULA Special Form, Difference In Conditions, Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-28.10 to 2-26-11 Bldg. i CAddMn anyon Dr Temecula. Fire Station 1iB9 Insured tw Cm,ni,r e1 BPP 'Playgt0gd VaIW>:!s .: mp PAPM EAA Hawrdvrare ro EDP EE 54 37500 SICY X 1 56 s6 (: 92592 31 South Loop Rd nacula, CA W591 64 Overland Tran aacula, CA W592 151 Moraga Rd necula. CA 92580 75 Meadows Parts IMID, CA 27 Front Street necula, CA 92590 70 PujW St. 92589 Pmwssing HardWare. Software and Extra Expense at Nan -Owned 64cMions Insured Values -Special Fenn DIC. EO 8. Flood Coverage Touls upon dispute settlement 'emecuta Citizens Corp a Paramedics Temecula Elamealary School, Restrooms POW 1 Pool Bldg. Temecula Middle School a $91.842.191 57.566.80E 51.140,00E $365,000 S358.718 i6.250.0o0 16,310,00E Included $665.00 84.956,853 $7.511.800 NJA $364.OE0 SU7.818 S6.250.000 5.880,000 Included 5605,Ool Total Insured Values (DICI: 844414ing: (Last Year) $65.935,200 BPP: 7.361,600 81: 364.000 EE: 347.616 VP: 3.260.000 EDP(H): 3,970,000 EDP(S)' Included EDP (EE): S605,000 Arches (Loc. 983): 350,000 Veteran Adam. ILoo. 041): 300,00D Total: s6Z403.816 (This Year) 564,95B,853 7.511,800 364;1= 347,816 6,260.000 6.980.000 Included S605.000 350.000 300.0DO $106,1185.469 AumeNed Signature Tdla YearBulh .Censhumon Prof 2007 Sprinklered Steel Stuxo a Rock 1 4 9,00 2008 j SprVn Omd Concreto 1 j 4 9.030 2002 Wood Frame Wood Siding 1 2.000 19% Sponklemd Concrete Block 1 4 1,00D 19" Concrete Sim 1 4 1.000 1096 Steel 1 4 48 (2) Modular Buildings Combined 1 1,440 1ti2$ Woodmiucco 1 4 1500 1997 Frame 1 4 700 1999 Sted Rarorfa M Concrete. Flagstone Fsce Polanae Brae 2004 Steel Rranforttd comets - Polisw Gror ite Face 148YOMIld Equlame111(Includes Sheliens 6 Picaic TaWesMSQ) Date Mb2OMW SM Tan 11-4 4 oT4 PROPERTY 2-26-10 To 2-26-11 Per Schedule of Locations / Statement of Values attached Subjects of Insurance Limits of Insurance Building & Personal Property — Blanket including Playground Equipment $100,548,991 Location #41 - Veterans Memorial $300,000 Location #63 - 2 Arches $350,000 Contractor's & Mobile Equipment, Per Schedule Attached $416,900 Business Income Including Extra Expense - Blanket $721,716 Fine Arts (Loc. #5) (Loc #11) $250,000 Owned $35,000 Owned $250,000 Property of Others Fine Arts at Any Other Location (AOL) $100,000 Fine Arts in Transit (Owned & Others) $100,000 Valuable Papers — Blanket $6,250,000 EDP Property — Blanket (Hardware & Software) $6,310,000 EDP Extra Expense $665,000 Newly Acquired Buildings $2,000,000 Newly Acquired Equipment $1,000,000 EQSL Sublimit with $25,000 Deductible $2,000,000 Machinery & Equipment Breakdown Included Miscellaneous Unscheduled Equipment Including Mobile & Voice Communication Equipment (See Representative Sampling) $150,000 Personal Property in Transit $100,000 Deductibles: $10,000 Building/Personal Property $5,000 Valuable Papers/EDP/Fine Arts and (AOL, Transit) Contractor's Equipment/ Personal Property at Unnamed Locations/ Personal Property in Transit $1,000 Miscellaneous Unscheduled Equipment & Mobile Communication Property 24 hour waiting period for Business Income and Extra Expense (with EDP BI/EE) & Machinery & Equipment Breakdown Business Income Coinsurance: Nil Agreed Value: Yes, subject to receipt of current signed statement of values and Business Income worksheet. Endorsements: • Date Recognition Exclusion • State Amendatory (where applicable) • All expiring endorsements unless otherwise noted or previously disclosed 12a CONTRACTORS & MOBILE EQUIPMENT 2-26-10 To 2-26-11 No. Description Limit 1. 1992 Massey Ferguson Tractor with Loader and Scraper SIN: LF3118OU397524U $31,500 2. Seed Limit Sin 10,000 3. 1995 John Deere 31OD Backhoes SIN: T031ODG813754 64,760 4 1997 Eagle Police Command Trailer S/N:1 UPT10P20V1016022 Licensed 45,000 5. 2 Cairnsiris Helmets - $25,350 each 50,700 6. High Density Mobile Storage System" 18,750 7. Traffic Signal Modification 14,590 8. 1998 Essick Walk Behind Patch Truck Roller S/N: 1D631029 11,167 9. Mobile Traffic Monitor 12,700 10. Scrubber, Floor 17,633 11. Equipment, Defibrillators 35,000 12. 2000 CMPLA Ditchwitch S/N: 1A9AF1826YF495820 48,000 13. 2007 Kawasaki Mule S/N: 1JK1AFCJ137B510945 7,000 14. Cushman Truckster S/N: 1CUNH22274PL000708 10,000 15. New Holland Tractor S/N: NH33660 20,000 16. 2006 Westcoaster Motor Boat & Trailer S/N: HULJ1112G506 5,600 17. Genie Lift 7,500 18. 2007 Kawasaki Mule S/N: JK1AFCJ127B510676 7,000 TOTAL: $416,900 *Including Voice Communication Equipment **Miscellaneous Equipment Contained Inside Covered Under Unscheduled Equipment 12b W201002jv — Temecula Property & IM values MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN 2-26-10 To 2-26-11 Coverage Limit Deductible Direct Damage Included $10,000 Business Interruption Included 24 Hours Extra Expense Included 24 Hours Consequential / Spoilage Included $10,000 Expediting Expenses Included $10,000 Spoilage Included $10,000 Ammonia Contamination Excluded $10,000 Off -Premises Power Interruption Included $10,000 12c Mb201002jv—Temecula Property & IM values MISCELLANEOUS UNSCHEDULED EQUIPMENT INCLUDING MOBILE & VOICE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT (IN TRANSIT OR AT OTHER LOCATIONS) 2-26-10 To 2-26-11 REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING: 1. Ariel Equipment 2. Compressor Equipment 3. Traffic Counter 4. Fence 5. Break Jar Mod Drill 6. Pump System Stencil Truck 7. Security System 8. Solar Arrowboard 9. Gymnastics Equipment 10. Sound System 11. Defibrillator 12. Helmet, Cairns Iris 13. Bicycle 14. Radar Equipment 15. Traffic Signal Modification 16. Digital Dimmer Component 17. Play Equipment 18. Recycling Equipment 19. Shampooer (Limit of Insurance: $150,000) Deductible: $1,000 12d $21,662 $3,105 $1,629 $2,126 $5,162 $2,800 $1,130 $4,262 $7,394 $141,908 $5,199 $25,350 $1,291 $2,172 $14,590 $26,782 $15,494 $5,487 $2,100 Mb201002yv — Temecula Property & IM values Brown 8. Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 9286E • (800) 228-7975 An Explanation of PROPERTY 0 BUILDINGS: (Real Property) Buildings or structures including extensions, fixtures, machinery and equipment constituting a permanent part of the building, building service equipment and supplies. CONTENTS: (Personal Property) All business property including stock, fixtures, equipment while in the building or in the open within 100 feet of the premises. IMPROVEMENTS & BETTERMENTS: Alterations or additions to any building not owned by insured. BUSINESS INCOME: Reimburses insured for loss of income resulting directly from interruption of business caused by damage to or destruction of real or personal property, by perils insured against. The company is liable for the actual loss of net income that would have been earned or incurred and continuing normal operating expenses including payroll. This form of insurance provides "disability Income" for your business and the function of it is to replace the operating income of your business during the period when damage to the premises or other property prevents this from being earned. It is from your operating income that your business meets expenses of payroll, light, heat, advertising, telephone, etc., and from which is derived your profit. This form is subject to coinsurance of either 50016, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100% or 125%. MAXIMUM PERIOD OF INDEMNITY: Provides loss of income the same as business income except that coverage is limited to 120 days and is not subject to coinsurance. MONTHLY LIMIT OF INDEMNITY: Provides loss of income based on insured's highest monthly loss times length of maximum down time. Not subject to coinsurance. EXTRA EXPENSE: If your building was rendered untenantable by fire or by any other insured peril, it would probably be deemed necessary to secure other quarters to continue operations. However, the use of such buildings would undoubtedly involve many extra expenses such as rents, installation of telephones, etc. Extra Expense Coverage would provide the necessary money for such expenditures. This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal Fahn inry 19 9010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 CONTINGENT BUSINESS INTERRUPTION: Indemnifies the insured for loss of gross earnings and continuing charges and expenses resulting directly from necessary interruption of his business due to damage to or destruction of (a) Contributing properties which are firms supplying raw materials or parts to the insured and (2) Recipient properties which are firms to which products of the insured are furnished. AGREED VALUE ENDORSEMENT: An agreement made by the insured company that they will waive the coinsurance clause on specified property if a loss caused by an insured peril occurs after the date of the endorsement and prior to the expiration of the policy. If this endorsement is not extended by endorsement beyond the expiration date the Coinsurance Clause is automatically reinstated. VALUE REPORTING FORM: If your stock values fluctuate from month to month, this is the most feasible plan you can have as you report exact amount of exposure present. This policy is written subject to the 100% Coinsurance Clause and the values are adjusted at the end of each year. You will either receive a return premium or an additional premium, depending upon the average value reported. The deposit premium is based on 75% of the face amount of insurance shown. PLATE GLASS: "All Risk" of direct physical loss. Includes the expenses of repairing frames, installing temporary plates, or boarding up opening. Coverage is for Full Replacement Cost, less deductible. EMPLOYMENT DISHONESTY: This covers loss of money, securities or property belonging to the insured or for which the insured is legally liable due to employee dishonesty. Burden of proof rests with the insured. Policy does not cover inventory losses based on an inventory computation or a profit and loss computation, unless the insured can prove through evidence wholly apart from such computation that the loss was sustained through dishonest acts of employees. Under Blanket Position Bond each employee is bonded for policy limit, while under Commercial Blanket Bond the policy limit applies regardless of the number of employees involved. MONEY & SECURITIES BROAD FORM: The company pays for loss of money and securities by the actual destruction, disappearance or wrongful abstraction of same from within the premises or while being conveyed by a messenger outside the premises. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: "All Risk" protection is provided which includes the following perils: fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, riot, civil commotion, strikes, explosion, aircraft, vehicle damage, collapse of building by weight of ice, snow or sleet, vandalism and malicious mischief, burglary and theft and other perils not excluded by the policy. 0 • :,,� , F > This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal rahn,nry 19 901n Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 The intent of this insurance, if any of the above losses occur, is to provide coverage for the following: • All sums due you from customers, provided you are unable to effect collection thereof as a direct loss or damage to records of accounts receivable. • Interest charges on any loan to offset impaired collections pending repayment of such sums made collectable by such loss or damage. • Collection expense in excess of normal collection cost made necessary because of such loss or damage. • Other expense, when reasonably incurred by you in re-establishing records of accounts receivable following loss or damage. INSTALLATION FLOATER: Covers materials and supplies destined to be installed or erected while in transit or at a job site. Tools and equipment of the insured and property at owned or rented premises is excluded. NEON SIGN COVERAGE: Policies are written on "All Risk" basis, subject to the following exclusions: • Wear and tear and gradual deterioration • Loss caused by installation • Mechanical breakdown • Loss caused by dampness of atmosphere • Loss caused by war • Loss caused by nuclear reaction VALUABLE PAPERS: Valuable papers means written, printed, or otherwise inscribed documents and records, including books, maps, films, drawings, abstracts, deeds, mortgages and manuscripts. Valuable papers would cover the cost of research to reconstruct damaged records, as well as the cost of new paper and transcription. It is an "All Risk" form. This endorsement does not apply to the following: • Fraudulent or dishonest acts by the insured • Loss resulting directly from errors or omissions in processing or copying the valuable paper • Wear, tear, gradual deterioration, vermin, or inherent vice • Loss due to electrical or magnetic injury, or erasure of electronic recordings except by This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal Fahn irvv i) )ni n Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 • Loss due to nuclear reaction • Loss caused by warlike action • Loss of property held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale. CONTRACTORS TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: A floater used to cover a wide variety of movable equipment. Coverage can include small items such as hand tools, i.e., hammers, circular saw, jig -saw, pumps, etc. EQUIPMENT FLOATER: A floater used to cover a wide variety of owned and rented equipment. Coverage can also include equipment rented to others. See your specific form for details. COMPUTER: MEDIA - magnetic tapes, discs, drums, or other materials on which data are recorded. EQUIPMENT - machinery used to read and produce information kept on the media. LOSS OF INCOME - when normal operations are curtailed because of damage to or destruction of the equipment or the media. EXTRA EXPENSE - additional cost incurred by an insured in its attempt to conduct business on a normal basis after damage or destruction of its processing system. 0 Ptinvtl fr4ril•� Ycll�'11 .t111 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal FPhn inry 19 9fY1n Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 SPECIAL FORM COVERS ALL DIRECT CAUSES OF LOSS, SUBJECT TO, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING EXCLUSIONS: i Explosion of steam boilers r Voluntary parting via trick or device ➢ Mysterious disappearance or inventory shortage Wear and tear i- Loss caused by birds, insects, rodents or other animals Mechanical breakdown it Artificially generated electrical currents it Continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of 14 days or more i Smog ➢ Dishonest act or omission by an insured, employee, volunteer or authorized representative ➢ Rust, corrosion, fungus, decay, deterioration or latent defect ➢ Earth movement ➢ Dampness or dryness of atmosphere, extremes of temperature Water leakage from failure to protect from freezing i Flood - surface waters or water which backs up through sewers or drains. Water below the surface of the ground, including that which exerts pressure or flows, seeps or leaks through sidewalks, driveways, foundations, walls, basement or other floors, or through any opening. ➢ Governmental Action ➢ Nuclear Hazard y War ➢ Power Failure Building Ordinance ➢ Rain, snow, ice or sleet to personal property in the open ➢ Release of contaminants S Setting or cracking ➢ Marring or scratching S Smoke, vapor or gas from agricultural smudging or industrial operations ➢ Collapse except as provided by additional coverage This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 Failure to act, inadequate planning, or defective design, materials, or maintenance A SPECIAL FORM provides much broader coverage than a BASIC or BROAD PERILS policy in lieu of a limited number of perils insured against under the BASIC or BROAD PERILS policy. The SPECIAL FORM places the burden on the insurance company to pay any loss that is not specifically excluded in the policy contract. This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 What is Co -Insurance? The co-insurance clause is found in almost every property policy. It states that the insurance company agrees to give you a lower rate per $100 of coverage, if you agree to carry the specified percent of insurance to the value of the property. Examples of Co-insurance at 80%: Building Value Insurance Carried Loss Insurance •. ys $100,000 $100,000 $60,000 $60,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $60,000 $100,000 $70,000 $60,000 $5 2,500* Have (70,000) Should have (80,000) x Loss = % Paid Ordinance or Law Coverage: Coverage is provided when the insured is required by enforcement of building, zoning or land use ordinance or law to repair, replace or demolish a covered building property. Description of Coverage: Coverage Limits of ..- A. Loss to the undamaged portion of the building allows a partially damaged building to be valued as a total loss B. Demolition Cost C. Increased Cost of Construction OR: Blanket Limits Coverage B and C. i1 _ f i � • e.ti �c J This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 PREMIUM PAYMENT OPTIONS 1. Payment in Full 2. 4 Payments— 25% due at inception, 25% due at 4`h, 7", & 10`h month r �► This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. February 11, 2010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. * 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 * (800) 228-7975 PREMIUM SUMMARY PROPERTY (EXCLUDING EARTHQUAKE & FLOOD) Chubb Chubb Travelers Travelers Travelers Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 Machinery Breakdown $7,563 $8,109 $6,217 $8,218 $10,214 Building & Business Personal $58,037 $68,349 $72,493 $65,391 $72,105* Property Business Income w/Extra Included Included Included Included Included Expense EDP Property on Prem Included Included Included Included Included Fine Arts - AOL Included Included Included Included Included Fine Arts in Transit Included Included Included Included Included Fine Arts on Premises Included Included Included Included Included Personal Property Included Included Included Included Included Personal Property- AOL Included Included Included Included Included Scheduled Personal Property Included Included Included Included Included Valuable Papers on Premises Included Included Included Included Included Total Property: $65,600 $76,458 $78,710 $73,609 $82,319 NOTES: a) COMBINED SCHEDULED BUILDING & b) Rate PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUES Decrease: (Travelers) 10.4% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $52,565,750 $68,915,750 $80,801,938 $80,590,138 $100,548,991 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal Fcahnirtnr V) 7nln Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 MARKETING RESULTS PROPERTY (EXCLUDING EARTHQUAKE, FLOOD & AUTOMOBILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE) Travelers Insurance Company $82,319. 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A+: XV; Admitted Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. $89,492 (No 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A+: XIV; Admitted Automobile Physical Damage) Fireman's Fund Insurance Company $90,000+ 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A: XV; Admitted Chubb(Federal Insurance Company) Cannot compete 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A++: XV; Admitted with Incumbent pricing 14 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal Fa hn inn. 19 ?n in Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 DIC (Including Earthquake &Flood) ♦ Statement of Values ♦ Premium Summary 15 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal Fahn inry 17 9010 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. * 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - 1800) 228-7975 DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS Coverage: DIC, including Earthquake (Not Including Earthmovement), Flood & Earthquake Sprinkler Leakage Interests Covered: Building, Business Income, Contents, Electronic Data Processing, Extra Expense, Improvements & Betterments, Stock, Valuable Papers Limits: $25,000,000 Per Occurrence & in Annual Aggregate separately as (last year: respects Earthquake & Flood. Earthquake Sprinkler 25,000,000) Leakage subject to Earthquake Aggregate. Sublimits: $500,000 Property of Others $500,000 Owned Property at Other Locations Deductible: $50,000 Per Occurrence, all perils except 5.0% *Per Unit of Insurance for Earthquake & Earthquake Sprinkler Leakage, subject to a $50,000 minimum pei Occurrence $100,000 Per Occurrence for Flood. Exclusions: Pollution, Contamination, Asbestos, Cyber/EDP Systems, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Seepage, For existing schedule, Flood in Shaded 7S Flood Zone and Flood Zones A & V, except after allocation of $500,000 per Occurrence Deductible, Terrorism (if declined), Cyber, Mold/Fungu War, All Risk Perils, Theft, Building Ordinance, Increased Cost of Construction, Boiler & Machinery & Ensuing Loss. Conditions: TERM: 12 Months EFFECTIVE DATE: 2-26-10 VALUATION: Replacement Cost except Actual Loss Sustaii on Time Element COINS: Nil VALUES: $106,565,469(Last Year $82,493,816) WARRANT: All Risk Underlyer Subject to: • Company Primary Form (as per expiring) and will attach scheduled Limit of Liability (Statement of Values form) • Debris Removal Clause • Receipt of Terrorism Disclosure Notices, prior to binding. • Locations marked "X", per DIC Schedule attached Premium: $169,000.00 10 818.50 Surplus Lines Tax/Fee & Policy and Intermed. Fees $179,818.50 Total Rates: Various Cancellation: 30 days Notice of Cancellation except 10 days for non-payment of premium. 16 H; I1111'I7 'i."•.� This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tem Prop-DIC Proposal FahnirtN V? )nin Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 *Unit of Insurance a) Each separate Building or Structure b) Contents in each separate Building or Structure c) Property in Yard d) Business Income/Extra Expense Terrorism/TRU: TRIA (Terrorism Risk Insurance Act) Act of 2002, Empire Indemnity Co. is offering coverage for annual additional premium of $120,000 + $3,900 taxes/fees. Must have declination/ acceptance of offer at time of binding. Participating Company Participation Layer Premium Taxes & Fees Empire Indemnity Ins. Company 80% $25,000,000 $169,000 $10,818.50 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A: XV; Non -Admitted Princeton Excess & Surplus 20% Part of Above Included Included 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A+: XV; Non -Admitted Note: Quote expires 30 days from quote date. Full premiums and fees are due and payable 20 days from inception. 35% MINIMUM EARNED PREMIUM ♦ 100% MINIMUM EARNED ON FEES The information obtainedfrom A.M. Best's Rating is as of February 11, 2005 and is not in any way Brmyn & Brown, Inc. warranty or guaranty of the financial stability of the insurer in question, and that the information is current only as of this date. IVA {31!�,i3 . This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tem Prop-DIC Proposal FAhninn/ 19')nIn CITY OF TEMECULA Special Form, Difference in Conditions, Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-26-10 tD 2-26-11 O1C % X Lacs 1 2 61d0. • f 1 Addrass 43200 Business Park pr CA 92590.000,000 30875 Rancho Vim Rd Temeada, CA 92590 a 42859 0oaaparlry Cdy Han Ronald Repro Sports Pant; Community Recreation 9TeMDCLft 1,200,000 BPP 1,818,800 215.000 BI 1.000 62.000 BE 74,834 37.528 >htwb>• 1.000,000 100,000 ENew*DP Hardwan 3.000.000 100,000 E Included In=4rd" EG~mPP EE 250.000 10,000 Year 1983 1994 Ca out No. of Spri►ldere0 2 Sprinklered 1 Png 4 4 Af112 57,000 8, 000 Rd Ternows. CA 92500 C011ter OfTleas (CRC); ConcreteMarpaft Block I ROOMS X 2 2 Oym Audtiorlum, Classrooms, Kiti�tOn Pod J Pod Bldg, 5kaleboard Park Rorler Hockey Park 3.400.000 2,500,000 250,000 187 200 130,0W 60,000 115,000 5,854 15.000 Ineludod 10,000 199/ 1094 1994 1994 SprirUdered Sprhudered Concrete Concrete Sba Sprlyddered e ftj 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 18,000 1F000 X 2 3 X 2 4 1.000 1.000 % 2 S X 2 8 X 2 7 ReWooms. SnatkLnrs.Play9round W0.000 30.000 f 990 ,1f4Aasalry 1 4 J.000 X 3 1 CAA 16 Puke SfteL Temecula, Ren1W Facipy Temoa" Comlrwa7y Comm Cabooso Mary Phillips Sewer Oord!a 1.100AW 5n 000 2.000.000 250.000 100 000 375.000 1.000 30.000 15 000 15.000 Include d Inshuded 1f38S 19as 1985 FrlsmCco Sted Sprfilldared 1 1 1 4 4 4 4.500 2 000 8 ppg 2 X 4 1 41US 8th Sheet Temecula. CA 9259D X 5 1 28314 Temecula -CA MW Museum T,800,000 50,000 3,000.000 15,0:W IRstuded low Spnnklered 2 4 7.200 % X 8 7 1 1 2a300 Mercedes 42081 Main Street Temecula, CA W5W Wedding Chapel (Chapel Cnlldrea's Museum f31ft Shop single M 250,000 2.250.00D 100,000 1,500.000 25,000 Inciudod 1998 Spdnklemd 1 4 1,509 FrsmW 5p:trkfkkw. Noatrm 4 X 8 1 42051 Main Street Temecula. CA 925W 12049 Main Street Old Town Temecula alar lkerrArttee Writ Wing 1LairlCVWzo 9.000.000 1 W0 000 3.300.000 1.000.000 50 014 500.000 300.000 150,000 Sul,W0 75,000 Included lncd0 u0 75.000 10.000 2005 2003 tti Sprinklered. St" Wand Frm. a Brisk Sprblkteretl 3 1 2 4 1 4 20,000 184 12,184 z97 R X 9 1 4=10 Bustles Pant Dr X 10 12.3 4=1 Business Park Temecula. SMI Flajd OpergiJon Center S.M.= 425.000 150.000 tr4 uded 100.000 2COT Sprbsldered 2 t 7,800 Steel Frame convosft meffftlaft and X 11 1 Pauba Rd Temla CAB259ea CA li1 Tenlec>da Put�c LW"10,000.000 SS0,000 ?OO.00O 2.000.000 950,000 Included t60,000 2008 IkeW Roar SPVWemd 1 34,000 Steel X 12 28890 Mercedes St. Temecula, CA 92590 Parking Strudurs1011kca Retail (RE: EDP Hardware Location Locked w1M card 18,70Q000 t350, 2010 ReinforcedStedd pr sar 1 below d l 4 179,1101 879, access fl security camera) vested In place conaeterstruct above ural steal hante X 13 28810 Pujd Street. Temecula. CA ting TCC SAFE Hausa 1242.053 176.0W 2009 Spnrlktared 1 4 3.&V frame with 14 Bihha Yu1a Park 41566 Park, Basketball metal red Avenida rya La Reina. TOmcda. CA 15 1 8utOfiield Stop Park 33554 OO Portala Road Temecula CASZM Park Playground EgWpTwM d ResLoam 140.400 50,000 lowConcrete 1 4 1,000 18 Calie Angell Park 41621 Cane AMpan Temecula. CA Park Playground EquVnni 15.00D 17 1 Crowns Hit) Park 33203 Old Oak Rd Temecula Pork Playprow►d EquWft l 8 ResUmn 1 W,400 2003 Comae 1 4 1.000 CA 025M mZ+20 = GOV Tsm 18.1 1014 CITY OF TEMECULA Special Form, Difference in Conditions, Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-26-10 to 2-26-11 DEC Lea md" Add— peeuPapeY EPP 'UYW—A 0 EE vwuaw EDP Hardware EDP EDPIM Year Cwtxuucum e. Nef Wet Area 18 1,2 Haaretton Commumdly Pena Pok Playground 5W.000 40.000 2004 Concrete Black 1 4 3,000 X 28562 Havvastan Dr. Equpment, Restroom. 3 Temecula CA 92590 Community Room 2004 1 Bp1 19 1.2 Hanestm lake Park Park, Playground 5W.000 15,000 2004 Concrete Back 1 4 3.000 29005 Lake House Road Equlpmea. Resbooms, a woos TemeculaTemecula.CA 92590 Lske, Gazebo, Boat House 20 Jahn Magee Park 44579 Park Playground 15.000 Cone Vxa s. Temsaaa. CA Equipment 21 1 Kent Hintergertll Park 31455 Pak PWygmww 5W.000 15,000 1891 Concrete SW 1 ! 3,000 Via Cordoba. Tanacula, CA EpWprnent, Restrooms, Snockber 22 Loma Linda Pak 30877 Park, Playground 30.000 Lem Linda Road, Temeada, CA EvA nenl 23 Long Canyon Creek Park 4WW N. Pak 30.000 General Kearny Rd. TemeaAs. CA PlaygrowMEgW 24 1.2 Magama Commanzy Park Park Rona Hockey, Bag 140.400 150,000 1'� 29119 Margarita Rd Fields, Temlis Temecula. CA 92590 25 1.2 Meadows Park Pant, Playground 140,400 40.000 2003 Concret Block 1 4 1.000 43110 Meadows Parkway Temecula Equ]pment, Reslroom CA W590 28 Nakayama Park 30M Park, Playground 40,000 Nicolas Rd, Temecula, CA Equlpmem 27 Nicolas Road Park 39M Park Playground 15,000 j Nidmlas Road Temecula, CA Equornerd, 29 Pabb Apis Park 33005 Park Playground d 40.000 Regina Dr. Temecula. CA Equipment 29 1 Pefa Commouy Park Pant, Playground 500.000 40.0w 1922 Concrete Blocs 1 • 3.000 449M Temecula Lane TemeaAa. Equtpmmd, Resuc oms, CA Snald=. Bag Fields, 30 1 Palo me Del Sol Park Pak Restroorm, Bag 500,000 40.000 1,000 8,9w 15,000 Incioded 10,000 1991 xUasorvy 1 4 3,000 32M De Portals, Temecula. Fields. Snackbm 31 Paseo Gagman Park 32455 Pak Payground 15,000 Comlrro San Dimas, Temeado. CA Equ]pment 32 1.2.3.4 Patrice H. Birdsall] Sports Park Park, Snackbar, 2.240.000 50,000 100,000 Included 50,000 2008 Conzwo 1 7,18 32380 Dean Hdgdw Way Playground Equipment, Temecula. CA Restmoms, Ball Fields, Courts. Malmsnence Building 33 1.2 Paubs Ridge Park Pak, Playground 140,400 30.000 2003 Corwoto eloch 1 • 1.000 33405 Pauba Road Equipment. Restrooms Temeuua. CA 925M 34 1,2 Rea sunk Pak F Park Turf Area, 40.000 (RoWwwk Community Pali 44715 Sne3m0P9auc Tables Redaewk Pakway Temocu* CA ms2W=SW Tan 18-2 2014 CITY OF TEMECULA Special Form, Difference in Conditions, Earthquake Floor! Statement of Values 2-26.10 to 2-26-11 01C Lor—d Ohio.0 Addraa occupancy BuDmnp BM 'R'Yoound BI EE V&h"b EDP Hardware EOP EDP EE Year No. m Prot Area 35 Rhrenon Park Palk Playground 40,000 30M Rhrenon Ln, Tomxuts, Equipment CA MCMcfdeB. 36 Rotary Pak Park; Picnic Tables 28a1S Pujol Street Temecula. CA 37 1 Sam Hicks Park Park. Pimmund 140.400 30,000 1996 1 4 Two 41970 Moreno Or Equipment. Regrown Temesuro Ca 38 Serena Hills Park Park Re mow 40.000 40747 Wakotl La. Temeada. Equipment CA 39 Stw.' Linn Jr. Memorial Park Park Rawound 40.000 44935 Niplahawk Pass. Temecula, Equ"wd CA 40 Sunset Pare Park RayWWnd 15.000 32155 Camino San Jose. Temecula, Equipment CA 41 1.2 Temecrda Duck PON Pam, Pump Hearse, 200.000 40.000 1995 Concrete Bled 1 4 1,000 28250 Ynoz Rd 5. Rancho Resboom. Shade Facilities CalNoNa Rd Temecula. CA 92590 42 Temecula Creek Trail Park 33W2 Park R Mund 15.000 Channel Street, Temecula. CA Equipment 43 1 Temecula Skate Park Pork Roller and In-Uns 42569 Man9ama Re, Temecula, Skating(See Loc:0 n02- CA Buildings 05 6 06) 44 1.2 Temeku Ka Park Park PlaywonW 500.000 30,000 2000 Concrete Black 1 4 3,000 31357 La Serena Way Equipment, 2 RestrOoms, Temeada. CA 92590 Sneermar. Ban Fields 45 Vab Ranch Park 32W5 Park Playgmurw 40.000 Harmany Lam. Temecula. CA Equipment 46 Vefman's Park Park Playprou" 15,000 30M La Serena Way. EVuomsm Temecula, CA 47 VOW" Park Park 30M Nicola Rd, Temecula, CA 48 1 Winchester Creek Park 39950 Pork, Playgmund 140,4W 16.000 1999 juasomy 1 4 1,000 Margarita Rd Equipment, ReWooms, Temecula, CA 92690 Basketball 49 1 Wolf Creek Trait Park Park, Troll vAh Par Course 454U Well Creek Rd. Temecula, CA 50 WON Creek Park Park, Playpmmd 140.400 40,000 2008 Concrete Bled 1 4 1,000 45M Wolf Creek tN N.. Temecula, Equipment, Resm=. CA Gazebo X 51 1 30650 Psuba Rd. Fire S1atlon 084 3.000,000 120.000 15.000 Included 1997 Sprinklered 2 4 10,000 Temecula, CA 92M Masonry 52 211=1 Mercedes Temecula, Firo Station 012 Insured by CAL FIRE 15,000 Included CA X 53 27415 Enterynse Cr. West Fete Star1o1073 1,600.000 95.000 15,000 Included lowType V Wood t 4 6.000 Temecula. CA Frame S Into me2D= SOV Tam I" 3 014 CITY of TEMECULA Special Form, Difference in Conditions, Earthquake Flood Statement of Values 2-26-10 to 2.26.11 01>; Loa Mass.: Address paupan=l► t3Yl1d10p BPP `ftyground u1 B1 .' l Vausbte papers 'EDP Hatd"r* EDP &oRwaro EDP EE _.. Year _ t:aralnrdTian _ . No, of Pso1 Area. 54 375M Sky Canyon Dr Temecula, Fite stalim go Insured by County of CA Riverside % 55 1 32221 Wolf Valley Road Temecula, Fife Station 092 2.718.600 95,OOD 15,000 Included 2007 Sprinklerod 1 4 9,082 CA M92 Steel Stucco a Rock X 56 1 32131 South Loop Rd. Fire Station to be occupied 2.709.000 05,000 2006 Sprinklered 1 4 9,030 Temecula, CA 92591 upon dispute settlement Coftwe 57 1 3ZI84 Overland Trail Temecula Clllcens Carp a 60,000 30.000 10,000 2002 Wood Forme 1 2.000 Temecula, CA 92592 Paramedics Wood Siding 58 1 41951 MOmga Rd Temecula Elementary 140,400 1994 SpanMared 1 4 1,000 Temecula. CA W590 School, Restrooms Concrete BZ WA 58 2 Pool I Pool Bldg. 140AN 1094 Concrete Bbd 1 4 11000 59 4Z075 Meadows Parkway Temecula Middle School 25.OW Temecula, CA 60 1 30027 Front Street Prefab Radio Bide. 8.750 1996 Steel 1 4 48 Temecula, CA 92590 61 1 26870 Pujal St. Temeada, Pantry Storage 61.18E (2) Modular 1 1,440 CA 92589 Eseatar House a Ham Buildings Combined 61 2.3 Sin Ip Family DwellEn 375 OOO 1928 WoodiStuceo 1 62 1 6th a Front Streets Rearooms a Light 36,400 1997 Frame 1 4 4 JAW TOO T la CA 925M Standards Parkin Lot Unscheduled, Electronic Data 290,000 Included Included Processing Hardware. SoRware and Extra Expense at Non-Owncd Insured Valuas-Speetal Form $91,842,191 $7,58$,800 $1.140,000 S365,000 $356,716 $6,250.000 $6.310.000 Included 56651000 X DIC, Eli & Flood Coverage Totals: 84,956,053 57,511,800 WA $364,000 $347.816 $G,=50,000 5,680,OL8 Included 660S,O00 X 63 1.2 OW Town Temecula 2 Arches g $175.000 each 350.000 — — Included -- -- - - 1099 Slow Re M%ftod Temecula, CA 92590 Concrete - Floplom Few Bra» X 41 1 Temecula Duck PON Veteran's Memwal 300.000 -- - Included ... — — Z004 M0« R ted Rede" Wood 28250 Ynez Rd a Rancho Concur Cardomlo Rd - Po0sned Gtwe Temecula. CA 92590 Face {Last Year) TOW Insured Values 11=1: Bu WAQ: $65,93S,2W 8pP: 7.361,800 8e 364,0DO EE: 347,816 VP: 3,260,000 EDW: 3,970,OW EDP(S): Included EDP ME): S605,000 Arches am 0e31: 350.000 Veteran Mom. (Leo. s41y 300.000 Total: $82,42016 (This Year) $84.9W,853 'Playground Egrdpment (Inctades shelters a Picnic Tablesr6801 7.511.8w 364,000 347.816 6.250.000 6.880.000 Included S605.000 350.000 300.000 $106,565,489 Authorized Signature Title Date mb200407 SOY Tam I" 4014 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 DIC PREMIUM SUMMARY EARTHQUAKE & FLOOD Insurance Company Annual Premium 2010/2011 Insurance Company Annual Premium 2009/2010 Empire Indemnity Company $169,000.00 Empire Indemnity Co. $150,150.00 plus Taxes & Fees 10,818.50 plus Taxes/Fees 8,842.34 TOTAL DIC COST: $179,818.50 1 $158,992.34 Premium Increase: 179,818.50 = 13.1 % (Increase) 158,992.34 Value Increase: 106,565,469 = 29.3% (Increase) (Total Insured Values) 82,493,816 Rate Decrease: 12.5% (Decrease) 2007 Total DIC Limit $15M Ded. 10% Values: 69,830,088 Premium: 209,137.50 2008 Total DIC Limit $25M Ded. 7.5% Values: 82,224,088 Premium: 145,467.48 2009 Total DIC Limit $25M Ded. 5% Values: 82,493,816 Premium: 158,992.34 2010 Total DIC Limit $25M Ded. 5% Values 106,565,469 Premium: 179,818.50 NOTE: a) Terrorism not included above, see options b) Premium increase of 13.1 % (comprised of a value increase of 29.3% and a rate decrease of 12.5%) PREMIUM PAYMENT OPTIONS 1. Payment in Full 2. Premium Finance: 25% down payment and 9 monthly installments 19 0 I:i.S�t:7.TYC� r This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tem Prop-DIC Proposal Fnhninry 1*? 9nln Brown 8. Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 OTHER MARKETING RESULTS (Plus Taxes & Fees, where applicable) Limit Premium Insurance Company of the West Can not 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A-: IX compete with existing pricing AXIS Speciality Insurance Company Excess over 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A: XV $25,000,000 only Mt. Hawley Insurance Company $10,000,000 $92,000 2010 A.M. Best Ratings A+:XI (Primary) @ 10% Ded $50,000 Lloyds of London $5,000,000 XS 2010 A.M. Best Ratings A:XV $58000,000 Endurance American Specialty $15,000,000 $150,000 @ 2010 A.M. Best Rating: As XV (Primary) 7.5% Ded Essex Insurance Company $10,000,000 $61,000 2010 A.M. Best Ratings As XII XS $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $39,000 XS $15,000,000 $5,000,000 $27,000 XS $20,000,000 Houston Casualty Company Declined due 2010 A.M. Best Ratings A+. XIV to PML Landmark Insurance Company Declined 2010 A.M. Best Ratings As XV Primary Declined due ICAT Specialty Insurance Company to PML 2010 A.M. Best Rating: NR-5 ii;�itr�rrt};? s=1 20 This proposal is for Illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tom Pro"IC Proposal ■ Fphn irnv 1 A oni n Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. a SOD N State College Blvd, Suite 400. Orange, CA 92868 a (800) 228-7975 Max Specialty Insurance Company $10,000,000 $125,000 2010 S.M. Best Rating: A-: XIII (Primary) @5% Ded Excess over Seneca Insurance Company $25,000,000 only 2010 S.M. Best Rating: At Vill Excess over Aspen Insurance $25,000,000 only 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A: XV Arch Insurance Company 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A-: Vill Declined pricing Rackhill Insurance Company Declined prtcine 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A-: Vill Excess over ACE Insurance/Westchester $25,000,000 only 2010 A.M. Best Rating: A+: XV 21 7 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. mb201002pc Tem Prop-DIC Proposal roahntrt v IA 9nin Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. - 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 - (800) 228-7975 Important Information Compensation: In addition to the commissions or fees received by us for assistance with the placement, servicing, claims handling, or renewal of your insurance coverages, other parties, such as excess and surplus lines brokers, wholesale brokers, reinsurance intermediaries, underwriting managers and similar parties, some of which may be owned in whole or in part by Brown & Brown, Inc., may also receive compensation for their role in providing insurance products or services to you pursuant to their separate contracts with insurance or reinsurance carriers. That compensation is derived from your premium payments. Additionally, it is possible that we, or our corporate parents or affiliates, may receive contingent payments or allowances from insurers based on factors which are not client -specific, such as the performance and/or size of an overall book of business produced with an insurer. We generally do not know if such a contingent payment will be made by a particular insurer, or the amount of any such contingent payments, until the underwriting year is closed. That compensation is partially derived from your premium dollars, after being combined (or "pooled") with the premium dollars of other insureds that have purchased similar types of coverage. We may also receive invitations to programs sponsored and paid for by insurance carriers to inform brokers regarding their products and services, including possible participation in company -sponsored events such as trips, seminars, and advisory council meetings, based upon the total volume of business placed with the carrier you select. We may, on occasion, receive loans or credit from insurance companies. Additionally, in the ordinary course of our business, we may receive and retain interest on premiums you pay from the date we receive them until the date the premiums are remitted to the insurance company or intermediary. In the event that we assist with placement and other details of arranging for the financing of your insurance premium, we may also receive a fee from the premium finance company. Questions and Information Requests: Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office at 1-800-228-7975 or, if you prefer, submit your question or request online at www.bbsocal.com Brown & Brown does not have direct binding authority with this excess and surplus lines market. This proposal contains only a general description of the coverage(s) and does not constitute a policy/ contract. For complete policy information, including exclusions, limitations, and conditions, refer to the policy document. This proposal is based upon the exposures to loss made known to the Agency. Any changes in these exposures (i.e., new operations, new products, additional states of hire, etc.) need to be promptly reported to us in order that proper coverage(s) may be put into place. W� This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tern Prop-DIC Proposal FPhn inry 19 )ni n Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 Wholesale Broker/Managing General Agent: Swett & Crawford This intermediary ❑ is ® is not owned in whole or part by Brown & Brown, Inc., the parent company of Brown & Brown of California, Inc. Brown & Brown entities operate Independently and are not required to utilize other companies owned by Brown & Brown, Inc., but routinely do so. In addition to providing access to the insurance company, the Wholesale Insurance Broker/Managing General Agent may provide additional services including, but not limited to: underwriting, loss control, risk placement, coverage review, claims coordination with insurance company; and policy issuance. Compensation paid for those services may be up to 15% of the premium you pay for coverage, and any compensation paid for those services is derived from your premium payment. The Fee, if any, for the Wholesale Insurance Broker's/Managing General Agent's services above is $0. 23 i'7111' I l 3� •'�_i�l.�' �� nrrrr� _ This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Mb201002pc Tem Prop-DIC Proposal FAhri inry 19 )n in Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 OPTIONAL QUOTE TO ADD ADDITIONAL AUTOMOBILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE 24 This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Coverage can not be considered bound until a binder has been received. }� February 12, 2010 CITY OF TEMECULA AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE SCHEDULE Vehicle Description ID No. Cost New Comp Ded Coll Ded USE 1992 Breathing Support 1, #1GDP7H1J502955 $208,259 2,000 2,000 Fire Truck 1995 Sentry Pumper 2. #4ENRAAA8651004369 $206,005 2,000 2,000 Fire Truck 3. 2002 Ford F550 (Medic Squad 73) $94,422 2,000 2,000 Medic #1FDAX56F92EB25749 Squad 4. 2001 Ford 550 Super Duty Truck with Boom -Hoist #1 FDAF56581 EA24722 $80,097 2,000 2,000 Trk Hydraulic Boom Hoist 4722 5. 2002 Ford Truck #1 FDAF56F91 EB60874 $54,825 2,000 2,000 FRMT 6. 2003 Ford F550 Truck #1 FDAF56F23EA94199 $46,122 2,000 2,000 Stencil Truck 7. 2002 Ford F550 7.31. Diesel $108,906 2,000 2,000 FRMT #1FDAX56F03EB25804 8. 2004 KME Fire Aerial FT $724,000 2,000 2,000 Fire/Aerial #1 K9AF42884N058774 Truck 9. 2004 Int'I Multi Purpose Utility Truck $142,000 2,000 2,000 Utility Truck #1 HTWNADT64J093129 10. 2006 Freightliner Truck $85,000 2,000 2,000 Freightliner #1 FVACWCS86HW91952 Truck 11. 2007 GMC Aerial Truck $127,466 2,000 2,000 Aerial Boom #1 GDG5C1 G971`405242 Truck 12. 2005 Smeal Fire Engine $341,382 2,000 2,000 Fire Engine #4S7CT2D956C054456 13. 2004 Charmac Trailer #4RYC322094T1 10951 $500000 2,000 2,000 Trailer (Fire) FRMT = Fire Rescue Medical Trudc (No Transport) Optional Quote: Premium to add the above 13 vehicles for Automobile Physical Damage Coverage = $1 1,991. Current Annual Premium for these vehicles is $14,049.95 (7/ 1 /09-10) Savings = $2,058.95 (Pro -Bata Return = .340; Short Rate Return = .306) Penalty = $477.70 25 W201007PC City of Temecula Auto Phys Damage Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Grant Yates, Deputy City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal PREPARED BY: Denise Lanier, Senior Human Resources Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the contract with the City's current workers' compensation provider, Travelers Insurance Company, as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier for 2010; for an estimated premium cost of $311,131. BACKGROUND: The City's insurance broker, Mike Bush of Brown & Brown of California, Inc., requested several market quotes and looked into workers' compensation pools. Mr. Bush was requested to explore all areas in an effort to ensure that the market carriers knew that the City was serious about obtaining the best coverage at the lowest rate. All market carriers were contacted with only Travelers Insurance Company providing a quotation. The Travelers Insurance Company premium for the 2010 plan year is increased by $2,962 due primarily to changes in the way the State rates expected losses for the upcoming year. Travelers Insurance Company appreciates the City as a valuable customer and understands the City's Safety Program operates to insure minimal losses throughout the plan year. Based on the above listed quote, City staff recommends the City's workers' compensation coverage remain with Travelers Insurance Company for the 2010 Plan Year. The Travelers Insurance Company quote reflects the estimated amount for the contract year and may be higher or lower depending on actual audited payroll. Staff believes the quote reflects the best that can be expected for the 2010 contract year. Our Loss Prevention Program will remain under the leadership of the City's Safety Committee who continues to do a great job. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is requested, as adequate funds are available within the current budget. Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Approve the Sponsorship Requests for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run and the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival PREPARED BY: Gloria Wolnick, Economic Development Specialist II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Approve the Event Sponsorship Agreement in the amount of up to $39,100 in city support costs for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 2. Approve the Event Sponsorship Agreement in the amount of $26,775 for the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. In addition, the Festival requests that the City will provide temporary logistical support of the traffic control signs and devices to assist with public safety during the Festival estimated at $3,200. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Spring Rod Run and the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival continue to be popular signature events attracting thousands of residents and visitors of all ages. The Economic Development Subcommittee of the City Council (Mayor Pro-Tem Roberts and Council Member Washington) met to review the budgets on these special events and recommended continued support at the levels indicated in this staff report. The events increase tourism revenue for the City's restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, Old Town and wineries. This funding is provided through the Economic Development budgetwithin the City's General Fund. In addition, City support services comes from the General Fund's budget. There will be no commissions, consultant fees and/or salaries paid to any party form the City of Temecula's sponsorships. 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run Staff has received a request from P & R Foundation to provide city support services of police, fire, public works and community services for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run in the amount up to $39,100. The 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run will be held in Old Town Temecula on March 12 & 13, 2010. The Spring Rod Run will primarily benefit The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County as well as various charities of the Temecula Valley. In addition, P & R Foundation plans to assist families in need with portions of the Rod Run. The family event will begin with a Friday Night Cruise and informal car display. On Saturday, the cars will line up along Old Town Front Street as well as along the side streets for the traditional "Show and Shine". The Rod Run will end at 4:00 pm with the awarding of trophies. There will be plenty of parking available at the City's new parking structure which will eliminate the need for the City to provide off -site shuttle service this year. P & R Foundation expects between 45,000 0 60,000 attendees for the two-day event. The event will showcase a cross section of approximately 650 — 700 classic cars, hot rods, and custom cars as well as vendors. No alcohol will be served or sold at this event. Promotion for the 2010 car show will include posters, flyers, newspaper, radio and magazine advertising. The Rod Run will be promoted via Internet sites including www.rodruntemecula.com and various car show web sites. In addition, there will be a mailing to 2,500 car owners notifying them of the event. 2009 Temecula Spring Rod Run Recap The 2009 Temecula Spring Rod Run attracted approximately 50,000 to 60,000 people and showcased 625 registered show cars. There were 65 vendors that participated. The car cruise and display were held on Friday evening. Saturday's line up included several street performances by world class musicians located at various places along Old Town Front Street, the "Show and Shine" exhibit and concluded with the awards ceremony. P & R Foundation provided $29,200 to various local non-profit organizations. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County was designated as the primary charity and received $26,500. Other non-profit organizations receiving funds included the Boy Scouts of America, American Red Cross, and Temecula Food Pantry. P & R Foundation also worked closely with the Old Town Temecula merchants promoting the Old Town businesses through advertising, numerous PA announcements during the event, and provided booth space to promote their organization. Marketing and publicity included posters, flyers, major car curise magazines along with their web sites, major newspapers, website (www.rodruntemecula.coml and radio thoughout Southern California. Local marketing included newspaper and radio promotion and articles. An event mailing of approximately 2,300 flyers were sent to car owners and distributed at various car shows. 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Staff has received a request from The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association to provide $35,000 cash plus temporary use of traffic safety signs and devices valued at $3,200. Due to the current economic climate, the Economic Development Subcommittee recommended that the City continues to support the Balloon & Wine Festival at a level of $26,775 cash plus provide the temporary use of traffic safety signs and devices. The 2009 Balloon & Wine Festival received City sponsorship of $29,750 cash plus the temporary use of traffic safety signs and devices. The 27`h annual Balloon & Wine Festival will be held at Lake Skinner on June 4 — 6, 2010. The 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival will maintain the same format as in previous years with sunrise hot air balloon launches, evening balloon glows, two entertainment stages and a Kid's Faire. The Festival will have food, arts and crafts and commercial product vendors including local and regional vendors. The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival's marketing program will include a full social networking campaign. The marekting program will include, advertising in newspapers, media kits, press releases and photos. Additionally marketing will also include commercials and promotions with radio stations from Rivrside, Orange County, Los Angeles to San Diego Counties; local cable television advertisements; collateral materials; and an aggressive publicity campaign targeted for Riverside, Orange County, Los Angeles to San Diego Counties; major magazines and Southern California newspapers. In addition, the Festival maintains a website, facebook, twitter and a blog site that carries event information and entertainment schedules which is linked to radio and television stations covering the Festival. The 2010 event will be a new experience for any guest as the Riverside County Park District has spent more than $6 millon in park improvements whch includes a grass amphiheater with more usable audience space and providing the Festival with an entirely new layout. Already confirmed for the event are jazz superstars Spyro Gyra and the WGAS Freestyle show. 2009 Balloon & Wine Festival Recap The 2009 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival had 38,000 guests that enjoyed 48 hot air balloons with morning launches and evening balloon glows. Two entertainment stages, headliners included: Lonestar, James Otto, Chuck Wicks, Patty Smyth and Scandal, Sugar Ray, Starship and Survivor. Sunday featured a freestyle motocross with a tribute to Jeremy Lusk. The Festival also had a kids fair, food, arts and crafts and commercial product vendors including local and regional vendors. There were over 20 Temecula wineries offered wine tasting. In 2009 recipients included: Chaparral High School Baseball Team and the Great Oak High School Baseball Team. Through the Festival's marketing campaign they were able to increase revenue to the Temecula Valley by bringing in people from all over Southern California and various states. Lake Skinner campsites were sold out in less than one hour. Temecula hotels and restaurants experienced an increase in sales. Through value added promotions the Festival was able to increase air -time for celebrity and morning deejays, on -air ticket give -a -ways, and in -kind sponsorships increased their marketing value. Paid advertising reached a national audience through the Los Angeles Times. Web drivers and internet covered the International audience. The 2009 Festival increased its print impressions by 50% with 68.6 million impressions. The Festival was featured in 30 publications including 13 magazines, 17 newspapers and linked from 27 major websites. There were 5 television shows that were filmed at or about the Festival. The Festival was included in a major motion picture 'The Ugly Truth" which opened in July. Major newspapers covered the event with 80% of submissions resulting in color full -page features. FISCAL IMPACT: The City support costs for each event are included in the FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the various support departments for the recommended sponsorship amounts. The City support costs for the 2009 Temecula Spring Rod Run in the amount of up to $39,100 is included in the FY2009/2010 Operating Budget of the various supprot departments for the recommended sponsorship amounts. Adequate funds for the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival have been included in the FY2009-10 Operating Budget (Economic Development line item, account#001-11-999-5266) forthe recommended sponsorship amount of $26,775 cash. In addition, the logistical support costs are estimated at $3,200 and funds are available in the Public Works Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Temecula Spring Rod Run Agreement Attachment A — 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run Agreement/Model Conditions of Approval Attachment B — 2010 Spring Rod Run Overview and Budget Attachment C — 2009 Spring Rod Run Recap II. Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Attachment A — 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Agreement Attachment B — 2010 Balloon & Wine Festival Overview and Budget Attachment C — 2009 Balloon & Wine Festival Recap SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND P & R FOUNDATION This Agreement, is made and effective this 23rd day of February, 2010, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and P & R Foundation, a California non-profit corporation. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: A. P & R Foundation shall operate the 'Temecula Spring Rod Run" on March 12 - 13, 2010. The 'Temecula Spring Rod Run" will be a special event located in Old Town Temecula involving the display of approximately 650 — 700 classic cars, hot rods and custom cars along with related concessions and vendors ("Car Show"). The event will benefit The Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County. The informal car display and evening car cruise will be held Friday, and the traditional "Show & Shine" and awards ceremony will be held on Saturday, in Old Town. No alcohol will be served. The event is expected to draw between 45,000 — 60,000 people for the event. B. The City of Temecula desires to be a "Premier Sponsor" of the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: A. City shall provide the necessary City Public Works, Community Services, Code Enforcement, Fire and Police support services for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run. The estimated City support costs are not to exceed $ 39,100 as listed in Exhibit B. In the event that City support services exceeds $ 39,100, the sponsor may seek City authorization for payment above that amount. In exchange for the City of Temecula providing such support, the City shall be designated as "Premier Sponsor" of the "2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run." As a "Premier Sponsor," the City of Temecula shall receive the benefits as listed in Exhibit A. B. The 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run will serve as a fundraiser for The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County. P & R Foundation will be reimbursed for their services in promoting this event and for operations. The Drifters Car Club will receive $400 for their assistance with parking, judging and vendor coordination. P & R Foundation shall also support other local service groups by seeking to include them in event activities to the extent reasonably practicable. The reimbursements to the non-profit organizations are subject to the financial success of the Rod Run. Within 30 days following the Car Show, P & R Foundation shall pay these funds. C. Within 90 days following the Car Show, P & R Foundation shall prepare and submit to the Assistant City Manager a written report evaluating the Car Show, its attendance, and describing the materials in which the City was listed as a "Premier Sponsor." The report should also include samples of media press clippings, flyers, pamphlets, etc. in a presentation notebook format. In addition, a complete financial statement to include a balance sheet and income statement of the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run must be provided along with a separate statement indicating the distribution of the funds. D. P & R Foundation shall file applications for Temporary Use Permit and Special Event Permit with the City of Temecula no later than sixty (60) days proceeding the first day of the Car Show. City retains its governmental jurisdiction to determine whether to issue the permits and the nature and scope of conditions of approval. P & R Foundation shall comply with all conditions of approval of the permits. E. Once the Temporary Use Permit and Special Event Permit applications have been submitted, the permits approved, the permit conditions agreed to in writing, and the event agreement has been executed in final form, P & R Foundation will receive City Support Services for the Car Show, as outlined in the agreement. F. P & R Foundation shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, the Community Services District and their elected officials, officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from all claims for damage to persons or by reason of P & R Foundation's acts or omissions or those of P & R Foundation's employees, officers, agents, or invitees in connection with Car Show to the maximum extent allowed by law. G. P & R Foundation shall secure from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement a policy of comprehensive general liability in which the City of Temecula and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency is named insured or is named as an additional insured with the P & R Foundation and shall furnish a Certificate of Liability by the City. The applicable evidence of insurance shall be submitted to the City not less than thirty (30) days prior to the Car Show. P & R Foundation acknowledges and agrees that City may terminate this Agreement and revoke the Temporary Use Permit and Special Event Permit in the event that evidence of insurance complying with the requirements of this Section is not received on or before thirty (30) days prior to the Car Show. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy or any subsequent endorsement attached hereto, the protection offered by the policy shall include; 1. Include the City, Temecula Community Services District, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency as the insured or named as an additional insured covering all claims arising out of, or in connection with the Temecula Spring Rod Run. Include the City, Temecula Community Services District, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their duties under this Agreement against all claims arising out of, or in connection with the Temecula Spring Rod Run. Provide the following minimum limits of insurance: (A) General Liability: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage with a $2,000,000 aggregate. (B) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. 5. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officer, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from the Temecula Spring Rod Run. 6. Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be cancelled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 7. If insurance coverage is cancelled or, reduced in coverage or in limits P & R Foundation shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. 8. Any deductible or self -insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductible or self -insured retention as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or P & R Foundation shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation, claim administration and defense expenses. H. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties, hereto, concerning the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party concerning the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. I. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: Agency: CITY OFTEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Assistant City Manager Producer: P & R Foundation 39252 Winchester Rd., Suite 107-361 Murrieta, CA 92563-3610 J. P & R Foundation shall adhere to the Model Conditions of Approval, which are attached hereto as Exhibit C, which incorporated herein, and as may be modified in the conditions of approval of the Temporary Use/Special Event Permit. Any violation of this document is subject to termination of this Sponsorship Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. DATED: P & R Foundation CITY OF TEMECULA Ray Waite Jeff Comerchero, Mayor 39252 Winchester Rd., Suite 107-361 Murrieta, CA 92563-3610 ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT A SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS VOW 39252 Winchester Rd. 9107-361 Murricta, CA 925 Phone: (951)303-9599 Fax(951)303-9599 To: City of Temecula The City of Temecula's benefits as a Presenting Sponsor of the Temecula Spring Rod Run includes the following: • City logo/or name will appear on all flyers, advertisements, poster, and event t shirts • City name on all press releases • City of Temecula advertisement in the official program. • Increased Income to the City • Publicity for the City Ray Waite President P & R Foundation EXHIBIT B 2010 TEMECULA SPRING ROD RUN CITY SUPPORT SERVICES AND ESTIMATED COSTS Below are the estimated City generated services and their costs provided to P & R Foundation for the "2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run." Staffing in various classifications is dependent upon event configuration and anticipated needs. Police Services Service costs: $20,000 Fire Services Service costs: $ 7,000 Public Works Service costs: $ 8,800 Community Services Service costs: $ 2,000 Code Enforcement Service costs: $ 1,300 TOTAL ESTIMATED SERVICE COSTS: $39,100 EXHIBIT C MODEL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT PL-1. The applicant shall develop the site per the approved site plan. PL-2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in this letter. PL-3. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application PAXX-XXXX which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the City Planner may terminate this temporary use permit without further notice to the applicant. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT B-1. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. B-2. Provide details for any additional accessible toilet facilities on site B-3. Provide details of van accessible parking located as close as possible to the access aisle. B-4. Submit three copies of the plans and structural calculations for any proposed temporary structures to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The structural plans and calculations shall be wet signed by the engineer of record. B-5. Provide two copies of electrical plans for any proposed temporary electrical equipment for review and approval. The electrical plans shall be stamped and wet signed by a registered professional engineer or architect licensed by the State of California or by the licensed electrical contractor completing the work. B-6. Obtain all permits and inspections for required work noted above prior to event during regular City business hours. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT C-1. Use of stakes to support canopies, fences or any structures is strictly prohibited at all City properties. C-2. Vendors shall be oriented in a way to prevent damage City landscaped areas. Rod Run Event promoter shall be responsible for any damage to City property. C-3. All vendor electrical hookups shall be subject to inspection and approval by Fire Services and/or Building & Safety prior to energizing any vendor. Vendors shall not access City power supply without City review and approval. Electrical outlets are provided for convenience only for low amperage devices. Exceeding amperage rating will cause GFCI circuit failure. Coordinate electric service issues with TCSD staff. C-4. Additional trash receptacles shall be provided by the Rod Run Event promoters throughout the Old Town area and serviced regularly throughout the course of the event. Existing trash receptacles shall be serviced by Rod Run Show Event promoter as well. C-5. All trash and debris shall be cleaned up and removed from the event area and surrounding area as needed to maintain a neat and clean condition at all times. FIRE PREVENTION F-1. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty (20) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E) F-2. Internal combustion power source, including motor vehicles, generators and similar equipment shall comply with the following: a. Flammable liquid fueled equipment shall not be used in tents, canopies or membrane structure. (CFC Section 2401.17.1) b. Flammable and combustible liquids shall be stored outside in an approved manner not less than 50-feet from tents, canopies or membrane structures. (CFC Section 2401.17.2) C. Refueling shall be performed in an approved location not less than 20-feet from tents, canopies or membrane structures. (CFC Section 2401.17.3) d. Generators and other internal combustion power sources shall be separated from tents, canopies or membrane structures by a minimum of 20-feet and shall be isolated from contact with the public by fencing, enclosure or other approved means. (CFC Section 2404.19) e. A minimum of one fire extinguisher with a rating of not less than 2-A:10-B:C shall be provided. (CFC Section 906) F-3. Heating and cooking equipment shall not be located within 10 feet of exits or combustible material. (CFC Section 2404.15.3) F-4. Open flame or other devices emitting flame, fire or heat or any flammable or combustible liquids, gas, charcoal or other cooking device or any other unapproved devices shall not be permitted inside or located within 20-feet of the tent, canopy or membrane structures while open to the public unless approved by the fire code official. (CFC Section 2404.7) F-5. Tents and canopies shall comply with CFC section 2404; they shall be labeled or provide certification of flame-retardant as required by the State Fire Marshal. Membrane structures, tents or canopies shall have a permanently affixed label bearing the identification of size and fabric material type. (CFC Section 2404.3) F-6. Provide fire extinguishers in the vendor (non food vendors) spaced every 75-feet. (CFC 2404.12 and 906.1, Table 906.3(1)). F-7. Provide a 40-B:C fire extinguisher at all cooking locations with deep -fat fryers, in addition to the 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher, all others to have a minimum 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher. (CFC 906.4) F-8. Tents where cooking is performed shall be separated from other tents, canopies or membrane structures by a minimum of 20-feet. (CFC Section 2404.15.5) F-9. Extension cords shall be of a commercial type and be in good working condition. Extension cords shall not be subjected to physical damage. Extension cords shall be maintained in good 'condition without splices, deterioration or damage. (CFC Section 605.5) F-10. All food serving vendors shall sign the 'food vendor' letter and be inspected by the fire prevention staff before any cooking is done. POLICE DEPARTMENT P-1. The use of all alcoholic beverages is prohibited at this event. All on -sale licensed merchants will ensure all alcoholic beverages are consumed on their property where licensed. P-2. Applicant will ensure both pedestrian and vehicle traffic is not impeded by this event. If any traffic problems occur, applicant will notify police personnel working this event immediately. P-3. Road Closure has been authorized by the City at the following locations: Moreno Road and Mercedes Street, Front Street at Moreno Road, Fourth Street, Fifth Street and Sixth Street east of Front Street, Fourth Street west of Front, Main Street between Front and the west end of the Main Street bridge, and Front Street at First Street. At no time will public road closures occur without permission from the City of Temecula. P-4. Applicant will be responsible for providing personnel to assist at the closures during normal daylight hours. Personnel shall wear red, orange or yellow reflective safety vests to redirect traffic. All personnel working the closures must be 18 years of age or older and knowledgeable in street closure safety procedures. P-5. Applicant will monitor all traffic, both foot and vehicle and notify the Temecula Police personnel immediately if conditions become hazardous. P-6. The Temecula Police Department reserves the right to stop, cancel or temporarily delay all or portions of any activities occurring at this event, when police or public safety becomes a major issue. P-7. Applicant will be responsible for any cost incurred by the Police Department if additional officers are required because of traffic problems/congestion, public disturbance or where the need for additional police presence is required. P-8. Refer any and all questions regarding these conditions to the Crime Prevention and Plans Officer, (951) 695-2773. Attachment B 2010 Spring Rod Run Overview and Budget 1 � Ga+.e c...nhn 6ueGm.D<. 39252 Winchester Rd. #107-361 Murrieta, CA 925 Phone: (951) 303-9599 Fax(951)303-9599 1. Provide information on your event, goals, promotional program. Budget, expected attendance, funding recipients and location of the event. If the event venues are held at multiple locations please list. The Event will be a family oriented event with a Friday Night Cruise & Saturday Show and Shine held in Old Town Temecula. The goal of the event is to provide fun for the community and raise funds for Temecula based charities; with the Boys and Girls Club of the Southwest County being the primary recipient. We expect between 45,000 and 60,000 people to attend the event. We will have newspaper, radio and magazine adverting to promote the event. We will also do a mailing to 2500 car owners we have on our mailing list. 2. How will the event profits be utilized? A major portion of the proceeds will be going to the Boys and Girls Club of the Southwest County. We plan on using other portions of the funds to assist other Temecula area charities. We are planning on trying to assist the families in need with portions of the Rod Run as well as youth groups. 3. Explain how your organization has worked well with the community to migrate event impacts. We are working with the Downtown Temecula Association with having the Merchants involved in the Rod Run. 4. Please describe your financial reporting. We currently use Quick Books as our primary method of accounting 5. If your organization received City of Temecula funding in the previous year, please provide a brief recap of the event, attendance, accomplishments and its economic benefit to Temecula. Explain it the event goals, marketing program, and attendance were consistent with what was proposed. See attached Ray Waite President P & R Foundation Spring Rod Run March 12 & 13 Revenue Car Registrations Sponsors Vendors T-shirt, Souvenir Sales Raffle / Silent auction Trophy Sponsors Total Expenses Flyers Final Dinner Awards Postage Clean Up Insurance Communications Equipment T-shirts / Sweat Shirts Porta Potties Supplies Miscellanies costs Refreshments Meetings Advertising Health Department Posters Web Maintenance Permits Fee's City Total Expenses Revenue Net Revenue Donations to Charities Budget $ 20,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 62,400.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 331.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 1,925.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 425.00 $ 500.00 $ 650.00 $ 300.00 $ 36,781.00 $ 62,400.00 $ 25,619.00 $ 20,000.00 To P&R Foundation $ 5,619.00 Attachment C 2009 Spring Rod Run Recap NT 1 � 2 1 iTM GoasP � �a r Gbe�. 39252 Winchester Rd. #107-361 Murrieta, CA 925 Phone: (951)303-9599 Fax (951)303-9599 To: City of Temecula The 2009 Temecula Spring Rod Run was a Huge success for all. . We estimate the attendance at about 50,000 to 60,000 people and there were about 625 registered show cars. There were also 65 vendors in attendance which exceeded the number we projected. With that we estimate we had the largest crowds on Friday night at the cruise we have ever had. On Saturday the weather was perfect and the crowds were heavy from early morning till the show ended at 4:00. This year we had several street performances by some world class musicians located at various places on Old Town Front Street. We expect to meet our goal in raising money for the Boys and Girls Club of the Southwest County. We also donated booth space to various non profits and other organizations including The Border Patrol, Search Dogs of Riverside County. Thank you for all your support, without it the event would not be a success. This year we worked closely with the merchants of Old Town to ensure they were pleased with the vendor set up and the advertising of the merchants in Old Town. We provided the DTA with a full page ad in the program and supplied numerous PA announcements to visit the merchants of Old Town. During this event the motels were all at max occupancy and the restaurants in the area benefited from the increased traffic in the Temecula area. The event was advertised though a mailing to about 2300 car owners. We had newspaper advertising, Magazine, and radio ads. The event was also promoted via the internet through various car show web sites as well as the rodruntemecula.com web site. There where posters distributed through out the City. Ray Waite President P & R Foundation Spring Rod Run 2009 Budget Revenue Budget Actual Car Registrations $23,000.00 $23,450.00 Sponsors / Vendors $11,000.00 $12,450.00 T Shirt / Soouvenir Sales $12,000.00 $11,985.00 Raffle / Silent Auction $4,500.00 $3,895.00 Trophy / Program $3,000.00 $2,675.00 Total $53,500.00 $54,455.00 Expences Insurance $6,300.00 $6,575.00 Postage $500.00 $675.00 Awards $2,000.00 $2,154.00 T Shirts / Sweat Shirts $8,000.00 $9,876.00 Phone $200.00 $387.00 Communication Equipment $260.00 $260.00 Clean Up $1,550.00 $1,695.00 Souvenirs $4,000.00 $4,120.00 Porta Potties $2,800.00 $1,975.00 Thank you Dinner $900.00 $934.00 Supplies $500.00 $784.00 Advertising $600.00 $750.00 Posters $300.00 $300.00 Health Department $400.00 $400.00 City Fee / Permits $300.00 $100.00 Refreshments for Meetings $300.00 $350.00 Misc Costs $3,000.00 $5,688.00 Flyers $400.00 $350.00 Web Maintenance $700.00 $700.00 Program Books $1,600.00 $1,300.00 Total Expenses $34,610.00 $35,253.00 Revenue $53,500.00 $54,455.00 Net Revenue $18,890.00 $19,202.00 Money to Charities $12,500.00 $12,500.00 Money to P& R Foundation $3,890.00 SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION This Agreement is made and effective as of this 23rd day of February. 2010, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA ("City"), and TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION (TVBWFA), a California nonprofit corporation. In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: A. RECITALS. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: 1. TVBWFA shall operate the 27th annual Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival ('Balloon & Wine Festival') on June 4 — 6, 2010. The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival is a special event held at Lake Skinner. The Balloon & Wine Festival shall offer approximately 50 hot air balloons, main stage entertainment, arts and crafts fair, tethered balloon rides and a wine venue featuring the Temecula Valley. On June 4`h, the Festival will kick-off with headline entertainment and a balloon glow. Attendance in previous years has been approximately 30,000 — 40,000 people for the 3- day event. Attendance for the 2009 Balloon & Wine Festival was approximately 38,000 spectators. 2. The City of Temecula desires to be a "Premier Sponsor" of the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. 3. Non -Compete. TVBWFA shall not produce, operate, participate, assist, consult, or serve in the development, production, management, operation, marketing, promotion or combination thereof, of any other Balloon & Wine Festival, either alone or by joint venture, partnership agreement, or otherwise, in connection with any other Balloon & Wine Festival located within a radius of [forty (40) miles] from the City Hall location in Temecula, California. Event organizer cannot schedule a similar event within 180 days from the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. (Time restrictions do not apply if the similar event is beyond the 40 mile radius). B. CONSIDERATION. In exchange for the City Sponsorship Payment of twenty-six thousand and seven hundred seventy-five dollars ($26,775.00) and Temporary Logistical Support in an amount of in -kind trade not to exceed $3,200 as provided in Exhibit B, the City shall be designated as a "Premier Sponsor" of the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. C. SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS. In exchange for being a Premier Sponsor, the City shall receive the benefits as listed in Exhibit A. D. SPONSORSHIP PAYMENT. The City Sponsorship Payment of twenty- six thousand and seven hundred seventy-five dollars ($26,775) shall be used to promote the Balloon & Wine Festival, as provided in Exhibit C, and pay for the entertainment at those venues at the Balloon & Wine Festival. 1 11086/0001/1044577-2 E. MARKETING AND PROMOTION 1. TVBWFA shall encourage overnight stays in the City through local room night bookings by including the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau website booking site on all event advertising, press releases, posters, flyers, event programs and other promotional materials as soon as TVBWFA begins advertising the Balloon and Wine Festival. 2. TVBWFA shall support economies of the City of Temecula by promoting and utilizing local businesses (i.e., local food vendors, restaurants, wineries, crafters, etc.) first. 3. TVBWFA shall market and promote Temecula's tourist attractions (i.e., the City's Old Town, wineries, golf, hot air ballooning, etc.) by partnering with the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau on scheduled media visits (i.e., media day, familiarization tours, etc.) as soon as TVBWFA begins promoting the Balloon & Wine Festival. 4. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, TVBWFA shall submit a timeline showing the milestone dates that each TVBWFA marketing activity, including but not limited to public relations and media schedules, marketing measures and other promotional activities, will occur. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that TVBWFA makes a good faith effort to maximize attendance at the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. F. DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS: The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival proceeds shall be utilized as follows: 1. Cover annual operating expenses for the eleven months between Balloon & Wine Festivals and start-up cash. 2. Balance is donated to community organizations. G. BUDGET. TVBWFA shall submit the approved Balloon & Wine Festival budget to the Assistant City Manager once adopted by the Board of Directors. H. PERMITS. TVBWFA shall file a written request to the Assistant City Manager and the Director of Public Works for the use of any City owned light towers, cones, barricades, directional signs, flashing beacons, etc. no later than ninety (90) days prior to the first day of the Balloon & Wine Festival. The City retains its governmental jurisdiction to determine whether to approve the request. TVBWFA shall return the provided materials in the same condition as received. I. TICKETS/SOUVENIRS: TVBWFA shall submit all event tickets, parking passes and official Festival souvenir merchandise to the Assistant City Manager no later than one full week proceeding the first day of the Balloon & Wine Festival. J. RECEIPT OF PAYMENT. After the Temporary Logistical Support request and insurance have been submitted and approved, and the event agreement 2 11086/0001/1044577-2 has been executed in final form, TVBWFA shall receive the City Sponsorship Payment and Temporary Logistical Support, as outlined in this Agreement. K. MEETING ATTENDANCE. City staff shall attend all required TVBWFA pre -event Public/Safety meetings. L. WRITTEN REPORT. No later than ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Balloon & Wine Festival, TVBWFA shall prepare and submit to the Assistant City Manager a written report evaluating the Balloon & Wine Festival event, its attendance, media coverage, and description of the materials in which the City was listed as a Premier Sponsor. The report shall also include samples of media, press clippings, flyers, pamphlets, etc. in a presentation notebook format. In addition, complete financial statements including a balance sheet, income statement and budget to actual comparison report of the Balloon & Wine Festival must be included in such written report. M. AUDIT. TVBWFA shall provide a financial audit by an independent certified public accountant of the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. This audit shall be conducted to include an audit of the 2010 Balloon & Wine Festival and should be completed and submitted to the City no later than January 31, 2011. N. INDEMNIFICATION. TVBWFA shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, and their elected officials, agents, and employees free and harmless from all claims for damage to persons or by reason of TVBWFA's acts or omissions or those of TVBWFA's employees, officers, agents, or invitees in connection with the Balloon & Wine Festival to the maximum extent allowed by law. O. INSURANCE. TVBWFA shall secure from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement a policy of comprehensive general liability in which the City is named insured or is named as an additional insured with the TVBWFA and shall furnish a Certificate of Liability by the City. The applicable evidence of insurance shall be submitted to the City not less than thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the Balloon & Wine Festival. TVBWFA acknowledges and agrees that City may terminate this Agreement and revoke the Temporary Logistic Support Request in the event that evidence of insurance complying with the requirements of this Section is not received on or before thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the Balloon & Wine Festival. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy or any subsequent endorsement attached hereto, the protection offered by the policy shall include; Include the City as the insured o covering all claims arising out Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine named as an additional insured of, or in connection with the Festival. 2. Include the City, its officers, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their duties under this Agreement against all claims arising out of, or in connection with the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival. 3. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 11086/0001/1044577-2 (A) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage provided on ISO-CGL Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 4. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (A) General Liability: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (B) Liquor Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. 5. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officer, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from the Balloon & Wine Festival. 6. Bear an endorsement or shall have attached a rider whereby it is provided that, in the event of any modification, expiration or proposed cancellation of such policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall be notified by registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days beforehand. 7. Any deductible or self -insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductible or self -insured retention as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees or TVBWFA shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. P. GOVERNING LAW. The City and TVBWFA understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. Q. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited 4 11086/0001/1044577-2 to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: CITY: CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Assistant City Manager PRODUCER: Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association P.O. Box 1254 Temecula, CA 92593 R. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. S. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 5 11086/0001/1044577-2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Jeff Comerchero Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION By: Name: Carol Popejoy-Davis Title: Chief Executive Director By: Name: Jeff Gavitt Title: Secretary 6 11086/0001/1044577-2 EXHIBIT A TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS (Attached) 7 11086/0001/1044577-2 EXHIBIT B TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL TEMPORARY LOGISTICAL SUPPORT AND COST (Attached) Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the City Support Costs exceed $3,200. 11086/0001/1044577-2 9 11086/0001/1044577-2 EXHIBIT A TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS (Attached) r.aLA 2010Premier Sponsor $35, 000 ,dune 2010 (Only one Premier Sponsorship available) 1. Identification as Premier Sponsor in all Festival materials 2. Exclusivity in Premier Sponsor's field 3. Full page, color ad in Festival program 4. Inclusion of logo in all Festival print advertising 5. Announcements in all Festival paid radio and newspaper advertising 6. Sponsor representative interviewed on projected radio remote broadcast 7. Right to use Festival logo on Premier Sponsor's materials (with Festival advance approval) 8. Representative introduced from stage and invited to speak several times during Festival 9. Four signs or banners on -site at event (Sponsor to provide) 10. Separate display tent in high -traffic area 11. Access to VIP Hospitality Tent for twenty guests 12. Linking of Premier sponsor's web site to Festival site 13. Recognized in Festival newsletter 14. Recognized in at least ten Festival news releases to general media 15. Sponsor's name in Festival brochure 16. Sixty adult Festival tickets 17. Thirty parking passes 18. Invitation to Sponsor Appreciation Dinner for twelve people 19. Thirty sets of Official Festival souvenir merchandise EXHIBIT B TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL TEMPORARY LOGISTICAL SUPPORT AND COST (Attached) Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the City Support Costs exceed $3,200. x TO: City of Temecula FROM: Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Traffic Safely Signs and Devices for Temporary Use • 300 Traffic Cones • 150 A Frame Barricades • 6 Barricades with "Road Closed" signs • Portable Yellow Flashing Caution units • 12 Stop signs • 4 hand-held stop/slow sign paddles • 2 portable light towers • Portable Red flashing caution units • Signs: 4 No Left, 2 No Right, 2 Merge, 12 No Parking, 6 Road Closed • Miscellaneous material: Caution tape, earplugs, gloves, etc. • Assistance in locating a vendor/contractor with portable traffic safety message boards II TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ATTACHMENT B - 2010 BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL OVERVIEW AND BUDGET Z QUESTIONS Application Page 3a Please respond to the following questions: Event 1. Provide information on your proposed event, goals, promotional program, budget, expected attendance, funding recipients, and location of event. If event venues area held at multiple locations, please list. Proposed Event: The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival has sunrise hot air balloon launches, evening balloon glows, two entertainment stages and a Kids Faire. The Festival also has food, arts and crafts and commercial product vendors including local regional vendors. Over 20 Temecula wineries participate offering wine tasting. Goals: The mission of the Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival Association is to enhance the charitable, cultural, educational and economic development of the region. Our mission is supported throughout the year by our charitable contributions to other non- profits that provide service to the Festival. We also support other non -profits by providing goods along with a year around media campaign. To provide a quality event by showcasing Temecula Valley's award winning wineries along with top entertainment while still offering an affordable ticket price for the whole family. Promotional Program: The TVBWF marketing program will include a full social networking campaign. Our marketing program will include, advertising in newspapers, media kits, press releases and i photos. Additionally marketing will also include commercials and promotions with radio stations from Riverside, Orange County, Los Angeles to San Diego Counties; local cable television advertisements; collateral materials; and an aggressive publicity campaign targeted for Riverside, Orange County, Los Angeles to San Diego Counties; major television network news, network morning and feature news shows, West Coast magazines and Southern California newspapers. In addition, the Festival maintains a website that carries event information and entertainment schedules which is linked to radio and television stations covering the Festival. R QUESTIONS Application Page 3b Budget: See attached. Expected Attendance: 36,000—40,000 Funding Recipients: In 2009 recipients included Chaparral High School Baseball Team, Great Oak High School Baseball Team. Previous donations have also been made to the Riverside County Volunteer Fire Department, Temecula Valley and Murrieta High School Baseball teams, 4-H Club, Boy Scouts, Rotary Club, Temecula Valley Wine Society, and the Riverside County Sheriff's Activity League Cops and Kids Program. Depending on the Festival revenues other organizations in the Temecula community are also considered as recipients of various awards. Souvenir baskets are donated to many Temecula Valley organizations for their fundraisers and various organizations utilize our equipment throughout the year. Location of Event: Lake Skinner 2. How will the event profits be utilized? Profits are retained to cover annual operating expenses for the eleven months between Festivals and start-up cash. The balance is then donated to community organizations. 3. Explain how your organization has worked well with the community to mitigate event impacts The Festival Board and Executive Director work year round with Riverside County Park District, Riverside County Sheriff Office and the City of Temecula. In addition, the Festival Public Safety Division meets once a month starting in March and coordinates with Riverside County Park Department, Riverside County Sheriff, California Highway Patrol, County Transportation and the City of Temecula. 1:38 PM Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival 01/28/09 Profit & Loss Budget Overview Accrual Basis July 2009 through June 2010 Ordinary Income/Expense Income 1205 • Bank Interest 4100 • Sponsor Income 4150 • Program sales 4200 • Admissions Income 4220 • Office Ticket Sales 4230 • RV ticket sales 4235 • Friday Gate Admissions 4240 • Saturday Gate Admissions 4250 • Sunday Gate Admissions 4260 • Vons Ticket Sales 4270 • Longs Ticket Sales 4275 • Online ticket sales 4276 • Gold Medal 4277 • Silver Medal 4278 • Food 8 Wine Pairing Total 4200 • Admissions income 4300 • Balloon income 4320 • Corporate balloons Total 4300 • Balloon income 4400• Beverage Income 4415 - BeerlWine 4430 • Ice 4480 • Gold Medal Beverage Ticket Sale Total 4400 • Beverage income 4500 • Commercial court income mil) 4510 • Entry fees `-% Total 4500 • Commercial court income 4600 • Food court income 4610 • Entry fees Total 4600 • Food court income 4650 • Parking income 4655 • Kids Fare 4656 • Kids Faire Ticket Sales 4658 • Entry Fees Total 4655 • Kids Fare 4700 • Souvenir income 4710 • Entertainment Income 4760 • Hotel booking commistons 4810 • RV Commission 4900 • Arts and crafts income 4910 • Entry fees Total 4900 • Arts and crafts income Total Income Expense 5460 • Camping/RV Space 5000. Operating expense 5010 • Bank charges and fees 5012 • Credit Card Charges/Fees 5015 • Copy machine 5025 • Dues/Licenses . 5030 • Equipment repairs 5035 • Insurance -liability 5045 • Lease / rent _ 5048 • thilites 5055 • Mileage 6060 • Postage Jul '09 - Jun 10 2,600.00 160,000.00 500.00 8,500.00 42,000.00 44,000.00 175,500.00 49,000.00 42,000.00 40,000.00 36,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 10,000.00 492,000.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 298,940.00 3,500.00 400.00 302,840.00 56,465.00 56,465.00 43,000.00 43,000.00 49,500.00 23,004.00 2,841.00 26,845.00 30,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 25.000.00 25,000.00 1,192,950.00 1,090.00 730.00 6,000.00 5,000.00 3,500.00 1,900.00 40,000.00 19,200.00 4,300.00 800.00 6,200.00 Page 1 ��r r 1:38 PM Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival 01/28109 Profit & Loss Budget Overview Accrual Basis July 2009 through June 2010 Jul'09 - Jun 10 5065 • Printing 1,800.00 5070 • Seminars & travel 5,000.00 5072 • Travel Expenses 3,000.00 5080 • Supplies 5,600.00 5082 • Taxes 22,000.00 5085 • Telephone / office expense 5,000.00 Total 5000.Operating expense 128,930.00 5100 • Payroll expense 5110 • Wages 98,000.00 5115 • Bonus & Commisions 4,000.00 5120 • Payroll tax expense 10,000.00 5125 • Employee benefit 4,500.00 5130 • Workman's compensation 1,200.00 5150 • Meridian Service Fees 640.00 Total 5100 • Payroll expense 118,340.00 5200 • Board expense 5210 • Supplies 150.00 5220 • Meetings 2,500.00 5230 • Shirts 250.00 5240 • Board Gift 1,000.00 5250 • Chairman Shirts 1,800.00 Total 5200 • Board expense 5,700.00 5300 • Donation expense 5315 • G.O.H.S. Baseball 8,000.00 5320 • Volunteer Fire Dept. 3.000.00 5330 • High School/Trash Detail 3,500.00 Total 5300 • Donation expense 5400 • Command expense 14,500.00 5410 • Food & beverages 1,500.00 5430 • Radios 3,500.00 5440 • Supplies 450.00 5450 • Telephone 2,100.00 Total 5400 • Command expense 7,550.00 5500 • Facilities 5515 • Fencing - 16,000.00 5520 • Fuel 10,250.00 5525 • Electrical 32,000.00 5530 • Golf carts 18,240.00 5535 • Light towers 12,600.00 5550 • RV's & modulars 5,400.00 5555 • Signage 3,500.00 5560 • Equipment rental 4,000.00 5565 • Storage bins 500.00 5570 • Supplies 1,500.00 5575 • Tents 23,000.00 5580 • Toilets 13,500.00 5585 • Trash/Clean-Up 6,400.00 Total 5500 • Facilities 146,790.00 5700 • Marketing expense 5715 • Flyers/Rack Cards 2,800.00 5722 • Media Kits 600.00 5730 • Marketing supplies 550.00 5732 • Postage 1,200.00 5735 • Print marketing 18,000.00 5740 • Program 20,000.00 5745 • Radio 60,000.00 5750 • Marketing Firm 37,000.00 5757 • Web -Site 4,200.00 5760 • Video Production 500.00 5762 • Television 7,600.00 Page 2 1:38 PM Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival 01/28/09 Profit $ Loss Budget Overview Accrual Basis July 2009 through June 2010 Jul '09 - Jun 10 5765 • Assorted Services 4,600.00 5770 • Newsletters 4,500.00 Total 5700 • Marketing expense 161,450.00 5800 • Professional fees 5810 • Accounting 4,000.00 5820 • Auditing 7,000.00 5850 • Attorney 3,200.00 Total 5800 • Professional fees 14,200.00 5900 • Public safety 5910 • Highway patrol 4,000.00 5920 • Security 38,000.00 5940 • Sheriffs 28,500.00 Total 5900 • Public safety 70,600.00 6000• Sponsor expense 6040 • Sponsor Awards 8,700.00 6045 • Sponsor NightlThank You 5,000.00 Total 6000 • Sponsor expense 13,700.00 6100 • Volunteer 6110 • Food 1,210.00 6120 • T-shirts 3,500.00 6130 • Printing 4,000.00 6135 • Meeting Room (a) 50.00 6140 • Online software program 500.00 Total 6100 • Volunteer 9,260.00 6200 • Admissions expense 6210 • Park District - parking 10,750.00 6215 • Park District - tickets 14,000.00 6270 • Ticket printing 250.00 Total 6200 • Admissions expense 25,000.00 6300 • Balloon expense 6310 • Accomodations 7,200.00 6320 • Show -up incentives 3,000.00 6340 • Fuel 6,600.00 - 6390 • Tethered balloons 3,000.00 Total 6300 • Balloon expense 19,800.00 6400 • Beverage expense 6410 • ABC license 100.00 6415 • Beer - 18,000.00 6420 • Beverage supplies 50.00 6435 • Ice 6,000.00 Total 6400 • Beverage expense 24,150.00 6600 • Entertainment expense 6610 • Entertainment Backline 7,000.00 6620 • Producer/Booking Agent 6630 • Producer/Booking Agent 11,500.00 Total 6620 • Producer/Booking Agent 11,500.00 6640 • Food & Wine Pairing 500.00 6700 • Main backstage supplies 6710 • Accommodations 16,000.00 6730 • Food 7,600.00 6770 • Sound & Lights 23,000.00 6780 • Stages 18,000.00 6785 • Back Stage Hands 5,000.00 Total 6700 • Main backstage supplies 69,500.00 i 6900 • Entertainer acts - 6910 - Kids Faire 3,860.00 Page 3 1:38 PM 01/28/09 Accrual Basis R Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Profit & Loss Budget Overview July 2009 through June 2010 6920 • Main stage 6930 • Wine stage 6940 • SMI License Fee Total 6900 • Entertainer acts Total 6600 • Entertainment expense 7050 • Gold Medal 7060•Food Total 7050 • Gold Medal 7300 • Food court expense 7340 • Health Permit Total 7300 • Food court expense 7400 • Kids faire expense 7410 - Kids Fair % 7420 • Ticket Printing Total 7400 • Kids Mire expense 7500 • Parking 7510 • Supplies 7520 • Cones 7540 • Freeway Signs Total 7500 • Parking 7600 • Souvenir expense 7620 • Inventory purchases 7640 • Supplies Total 7600 • Souvenir expense 7700 • VIP expense 7720•Food 7740 • Supplies Total 7700 • VIP expense 7800 • Wine tasting venue expense 7810 • Glasses - plastic 7815 • Glasses -tasting 7860 •Tickets 7870 • Wine 7880 • Supplies Total 7800 • Wine tasting venue expense 7960 • Festival Event Supplies 7965 • Parking Passes 7970 • Credentials/Laminating 7975 • Vendor Passes Total 7960 • Festival Event Supplies Total Expense Net Ordinary Income Net Income Ju1'09 - Jun 10 V2,4 F 7- 182,000.00 6,000.00 2,500.00 193,350.00 281,850.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 16,100.00 290.00 16,390.00 200.00 2,000.00 5,800.00 8,000.00 20,000.00 200.00 20,200.00 500.00 250.00 750.00 600.00 19,000.00 1,300.00 72,000.00 300.00 93,200.00 3,500.00 1,500.00 1,300.00 6,300.00 1,192,950.00 rm 0.00 Page 4 III. TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL Attachment C - 2009 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Recap A Non-profit Association The Mission of the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association is to enhance the charitable, cultural, educational and economic development of November 17. 2010 Mrs. Gloria Wolnick Marketing Coordinator City of Temecula P. O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92591 Dear Gloria, What a spectacular festival we had. Thank you to all who shared in this success with us and sorry we missed some of you this year. The 2009 Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival was featured in 13 magazines, 17 newspapers, linked from 27 major websites & 5 television shows filmed at or about the Festival. (see enclosures) Some highlights included the addition of the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Gold Medal Wine Competition: Gold Medal Winners: Sparkling - Wiens Family Cellars - Amour de FOrange Dry White - South Coast Winery- 2008 GVR Sweet White - Keyways Winery — 2007 Riesling Single Varietal Red — Briar Rose Winery — 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon Dessert — Filsinger Winery — 2007 Orange Muscat The People's Choice awards: Best Booth — La Cereza Best Red — Plateau Vineyard — Cabernet Sauvignon Best Blush — South Coast Winery — Merlot Rose Best White —Keyways Winery —Riesling Best Champagne — Wilson Creek — Almond Champagne A major motion picture titled The Ugly Truth opened in July. The movie starring Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler has them (at the end of the movie) falling in love at a balloon festival. Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival was chosen and you can see our beautiful setting from a balloon over looking Lake Skinner and the 2008 Festival. I just returned from the International Festivals & Events Association annual conference which was held in Indianapolis, Indiana this year. IFEA is a world wide organization with members like the 500 Festival, Kentucky Derby Festival and the Pasadena Tournament of Roses to name a few. I am proud to announce that the TVBWF walked away with 3 IFEA Pinnacle awards this year: Gold Award — Best Press/Media Kit Gold Award — Most Creative/Effective News Stunt Bronze Award — Best Misc. Printed Material (single page) 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Unit 1 • Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 676,6713 • (951) 676-5921 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1254 • Temecula, California 92593 • www.tvbwf.com Page Two We have begun to put the 2010 Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival plans together starting with a new office location. Please stop by 41755 Rider Way, Temecula and say hello. The 2010 Festival layout will be new as the Riverside County Regional Park & Open -Space District has begun their improvement project at Lake Skinner. It will include a new water play recreation facility and amphitheatre. We are working very closely with the Park District regarding their plans, improvements and timeline. Once again thank you for your support and we look forward to sharing another successful year with you. The 27`h Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival will be held June 0, 5 h & 6 h, 2010. I look forward to working with you. If you have any questions or new ideas please call or email me. Sincerely, Carol Popejoy, C E Executive Director Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Enclosures A Nonprofit Association The Missims of the Temeada Valley Balloon f8 Wine Festival Association is to enhance the charitable, cultural, educational and economic development of the region. Executive Director Carol Popejoy, CFEE 2009 Marketing Campaign REVIEW: The Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival Marketing & Public Relations Campaign begins in October of every year. The 2009 Festival had the benefit of winning awards from two industry organizations for their marketing and public relations in 2008. The 2009 promotions began with this announcement in October and continued through June, 2009 with results of the Festival. The.advertising portion of the 2009 Festival changed with the unique circumstances of a global recession, reduced sponsorship dollars and the changing advertising landscape as social marketing moves into the forefront. METHOD & STRATEGY: The Festival has conducted intercept surveys since 2001 at the event. Continually our attendance demographics proved our core audience was 35-54 with 27% earning greater than $100,000, 42% more than $75,000. More than 50% of our audience came from outlying counties — all within an hour's drive. To attract this audience the Festival focused on all media with a core audience of 35- 54 high income couples. This included radio in the Los Angeles, Inland Empire and San Diego markets, cable and Fios television, social websites such as myspace and facebook, and email blasts from a list developed over the past three years. Publicity focus was directed towards entertainment and color broadcast anchors, entertainment editors, food and wine editors and critics, print media throughout the three surrounding markets (Los Angeles, Inland Empire and San Diego) and on-line travel and entertainment websites. MARKETING ACHIEVEMENTS: • Maximized frequency on radio broadcasts — increasing in most cases to 3.0 to 5+ by leveraging sponsorship, contests, online streaming, and online contests with media buy. • Maximized television frequency by focusing on core market of 35-54 year old audience and leveraging sponsorship with the buy. • Realized an average open rate of 23% for email blasts and a click through ratio of 2.5% reaching 1600 previous Festival attendees and interested prospects • Broadcast over 2600 paid commercials on chosen media in two week time frame 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Unit 1 • Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 676-6713 • (951) 6765921 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1254 • Temecula, California 92593 • www.tvbwf.com A Nonprofit Association The Mission of the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festiva! Association is to enhance the charitable, cukuml, educational and economic development of the. region. • Broadcast an additional 800 free spots through contests, mentions and anchor endorsements • Through Temecula Convention & Visitors Bureau sponsorship had two electronic billboards from April 6" —June 7m, 2009. One on the 15 Freeway north before the 91 Freeway and one on the 91 Freeway Westbound, realizing 45,396 impressions. THE MARKETING CAMPAIGN: o Targeted media that had dominant numbers to match Festival demographics o Pursued media partners that would enhance the advertising expenditure o Required all media partners provide o Web links o Web promotions and drivers o In -kind sponsorship o On -air ticket giveaways with radio stations and website drivers o Morning drive -time deejay talk o Where relevant, media partnerships to enhance frequency o Advertising buys were required to provide improved frequency and/or impressions 0 2 Billboards — one on 15 Freeway North near 91 Freeway, other on 91 Freeway West, east of 15 Freeway. 2009 PUBLIC RELATIONS OBJECTIVES: The Festival print budget was reduced and therefore all public relations needed to enhance the small print budget, generate media sponsorships, and increase the visibility. Additionally, we targeted a 35-54 year old audience with food and wine preferences by focusing on food, wine and entertainment publications, editors and broadcast anchors. • Obtain strong dominant images of the event in all print media • Increase the number of publications featuring or highlighting the Festival's food and wine components • Increase broadcast news and feature food, wine and entertainment coverage 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Unit I • Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 676.6713 • (951) 676-5921 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1254 • Temecula, California 92593 • wweutvbwf.com A Nonprofit Association The Mission of the Temecula Valley Balloon £9 Wine Festival Association is to enhance the dwritable, ctdtinal, educational and economic development of the region. • Drive ticket sales to ticket outlets • Drive web traffic to Festival's site • Drive web ticket sales • Drive web traffic to hotel websites and bookings • Increase exposure to our core audience of 35-54 year olds • Strengthen sponsor benefits through cross promotion • Strengthen past and present media relations • Enhance value to media sponsors through event marketing and promotions • Maintain attendance (2008 had more than a 20% increase in attendance). With financial climate, weather (hail two days before opening and cloudy skies), we hoped to maintain the 20% increase in attendance. METHODS: • Begin long -lead publication publicity in November • Provide steady flow of press releases to magazines, news papers, regional and local media, internet news and event -related blogs. • Provide informative, diverse media kits that appeal to all media, print, electronic and broadcast. Kits were created with our "Go Green" theme (environmentally friendly) and provided on flash drives. They included: 1. Photos 2. Audio — MP3 commercials 3. PSAS — and talking points 4. Press releases on each venue and activity of the Festival 5. Footage of the Festival and each venue (to broadcasters in form of b-roll) 6. Slide show of event. 7. Websites of all Festival partners and entertainers for further information 8. Contact Information for all entertainers THE TARGET: ALL MEDIA REACHING 35-54 Year olds, with incomes greater than $75,000 in the four counties surrounding the Festival o Los Angeles o Orange o Riverside o San Bernardino 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Unit I • Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 676-6713 • (951) 676.5921 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1254 • Temecula, Califomia 92593 • www.tvbwf.com rtLA p, A Non-profit Association The Mission of the Temecula. Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association is to enhance the charitable, tdtaorl, educational and economic development of the region. MATERIALS USED: Direct mail of: o Calendar notices 9 months prior to event o "Recipe for Fun in Temecula" promotion with recipe boxes and invitations to media event o PSAs to Radio and Television producers o Media Day - Opening Invitations o Press Kits on Flash Drives o Media Alerts Email: o MP3s o Press Releases o Media Alerts o E-newsletter-10 times from February 1 to June 5 Website: o Downloads of all press releases, photos, etc Social Networking o Links from youtube, myspace, and other websites to the Festival o Partnership with Los Angeles Flickr Group for photographing Festival o Facebook regular updates o Email blasts linking to sponsors, Festival website, and other networking sites. RESULTS: o Increased Festival's print impressions by 50%. with 68.6 million impressions. o Appeared in 30 publications including: 0 13 Magazines including Westways 0 17 Newspapers including Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, and San Diego Union Tribune o Linked from 27 major websites and hundreds of blogs o Event endorsed by Melinda Lee on KNX 10.70— FOOD NEWS SHOW— and mentioned 4 times in two weeks during Saturday Show. 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Unit 1 • Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 676.6713 • (951) 676.5921 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1254 • Temecula, California 92593 • www.tvbwf.com A Non-profit Association The Mission of the Temecula Wiley Balloon f9 Wine Festival Association is to enhance the charitable, cultund, educational and economic development of the region. o Remote broadcast with "Let's Dine Out Show" at Festival all day Saturday o Guest Emcee from KLOS radio Cynthia Fox introducing Patty Smyth & Scandal and Starship. o Five television shows filmed at or about the Festival • Channel 6 Ruben Galvan (San Diego) • Channel 5 Gayle Anderson (Los Angeles) • PBS California Life With Heather Dawson Pilot show with news anchor Jane Monreal "See Jane Run" Broadcast spots highlighting Festival on NBC, Los Angeles Broadcast spots highlighting Festival on ABC, Los Angeles • Broadcast spots highlighting Festival on ABC, San Diego • Wealth TV — Cable in San Diego o K-FROG Featured Grape Stomping competition o NEWSPAPER 80% of submissions resulting in color full page features: • Newspaper coverage included a 4-page insert with front cover that featured and highlighted the Food and Wine Pairing event, chefs and wineries of the Festival in one newspaper. (Neighbors Newspaper) Newspaper coverage in two major metros included the cover of their entertainment section insert plus 2 and 4 pages covering the Festival entertainment on the inside pull-out. (North County Times and Press -Enterprise) • Another covered the event with full color page in three of their editions (Jurupa, Loma Linda and Colton News) • 1 Critiqued the concert and provided a 3 page spread the following week in their entertainment section. (North County Times) We had over 2,250 inches of Printed publicity in newspapers, periodicals and magazines. • More than doubled our print impressions over the previous year. o NC TIMES & Californian 4 page insert prior to the Festival and 3 page review after event o FRONT COVER on Press -Enterprise Entertainment Insert week of Festival o FRONT COVER on INC Times Entertainment Insert week of Event o FRONT COVER and 4 page pull out in NEIGHBORS NEWSPAPER June edition o Full page color cover of event in Jurupa, Colton and Loma Linda News 27495 Enterprise Circle West, Unit I < Temecula, California 92590 • (951) 676.6713 • (951) 676-5921 Fax Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1254 - Temecula, California 92593 • www. tvbwf.com TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION AUDIT REPORT For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 RECEIVED JAN 39Vie:': CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION AUDIT REPORT June 30, 2009 CONTENTS Pa e IndependentAuditors' Report................................................................................................................................1 Statementof Financial Position...............................................................................................................................2 Statementof Activities.............................................................................................................................................3 Statementof Cash Flows..........................................................................................................................................4 Notesto the Financial Statements..........................................................................................................................5 Board of Directors Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association Temecula, California A Professional Accountancy Corporation INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT We have audited the accompanying statement of financial position of Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association (A California Public Benefit Corporation) as of June 30, 2009, and the related statements of activities and cash flows for the fiscal year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial Jeff Nigro,, CPA statements based on our audit. Elizabeth Nigro, CPA We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted Chris'iy white, CPA in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, MURRIETA OFFICE evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An PH: 951 698 8783 FAX: 951.699.1064 audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant 25090 Jefferson Avenue estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial Murrieta, CA 92562 statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for ' our opinion. SAN DIECO OFFICE In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all PH: 619.270.8222 material respects, the financial position of Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival FAX 619 260 9085. 2727 Camino Del Rio S. Association as of June 30, 2009, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows Suite 219 for the fiscal year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally San Diego CA 92108 accepted in the United States of America. MEMBERS OF • American Institute of CPAs • California Society of CPAs California Association of Murrieta, California School Business Officials January 10, 2010 • Community Associations Institute WEBSITE w .nnwcpa.com Licensed by the California Board. of Accountancy 1 TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Statement of Financial Position June 30, 2009 MWI V Cash $ 483,245 Accounts receivable 127,651 Inventory 20,203 Prepaid expenses 12,346 Total Current Assets 643,445 Property and Equipment Furniture and equipment 34,378 Leasehold improvements 2,800 Less accumulated depreciation (31,631) Total Capital Assets, Net 5,547 TOTAL ASSETS $ 648,992 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Liabilities Accounts payable $ 241,183 Net Assets Unrestricted 407,809 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 648,992 See accompanying notes and auditor's report. 2 TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Statement of Activities For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 REVENUE Contributions Admissions Concessions and other support TOTAL REVENUE EXPENSES Festival costs General and administrative TOTAL EXPENSES CHANGE IN NET ASSETS NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR Unrestricted $ 157,241 424,126 569,213 1,150,580 913,845 264,536 1,178,381 (27,801) 435,610 $ 407,809 See accompanying notes and auditor's report. 3 TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Statement of Cash Flows For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Change in Net Assets $ (27,801) Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used by operating activities: Depreciation Expense 1,630 (Increase) decrease in operating assets Decrease Accounts Receivable 16,894 Decrease Other Receivables 863 Decrease Prepaid Expenses 753 Increase Inventories (8,916) Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities: Decrease Accounts Payable (130,806) Decrease Other Accrued Expenses (9,550) NET CASH USED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES (156,933) BEGINNING CASH, JULY 1, 2008 640,178 ENDING CASH, JUNE 30, 2009 $ 483,245 See accompanying notes and auditor's report. 4 TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Notes to Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2009 NOTE 1—NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Nature of Activities The Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association (the "Association") was organized in 1983 and was formed as a separate nonprofit public benefit corporation in 1991. The Association is a nonprofit organization and is dedicated to enhancing the charitable, cultural, educational and economic development of the region. The Associations support comes primarily from admission and concession fees related to the festival and from contributions. Basis of Presentation The Association's policy is to prepare its financial statements on the accrual basis of accounting. This means that revenues are recorded when earned, rather than when received, and expenses are recorded when incurred, not when they are paid. Financial statement presentation follows the recommendation of the Financial Accounting Standards Board in its Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 117, Financial Statements of Not -for - Profit Organizations. Under SFAS No. 117, the Organization is required to report information regarding its financial position and activities according to three classes of net assets: unrestricted net assets, temporarily restricted net assets and permanently restricted net assets. The Association has no permanently or temporarily restricted net assets. Recognition of Revenue Contributions received are recorded as unrestricted, temporarily or permanently restricted net assets, depending on the nature of the restriction. When a restriction expires, that is, when a stipulated time restriction ends or the purpose of a restriction is accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the Statement of Activities as net assets released from restrictions. The Association does not have any permanently restricted net assets at June 30, 2009. Donated Services The Association receives a substantial amount of donated services in carrying out the Association's purpose. Approximately 11,510 hours of volunteer services were performed on behalf of the Association during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. Since these services do not meet the criteria specified in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 116, Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made, for recognizing a monetary value of these services, no such value has been assigned to these services in the Association's financial statements. TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Notes to Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2009 NOTE 1— NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Inventory Valuation Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market determined by the specific identification method. Property and Equipment Purchases of property, land, and equipment exceeding $1,000 individually are capitalized at cost. Donated items are recorded at their estimated fair value at the date they are received. Assets are depreciated and amortized using the straight-line method using lives ranging from three to 40 years. Equipment 7 years Furniture and fixtures 7 years Leasehold improvements 10 years Vehicles 5 years Cash and Cash Equivalents The Association considers cash on hand and certificates of deposit with maturity dates of three months or less at the date of investment to be cash and cash equivalents. Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. Income Taxes The Association is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of California and, as such, is exempt from federal and state income taxes under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and corresponding state statutes. Accordingly, no provision for income taxes has been provided for in the financial statements. NOTE 2 — CASH The total cash held in the banks by the Association at June 30, 2009 includes $400,071 in monies that are deposited at Union Bank of California and $224,006 in monies that are deposited at Wells Fargo. Of those amounts, $150,071 is not covered by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Management does not believe that this represents a significant risk to the Association and that the monies in excess of $250,000 are short-term in nature, pending payment of festival expenses. TEMECULA VALLEY BALLOON & WINE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Notes to Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2009 NOTE 3 — CAPITAL ASSETS Property and equipment as of June 30, 2009 consisted of the following: Office furniture and equipment $ 34,378 Leasehold improvements 2,800 Sub -Total 37,178 Less: accumulated depreciation (31,631) Total capital assets, net $ 5,547 NOTE 4 —OPERATING LEASE COMMITMENTS The Association leased its office facility under an operating lease which expired July 31, 2005 and continued on a month -to -month basis, with monthly rents in the amount of $1,800. Rent expense for the year ended June 30, 2009 was $19,200. The Association currently leases a copier for its office. The copier is under a five-year lease that began on July 5, 2006. Future minimum rental payments are: Amount 2010 $ 3,086 2011 3,086 Total $ 6,172 NOTE 5 —SUBSEQUENT EVENT The Association entered into an operating lease agreement on September 2, 2009 for administrative offices. The lease term began on September 1, 2009 and will expire on August 31, 2012. The Association will pay rent of $1,600 per month beginning November 1, 2009. 7 Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Authorize Temporary Street Closures for the 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run Event (Old Town Front Street, between Moreno Road and Second Street, and other related streets) scheduled for March 12 and 13, 2010 PREPARED BY: Daniel York, City Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close Old Town Front Street and other related streets for the `2010 TEMECULA SPRING ROD RUN EVENT' BACKGROUND: The 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run Event necessitates the physical closure of certain streets in the Old Town area, and related detouring, to accommodate and provide the "Street Scene" ambience that allows the free movement of pedestrian traffic by minimizing potential vehicular -pedestrian conflicts. This year's Temecula Spring Rod Run Event sponsors propose street closures as follows: Old Town Front Street between Moreno Road (E) to Second Street from 1:30 pm to 8:30 pm on Friday March 121h, 2010, and from 5:30 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday, March 131h, 2010. Sixth Street, Fifth Street, Fourth Street, Main Street, and Third Street will be closed between Mercedes Street and Murrieta Creek. North -south traffic will be detoured around the event via Mercedes Street. Access is provided to handicap parking lots located at Sixth Street and Mercedes Street, and First Street at Old Town Front Street. Show car parking will be at designated parking lots and along both sides of Old Town Front Street as shown on the attached Location Map. For the first time during the largest special event in Old Town, the Old Town Parking Garage will be open with ample free parking available to the public. The entire length of Mercedes Street will open for the duration of the event starting Friday, March 12th at 4:OOpm. Access to the parking garage during the Rod Run from the north will be via Moreno Road to Mercedes Street and from the south via Old Town Front Street to Second Street to Mercedes Street. The event will require the closure of Main Street between Old Town Front Street and the Main Street Bridge. Provisions have been included to ensure public access and public parking at the Children's Museum during the road closure. The event will require assistance from the Public Works Department by providing support services for the street closure and public safety monitoring. Under Vehicle Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for, among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing". Chapter 12.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Parades and Special Events, provides standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way and authorizes the City Council or City Manager to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these special events. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs for provision, placement, and retrieval of necessary warning, advisory, and barricade devices by the Department of Public Works are included in budgetary items. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2010 Temecula Spring Rod Run Parking Plan -- March 12, 2010 (4:00 PM - 8:30 PM) March 13, 2010 (8:00 AM - 4:30 PM) Merchant Parking Lots Mary Phillips Senior Center 67 End of L-12 30 Lot L-14 26 End of L-1 55 Lot L-16 13 Public Parking Structure 480 Handicap Parking Senior Center Sixth Street First Street Mercedes Street open to Public Civic Center Parking Structure open to Public Than, Bins ® Portable Toilels Road Closure Public Panning Parcels ® Event Headquarters Incident Command Post (ICP) Show Car Parking KZ Handicap Parting - I'made Lot (for stampede Employees) ® Service by Appointment Only (Customer Palling) Merchant Padding Motomycle Palling o11 0 95 190 380 570 760 Feet Emergency Response Area at Fire Station 12 Old Town Tnb map xa..."u. ub cl I..wk G.oDeepdio IMolmnlon Tyepm TM ro, B a.fime lmn ev au• irl t,. Is . . . . . . . 1, a...i.of. aepaNnenl unr..s",.ie: cw yn'. clu m:w'°':wtm°:¢�ro • ymr•�I.p ly .p.n.sr, rau.mmm�s..�m.wd IIXem..IbnsYaem.1p rlor ..nome Mqu.md or Te mo5l=rlM —ton. 1111 map b lclfOrn,All of n••l.. M.pplep.led Im., 3a 01. EMI¢ W Ylkrtmap�rof VMrvILM.rtlii0f O.mN 10 fi` MW Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with RBF Consulting for Additional Engineering and Landscape Architecture Design Services Associated with the Winchester Road/Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification - Project No. PW06-15 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the agreement with RBF Consulting in an amount not to exceed $4,200.00 to provide additional engineering and landscape architecture design services for Winchester Road/Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification, Project No. PW06-15. BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2007, the City Council approved an agreement with RBF Consulting in an amount not to exceed $179,916.00 to provide professional engineering and landscape architecture design services for Winchester Road/Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification, Project No. PW06-15, and authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $17,991.60, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. Also, on August 29, 2008, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement extending the term of the agreement to July 1, 2010. The Winchester Road/ Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY2010-2014. Under this project, existing raised medians on the 3.5-mile reach of Winchester Road, between Ynez Road and Willows Avenue, will be modified and enhanced. Improvements will include modification of the existing raised medians to increase left turn pocket lengths to accommodate more vehicles, installation of landscaping, irrigation and stamped concrete in the medians, and pavement markings and striping. This project will enhance and beautify this major corridor through the City and its northeast entrance. In addition lengthening the left turn pockets will improve traffic movement. The construction contract for this project has been awarded and work will begin after March 1, 2010 to minimize the impacts of the winter weather. The Second Amendment covers additional design services as requested bythe City. The consultant was required to revise the final plans and specifications to address additional requirements as a result of testing the median soils for toxicity and growth patterns. The description of the additional design services is shown on the consultant proposal attached to the amendment. The estimated cost is $4,200 FISCAL IMPACT: The Winchester Road/Highway 79 North Corridor Beautification Project is a Capital Improvement Program project funded with Capital Project Reserves, CFD (Roripaugh Ranch), Development Impact Fees, and a federal Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA) grant. The additional design costs in the amount of $4,200.00 plus the original agreement amount of $197,907.60, including the 10% contingency, will result in a total design cost of $202,107.60. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Second Amendment with RBF Consulting 2. Project Location 3. Project Description SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND RBF CONSULTING WINCHESTER ROAD/HIGHWAY 79 NORTH CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT NO. PW06-15 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of February 23, 2010 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and RBF CONSULTING ("Consultant'). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On March 6, 2007 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Engineering and Landscape Architectural Design Services ("Agreement') in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Dollars and No Cents ($179,916.00). B. The Agreement was amended on August 29, 2008, extending the term of the Agreement to July 1, 2010. C. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Paragraph a of Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B-1, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B-1 other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This second amendment amount shall not exceed Four Thousand Two Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($4,200.00) for a total contract amount of One Hundred Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred Sixteen Dollars and No Cents ($184,116.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 3. Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended for the additional design services as set forth on Attachment "A-1" to this Agreement, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\959635.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Jeff Comerchero Mayor ATTEST: By: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney E CONSULTANT (Signatures of two corporate officers are required): CONSULTANT RBF Consulting Temecula 40810 County Center Drive, #100 Temecula, CA 92590 Office: 951-676-8042 Fax: 951-676-7240 Michael A. Tylman, P.E. Senior Vice President Ernest Wade, Vice President FSM Initials: Date: CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\959635.doc RM/ta CONSULTING Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLIENT AND CONSULTANT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AT Temecula, California made this 17th day of December, 2009, by and between Cityof Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590, Attn: AmerAttar, 951-694.6444, Phone 951-694-1999, and hereinafter called "Client", and RBF CONSULTING, a California corporation, herein called "Consultant." Client and Consultant agree as follows: A. Client retains Consultant to perform services for: Consultant to provide Preliminary and Final Engineering Services for the Winchester Rd/State Route 79 North Corridor Beautification Project, within the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, hereinafter called "Project". B. Consultant agrees to perform the following scope of services: Services as recited in Exhibit "A" herewith. C. Client agrees to compensate Consultant for such services as follows: A fee as recited in Exhibit "B" herewith, plus the direct cost of reimbursable expenses. D. This Agreement is subject to Provisions of Agreement 1 through 49 attached herewith, and the terms and conditions contained in initialed exhibits attached herewith and made a part hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this agreement upon the terms and conditions stated above and on the day and year indicated above. RBF CONSULTING I CLIENT: CITY OF TEMECULA By: — By: Name: Michael T Iman Name: Title: Senior Vice President Title: RBF Job Number: 15-101617, Addendum No. 3 Revision No. 2 Date: P.O. No: 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 100, Temecula, CA 92591 • 951.676.8042• FAX 951.676,7240 Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada • www.RBF.com 'CONSULTING PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT Client and Consultant agree that the following provisions shall be part of this agreement: 1. Client and Consultant agree to cooperate with each other in order to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations under this agreement. Both Client and Consultant shall endeavor to maintain good working relationships among members of the project team. 2. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Client and Consultant 3. This agreement shall not be assigned by either Client or Consultant without the prior written consent of the other. 4. This agreement contains the entire agreement between Client and Consultant relating to the project and the provision of services for the project. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations not expressly set loan in this agreement are of no force or effect. Subsequent modifications to this agreement shall be In writing and signed by both Client and Consultant. 5. Consultant's or Client's waiver of any term, condition or covenant shall not constitute the waiver of any other term, condition or covenant. Consultant's or Client's waiver of any breach of this agreement shall not constitute the waiver of any other breach of the agreement. 6. If any term, condition or Covenant of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this agreement shall be valid and binding on Client and Consultant. T This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. B. If the scope of services includes Consultant's assistance in applying for governmental permits or approvals, Consultant's assistance shall not constitute a representation, warranty or guarantee that such permits or approvals Will be acted upon favorably by any governmental agency. 9. Upon Consultant's request, Client shall execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, such additional information, documents or money to pay governmental fees and charges which are necessary for Consultant to perform services pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 10, Client acknowledges all reports, plans, specifications, field data and notes and other documents, including all documents on electronic media, prepared by Consultant are instruments of service, and shall remain the property of Consultant and may be used by Consultant without the consent of Client. Upon request and payment of all costs involved Client is entitled to a copy of all final plans and specifications for use in connection with the project for which the plans and specifications have been prepared. Client acknowledges that its right to utilize final plans and specifications and the services of Consultant provided pursuant to this agreement will continue only so long as Client is not in default, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement, and Client has performed all its obligations under this agreement. 11. Client agrees not to use or permit any other person to use plans, specifications, drawings, cost estimates, reports or other documents prepared by Consultant which plans, specifications, drawings, Cost estimates, reports or other documents are not final and which are not signed and stamped or sealed by Consultant. Client shall be responsible for any such use of non -final plans, specifications, drawings, cost estimates, reports or other documents not signed and stamped or sealed by Consultant. Client hereby waives any claim for liability against Consultant for such use. Client further agrees that final plans, specifications, drawings, cost estimates, nations or other documents are for the exclusive use of Client and may be used by Client only for the project described as part of this agreement. Such final plans, specifications, drawings, cost estimates, reports or other documents may not be changed or used on a different project without written authorization of approval by Consultant. If signed check -prints are required to be submitted with a stamp or seal, they shall not be considered final for purposes of this paragraph. 12. In accepting and utilizing any drawings, reports and data on any form of electronic media generated and furnished by Consultant, Client covenants and agrees that all such electronic files are instruments of service of Consultant, who shall be deemed the author, and shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, including copyrights. Client agrees not to reuse these electronic files, in whole or in part, for any purpose or project other than the project that is the subject of this agreement. Client agrees not to transfer these electronic files to others without the prior written consent of Consultant. Client further agrees to waive all claims against Consultant resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes or reuse of the electronic fries for any other project by anyone other than Consultant. Client and Consultant agree that any electronic files furnished by either party shall conform to the CADD specifications listed in Exhibit A. Any changes to the CADD specifications by either Client or Consultant are subject to review and acceptance by the other parry. Additional services by Consultant made necessary by changes to the CADD or other software specifications shall be compensated for as additional services. Electronic files furnished by either parry shall be subject to an acceptance period of fifteen (15) days during which the receiving party agrees to perform appropriate acceptance tests. The party furnishing the electronic file shall correct any discrepancies or errors detected and reported within the acceptance period. After the acceptance period the electronic files shall be deemed to be accepted and neither parry shall have any obligation to correct errors or maintain electronic files. Client is aware that differences may exist between the electronic files delivered and the printed hard copy construction tlocuments. In the event of a conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by Consultant and electronic files, the signed and stamped or sealed hard copy construction documents shall govern In addition, Client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its officers, directors, employees, agents and subconsultants against all damages, liabilities or costs,including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising from any changes made by anyone other than Consultant or from any reuse of the electronic files without the prior written consent of Consultant. Under no circumstances shall delivery of electronic files for use by Client be deemed a sale by Consultant, and Consultant makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall Consultant be liable for indirect or consequential tlamages as a result of Client's use or reuse of the electronic files. 13, Consultant makes no representations concerning soils or geological conditions unless specifically included in writing in this agreement, or by amendments to this agreement, and shall not be responsible for any liability that may arise out of the making of or failure to make soils or geological surveys, subsurface soils or geological tests, or general soil or geological testing. 14. Client acknowedges Consultant has the right to complete all services agreed to be rendered pursuant to this agreement. In the event this agreement is terminated before the completion of all services, unless Consultant is responsible for such early termination, Client agrees to release Consultant from all liability for services performed. In the event all or any portion of the services by Consultant are suspended, abandoned, or otherwise terminated, Client shall pay Consultant all fees and charges for services provided per to termination, not to exceed the contract limits specified herein, if any. Client acknowledges if the project services are suspended and restarted, there will be additional charges due to suspension of the services which shall be paid for by Client as extra services pursuant to paragraph 27, Client acknowledges if project services are terminated for the convenience of Client, Consultant is entitled to reasonable termination costs and expenses, to be paid by Client as extra services pursuant to paragraph 27. 15. If the scope of services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms of this agreement includes an ALTA survey. Client agrees that Consultant may sign one of the ALTA survey statements attached to this agreement and incorporated herein by reference. In the event Consultant is required to sign a statement or certificate which differs from the ALTA survey statements contained in the attachment to this agreement, Client hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from any and all liability arising from or resulting from the signing of any statement which differs from those statements contained in the attachment to this agreement. 16. If the scope of services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms of this agreement includes the preparation of grading plans but excludes construction staking services, Client acknowledges that such staking services normally include coordinating civil engineering services and the preparation of record drawings based upon information provided by others, and Client will be required to retain such services from another Consultant or pay Consultant pursuant to this agreement for such services as extra services in accordance with paragraph 27. 17. If the scope of services contained in this agreement does not include construction -phase services for this project, Client acknowledges such construction -phase services will be provided by Client or by others and Client assumes all responsibility for interpretation of the contract documents and for construction observation and supervision and waives any claim against Consultant that may in anyway be connected thereto. In addition, Client agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from any loss, claim, or cost, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense, arising or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities and from any and all claims arising from the modification, clarification, interpretation, adjustments or changes made to the contract documents to reflect changed field or other conditions, except for claims arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Consultant- 18. Consultant shall be entitled to immediately, and without notice, suspend the performance of any and all of its obligations pursuant to this agreement if Client files a voluntary petition seeking relief under the United $rates Bankruptcy Code or if there is an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Client in the United States Bankruptcy Court, and that petition is not dismissed within fifteen (15) days of its filing. Any suspension of services made pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall continue until such time as this agreement has been fully and property assumed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code and in compliance with the final order or judgment issued by the Bankruptcy Court. It the suspension of performance of Consultant's obligation pursuant to this agreement continues for a period in excess of ninety (90) days, Consultant shall have the right to terminate all services pursuant to this agreement. 19. This agreement shall not be construed to alter, affect or waive any design professional's lien, mechanic's lien or stop notice right which Consultant may have for the performance of services pursuant to this agreement. Client agrees to provide to Consultant the present name and address of the record owner of the property upon which the project is to be located. Client also agrees to provide Consultant with the name and address of any and all lenders who may loan money on the project and who are entitled to receive a preliminary notice. 20. If payment for Consultant's services is to be made on behalf of Client bya. third -party, lender, Client agrees that Consultant shall not be required to indemnify the third -party tender, in the form of an endorsement or otherwise, as a condition to receiving payment for services. 21. Consultant shall not be required to execute any documents subsequent to the signing of this agreement that in any way might, in the judgment of Consultant, increase Consultant's contractual or legal obligations or risks, or the availability, or costs of his or her professional or general liability insurance. 22. All fees and other charges due Consultant will be billed monthly and shall be due at the time of billing unless specified otherwise in this agreement. If Client fails to pay Consultant within thirty (30) days after invoices are rendered, Consultant shall have the right in its sole discretion to consider such default in payment a material breach of this entire agreement, and, upon written notice. Consultant's duties, obligations and responsibilities under this agreement may be suspended or terminated. In such event, Client shall promptly pay Consultant for all outstanding fees and charges due Consultant at the time of suspension or termination. If Consultant elects to suspend or terminate Consultant's services pursuant to this provision, Consultant is entitled to reasonable suspension or termination costs or expenses. 23. Client agrees that all billings from Consultant to Client are correct and binding on Client unless Client, within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of such billing. notifies Consultant in writing of alleged inaccuracies, discrepancies, or errors in filling 24, Client agrees to pay a monthly late payment charge, which will be the lesser of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month or a monthly charge not to exceed the maximum legal rate, which will be applied to any unpaid balance commencing thirty (30) days after the date of the billing. 25. If Consultant, pursuant to this agreement, produces plans, specifications, or other documents and/or performs field services, and such plans, specifications, or other documents and/or field services are required by any governmental agency, and such governmental agency changes its ordinances, codes, policies, procedures or requirements after the date of this agreement, any atlditionaloffice or fieltl services thereby required shall be paid for by Client as extra services in accordance with paragraph 27. 26, In the event Consultant's fee schedule changes due to any increase of costs such as the granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits to field or office employees due to the terms of any labor agreement, or increase in the cost of living, during the lifetime of this agreement, a percentage increase shall be applied to all remaining fees and charges to reflect the increased costs. Page 1 of 2 - _ Provisions Client Initials Consultant Initials ngAl PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT (Continued) 27. Client agrees that it Client requests services not specified in the scope of services described in this agreement, Client will pay for all such additional services as extra services, in accordance with Consultants billing rates utilized for this agreement. 28. In the event that any staking or record monuments are destroyed, damaged or disturbed by an act of God or ponies other than Consultant, the cost of festering shall be paid for by Client as extra services in accordance with paragraph 27.. 29, Client acknowledges that the design services performed pursuant to this agreement are based upon field and other conditions existing at the time these services were performed. Client further acknowledges that field and other conditions may change by the time project construction occurs and clarifcation, adjustments, modifications and other changes may be necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions, Such clarifications, adjustments, modifications and other changes shall be paid for by Client as extra services in accordance with paragraph 27. 30. Client shall pay the costs of checking and inspection fees, zoning and annexation application fees, assessment fees, soils or geotechnical engineering fees, soils or geolechnical testing fees, aerial topography fees, and all other fees, permits, bond premiums, applicable taxes on professional services, title company charges. blueprints and reproductions, and all other similar charges not specifically covered by the terms of this agreement. 31. Client acknowledges and agrees that if Consultant provides surveying services, which services. require the filing of a Record of Survey in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 8762, or a Corner Record pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8773, all of the costs of preparation, examination and fling for the Record of Survey or Corner Record will be paid by Client as extra services in accordance with paragraph 27. 32. Consultant is not responsible for delay caused by activities or factors beyond Consultants reasonable control, including but not limited to, delays by reason of strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns or stoppages, accidents, acts of Gad, failure of Client to furnish timely information or approve or disapprove of Consultant's services or instrument of service promptly, faulty performance by Client or other contractors or governmental agencies. When such delays beyond Consultant's reasonable control occur, Client agrees Consultant shall not be responsible for damages nor shall Consultant be deemed to be in default of this agreement. Further, when such delays occur, Client agrees that to the extent such delays cause Consultant to perform extra services, such services shall be paid for by Client as extra services in accordance with paragraph 27. 33, Consultant shall not be liable for damages resulting from the actions or inactions of governmental agencies including, but not limited to, permit processing, environmental impact reports. dedications, general plans and amendments thereto, zoning matters, annexations or consolidations, use or conditional use permits, project or plan approvals, and building permits. Client agrees that it is the responsibility of Client to maintain in good standing all governmental approvals or permits and to timely apply for any necessary extensions thereof. 34, If the scope of services requires Consultant to estimate quantities, such estimates are made on the basis of Consultant's experience and qualifications and represent Consultant's best judgment as a professional generally familiar With the industry. However, such estimates are only estimates and shall not constitute representations, warranties or guarantees of the quantities of the subject of the estimate. If the scope of services requires Consultant to provide its opinion of probable construction costs, such opinion is to be made on the basis of Consultant's experience and qualifications and represents Consultant's best judgment as to the probable construction costs. However, since Consultant has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the contractor's method of pricing, such opinions of probable construction costs do not constitute representations, warranties or guarantees of the accuracy of such opinions, as compared to bid or actual costs. 35. Estimates of land areas provided under this agreement are not intended to be, nor should they be considered to be, precise. The estimate will be performed pursuant to generally accepted standards of professional practice in effect at the time of performance. 36. Client acknowledges that Consultant is not responsible for the performance of work by third parties including, but not limited to, the construction contractor and its subcontractors. 37. Consultant makes no warranty, either express or implied, as to its finings, recommendations, plans, specifications, or professional advice except that the services were performed pursuant to generally accepted standards of professional practice in effect at the time of performance. 38. In the event (1) Client agrees to, authorizes, or permits changes in the plans, specifications or documents prepared by Consultant, which changes are not consented to in writing by Consultant, or (2) Client agrees to, authorizes or permits construction of unauthorized changes in the plans, specifications or documents prepared by Consultant, which changes are not consented to in writing by Consultant, or (3) Client does not follow recommendations prepared by Consultant pursuant to this agreement, which changed recommendations are not consented to in writing by Consultant Client acknowledges that the unauthorized changes and their effects are not the responsibility of Consultant and Client agrees to release Consultant from all liability arising from the use of such changes, and further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its officers, directors, agents, employees and subconsultants from and against all claims, demands, damages or costs, including attorneys' fees, arising from the unauthorized changes. 39, Client agrees that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, the construction contractor and construction subcontractors will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, and that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. Neither the professional activities of Consultant nor the presence of Consultant or his or her employees or subconsultants at a construction site shall relieve the contractor and its subcontractors of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending or coordinating all portions of the work of construction in accordance with the contract documents and applicable health or safety requirements of any regulatory agency or of stale law, 49. Client agrees to require its contractor and subcontractors to review the plans, specifications and documents prepared by Consultant prior to the commencement of construction -phase work. If the contractor. and/or subcontractors determine there are deficiencies, conflicts, errors, omissions, code violations, improper uses of materials, or other deficiencies in the plans, specifications and documents prepared by Consultant, contractors and subcontractors shall notify Client so those deficiencies may be corrected by Consultant prior to the commencement of construction -phase work. 41. If during the construction phase of the project Client discovers or becomes aware of changed field or other conditions which necessitate clarifications, modifications or other changes to the plans, specifications, estimates or other documents prepared by Consultant, Client agrees to notify Consultant and retain Consultant to prepare the necessary changes or modifications before construction activities proceed. Further, Client agrees to require a provision in its construction contracts for the project which requires the contractor to promptly notify Client of any changed field or other conditions so that Client may in turn notify Consultant pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph. Any extra work performed by Consultant pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid for as extra services pursuant to paragraph 27. 42. Client agrees to purchase and maintain, or cause Contractor to purchase and maintain, during the course of construction, builder's risk'all risk' insurance which will name Consultant as an additional named insured as its interest may appear. 43, Client acknowledges that Consultants scope of services for this project does not include any services related in any way to asbestos and/or hazardous or toxic materials. Should Consultant or any other party encounter such materials on the job site, or should it in any other way become known that such materials are present or may be present on the job site or any adjacent or nearby areas which may affect Consultants services, Consultant may, at its option. suspend or terminate work on the project until such time as Client retains a qualified contractor to abate and/or remove the asbestos and/or hazardous or toxic materials and warrant that the job site is free from any hazard which may result from the existence of such materials. 44. Client hereby agrees to bring no cause of action on any basis whatsoever against Consultant, its officers and directors, principals, employees, agents and subconsultants if such claim or cause of action in any way would involve Consultant's services for the investigation, detection, abatement, replacement, use or specification, or removal of products, materials or processes containing asbestos, asbestos cement pipe, and/or any hazardous or toxic materials. Client further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its officers, directors. principals, employees and subconsultants from any asbestos and/or hazardous or toxic material related claims that may be brought by third parties as a result of the services provided by Consultant pursuant to this agreement, except claims caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Consultant. 45. In the event of any litigation arising from or related to the services provided under this agreement, the prevailing parry will be entitled to recovery of all reasonable costs incurred, including staff time, court costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other related expenses. 46. Client agrees that in the event Consultant institutes litigation to enforce or interpret the provisions of this agreement, such litigation is to be brought and adjudicated in the appropriate court in the county in which Consultant's place of business is located, and Client waives the right to bring, try or remove such litigation to any other county or judicial district 47. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), in an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the design or construction of the project or following completion of the project, Client and Consultant agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, unless the. parties mutually agree otherwise. Client and Consultant further agree to include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with independent contractors and consultants retained for the project and to require all independent contractors, and consultants also to include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with subcontractors, subconsultants, suppliers or fabricators so retained, thereby providing for mediation as the primary method for dispute resolution between the parties to those agreements. (b) Subdivision (a) shall not preclude or limit Consultant's right to file an action for collection of fees of any amount. (c) Subdivision (a) shall not preclude or limit Consultants right to record, perfect or enforce applicable mechanic's lien or stop notice remedies. 48. In the event the parties to this Agreement are unable to reach a settlement of any dispute arising out of this Agreement or related services under this Agreement, then such disputes may, with the consent of both parties, be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association or such other arbitration rules as the parties may choose. In any arbitration, the laws of the State of California shall apply. 49, Client agrees to limit the liability of Consultant, its pdnciieds, employees and subconsultants, to Client and to all contractors and subcontractors on the project, for any claim or action arising in tort, contract, or strict liability, to the sum of$50,000 or Consultant's fee, whichever is greater. Client and Consultant acknowledge that this provision was expressly negotiated and agreed upon. Page 2 of 2 Provisions Client Initials Consultant Initiels n A a L RBF CONSULTING A 15-101617, Addendum No. 3, Revision No. 2 City of Temecula EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant agrees to perform the following Scope of Services: December 17, 2009 Page 1 of 3 In performing its services hereunder, RBF has or will receive information prepared or compiled by others, the accuracy and completeness of which RBF is entitled to rely upon without independent evaluation or verification. EXHIBIT A-1 Revisions to the Final Plans Consultant revised Plans as well as Specifications, (PW 06-15) based upon additional comments received from the City on 2/19/09 which conflicted with previous plan check comments from the City at the 90% review level. These changes coincided with the request for soils testing of the medians for toxicity and growth patterns. EXHIBIT A-2 Revisions to the Street Improvement Sheets of Final Plans Consultant revised Plans as well as Specifications, (PW 06-15) based upon additional comments received from the City on 10/27/09. Comments were directed from the City for use in bid procurement and were changes to previous City comments. Additional Services: Services which are not specifically identified herein as services to be performed by RBF or its consultants are considered "Additional Services" for purposes of this Agreement. Client may request that RBF perform services which are Additional Services. However, RBF is not obligated to perform such Additional Services unless an amendment to this Agreement has been fully executed setting forth the scope, schedule and fee for such Additional Services. In the event RBF performs Additional Services before receipt of such executed amendment, Client acknowledges its obligation to pay for such services at RBF's standard rates, within 30 days of receipt of RBF's invoice. Exclusions Consulting services relating to any of the following tasks may be completed by Consultant if negotiated under a separate contract for an additional fee; but are presently specifically excluded from this Agreement: RBF CONSULTING December 17, 2009 JN 15-101617, Addendum No. 3, Revision No. 2 Page 3 of 3 City of Temecula EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION Client agrees to compensate Consultant for such services as follows: Consultant shall complete the work outlined above in accordance with the fee schedule identified below and shall invoice Client on a monthly basis based on the percentage of completion. ITEM WORK TASK FEE A-1 Revision to the Final Plans............................................................................ $1,550 A-2 Revisions to the Street Improvement Sheets of Final Plans ......................... $1,550 Reimburseables...............................................:............................................. $1,100 Total Amount $4,200 Progress billings will be forwarded to the Client on a monthly basis. These billings will include the fees earned for the billing period plus all direct costs advanced by Consultant. Client requiring copies of original receipts for expenses in addition to itemized expenses as shown on monthly invoice will incur an additional 15% administrative handling surcharge included on the monthly invoice. The Client shall make every reasonable effort to review invoices within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt of the invoices and notify Consultant in writing of any particular item that is alleged to be incorrect. The fees proposed herein shall apply until July 1, 2009. Due to ever -changing costs, Consultant may increase those portions of the contract fee for which work must still be completed after July 1, 2009 by ten percent (10%). Any work relating to, but not limited to, retaining walls, soils engineering, topographic mapping, traffic signal or striping design, environmental documentation, sound studies or acoustical engineering, underground utility planning, designor coordination, design for relocation of underground irrigation facilities, detour plan, property title services, preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits (except as provided herein), staking of joint trench utilities, construction surveying for grading cross -sections or removal of unsuitable material and any additional staking (except as provided herein), if required, shall be covered under a separate agreement. Exhibit B Client Initials Date RBF CONSULTING December 17, 2009 JN 15-101617, Addendum No. 3, Revision No. 2 Page 2 of 3 City of Temecula 1. Geotechnical investigation; 2. Hazardous wastes; 3. Environmental engineering; 4. Site plan design; 5. Final engineering; 6. Off -site improvement plans; and 7. Any other services not specifically set forth in the above Scope of Services. Assumptions Consultant's obligations hereunder are based upon the following understanding: 1. The Project services to be provided by Consultant will not require Specific Plan modification or amendment. Client Responsibilities 1. Client shall provide access to the site. 2. Client shall provide an up-to-date title report prior to authorization to proceed (or some other timing commitment). 3. Client is to provide any and all indemnification, abatement, disposal or other actions required by local, state or federal law regarding hazardous materials. 4. Client shall pay all governmental fees and costs. 5. Client will require any construction contractors to indemnify Consultantfrom any and all losses, damages, claims, expenses, including attorneys fees, and costs arising out of the contractor's work, excepting only losses, damages, claims, expenses including attorneys fees, and costs which are caused by the sole negligence orwillful misconduct of RBF in performing its services under this agreement. Client will require that the construction contractors add RBF (Consultant) as an additional insured in the comprehensive general liability, auto liability, workers' compensation and builder risk insurance coverages required by Client. Exhibit A Client Initials Date PROJECT LOCATION Project Title: WINCHESTER ROADMIGHWAY 79 NORTH CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION Promenade Mall elm 84 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: Project Type: Description: Department: Scope of Project: Benefit: Project Cost: Administration Construction Construction Engineering Design Totals Source of Funds: Capital Project Reserves CFD (Roripaugh Ranch) DIF (street Improvements) TEA Total Funding: WINCHESTER ROADMIGHWAY 79 NORTH CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION Circulation PRIORITY: 1 Improve existing raised concrete median along Winchester Road with landscaping, hardscape, irrigation, and architectural embellishments. In addition, left turn pockets will be extended. The scope of the project will be reduced to compete with the approved funding. Public Works —Account No.210.165.638 Winchester Road/Highway 79 North from Interstate-15 at Ynez Road to City limits south of Willows Avenue. Project will enhance the corridor. Actuals to Date 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 $ 147,431 $ 228,404 $ 2,728,800 $ 90,000 $ 201,973 $ 8,242 $ 3 99,404 $ 3,055,446 $ $ $ $ $ 39,800 $ 1,186,914 $ 309,604 $ 735,532 $ 1,133,000 $ 349,404 $ 3,055,446 $ Future O & M Cost: $ 900 Annually Total Project Cost $ 375,835 $ 2,728,800 $ 90,000 $ 210,215 $ 3,404,850 $ 39,800 $ 1,186,914 $ 1,045,136 $ 1,133,000 $ 3,404,850 85 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Resolution to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Project French Valley Parkway / Interstate-15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements Project PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer — Cl P Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Engineer — CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER - CROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PW02-11 AND PW07-04) AND APPROVING THE PROJECT. BACKGROUND: The French Valley Parkway / Interstate-15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements Project (Project) was initiated to: reduce current and projected traffic congestion, improve safety and operations, provide alternative access to Interstate-15 (1-15), and facilitate circulation consistent with the General Plans of the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. Preliminary engineering and environmental studies are now complete. The preferred alternative generally consists of constructing a new principal arterial (French Valley Parkway) between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road, constructing a new interchange on 1-15 at French Valley Parkway, constructing a new Collector/Distributor (C/D) system of lanes along both sides of 1-15 between Winchester Road and the 1-15 / 1-215 Junction, and modifying the 1-15 / Winchester Road interchange. The City is the project proponent and the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 6005 of the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has assigned all United States Department of Transportation Secretary responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Accordingly, Caltrans is the lead agency under NEPA. Together, the City and Caltrans have prepared the Final Initial Study [with Mitigated Negative Declaration] / Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact, a joint CEQA/NEPA document in accordance with CEQA and NEPA. The document is on file with the City Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2010-2014. With the exception of minor filing fees, there is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the Resolution. Prior to entering an agreement for professional engineering services for preparation of construction plans and specifications, the Department of Public Works will identify sufficient funding. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 10- PW02-11 CIP Project Description PW02-11 CIP Project Location PW07-04 CIP Project Description PW07-04 CIP Project Location PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER -CROSSING AND INTERCHANGE PRIORITY: IMPROVEMENTS Project Type: Circulation Description: Study, process, design, and construct a bridge over -crossing over Interstate-15 from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road and construct a new freeway interchange. Project will consist of designing a new interchange to address traffic circulation in the City's northern areas. Department: Public Works — Account No. 210.165.726 Scope of Project: Project will consist of designing and constructing a freeway over -crossing over Interstate-15 and construct a new freeway interchange. Project would also include curb and gutters, pavement, sidewalks, and new traffic signals. Benefit: Project will improve traffic circulation. Project Cost: Actuals to Date 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total Project Cost Administration $ 761,038 $ 320,610 $ 325,000 $ 200,000 $ 125,000 $ 1,731,648 Acquisition $ 8,936,172 $ 3,896,234 $ 15,872,147 $ 28,704,553 Calums Oversight $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Construction $ 20,302,260 $ 19,697,740 $ 18,000,000 $ 58,000,000 Design $ 2,154,305 $ 3,133,603 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,287,908 Totals $ 11,851,515 $ 7,350,447 $ 48,499,407 $ 26,897,740 $ 24,125,000 $ - $ 118,724,109 Source of Funds: Capital Project Reserves $ 322,730 $ 325,000 $ 200,000 $ 125,000 $ 972,730 TUMF(WRCOG)* $ 2,144,242 $ 32,583,657 $ 6,152,740 $ 3,000,000 $ 43,880,639 DIF (Public Facilities) $ 75,360 $ 75,360 TUMF(RCTC)** $ 3,787,315 $ 3,514,599 $ 3,990,750 $ 11,292,664 MeasureA-LocalStreet and Road $ 975,000 $ 1,368,876 $ 2,343,876 MeasureA-HighwayProgram $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 20,000,000 CFD (Harveston) $ 1,005,840 $ 1,005,840 Federal Highway Administration $ 8,000 $ 8,000 SAFETEA-LU $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Reimbursements/Other(Land Donation) $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 STEP Augmentation*** $ 10,545,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 31,545,000 Total Funding: 7 11,851,515 $ 7,350,447 $ 48,499,407 $ 26,897,740 $ 24,125,000 $ - $ 118,724,109 Future O & M Cost: $ 8,000 Annually *TUMF Zone funding pursuant to WRCOG Agreement 05-SW-TEM-1064 for a total of $4,078,000 ($1,165,000-PA&ED, $2,913,000-PS&E) also see Phase I. **TUMF Regional funding pmsumtto RCTC Agreement 06-72-048-00 for a total of $7,517,000($5,715,000-ROW; $2,000,000-PS&E) also see Phase I. ***STIP Augmentation is dependent upon State's ability to bond for transportation funds. 43 PROJECT LOCATION Project Title: FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER -CROSSING AND INTERCHANGEIMPROVEMENTS Co O w Q� g j LLCl Q n 0 EQUI7 y9 a2 T � OR G � � P �G GO P� F� sp ti A O/gZRO Q�\SE GR No OVERLAND R 42 RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER -CROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PW02-11 AND PW07-04) AND APPROVING THE PROJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The French Valley Parkway / Interstate-15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements Project (Project) generally consists of constructing a new principal arterial (French Valley Parkway) between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road, constructing a new interchange on Interstate 15 (1-15) at French Valley Parkway, constructing a new Collector/Distributor (C/D) system of lanes along both sides of 1-15 between Winchester Road and the 1-15 / 1-215 Junction, and modifying the 1-15 / Winchester Road interchange. B. The purpose of the Project is to accomplish the following specific objectives: 1. To reduce current and projected traffic congestion on the ramps and freeway mainline in the project area. 2. To improve safety and operations between Winchester Road and the 1-15 / 1-215 Junction. 3. To provide alternative vehicular access to 1-15 that will also provide operational improvement to the 1-15 / Winchester Road interchange. 4. To provide improvements to accommodate projected growth and to facilitate local circulation consistent with the General Plans of the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and in accordance with the requirements of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the Project. 1. Based on this study the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment. City staff prepared a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with supporting technical studies, were made available for public review and comment from April 22, 2009 through May 22, 2009. During the public review period, copies of the documents were located at: City of Temecula Planning Department, City of Murrieta Planning Department, Grace Mellman Community Library, Temecula Public Library, and Murrieta Public Library. 3. An Informal Public Meeting — Open House was publicly noticed and held May 7, 2009, 5:00 pm — 7:30 pm. Staff members from Caltrans and the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta provided Project information, answered questions, and accepted comments from the public. 4. Eight written comments were received during the public review period. After the public review period, a letter was received from the State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research stating that "no state agencies submitted comments" and acknowledged that "you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act." Copies of the comments and corresponding responses have been incorporated into the final Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is on file with the City Clerk. D. Based upon the whole record before it, the City Council finds that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA, (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be adequately and feasibly mitigated, and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Section 2. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project. The Director of Public Works is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA. Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the Project for the French Valley Parkway / Interstate-15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements Project (PW02- 11 and PW07-04) and authorizes the Director of Public Works to proceed with the preparation of Plans and Specifications for this Project. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdil:l:4:& 1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER -CROSSING AND INTERCHANGE PRIORITY: IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE I Project Type: Circulation Description: Project will construct portions of the French Valley Parkway / Interstate-15 over -crossing and interchange improvements (Project No. PW02-11) which include adding a new southbound off -ramp from Interstate-15 to French Valley Parkway, constructing the northern half of French Valley Parkway from the off -ramp to Jefferson Avenue, widening of the existing southbound off -ramp from Interstate-15 to Winchester, and constructing a new auxiliary lane between French Valley Parkway and the Winchester Road southbound off -ramp. This project is included in the RTIP as "French Valley Pkwy (FVP) — Phase 1: Design and construct FVP (I-15 — Jefferson), SB exit ramp (1 LN), SB aux lane (FVP — Winchester Rd) & widen Winchester SB exit ramp (1 to 2)." Department: Public Works— Account No.210.165.719 Scope of Project: Project will include design, right-of-way, utility relocation, and construction activities. Project requires oversight by Caltrans and coordination with the City of Murrieta. It will be designed to compliment the ultimate interchange project (Project No. PW02-11). Other features include permanent and temporary retaining walls, erosion control and irrigation, and a new traffic signal and roadway improvements at the intersection of French Valley Parkway and Jefferson Avenue. Benefit: Project will improve traffic circulation. Project Cost: Actuals to Date 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total Project Cost Administration $ 240,601 $ 159,791 $ 48,500 $ 48,500 $ 497,392 Caltrans Oversight $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 3,460,000 Construction $ 2,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 13,000,000 Design $ 991,752 $ 61,615 $ 1,053,367 Environmental $ 87,000 $ 87,000 MSHCP $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Totals 7 1,232,353 $ 4,158,406 $ 9,248,500 $ 4,108,500 $ $ $ 18,747,759 Source of Funds: DIF (Street Improvements) $ 444,203 $ 444,203 Measure A -Local Street and Road $ 630,008 $ 1,352,211 $ 48,500 $ 48,500 $ 2,079,219 TUMF(RCrc)* $ 158,142 $ 2,806,195 $ 9,200,000 $ 4,060,000 $ 16,224,337 Total Funding: $ 1,232,353 $ 4,158,406 $ 9,248,500 $ 4,108,500 $ $ $ 18,747,759 Future O & M Cost: $ 15,000 Annually *TUNE Regional funding pursuant to RCTC Agreement 06-72-048-00 for a total of $7,517,000 ($5,715,000-ROW; $2,000,000 PS&E) 45 PROJECT LOCATION Project Title: FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE-15 OVER -CROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I Co O w Q� g j LLCl Q n 0 EQUI7 y9 a2 T � OR G � � P �G GO P� F� sp ti A O/gZRO Q�\SE GR No OVERLAND R 44 Item No. I I Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Tim Thorson, Director of Information Systems DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval of the Drawings and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Bids from Pre -Qualified Vendors for the Audiovisual Integration of the Old Town Civic Center, Project No. IS-02 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the drawings and specifications and authorize the Department of Information Systems to solicit bids from Pre -qualified Vendors for audiovisual (AV) integration for Phase 2 of the Old Town Civic Center Project. BACKGROUND: The Old Town Civic Center Project Phase 2 consists of a new city administration building, City Hall with attached Council Chamber and semi attached auxiliary room. The Civic Center's audiovisual solution will be the technology that supports Council Meetings and conference room collaboration. The City recognizes the critical need to maintain current technology to support transparent government and public access for the citizens of Temecula. To meet the requirements of these emerging technologies, the City has obtained a consultant to develop bid specifications that support the most current technology. These specifications will support the following: 1. Multimedia Presentation Systems 2. Dais Display Systems 3. HD Cameras 4. AV Broadcast Equipment 5. Video Production, Control and Monitoring 6. Audio Recording Equipment 7. Video Editing System 8. SIRE Voting System 9. Videoconferencing Systems 10. Traffic Operations Media Wall/Operators Console 11. Chambers Production Lighting 12. Projection Equipment 13. Old Town Sound System Retrofit Because of the size and complexity of the project it requires AV Integrators that have recent proven experience in the installation of large scale civic center facilities. On October 16, 2009, City Council authorized the Information Systems Department to solicit and pre -qualify vendors to perform the Audiovisual Integration work required for Phase 2 of the Old Town Civic Center Project. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ 09-02) was prepared with a final filing date of November 12, 2009. On December 8, 2010, City Council approved the following Six vendors to bid on this project. The pre -qualified AV Integrators are 1. Audio Visual Innovations, Inc. Cypress, CA 2. Anderson Audio Visual -San Diego, Inc San Diego, CA 3. Cashel Corporation dba. Integrated Media Systems Anaheim, CA 4. Ford Audio -Video Systems, Inc. Tulsa, OK 5. Western Audio Visual, Corp. Carlsbad , CA 6. SPINITAR La Mirada, CA Staff has completed drawings and specifications for Phase 2 Audiovisual Integration of the Old Town Civic Center Project. The drawings and specification documents are available for review in the Director of Information Systems Office. The Consultant's Estimate for the project is $1,200,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The Old Town Civic Center —Phase II project is included in the FY 2008-12 capital improvement program, and is funded with Cap Reserves Certificates of Participation and DIF — Corporate Facilities. Adequate funds are available in the project account — Account# 210-165- 751-5601 for this expense. ATTACHMENTS: Project Description Project Location PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: Project Type: Description: Department: Scope of Project: Benefit: CIVIC CENTER Infrastructure PRIORITY: I Project will construct an approximately 93,000 square -foot, three-story City administration building and Council Chambers, along with a 3,500 square -foot Community Room. The project will be located near the intersection of Mercedes Street and Main Street in Old Town. Planning/Public Works — 210.165.751 Project will include design and construction of a three-story City Administration Building, Council Chambers, and Community Room on City owned parcels located east of Mercedes Street and Main Street. Project will continue to promote the revitalization of Old Town and provide a permanent facility for administrative staff through build -out. Project Cost: Actuals Total Project to Date 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Cost Administration $ 2,505 $ 397,495 $ 325,000 $ 725,000 Acquisition $ 82,000 $ 82,000 Construction $ 44,200,000 $ 44,200,000 Construction Engineering $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Design $ 1,348,391 $ 3,872,609 $ 5,221,000 Fixtures/Fum/Equip $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,500,000 Utilities $ 385,000 $ 385,000 Totals $ 1,350,896 $ 50,937,104 $ 2,325,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,613,000 Source of Funds: Capital Project Reserves $ 1,350,896 $ 27,066,676 $ 2,325,000 $ 30,742,572 COPS $ 23,270,428 $ 23,270,428 DIF(Corporate Facilities) $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Total Funding: $ 1,350,896 $ 50,937,104 $ 2,325,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,613,000 Future O & M Cost: $ 900,000 Annually 91 PROJECT LOCATION Project Title: CIVIC CENTER A go Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Massage Appeal Hearing Fee Schedule PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPEAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR APPEALS RELATING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula adopted Ordinance No. 08-12 on November 25, 2008, which amended Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 5.22. The Ordinance established and refined the requirements for massage establishments in the City of Temecula. It required all establishments and technicians which provide massage within City limits to obtain a City permit. These permits are administered through the Planning Department and Police Department which coordinate background screenings and tracks applicants. Massage technicians who hold a State permit, however, are not required to apply for a City permit. The Massage Ordinance allows for more thorough background checks and inspections by dedicated Special Enforcement Team personnel working in conjunction with City Code Enforcement. The Chief of Police may refuse to renew a permit or may revoke or suspend an existing permit on the grounds that the applicant or permit holder has failed to comply with the permit conditions or other requirements of the Ordinance. Should a permit be suspended or revoked, the applicant or permit holder has the right to appeal the suspension through a Massage Hearing. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, there was not sufficient information to develop a fee for massage hearings. There has now been a full year of implementation and more than ten hearings, which has allowed staff to develop a comprehensive appeal hearing fee schedule based on the actual cost for those hearings. Staff is now proposing a Resolution to establish a Massage Hearing Processing Fee and a Massage Hearing Deposit. The Massage Hearing Processing Fee will offset City costs incurred to prepare for the appeal hearing. The Massage Hearing Deposit will be used to pay the cost of a third -party Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing and a translator if required. The Hearing Fee, however, is non-refundable. Tables demonstrating how the processing fee and hearing deposit were developed are provided below: Massage Hearing Processing Fee (Non -Refundable) A B C D E F G FY 09/10 # # Total Department Est. Prep City Clerk Annual Authorized Productive Productive Hourly Rate Time for Hearing Operating Positions Hours Hours (A/D) Hearing Processing Budget (User Fee (B) x (C) Fee Stud City $1,030,100.00 10 1,800 18,000 $57 1 hr. $57 Clerk A B C D E F G H The processing fee for staff costs is calculated at $57 and is due from the appellant prior to the appeal hearing. The processing fee for staff costs was developed by computing a departmental hourly rate for the City Clerk department and multiplying the rates by the anticipated staff time necessary to process the appeal. Massage Hearing Deposit A B C Component City Rate Number of Hours Deposit Cost A x B Law Jude $187.00 7 $1,309.00 Translator Full Da +mileage $1,410.00 Average Massage Hearing Cost $2,719.00 The Massage Hearing Deposit is calculated based on the cost of seven hours of a Law Judge to act as a third -party hearing officer. There is also a deposit for a translator to be provided by the City of Temecula if required. Seven hours includes the time required for the hearing officer to write up the hearing finding. Should it be determined that the hearing will take more than seven hours, an additional deposit will be taken prior to continuing the hearing an additional day. Only the actual cost of the hearing officer and translator will be taken from the deposit, with the remainder returned at the completion of the trial. In addition, should the appellant prevail, the entire deposit would be returned to the applicant. FISCAL IMPACT: Any fees related to the cost of the appeal hearing are required to be deposited by the appellant prior to the hearing. Fees would be returned to the appellant should the appellant prevail. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 10- RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPEAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR APPEALS RELATING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines that: A. On November 25, 2008, the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted Ordinance No. 08-12, entitled "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." B. Section 5.22.150 of the Temecula Municipal Code provides an applicant or permit holder the ability to appeal the revocation, suspension, and denial of a massage establishment permit or a massage technician permit. C. Section 5.22.150(E)(1) of the Temecula Municipal Code also provides that any such appeal filed with the City Clerk be accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount as set by City Council resolution, which amount shall include a deposit for the costs of the hearing officer. D. The City Council desires to set the amount of the massage establishment permit or the massage technician permit appeal fee as authorized in Section 5.22.150(E)(1) of the Temecula Municipal Code. E. The appeal fee collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used solely to cover the costs of processing the appeal and the appeal hearing. F. The appeal fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. G. The City Council approves the methodology and calculations used in determining the appeal fee that are set forth in detail in the staff report prepared in connection with this Resolution. H. The findings set forth above are hereby adopted in support of this Resolution. Section 2. Appeal Fee Schedule: A. In accordance with Section 5.22.150(E)(1) of the Temecula Municipal Code, the City Council hereby adopts the following fee schedule, for appeals relating to massage establishment permits and massage technician permits, consisting of two components: 1. A nonrefundable processing fee of fifty seven dollars ($57.00); and 2. An appeal fee deposit of two thousand seven hundred and nineteen dollars ($2,719.00). The appeal fee deposit is composed of one thousand three hundred and nine dollars ($1,309.00) (which equals seven (7) hours of time at a rate of one hundred eighty seven dollars ($187.00) an hour for an administrative hearing officer under the City's agreement for administrative hearing officer services with the State of California Office of Administrative Hearings) plus one thousand four hundred and ten dollars ($1,410) (which is a translator's costs for a full day of services plus mileage) for a total of two thousand seven hundred and nineteen dollars ($2,719.00). B. If the appeal hearing will take more than seven (7) hours, the appellant shall submit an additional appeal fee deposit of $2,719.00 prior to continuing and scheduling the hearing an additional day. Only the actual cost of the Hearing Officer and translator will be taken from any appeal fee deposit, with the remainder, if any, returned to the appellant, pursuant to 5.22.150(E)(7). In addition, should the appellant substantially prevail on the appeal, the entire appeal fee deposit shall be returned to the appellant. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdil:l:4:& 1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Item No. 13 Approvals City Attorney /V Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Grant Yates, Deputy City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Autism Awareness Program - at the Request of Council Member Mike Naggar RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to work with Council Member Naggar to create an Autism Awareness Program. BACKGROUND: Council Member Naggar has been very involved in autism awareness and has been working to improve the quality of life for those affected with Autism. In addition, Council Member Naggar has demonstrated his commitment to improving health care in the City by serving on the City's Hospital Sub -Committee and by chairing a Regional Medical Facilities Task Force that analyzed hospital needs in the region. According to the Center for Disease Control, Autism occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups and is four times more likely to occur in boys ( 1 in every 80 males) than in girls. More people are now being diagnosed with Autism than ever before. Council Member Naggar is proposing to develop an Autism Awareness Program, because the number of children affected with Autism are entering the school system and will be integrating into City recreational programs and entering the workforce in the future. The outline for this program includes: Step 1 Outreach to other pubic agencies and establish a working board. Step 2 Conduct community educational symposiums Step 3 Develop action plans Step 4 Implement Programs that will be identified through this process The goals of this program will be to inform the community about this issue, to identify available resources, determine gaps and strategies, and to match resources to needs. Additional goals include implementing cost-effective strategies that might include resource directories and opportunities for continuing education and programs that could assist agencies as they work to provide services to those in need. FISCAL IMPACT: Since the main purpose of this effort will be public education and matching needs with services, it is anticipated that there will be no financial impact associated with this program other than staff support. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Item No. 14 ACTION MINUTES of FEBRUARY 9, 2010 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:35 PM. CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 8 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the action minutes of January 26, 2010. 9 Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. License Agreement - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Director Edwards made the motion; i was seconded by Director Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., License Agreement to extend the term. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:36 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at 5:30 PM., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. California. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Shawn Nelson, General Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval of 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Adjustments PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS BACKGROUND: Each year a mid -year review is conducted of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD") operating budgets. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the TCSD maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Finance Department staff has performed an analysis of revenues. Additionally, TCSD staff has reviewed the operating budgets and has identified any material adjustments required. The mid -year budget review includes the TCSD City-wide Parks and Recreation Fund, five Service Level Funds, the Library Fund, the Summer Youth Employment Program Fund and the Debt Service Fund. Activity in each of the funds is presented in accordance with the following schedules: Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances: Presents a summary of prior year and FY 2009-10 to December 31, 2009 actual activity, as well as FY 2009-10 current and revised budget amounts. Also included is a schedule of beginning and estimated ending fund balances based upon the proposed budget activity. Revenue Detail: The projected total TCSD revenues reflect a total reduction of $335,526. These changes from the current budget estimate include: Citywide Operations: The net decrease in revenues of $310,253 is due to a reduction of $416,368 in REST due to a reduction in associated department expenditures and excess fund balance as well as a $12,715 reduction in Special Tax. This reduction is partially offset by a $130,000 increase in revenue from the contracted classes. Library Fund: There is a $28,401 decrease in revenues due to a reduction in investment interest. Expenditure Detail: A total reduction in TCSD expenditures of $125,562 is proposed. Following is a summary of all proposed expenditure adjustments: Citywide Operations: A net increase in expenditures of $79,816 is a result of increased legal fees and facility rehabilitation. This is partially offset by salary savings due to not backfilling position vacancies. Service Level C (Landscape/Slope): A net decrease of $18,378 due to salary savings of $19,878 due to a position vacancy. This is offset by the addition of $1,500 for enhanced tree trimming services which will be paid for by the residents requesting the additional services. Library Fund: A net decrease of $187,000 due to renegotiating the Library services contract with the County. Authorized Positions: No position reclassifications or new positions are proposed. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed mid -year adjustments will result in an additional decrease in fund balance of $209,964 bringing the TCSD total projected fund balances to $2,563,947 at June 30, 2010. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution CSD 10- 2009-10 Temecula Community Services District Mid -Year Budget RESOLUTION NO. CSD 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Section 2. That each year a mid -year review is conducted of all Temecula Community Services (TCSD) operating budgets. Section 3. That the mid -year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the schedules attached hereto at Exhibit A. Section 4. That the Fiscal Year 2009-10 TCSD operating budgets are amended in accordance with the attached schedules. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary Exhibit A Temecula Community Services District FY2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Citywide Fund Service Level "B" Fund Service Level "C Fund Service Level "D" Fund Service Level "R" Fund Service Level "L" Fund Library Fund Summer Youth Employment Program Fund Debt Service Fund Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget All TCSD Funds - Combined 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues by Fund: Citywide Operations 11,180,583 11,115,380 5,746,896 10,805,127 (310,253) -2.8% Service Level B 878,244 959,004 660,763 958,737 (267) 0.0% Service Level C 1,629,148 1,584,432 763,823 1,588,681 4,249 0.3% Service Level D 5,710,210 6,033,496 2,898,497 6,034,687 1,191 0.0% Service Level R 1,452 4,606 1,982 4,068 (538) -11.7% Service Level L 240,697 227,836 106,159 226,100 (1,736) -0.8% Library 1,902,402 198,006 94,302 169,605 (28,401) -14.3% Summer Youth Employment 54,280 378,273 294,062 378,287 14 0.0% Debt Service 380 98 215 215 0.0% Total Revenues 21,597,396 20,501,033 10,566,582 20,165,507 (335,526) -1.6% Total Expenditures by Fund: Citywide Operations 10,594,253 11,061,475 5,190,323 11,141,291 79,816 0.7% Service Level B 863,166 942,702 551,487 942,702 - 0.0% Service Level C 1,472,744 1,532,226 721,728 1,513,848 (18,378) -1.2% Service Level D 5,684,448 6,048,410 61,163 6,048,410 0.0% Service Level R 1,510 37,100 31,274 37,100 0.0% Service Level L 264,241 251,570 133,426 251,570 0.0% Library 661,757 945,521 210,626 758,521 (187,000) -19.8% Summer Youth Employment 34,227 398,273 294,091 398,273 0.0% Debt Service 494,575 494,040 389,195 494,040 0.0% Total Expenditures 20,070,921 21,711,317 7,583,313 21,585,755 (125,562) -0.6% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 1,526,475 (1,210,284) 2,983,269 (1,420,248) (209,964) 17.3% Operating Transfers In (Out): Citywide Operations Debt Service Total Operating Transfers: Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out (497,025) (481,441) (386,000) (481,441) 497,025 481,441 386,000 481,441 1,526,475 (1,210,284) 2,983,269 (1,420,248) (209,964) -1.1 % Fund Balances, Beg. of Year 2,457,720 3,984,195 3,984,195 3,984,195 Fund Balances, End of Year 3,984,195 2,773,911 6,967,464 2,563,947 * 08/09 Beginning Fund Balance adjusted by $5,980 per A3#989 to record receivables not recorded in 07/08 for amounts billed to customers but not remitted to City. Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Citywide Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 11,180,583 11,115,380 5,746,896 10,805,127 (310,253) -2.8% 10,594,253 11,061,475 5,190,323 11,141,291 79,816 0.7% 586,330 53,905 556,573 (336,164) (390,069) -723.6% (497,025) (481,441) (386,000) (481,441) - 0.0% 89,305 (427,536) 170,573 (817,605) (390,069) 91.2% Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 1,184,802 1,274,107 1,274,107 1,274,107 Fund Balance, End of Year 1,274,107 846,571 1,444,680 456,502 Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Fund Balance, End of Year Service Level "B" Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 878,244 959,004 660,763 958,737 (267) 0.0% 863,166 942,702 551,487 942,702 - 0.0% 15,078 16,302 109,276 16,035 (267) -1.6% 20,106 35,184 35,184 35,184 35,184 51,486 144,460 51,219 Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Service Level "C" Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 1,629,148 1,584,432 763,823 1,588,681 4,249 1,472,744 1,532,226 721,728 1,513,848 (18,378) 156,404 52,206 42,095 74,833 22,627 548,501 704,905 704,905 704,905 Fund Balance, End of Year 704,905 757,111 747,000 779,738 0.3% -1.2% 43.3% Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Service Level "D" Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 5,710,210 6,033,496 2,898,497 6,034,687 1,191 0.0% 5,684,448 6,048,410 3,016,982 6,048,410 - 0.0% 25,762 (14,914) (118,485) (13,723) 1,191 -8.0% 223,870 249,632 249,632 249,632 Fund Balance, End of Year 249,632 234,718 131,147 235,909 * Service Level D 08/09 Beginning Fund Balance adjusted by $5,980 per AJ#989 to record receivables not recorded in 07/08 for amounts billed to customers but not remitted to City Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Service Level "R" Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues 1,452 4,606 1,982 4,068 (538) -11.7% Total Expenditures 1,510 37,100 31,274 37,100 - 0.0% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (58) (32,494) (29,292) (33,032) (538) 1.7% Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 39,305 39,247 39,247 39,247 Fund Balance, End of Year 39,247 6,753 9,955 6,215 Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Service Level "L" Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues 240,697 227,836 106,159 226,100 (1,736) -0.8% Total Expenditures 264,241 251,570 133,426 251,570 - 0.0% Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (23,544) (23,734) (27,267) (25,470) (1,736) 7.3% Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 260,123 236,579 236,579 236,579 Fund Balance, End of Year 236,579 212,845 209,312 211,109 Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Library Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 1,902,402 198,006 94,302 169,605 (28,401) -14.3% 661,757 945,521 210,626 758,521 (187,000) -19.8% 1,240,645 (747,515) (116,324) (588,916) 158,599 -21.2% 168,414 1,409,059 1,409,059 1,409,059 Fund Balance, End of Year 1,409,059 661,544 1,292,735 820,143 Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Fund Balance, End of Year Summer Youth Employment Program 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 54,280 378,273 294,062 378,287 14 0.0% 34,227 398,273 294,091 398,273 - 0.0% 20,053 (20,000) (29) (19,986) 14 -0.1 % - 20,053 20,053 20,053 20,053 53 20,024 67 Temecula Community Services District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfer In Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfer In Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Fund Balance, End of Year Debt Service Fund 380 - 98 215 215 0.0% 494,575 494,040 389,195 494,040 - 0.0% (494,195) (494,040) (389,097) (493,825) 215 0.0% 497,025 481,441 386,000 481,441 - 0.0% 2,830 (12,599) (3,097) (12,384) 215 -1.7% 12,599 15,429 15,429 15,429 15,429 2,830 12,332 3,045 Temecula Community Services District Revenue Detail FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 190 TCSD FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE DEPT 180 NON_ DEPARTMENTAL 4004 -Special Tax 3,675,561 2,025,898 3,731,711 3,718,996 (12,715) -0.34% Various (40 -Miscellaneous Non Taxable 17 (680) 0.00% 4062 -Recovery of Prior Year Expense 598 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 24,270 3,209 10,199 5,053 (5,146) -50.46% 4073 -TCSD Admin Fee Creditf'Rest" 5,619,794 2,851,126 5,702,252 5,285,884 (416,368) -7.30% 4076 -Reimbursements 30,537 31,872 31,000 31,000 0.00% 4077 -Lease Income 51,980 20,783 50,368 50,368 0.00% 4084 -Reimbursements (CIP) 31,192 14,421 15,000 15,000 0.00% 4104 -Extension of Time 1,110 2,196 1,568 1,568 0.00% 4105 -Tract Maps 2,727 2,727 0.00% 4107 -Parcel Maps 2,623 476 1,109 1,109 0.00% 4119 -Development Plan 11,285 522 5,835 5,835 0.00% 4121 -Major Modification 2,514 3,935 3,935 0.00% 4130 CEQA Environmental Impact Rpt 12,675 12,675 0.00% 4131 Development/Annexation Agmt 8,177 8,177 0.00% 4135 -Parcel MapANaiver 205 205 0.00% 4139 -Condo Tract Map 609 663 663 0.00% 4151 -Parcel Map Check 826 163 310 310 0.00% 4152 -Tract Map Check 1,070 1,070 1,070 0.00% 4192 -Specific Plan Amendment 896 0.00% 4284 -Plan Check 1,383 2,051 (2,051) -100.00% 4360 -Improvement Plan CkOff-Site 9 (9) -100.00% 4370 -Landscape Plan Check 1,614 0.00% 4390 -Street Lighting Fees 2,397 3,240 (3,240) -100.00% TOTAL DEPT 180 9,459,380 4,950,882 9,584,104 9,144,575 (439,529) -4.59% DEPT 181 SR. CENTER 4051 -Donations 400 400 0.00% 4980 -Classes/Activities 1,803 140 2,000 800 (1,200) -60.00% 4983 -Transportation 1,083 609 900 1,200 300 33.33% 4986 -Excursions 2,416 1,711 3,999 3,999 - 0.00% 4990 -Indoor Rentals 17,834 5,782 17,994 12,800 (5,194) -28.87% TOTAL DEPT 181 23,136 8,242 25,293 19,199 (6,094) -24.09% DEPT 182 CRC 4980 -Classes/Activities 28,069 8,999 20,000 20,000 0.00% 4990 -Indoor Rentals 42,396 16,593 36,010 36,010 0.00% TOTAL DEPT 182 70,465 25,592 56,010 56,010 0.00% DEPT 183 RECREATION 4070 -Cash Over & Short 1 0.00% 4980 -Classes/Activities 6 0.00% New -After School Program 5,400 5,400 0.00% New -Rythms Dances 2,400 (2,400) -100.00% 4982 -Contracted Classes 498,391 253,152 355,000 485,000 130,000 36.62% 4984 -Day Camp 93,970 19,280 112,050 112,050 - 0.00% 4986 -Excursions 4,414 4,820 4,820 0.00% 4989 -Picnic Shelter Rentals 8,924 2,976 6,995 6,995 0.00% 4992 -Special Events 24,410 23,923 20,005 20,005 0.00% 4995 -High Hopes 1,974 1,186 1,510 1,510 0.00% 4998 -Skate Park 9,699 3,311 10,000 8,000 (2,000) -20.00% TOTAL DEPT 183 641,788 303,829 518,180 643,780 1 125,600 1 24.24% Temecula Community Services District Revenue Detail FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 190 TCSD FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE DEPT 184 TCC 4980 -Classes/Activities 849 245 1,000 500 (500) -50.00% 4990 -Indoor Rentals 10,782 13,045 6,010 18,000 11,990 199.50% TOTAL DEPT 184 11,631 13,290 7,010 18,500 11,490 163.91 % DEPT 185 MUSEUM 4980 -Classes/Activities 4,330 1,430 - 0.00% 4984 Day Camp 3,900 1,430 (2,470) -63.33% 4985 -Magazines 901 - 0.00% 4990 -Indoor Rentals 1,420 300 1,200 900 (300) -25.00% 4991 -Museum Admissions 8,844 3,056 8,000 8,000 - 0.00% TOTAL DEPT 185 15,495 4,786 13,100 10,330 (2,770) -21 .15% DEPT 186 AQUATICS 4970 -Swim Lessons 95,999 50,696 98,010 98,010 0.00% 4971 -Lap Swim 7,374 3,798 6,000 6,000 0.00% 4972 -Public Swim 5,196 16,944 34,012 34,012 - 0.00% 4973 -Family Night Swim 105 615 1,000 1,000 0.00% 4974 -Pool Rentals 14,610 24,394 24,500 36,500 12,000 48.98% 4976 -Non-resident Swim 7,125 4,775 7,000 9,000 2,000 28.57% TOTAL DEPT 186 130,409 101,222 169,522 184,522 15,000 8.85% DEPT 187 SPORTS 4960 -Adult Softball 88,160 7,100 74,250 74,250 - 0.00% 4963 -Tournaments 123,726 7,500 70,000 70,000 0.00% 4964 -Adult Leagues (non-resident) 7,765 310 6,250 6,250 0.00% 4965 -Youth Leagues (non-resident) 4,760 6,100 8,000 8,000 - 0.00% 4966 -Open Gym 3,548 1,732 2,600 3,500 900 34.62% 4988 -Field Rentals/Lights 130,867 76,952 94,000 94,000 - 0.00% 4997 -Sports Concessions 10,368 12,900 12,900 - 0.00% TOTAL DEPT 187 369,194 99,694 268,000 268,900 900 0.34% DEPT 188 CHILDREN'S MUSEUM 4991 -Museum Admissions 102,264 53,506 104,003 104,003 - 0.00% TOTAL DEPT 188 102,264 53,506 104,003 104,003 0.00% DEPT 189 COMMUNITY THEATER 4051 -Donations 1,314 500 2,000 2,000 0.00% 4901 -Theater Ushers 9,804 4,907 12,100 10,340 (1,760) -14.55% 4906 -Theater- Stagehand Labor Reimb 87,241 53,845 99,396 106,996 7,600 7.65% 4907 -Theater - Ticket Services Reimb 53,351 25,045 64,750 52,450 (12,300) -19.00% 4910 -Theater - Temecula Presents 93,400 26,187 60,885 60,885 0.00% 4990 -Theater Rentals 76,129 41,434 80,775 77,735 (3,040) -3.76% 4991 -Theater Admissions 12,759 23,605 23,200 23,200 0.00% 4997 -Concessions 2,119 1,180 5,002 5,002 0.00% 4999 -Theater-Equipment Rentals 17,261 8,475 16,800 15,200 (1,600) -9.52% TOTAL DEPT 189 353,378 185,178 364,908 353,808 (11,100) -3.04% DEPT 190 CULTURAL ARTS 4980 -Classes/Activities 2,881 450 2,500 1,000 (1,500) -60.00% 4992 -Special Events 562 225 1 2,750 1 500 1 (2,250) -81 .82% TOTAL DEPT 190 3,443 675 5,250 1,500 (3,750) -71 .43% TOTALTCSD 11,180,583 5,746,896 11,115,380 10,805,127 (310,253) -2.79% Temecula Community Services District Revenue Detail FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 192 SERVICE LEVEL "B" FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 652,022 343,688 641,435 641,435 - 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 2,621 18 296 29 (267) -90.20% 4073 -TCSD Admin Fee Credit/REST 223,241 317,057 317,057 317,057 - 0.00% 4390 -Street Lighting Fees 360 216 216 0.00% TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL "B" FUND 878,244 660,763 959,004 958,737 (267) -0.03% ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 193 SERVICE LEVEL "C" FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 1,614,096 760,656 1,582,337 1,582,337 - 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 12,346 2,721 2,095 4,844 2,749 131.22% 4370 -Landscape Plan Check 2,706 - 0.00% 4373 -Tree Trimming and Removal 446 1,500 1,500 0.00% TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL "C" FUND 1,629,148 763,823 1,584,432 1,588,681 4,249 0.27% ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 194 SERVICE LEVEL "D" FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 5,657,398 2,897,044 6,000,240 6,000,012 (228) 0.00% 4025 -Grants 25,692 26,240 26,240 - 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 22,120 1,453 2,016 3,435 1,419 70.39% 4096 -Recycling Program 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 0.00% TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL "D" FUND 5,710,210 L 2,898,497 1 6,033,496 1 6,034,687 1,191 0.029C ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 195 SERVICE LEVEL "R" FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 576 1,786 3,687 3,687 - 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 876 196 919 381 (538) -58.54% TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL'R" FUND 1,452 1,982 4,606 1 4,068 538 -11.68% ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 196 SERVICE LEVEL "L" FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 232,947 103,535 221,151 221,151 0.00% 4007 -Harveston Lake Boat Revenue 2,490 1,487 2,600 2,600 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 5,260 1,137 4,085 2,349 (1,736) -42.50% TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL "L" FUND 240,697 106,159 227,836 226,100 (1,736) -0.76% Temecula Community Services District Revenue Detail FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget NO 197 LIBRARY FUND ACTUAL REVENUE YTD @ 12/31/09 CURRENT BUDGET MIDYEAR ESTIMATES $ CHANGE % CHANGE 4051 -Library Donations 46 8 0.00% 4062 -Recovery of Prior Year Expenditures 1,700,000 0.00% 4065+454 -Investment Interest 59,004 9,587 49,591 20,855 (28,736) -57.95% 4070 -Cash Over & Short 36 (46) 0.00% 4271 -Fines & Fees 96,729 51,883 100,000 100,000 - 0.00% 4272 -Lost Damaged Materials 7,175 4,127 6,125 7,000 875 14.29% 4273 -Printing & Copies 25,169 14,102 24,750 28,750 4,000 16.16% 4274 -Facilities Rentals 14,068 6,377 17,540 13,000 (4,540) -25.88% 4997 -Library Concessions 175 8,264 0.00% TOTAL LIBRARY FUND 1,902,402 94,302 198,006 169,605 (28,401) -14.34% ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4025 -Federal Grant 34,227 294,048 378,273 378,273 0.00% 4065 -Investment Interest 53 14 14 14 0.00% 4724 -County Contribution 20,000 0.00% TOTAL SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT FUND 1 54,280 1 294,062 378,273 378,287 14 1 0.00% ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 390 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4065 -Investment Interest 380 98 215 215 0.00% 4090 -Operating Transfer In 497,025 386,000 481,441 481,441 - 0.00% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 497,405 386,098 481,441 481,656 215 0.04% Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Replace Existing Play Structure and Surfacing at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park PREPARED BY: Jerzy Kanigowski, Facility Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve a Agreement with Miracle Playground Sales in the amount of $54,974.19 to replace playground equipment, safety surfacing and shade fabric at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park. BACKGROUND: The existing playground equipment and safety surfacing at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park has been in place for approximately 19 years. Due to the age of the playground equipment and heavy use, many of the components have deteriorated and are in need of immediate replacement. In addition, the shade cover fabric above the playground equipment has deteriorated and was damaged beyond repair with the recent storms. In November 2009 the Community Services Department requested proposals (RFP) from three Playground Manufactures all members of California Multiple Awards Schedules (CMAS) to provide design, demolition and installation of new playground equipment and safety surfacing. The TCSD received three (3) proposals, which were evaluated based on play -value and pricing. Miracle Playground Sales was selected based on their superior proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the construction contract is $54,974.19. Sufficient funds have been approproprated in the Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Contract R:\SIRE REPORTS ET AL\Maintenance\Agenda Report 2009 - 2010\Miracle 2010020810.doc PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of February 23, 2010, between the Temecula Community Services District, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Miracle Playground Sales, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on February 23, 2010, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 30, 2010, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. PURCHASE AND SALE OF EQUIPMENT On and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and the Agreement Documents, Contractor agrees to manufacture, sell and install for the City Playground Equipment as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Description of Equipment, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full (hereafter "Equipment'). 3. PURCHASE / INSTALLATION PRICE The Purchase Price which City agrees to pay to Contractor for the Equipment is Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Four and 19/100 Dollars ($54,974.19). The Purchase Price is final and shall be paid by City to Contractor upon acceptance of equipment as installed in accordance with the following schedule: 4. SCOPE OF WORK Contractor shall manufacture and install the equipment as described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A ("Work"). Contractor shall provide and furnish all labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment and all utility and transportation services required for the Work. All of said Work to be performed and materials to be furnished for the Work shall be in strict accordance with the specifications set forth in the Scope of Work. The Work shall be completed within the time set forth in the Scope of Work. Contractor shall not commence the Work until such time as directed by the City. 5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF VENDOR Contractor makes the following representations and warranties to City: a. Authority and Consents. Contractor has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. No approvals or consents of any persons are necessary in connection with Contractor's execution, delivery, installation and performance of this Agreement, except for such as have been obtained on or prior to the date hereof. The execution, delivery, installation and performance of this Agreement CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc by Contractor have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Contractor and constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of Contractor, enforceable against Contractor in accordance with their respective terms. b. Title and Operating Condition. Contractor has good and marketable title to all of the Equipment manufactured and installed. All of the Equipment are free and clear of any restrictions on or conditions to transfer or assignment, and City will acquire absolute title to all of the Equipment free and clear of mortgages, liens, pledges, charges, encumbrances, equities, claims, covenants, conditions and restrictions except for such as may be created or granted by City. All of the Equipment are in good operating condition, are free of any defects, and are in conformity with the specifications, descriptions, representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement Documents. Contractor is aware the City is purchasing the Equipment for use as playground equipment and that City is relying on Contractor's warranties that the Equipment is fit for this purpose and the ordinary purposes for which the Equipment is normally used. C. Full Disclosure. None of the representations and warranties made by Contractor in this Agreement contains or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. A Contractor shall at all time faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. CITY APPROVAL All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed subject to the approval of the City or its authorized representatives, and the quality of the workmanship shall be guaranteed for one year from date of acceptance. City shall inspect the Equipment at the time and place of delivery. Such inspection may include reasonable tests and use of the Equipment by City. If, in the determination of City, the Equipment fails to conform to the Agreement IN ANY MANNER OR RESPECT, City shall so notify Contractor within ten (10) days of delivery of the Equipment to City. Failing such notice, the Equipment shall be deemed accepted by City as of the date of receipt. 8. TIME OF DELIVERY The date and time of delivery of the Equipment shall be on or before a date and time mutually agreed to by both parties. 9. PLACE OF DELIVERY The Equipment shall be delivered to this location: 30785 Rancho Vista Road, Ronald Reagan Sports Park Temecula, CA 92589 CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc 10. REJECTION In the event of such notice of non -conformity by City pursuant to the section entitled "City Approval" City may, at its option, (1) reject the whole of the Equipment and Installation, (2) accept the whole of the Equipment and Installation, or (3) accept any commercial unit or units of the Equipment and reject the remainder or the Installation. The exercise of any of the above options shall be "without prejudice" and with full reservation of any rights and remedies of City attendant upon a breach. In the event of such notice and election by City, City agrees to comply with all reasonable instructions of Contractor and, in the event that expenses are incurred by City in following such instructions, Contractor shall indemnify City in full for such expenses. 11. NO REPLACEMENT OF CURE This Agreement calls for strict compliance. Contractor expressly agrees that both the Equipment and Installation tendered and the tender itself will conform fully to the terms and conditions of the Agreement on the original tender. In the event of rejection by City of the whole of the Equipment or any part thereof pursuant to the Section entitled "Rejection" City may, but is not required to, accept any substitute performance from Vendor or engage in subsequent efforts to affect a cure of the original tender by Contractor. 12. INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, District, and/or Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, District and/or Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 13. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS a. This Agreement includes the following documents, which are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof: Equipment Description and/or Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A. b. In the event any term or condition of the Agreement Documents conflicts with or is contradictory to any term or condition of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are controlling. C. In the event of a conflict in terms between this Agreement, the Request for Proposal (RFP) and/or the Contractor's response to the RFP, this Agreement shall prevail over the RFP and the Contractor's response to the RFP, and the RFP shall prevail over the Contractor's response to the RFP. 14. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event the Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall service the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Contractor has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Contractor shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Contractor employs any employees. Contractor warrants and represents to the City that it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City CAProgram PlesW eevia. ComtDocument ConverterPempA959799. doc Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Contractor shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 16. SURVIVAL OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANATIES All representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties contained in this Agreement shall survive the execution, delivery, installation and performance of this Agreement. 17. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES CAProgram PlesW eevia. ComtDocument ConverterPempA959799. doc The Contractor shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this section. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 20. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Contractor. 21. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City of Temecula: City of Temecula Attn: General Manager P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 -or- City of Temecula Attn: General Manager 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 To Contractor: Miracle Playground Sales, LLC 9196 Stellar Court Corona, CA 92883 Contact Person: Mike Etchison 22. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 24. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. Temecula Community Services District: By: Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: By: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Miracle Playground Sales (Two Signatures if required by corporate papers) By: By: James E. Spence, Agent for Miracle By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Miracle Playground Sales Contact Person: Mike Etchison 800.264.7225 951.676.8706 FSM Initials: Date: CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT/SCOPE OF WORK 1 . Remove Existing Playground Equipment, Safety Surfacing and Shade Fabric at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park, install Kids' Choise Playsystem, Safety Surfacing and Shade Fabric at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park. Cost: Total: • Kids' Choice Playsystem $26,528.00 $26,528.00 • Kids' Choice Playsystem discount -$9,238.18 -$9,238.18 • Installation of Kids' Choise Playsystem $7,958.40 $7,958.40 • Fibar System 312 $8,910.00 $8,910.00 • Fiber System 312 discount -$445.50 -$445.50 • Installation of Fibar System $3,742.20 $3,742.20 • Related site work $7,056.00 $7,056.00 • Commercial Freight $3,227.81 $3,227.81 • Sun Ports 40'x40' square shade fabric and cable $3,601.80 $3,601.80 • Commercial freight for shade fabric $125.00 $125.00 • Installation of shade fabric $940.00 $940.00 Subtotal $52,405.53 Tax $2,568.66 Total $54,974.19 CAProgram PlesW eevia. Com0ocument ConverterPempA959799. doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: PLAY STRUCTURE RETROFIT AT VARIOUS PARKS PRIORITY: 1 Project Type: Parks Description: Retrofit existing play structures at parks throughout the City pursuant to a State mandate. Department: Community Services - Account No. 210.190.179 Scope of Project: Project will upgrade the existing play structures to be in compliance with new State regulations. Benefit: Project will improve the safety of the play structures. Project Cost: Actuals Total Project to Date 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Cost Administration $ 4,800 $ 4,800 Construction $ 48,000 $ 48,000 Design $ 7,200 $ 7,200 Totals $ $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ $ 60,000 Source of Funds: DIF (Parks & Recreation) $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Total Funding: $ $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ $ 60,000 Future O & M Cost: $ 200 Annually 135 i TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Item No. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gail Zigler, Administrative Assistant The Redhawk Park Improvement project Phase 1 bid opening was held and a contractwas awarded at the October 27, 2009. Phase 1 construction has begun and will include construction of a restroom, parking lot improvements, and a basketball court at Redhawk Community Park, as well as a permanent dog park. The Escallier House and Barn have been relocated as part of the Temecula Community Center (TCC) expansion project. This project is currently out to bid, a bid opening is scheduled for March 4, 2010. The project calls for refurbishment of the Escallier House and Barn which will be the future home of the Temecula Community Pantry. A conceptual design for the Old Town Gymnasium project is complete. Staff anticipates bringing forward the design for approval at the March 9, 2010 City Council meeting. A Household Hazardous Waste Round -Up will be held at Temecula City Hall on Saturday, March 13, 2010. This event is sponsored by Riverside County. A City -Wide Community Clean-up will be held on Saturday, April 10, 2010 at Chaparral High School from 8:OOam to 2:OOpm. This event is for Temecula residents only and allows for the disposal of bulky items, yard debris, household electronic devices, and more. The Community Services Department is currently programming for spring and summer activities and events. The Annual Easter Egg Hunt will be held on Saturday, April 3, 2010 at four park sites. In addition, staff is planning for the Spring Community Services Expo, the Annual Summer Sunsets Film and Concert Series, the 4th of July Parade and Fireworks Show and many more activities and events. The Cultural Arts Division continues to program and carry -out the classes and activities as outlined in the Guide to Leisure Activities, and the Old Town Temecula Community Theater's musical and theatrical performance line-up. The Cultural Arts Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Old Town Temecula Community Theater, the Temecula Valley History Museum and Pennypickle's Workshop, Temecula Children's Museum. The Community Services Department continues to participate in the development review of projects within the City, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, and assessment administration. The TCSD Maintenance Division plays an integral role in assisting with the many citywide special events held each month. In addition, the Maintenance Division has responded to numerous maintenance situations arising out the inclement weather we have experienced during the past month, as well as continuing to oversee the maintenance and rehabilitation of all City parks and facilities. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Item No. 18 ACTION MINUTES of FEBRUARY 9, 2010 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting convened at 7:36 PM. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Washington, Roberts, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 10 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the action minutes of January 26, 2010. 11 Exclusive Neaotiatina Aareement with the RC Hobbs Company for the Dotential development of Agency owned property for affordable housing located at 28640 Puiol Street (APN 922-053-020 and 021) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") between the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and the RC Hobbs Company. 12 Second Amendment to the Owner Participation Aareement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and the Warehouse at Creekside, LLC - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) —Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Edwards who abstained RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and the Warehouse at Creekside, LLC. Agency Member Edwards did not participate and abstained from this item. Mission Oaks Bank is a source of income to her and the Bank has a business relationship with a principal of the owner but the Bank does not have any business interests in this particular project. Agency Member Roberts may participate because his stock ownership in Mission Oaks Bank is less than 10% of the outstanding shares and does not meet the threshold amounts for an economic interest. Additionally, this action only affects the funding source of the Agency's obligation and does not affect the Project, its owner, or Mission Oaks Bank. 13 Funding source for AB 4X 26 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Payment - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 10-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE OBLIGATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY BUSINESS 14 Issuance of Tax Allocation Housing Bonds by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula for the Temecula Redevelopment Project No. 1 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 The City Council adopt a resolution entitled: Z- Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Mayor Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Edwards who abstained RESOLUTION NO. 10-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF TAX ALLOCATION HOUSING BONDS 14.2 The Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: Z- Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Edwards who abstained RESOLUTION NO. RDA 10-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION HOUSING BONDS, AND APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS 14.3 The Temecula Public Financing Authority adopt a resolution entitled: )-- Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Authority Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Washington and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Authority Member Edwards who abstained RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION HOUSING BONDS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AND APPROVING OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Finance Director Roberts presented the staff report (as per agenda material. Council Member/Agency Board Member/Authority Member Edwards did not participate on this item — the approval of 2010 Tax Allocation Housing Bonds that will provide a new source of funding for the Agency's obligation under the Warehouse at Creekside OPA. Mission Oaks Bank is a source of income to Council Member/Agency Board Member/Authority Member Edwards and the Bank has a business relationship with a principal of the owner but the Bank does not have any business interest in this particular project. Council Member/Agency Board Member/Authority Member Roberts may participate because his stock ownership in Mission Oaks Bank is less than 10% of the outstanding shares. Council Member/Agency Board Member/Authority Member Naggar may participate because his stock ownership is also less than 10% of the outstanding shares and does not meet the threshold amounts for an economic interest. Additionally, this action only affects the funding source of the Agency's obligations and does not affect the Project, its owner, or Mission Oaks Bank. RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:46 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. California. Michael S. Naggar, Chair Person ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 19 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Agency Members FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval of the 2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Adjustments PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS BACKGROUND: Each year a mid -year review is conducted of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("RDA") operating budget. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the Agency maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Finance Department staff has performed an analysis of revenues. Additionally, Agency and City staff has reviewed the operating budgets and has identified any material adjustments required. The mid -year budget review includes the Affordable Housing Fund, the Capital Projects/Redevelopment Fund, and the Debt Service Fund. Activity in each fund is presented in accordance with the following schedules: Summary of Revenues. Expenditures. and Chanaes in Fund Balances throuah December 31, 2009: Presents a summary of prior year and FY 2009-10 to December 31, 2009 actual activity, as well as the FY 2009-10 current and revised budget amounts. Also included is a schedule of beginning and estimated ending fund balances based upon the revised budget activity. Revenue Detail: Presents detail of prior year and FY 2009-10 to December 31, 2009 actual revenues, as well as the FY 2009-10 current and revised revenue estimates. Revenues: RDA revenues are being modified to reflect values in line with projections based upon the latest report from Riverside County. Gross tax increment revenue will decrease by $1,344,000 to $19,973,000 for FY 2009-10 as the result of a 6% decline in assessed valuation. The decrease in tax increment will reduce the following RDA funds by the specified amounts: RDA Affordable Housing Fund (165): $268,800 RDA Debt Service Fund (380): $1,075,200 The RDA Affordable Housing fund reflects additional revenues of approximately$13.7 million as the result of the approval of the issuance of tax allocation bonds in February 2010 to finance housing projects in the redevelopment area. These bonds are expected to close in March 2010 providing the RDA bond proceeds at that time. Expenditures: Adjustments to RDA fund expenditures are as follows: RDA Affordable Housing Fund (165)— Net increase of $1,633,661 due primarily to appropriating the remaining commitment for the Summerhouse Development. This project was approved by Council in September 2009, at which time $5,500,000 was already appropriated. Appropriating the additional $2,938,595 will program the total contract amount of $8,438,595 in the current fiscal year. There is also an expenditure increase of $417,030 due to the cost of issuing the tax allocation bonds. These increases are offset by a decrease in the First Time Homebuyer program of $1,665,000 and the Residential Rehabilitation program of $127,000 which are being reduced as a result of no additional program obligations projected for this fiscal year. Capital Projects/Redevelopment Fund (280) — Net decrease of $47,819 due to a reduction in consulting services. RDA Debt Service Fund (380): -Net decrease of $703,829 due primarily to the decrease in pass - through payments to other agencies of $826,000 bringing the total to $11,012,000. These pass - through obligations decrease when total assessed valuation decreases. This is offset by an increase in the Developer Agreement commitmentwhich is a result of actual tax increment increase generated by the Abbott Laboratories expansion. Authorized Positions: No changes are proposed to the Schedule of Authorized Positions. FISCAL IMPACT: The total proposed mid -year adjustments are reflected in the attached schedules and will result in, a net increase of $11,794,640 in the Affordable Housing Fund, a $48,713 increase in the Redevelopment Capital Projects Fund, and a $350,120 decrease in available resources in the Debt Service Fund. 2009-10 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Mid -Year Budget RESOLUTION NO. RDA 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the RDA maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Section 2. Each year a mid -year review is conducted of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (RDA) operating budget. Section 3. That the mid -year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the scheduled attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. That the Fiscal Year 2009-10 RDA operating budget is amended in accordance with the attached schedules. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Michael S. Naggar, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary Exhibit A Temecula Redevelopment Agency FY2009-10 Mid -Year Budget Affordable Income Housing Fund Capital Projects/Redevelopment Fund Debt Service Fund Temecula Redevelopment Agency Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Capital Projects' Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Capital Projects Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Fund Balance, End of Year 'Note: Programmed in the CIP Budget Affordable Income Housing Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 4,860,661 4,953,134 2,097,224 18,381,435 13,428,301 271.1 % 947,832 2,746,388 495,731 1,568,454 (1,177,934) -42.9% 3,912,829 2,206,746 1,601,493 16,812,981 14,606,235 661.9% 676,766 12,092,293 5,429,530 14,903,888 2,811,595 23.3% 3,236,063 (9,885,547) (3,828,037) 1,909,093 11,794,640 16, 066, 613 19, 302, 676 19, 302, 676 19, 302, 676 19,302,676 9,417,129 15,474,639 21,211,769 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Capital Projects' Operating Transfers Out Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Fund Balance, End of Year 'Note: Programmed in the CIP Budget Capital Projects/Redevelopment Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 935,952 948,645 31,442 949,539 894 0.1 % 725,085 3,106,442 510,261 3,058,623 (47,819) -1.5% 210,867 (2,157,797) (478,819) (2,109,084) 48,713 -2.3% - 875,000 875,000 - 0.0% (12,715,255) (6,474,115) (6,566,426) (6,474,115) 0.0% (12,504,388) (9,506,912) (7,045,245) (9,458,199) 48,713 22,188,320 9,683,932 9,683,932 9,683,932 9,683,932 177,020 2,638,687 225,733 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Debt Service Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Proposed % Audited Current Year -to -Date Revised Increase Increase Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 16,659,386 17,087,917 8,145,064 16,033,968 (1,053,949) -6.2% 26,546,613 15,843,783 8,201,527 15,139,954 (703,829) -4.4% (9,887,227) 1,244,134 (56,463) 894,014 (350,120) -28.1 % (525,000) (4,424,608) (10,412,227) (3,180,474) - (4,424,608) 0.0% (56,463) (3,530,594) (350,120) Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 17,011,893 6,599,666 6,599,666 6,599,666 Fund Balance, End of Year 6,599,666 3,419,192 6,543,203 3,069,072 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Revenue Detail FY2009-2010 - Mid Year Budget All RDA Funds -Revenue Detail ACCT NO 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND FY 08-09 ACTUAL REVENUE FY 09-10 YTD @ 12/31 /09 FY 09-10 CURRENT BUDGET FY 09-10 MIDYEAR ESTIMATES $ CHANGE % CHANGE 4015 -Tax Increment 4,063,121 2,030,576 4,263,400 3,994,600 (268,800) -6.30% 4060 -Miscellaneous 10,032 0.00% 4065+4545 -Investment Interest 262,823 55,678 208,417 100,518 (107,899) -51.77% 4066 -Loan Interest 47,663 2,498 23,682 26,180 2,498 10.55% 4072 -Sale of Property 316,185 314,635 314,635 - 0.00% 4075 -Rental Income 138,000 143,000 143,000 0.00% 4076 -Reimbursements 21,971 - 0.00% 4077 -Forgivable Loan Repayment 866 8,472 8,472 8,472 0.00% 4800 -Bond Proceeds 13,794,030 13,794,030 0.00°k TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND 4,860,661 2,097,224 1 4,953,134 1 18,381,435 13,428,301 271.11 °k ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 280 REDEVELOPMENT FUND REVENUE 12/31/09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $CHANGE CHANGE 4051 -Donations 535 500 500 500 0.00% 4060 -Miscellaneous Non Taxable 1,449 300 300 300 0.00% 4065+4545 -Investment Interest 404,168 28,242 48,645 43,939 (4,706) -9.67% 4075 -Rental Income 4,800 2,400 4,800 4,800 0.00% 4090 -Operating Transfers In 525,000 900,000 900,000 - 0.00% TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND 935,952 31,442 1 948,645 1 949,539 894 0.09°k ACCT FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 ACTUAL YTD @ CURRENT MIDYEAR % NO 380 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUE 12/31 /09 BUDGET ESTIMATES $ CHANGE CHANGE 4015 -Tax Increment 16,251 ,896 8,122,598 17,053,600 15,978,400 (1,075,200) -6.30% 4065+4545 -Investment Interest 407,490 22,466 34,317 55,568 21,251 61.93% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 16,659,386 1 8,145,064 1 17,087,917 1 16,033,968 1 (1,053,949) 6.17°k RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Item No. 20 Approvals City Attorney /10 Director of Finance City Manager Go,, TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Agency Members FROM: Patrick Richardson, Planning and Redevelopment Director DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Departmental Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. REDEVELOPMENT Temecula Vallev Convention and Visitors Bureau Lease of Commercial Soace in the Old Town Parking Garage — The Agency and the Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau have executed an Office Lease for commercial space in the Old Town Parking Garage. The Convention and Visitor's Bureau is currently in the process of working with the architect of the Civic Center project to design the tenant improvements. Town Square Market Place - As part of the Civic Center Master Plan, the City has created a development opportunity for approximately 52,000 square feet of commercial and office development surrounding the Town Square along the reconfigured Main Street. The Agency issued a Request for Interest to select a preferred development partner. On August 26, 2008, the City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Pelican Properties to develop the project. Pelican has participated in several meetings with Old Town stakeholders and adjacent property owners. They have worked closely with staff on site planning issues. On January 22, 2009 the Executive Director granted a three-month extension to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement which expires on May 26, 2009. Due to the state of the economy staff recommends the Agency extend the ENA an additional six months. On May 26, 2009 Agency Board approved a six (6) month extension to the ENA. Recently the Agency staff and Pelican Properties representatives met and agreed that it is necessary to discuss the possibility of an additional extension. Agency staff is anticipating meeting with the Agency sub -committee in February to receive direction. Auto Mall Sign - The Agency and Auto Dealers Association have entered into a Loan Agreement for a loan from the Agency to the Auto Dealers Association in the amount of $875,000 for a state of the art high definition marquee sign. Part of the agreement stipulates that the City will have 10% of the time between sunrise and 11:00 p.m. daily to use the sign to promote City interests. The sign will be located on the currently vacant parcel south of Rancho Ford. The old sign will be removed. Per the Loan Agreement the Auto Mall sign shall be constructed on or before October 13, 2010. The Auto Dealers Association anticipates construction of the sign to begin late February. Facade Improvement Program - The Fagade Improvement Program provides funding assistance to Old Town business and property owners to provide exterior improvements to their buildings and property. Funding in the amount of $80,000 is available during FY 2009-2010 The following Fagade improvements are in process or recently completed: • Emporium Center — Fagade Renovation • Temecula Stage Stop — Outdoor canopy renovation • Pennypickle's Workshop — Change copy and refurbish sign • The applications currently under review have exhausted the Fagade Improvement Program budget for this Fiscal Year. Staff will advise all subsequent applicants that funds are not available for the remainder of this Fiscal Year. Currently the program is temporarily frozen due to the State of California Redevelopment Budget take. The Agency hopes to reinstate the program in the Spring of 2010. AB 4X 26 — State of California Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Shift for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 - On July 28, 2009 the Governor signed AB 4X 26 to address the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor on July 1, 2009. This bill amends the Health and Safety code to require a $1.7 billion SERAF shift from redevelopment agencies for Fiscal Year 2009- 2010 and a $350 million SERAF shift for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Per this legislation, the California State Department of Finance has notified the Agency that its payment obligation for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 SERAF shift is ($4,354,450.00). The City is required to notify the County Audit -Controller of its intent to fund it SERAF payment by March 1, 2010. The Agency is required to make findings via resolution of insufficient other moneys in order to be able to utilize housing set -aside funds. The Agency intends (if approved) to make it SERAF payments with housing set -aside funds. Staff has placed the notification of the County Auditor -Controller on the City Council Agenda for its February 9, 2010 meeting. Concurrently, staff has placed the issue of utilizing housing set -aside funds in order to make the SERAF payment on the Agency Board's February 9, 2010 meeting HOUSING The Warehouse at Creekside - On August 12, 2008, the City Council approved an Owner Participation Agreement with Warehouse at Creekside for an Affordable Housing Mixed Use Project. The Agency is currently working with Bill Dalton on a new development on 3'' Street in Old Town. The proposed development includes 32 units of affordable housing and a 3500 square foot ground floor of commercial. The project includes one dedicated parking space for each residential unit. Grading permits have been issued for the project. The project is currently under construction and is slated to be completed by spring 2010. In conjunction with the proposed Housing Tax Increment Bond sale anticipated to close (if approved) in late February, the Agency and Developer have tentatively agreed to minor language modifications of the Owner Participation Agreement. The Language modifications are evidenced in a draft Second Amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement schedule to be reviewed by the Agency Board at its February 9, 2010 meeting. Diaz Road Exclusive Negotiation Agreement - The Agency issued a Request for Interest to select a preferred development partner for the 30-acre site located on Diaz Road. Seven firms have responded. On September 9, 2008, the City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with RC Hobbs Company to develop the project. Due to the State of California's Redevelopment SERAF take it is not possible for the Agency to pursue a project with the Hobbs Company on the Diaz site at this time. The Agency negotiated a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions ("PSA") for the sale of approximately 20 acres to Clearwater Development for the development of a water park. The Agency Board approved the PSA on September 22, 2009. Major terms of the PSA are a purchase price of $6.7 million with a $1 million "holdback" to mitigate existing soils conditions. Since the Agency and Clearwater Development entered into the PSA Clearwater requested an extension to the escrow of 6 months. At the October 27, 2009 Agency Board meeting the extension was approved. The new close of escrow is scheduled for April 30, 2010. First Time Homebuvers Program - On July 22, 2008, the City Council approved an amendment to increase the loan amount for down payment assistance from $24,000 to $65,000. This down payment assistance allows qualifying households to purchase homes in the $250,000-$300,000 price range. An article published in the Californian on July 5, 2009 has generated tremendous interest in the program. However, on July 24, 2009, the State Legislature passed a budget that proposes a take of $2.05 Billion in statewide redevelopment agency funds to help close the State's current budget deficit. This means that about $4,300,000 in City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency funds could be diverted to the state this Fiscal Year and an additional $900,000 diverted to the state in Fiscal Year 2010/2011. As a result, funding for this program is temporarily frozen and no new applications are being considered at this time. Summerhouse - The Agency negotiated an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") with Summerhouse Housing Partners L.P for the purchase and development of the Summerhouse community. The Agency Board approved the OPA on September 22, 2009. The OPA terms require the development of 70 affordable units at very -low income, 20 units at moderate income, and 20 units at senior affordable income. The terms of this agreement place affordability restrictions on the property for 55 years. Summerhouse Housing Partners L.P. has closed escrow and taken full title to the property and has begun the clean-up and restoration of the site. A development plan has been submitted to the City and completion of the partially completed units shall begin within 120 days with completion of those 20 units no more than 15 months thereafter. Residential Improvement Program - The program budget for FY 2009/2010 is $200,000.00. However, on July 24, 2009, the proposed State budget take of about $4,300,000 from the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency has required unreserved funds budgeted for this program to be temporarily frozen. The Redevelopment Agency is currently processing 5 applications totaling $34,295 that were in the queue prior to Monday, July 27. No new applications are being considered at this time. Eleven applications are on hold pending release of funds for this program. PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 21 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Resolutions/Ordinances for Santa Margarita Area Annexation PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 (LR09-0024) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 BY APPROXIMATELY 4,126 ACRES TO INCLUDE ALL TERRITORY OF THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX-HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 56000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 3. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO/RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX- HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 56000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY (LR09-0024) 5. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 PRE -ZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 WITH ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT- SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) (LR09-0024) Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 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 NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (LR09-0024) BACKGROUND: On December 9, 2008, the City of Temecula ("City") City Council adopted Resolutions to apply to LAFCO for an expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence and Annexation of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). Resolutions also included a General Plan Amendment to the City's Land Use Map, pre -zoning of the area, adoption of associated hillside development standards and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. Ultimately, LAFCO denied the City's Sphere of Influence expansion and Annexation applications, adopting formal resolutions disapproving the project on June 25, 2009. Based upon LAFCO's concern that a proposed quarry project should be processed by the County, the City requested LAFCO to reconsider the Santa Margarita Annexation Application with reduced boundaries that would remove the territory associated with the proposed quarry (and a few other surrounding parcels). A Reconsideration Hearing was held by LAFCO on September 24, 2009 and LAFCO determined new Sphere of Influence and Annexation Applications would need to be filed to remove the proposed territory from the City's original annexation request. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period for the City of Temecula to file the requisite Sphere of Influence and Annexation Applications in order to allow the City to proceed with the proposal of modified boundaries without further delay. Furthermore, LAFCO voted to reduce the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation application fees by fifty percent. On January 12, 2010, the City Council voted to proceed with the preparation of documents for a new Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application consisting of the above - referenced reduced boundaries of the original Santa Margarita Area Annexation. The new Santa Margarita Area Annexation is referred to as the "Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2". On February 3, 2010, the Planning Commission considered the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and recommended that the City Council approve the project. There were 11 speakers and all 11 spoke in support of the proposal and that the City of Temecula would be the preferred steward for this area. Among the speakers was Dr. Matt Rahn, who spoke on behalf of SDSU's Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) - 95% percent of the annexation area - and indicated the SMER's desire to be annexed by the City. In addition, a resident within the annexation area (Susan Jurkosky) expressed her support for their residence to be annexed. Her husband also submitted an email supporting the annexation stating that other residents within the annexation area were in support of annexation. A letter in opposition was submitted by Mr. Neslon Mamey, a property owner of approximately 38 acres within the annexation area. He states that it is the City's intent to develop the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve into a park and has concerns of the impacts of such a park. Staff informed the Planning Commission there are no plans to develop the SMER into a public park. A copy of the Mike Jurkosky's email and Nelson Mamey's letter are both attached. The City's Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 will be submitted to LAFCO if ultimately approved by City Council. Barring any unforeseen delays, it is anticipated that LAFCO would thereafter schedule a hearing within four months. ANALYSIS: The Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 consists of approximately 4,510 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 95% of the property within the annexation boundaries is the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER). The preservation of the SMER and its surroundings is an integral part of preserving and protecting the research value of the SMER and the 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 Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The City's purpose in annexing the 4,510-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. A few of 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). • Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development, including critical escarpment and major hillside areas on the west and south edges of the City. This should include working with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development (Community Design Element Implementation Program, CD-6) • 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 consider the 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). 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 Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2, and approve the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report. 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 225 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 The City's proposed Zoning Amendment will follow the same boundaries as the County's General Plan map and will also follow the same boundaries of the City's proposed General Plan land use designations. The County's General Plan Land Use map and its Zoning map do not match therefore the City will follow the County's General Plan Land Use map. As such, 4,284 acres will be zoned Conservation Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM), and the remaining 225 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. Summary 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 Description Approximate Acreage" Existing City of Temecula Sphere of Influence Proposed Expansion City of Temecula Sphere of Influence Proposed Total Annexation Area Total Project Area 384 4,126 4,510 County of Riverside Land Use Designation •Open Space —Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) 318 3,966 4,284 •Rural Mountainous (RM) (1 du/10 acres) 66 159 225 County of Riverside Zoning •Rural Residential (RR) (1 du/0.5 acre) 360 4,032 4,392 •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) 66 159 225 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) 66 159 225 (" As noted above all acreages referenced in the table above are approximate. The numbers referenced in the table have been rounded and, due to rounding, sums may add up to be off by 1+/- acre). 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 for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation property will be provided by the City of Temecula. The Municipal Services Review (MSR) has been previously approved by LAFCO. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified on December 9, 2008 ("Certified Final Environmental impact Report' or "FEIR"). Further, in accordance with CEQA Section 15164, an Addendum to the Final Certified Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which addresses the reduction in acreage of the annexation area. 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. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also proposed to be adopted. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts of this project have been identified in the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation in February 2010. 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 $26,121 is projected for the total annexation area if the project were built -out based upon recurring revenues of about $47,258 and recurring costs of about $21,137. The City of Temecula Community Services District (CSD) recurring revenues are estimated at $6,657 after the build -out of the project area. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution (Addendum to Certified Final Environmental Impact Report) Exhibit A-D Resolution (General Plan Amendment) Exhibits 1-4 Ordinance (Development Code Amendment) Exhibit A -A Ordinance (Pre -Zoning Amendment) Exhibits 1-4 Resolution (LAFCO Application for Sphere of Influence) Exhibit A Legal Description and Map Attachments Resolution (LAFCO Application for Annexation) Exhibit A Legal Description and Map Attachments Public Comments Planning Commission February 3, 2010 Staff Report Excerpts of General Plan Policies and Table 3.4-3 City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Policies from the Certified Environmental Impact Report City of Temecula General Plan on website: http: //www. citvofte me cu la . o rg/Te me cu I a/G ove r n me nt/Co mm Dev/Zo n i ng/g eneralplan.htm Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for Santa Margarita Area Annexation with Appendixes (certified December 9, 2008) on website: http://www.citvoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/ CC RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 (LR09-0024) 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 December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final E I R"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the annexation area. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. 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 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR attached hereto as Exhibit B and the various components of the Amendment, reaffirm the findings adopted as part of the Final EIR certification and set forth in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-110 as remaining applicable to the Revised Annexation project, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference and adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No 10- 03 thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions related to the Annexation of the Santa Margarita Annexation No. 2. R. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. 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 Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. The City Council has considered the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report, along with the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report, and approves the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report attached hereto as Exhibit B, adopts the following findings, and takes the following actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act: A. The City Council has reviewed the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, along with the Certified Final EIR and, in the exercise of its independent judgment, concludes that the Addendum accurately describes the environmental ramifications of reducing the area for which Annexation to the City is sought. B. The City Council finds, based on the evidence in the record, including the Addendum, that the Revised Annexation proposal does not require supplemental or subsequent environmental review because the Revised Annexation area (i) is not a substantial change in the project that would require major revisions to the previously Certified Final EIR, (ii) is not a substantial change in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that would require major revisions to the Certified Final EIR, and (iii) does not constitute new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the Final EIR was certified. C. The Revised Annexation area is approximately 487 acres smaller than the previously proposed annexation area. If the Revised Annexation is approved by LAFCO, the impacts associated with the annexation would be the same or less than those identified in the Final EIR for the reasons set forth in the Addendum. D. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California, exercising its independent judgment after considering the administrative record, hereby adopts the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit B, reaffirms the findings adopted as part of the Final EIR certification and set forth in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-110 as remaining applicable to the Revised Annexation project, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. Further, the City Council imposes each mitigation measure as a condition on the Revised Annexation project, and directs City staff to implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit D. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23 day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdil:l:4:& 1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk i I i ` ` 1 ADDENDUM TO THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION Environmental Impact Report / Addendum Prepared for: City of Temecula 9191 lowne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 ,P,m asassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Podland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland I fills 2084135 02 January 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Temecula Addendum to the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Page 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Previous Environmental Documentation............................................................. 1-3 1.3 Findings of this Addendum................................................................................. 1-4 1 A Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR............................................ 1-5 1.5 Contact Person................................................................................................... 1-6 2. Project Description.................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location.................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Site Description................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 1: Proposed Modification of Boundary .................................................... 2-3 2.3 Project Description.............................................................................................. 2-5 2.4 Project Objectives., ................. ..................... ........ ................................ .......... 2-6 2.5 Environmental Setting......................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals................................................................ 2-11 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Prior Environmental Review and Discussion...................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Air Quality........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Biological Resources.......................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 3-8 3.1.4 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................... 3-9 3.1.5 Mineral Resources............................................................................................ 3-12 3.1.6 Public Services and Utilities.............................................................................. 3-13 3.1.7 Transportation and Traffic., ......................... ............. .... ................. - ............ . 3-17 3.1.8 Noise................................................................................................................ 3-18 3.1.9 Recreation........................................................................................................ 3-22 4. Findings......................................................................................................................4-1 5. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................ 5-1 Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation I ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Scope This document is an Addendum to the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007041085) for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation and related actions, certified by the City of Temecula (City) in December 2008. The certified EIR was also utilized as the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation to support the request for annexation submitted to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO denied the annexation request at their June 4, 2009 pubic hearing, adopting related resolutions on June 25, 2009. The City of Temecula is now proposing to submit a revised annexation application to the Riverside County LAFCO to exclude approximately 487 acres of the 4,997 acres previously proposed in the certified Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. The 487 acre not a part area of this amended annexation boundary includes the area proposed for the Liberty Quarry Mine project site and a few adjacent parcels from the previously certified FEIR project. The amended annexation request would reduce the residential development potential within the annexation area from 713 acres with a maximum of 81 new dwelling units and 263 estimated new residents, as proposed under the previous LAFCO application and evaluated by the certified FEIR, to approximately 2251 acres with a maximum of 222 new dwelling units and 72 estimated total residents. The remainder of the annexation area is owned by public entities for the purpose of resource conservation and as such, does not have development potential. The amended annexation request would result in an approximate 68% reduction in impacts (acreage reduction of 68%) to biological and cultural resources and an approximate 73% reduction (dwelling unit reduction of 73%) to impacts in all other areas as compared to the previous annexation request, evaluated by the certified FEIR. The 68% reduction in impacts to biological and cultural resources is a result of the reduced amount of land (acres) that would have the potential to be developed (or impacted) as a result of the proposed amended annexation area. The amended annexation area would include approximately 4,2843 acres of open space and conservation designated lands. This Addendum serves as the environmental review document for the revised annexation request which now encompasses approximately 4,5104 1 Acreage sums are rounded to the nearest whole acre and may vary by one (1) acre due to rounding to the nearest whole acre. 2 22 new dwelling units would be the worst -case scenario based on one (I) dwelling unit per 10 acres and includes reconstruction of existing dwelling units within the 225-acre residentially zoned portion of the reduced annexation area. 3 Acreage sums are rounded to the nearest whole acre and may vary by one (1) acre due to rounding to the nearest whole acre. 4 Ibid. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ESA / 208485,02 OR January 2010 1. Introduction acres), as required pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and State and local CEQA Guidelines. Under the original proposal, 713 acres within the Santa Margarita Annexation Area (SMAA) designated Rural Mountainous (RM) (1 du/10 acres) under the County of Riverside land use designation was to be changed to Hillside Residential (HR) (1 du/10 acres) under the City of Temecula General Plan land use designation. As noted in the certified FEIR, a total of 718 acres were to be designated as Hillside Residential (HR) under the City's General Plan land use designation because a 5-acre parcel with an existing residence was proposed to be included in the HR designation, although it is currently within the County's Open Space -Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) designation. This 5-acre parcel was recently purchased by San Diego State University (SDSU) and is now intended to be used in a manner consistent with the Open Space land use designation and pre -zoning proposed for this property. The residence that currently exists on this parcel would become a legal non -conforming use under the proposed OS-C-SM zone. Therefore, the previously proposed land use designation was to include a total of 713 acres, not 718 acres within the Hillside Residential (HR) (1 du/10 acres designation). The remaining 4,284 acres within the Santa Margarita Annexation area is currently designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) under the County or Riverside's laud use designation and the proposed General Plan Amendment proposes to change the entire 4,284 acre portion of the project area currently designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) under the County of Riverside's General Plan land use designation, to the City of Temecula General Plan land use designation of Open Space (OS). This will remain identical in the amended annexation request. Please refer to the comparison below. COMPARISON OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE SANTA MARGARITA ANNEXATION TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED PROJECT Santa Margarita Area Annexation Component of Development Certified FOR Addendum to the FEIR Single-family residentialab 713 acres with 81 new dwelling units 225 acres with 22 new dwelling units Open Space & Conservation 4,284 acres 4,284 acres Estimated New Residentsc 263 72 a Subsequent purchase by SDSU of 5-acre parcel acres is now intended to be used in a manner consistent with the Open Space land use designation and pre -zoning proposed for this property. The residence that currently exists on this parcel would become a legal non- conforming use under the proposed OS-C-SM zone. Therefore, the previously proposed land use designation was to include a total of 713 acres, not 718 acres within the Hillside Residential (HR) (1 du/10 acres designation). b 225 acres is the total allowable acreage for development of new dwelling units using the underlying General Plan land use designations. At 1 du/10 acres, 22 units would result. c It is noted that the city of Temecula uses a population generation rate of 3.24 persons per single-family dwelling unit while the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population generation rate of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. The estimated number of new residents reflects the higher estimated population calculation. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-2 ESA 1208485.02 EIR January 2010 Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency and is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the proposed project. As part of the decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from the modification of the annexation request analyzed in the previously certified EIR. In addition, LAFCO will use this addendum as the CEQA document for any action that they take on the revised annexation request. Since certification of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR, the County of Riverside has released and circulated the Liberty Quarry Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2007061104) which addresses impacts resulting from development of the proposed Liberty Quarry Mine to be located within the 487 acre segment excluded from this amended annexation request. The Draft EIR was available for a 60-day public review and comment period from July 20, 2009 through September 18, 2009 and extended an additional 60 days through November 23, 2009. The FEIR has not been released and the project has not been scheduled for a public hearing at the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. 1.2 Previous Environmental Documentation In December 2008, the City of Temecula City Council certified the FEIR for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation. For the purposes of this Addendum, the FEIR refers to all project documents, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The FEIR addressed potential impacts associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation and associated discretionary and ministerial actions. The originally approved FEIR involved the annexation of 4,997 acres into the City which was to include a Sphere of Influence expansion for the city; an amendment to its General Plan Land Use Map designating the land uses within the sphere of influence expansion areas; the pre - zoning of the annexation area with zoning designation consistent with the land use designation; and seeking approval for the annexation from LAFCO. The originally approved FEIR included the following land use applications: Planning Application PA07-0225 Planning Application PA07-0225 consisted of two components an amendment to the city of Temecula General Plan (General Plan Amendment) and the pre -zoning of the subject property (Change of Zone) described as follows: General Plan Amendment proposed to amend the General Plan's Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,443 acres of the subject property located outside of the city of Temecula's current sphere of influence. The 477 acres currently designated RM I DU/10 AC in Riverside County would become Hillside Residential (IIR) 1 DU/10 AC in the city of Temecula, 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated OS -CH in the County would be designated Open Space (OS) in the City and 5 acres currently designated OS -CH in the County would become HR I DU/10 AC in the city of Temecula. The amendment would only become effective if the previous annexation request had been approved by LAFCO. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-3 ESA / 208485,02 EIR January 2010 Change of Zone proposed the pre -zoning of approximately 4,997 acres with zoning designations which would follow the same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,284 acres with a zoning district of "Conservation -Santa Margarita" (OS-C-SM); and 718 acres designated with a zoning district of "Hillside Residential -Santa Margarita" (HR-SM), allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC. The proposed pre -zoning will establish two new zones specifically for the SMAA through the adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. This zone change proposal will modify the existing range of permitted uses, which now include residential, open space, and mining to primarily residential and open space uses. The pre -zoning would only become effective if the previous annexation had been approved by LAFCO. Planning Application PA07-0226 • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposed the expansion of the city of Temecula's sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the city's current sphere of influence, with ultimate approval by LAFCO. • Annexation proposed the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula, with ultimate approval by LAFCO. • LAFCO denied both the sphere amendment and annexation requests With the exception of mineral resources, air quality, transportation and traffic, and noise impacts, the FEIR identified that impacts from the entire project would be either less than significant or mitigated to below a level of significance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and adopted. 1.3 Findings of this Addendum Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the project will result in a change in circumstances, new impacts, or new information of substantial importance requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed project. The focus of this examination is whether the CEQA analysis conducted, as described in the previously certified FEIR, adequately addresses the impacts associated with an annexation area that is reduced by 487 acres from the 4,997 acres (previously proposed in the Santa Margarita Area Annexation certified FEIR) as part of this Addendum. As concluded in Chapter 3 of this document, the mitigation measures established in the certified Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR would more than adequately mitigate the impacts resulting from implementation of the reduced acreage project. This Addendum reviews new information that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR was certified. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-4 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 1.4 Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section IS 162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: 1. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. 2. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR in order to describe and analyze new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New information ofsubstantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the three the previous EIR was certified, shows: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. If none of the above conditions is met, as is the case with this amended project, the City may require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Addendum, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary. The City has elected to proceed with this Addendum. This Addendum has evaluated each of the issues addressed in the FEIR, as well as each of the issues contained in the discussion presented in Chapter 3 of this document. Based on this Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-5 ESA 1208485.02 EIR January 2010 analysis and the information contained herein, there is no evidence that the proposed project requires major changes to the FEIR. Comparison of the previous project with the reduced project, as described in Chapter 3 of this document, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and mitigation, as described in the FEIR. This Addendum relies on use of an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Checklist Form is used: To evaluate whether there are any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project and proposed amendments; and To review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, or if an Addendum is appropriate. Chapter 3 of this document contains the discussion summarizing the responses to the questions on the form covering required environmental issues. 1.5 Contact Person The Lead Agency for the Addendum for the proposed project is the City of Temecula. Any questions about the preparation of this Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Betsy Lowrey, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 Telephone: 951-693-3959 Fax: 951-694-6477 Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-6 ESA / 208485.02 Elft January 2010 CHAPTER 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Location The amended SMAA project site is comprised of approximately 4,510 acres located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County, along the northern side of the San Diego -Riverside County line and west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and southwest of the City (Figure 1). This area is comprised of Riverside County's portion of the SMER and adjacent properties. 2.2 Site Description The amended project site consists of approximately 4,510 acres of publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped land; most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders, sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above mean sea level (msl). Within the lower reaches of the project area is the Santa Margarita River which flows year round. From the river bottom up into the hills are many seasonal drainages. Within the entire 4,510-acre project area there are only six occupied dwelling units with two dwelling units occasionally used by the San Diego State University (SDSU) Field Station Program to house researchers. The remaining privately -held properties, outside of the SMER, are currently vacant. At various locations within the SMER are scientific monitoring stations related to SDSU's research programs. The pristine nature of this area has made it a valuable resource for ecological study. The project area includes approximately 225 acres of private property within which only four lots are developed with single-family homes. Two of the six homes within the project area are part of the SMER and are only occupied by those individuals conducting research. The other four occupied properties are primarily large ranch estates involved with agriculture or equestrian activities. The SMER is a key part of preserving the entire Santa Margarita River, one of the last free - flowing rivers in coastal southern California, and its rich ecosystem. The Santa Margarita River officially begins northeast of the project site, at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek at the Temecula city limits. The River flows through the Temecula Gorge and ultimately empties into the ocean through the largely undisturbed lands of Camp Pendleton. The upper watershed of the Santa Margarita River is thus the combined watersheds of Temecula and Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-1 ESA 1208485.02 EIR January 2010 Murrieta Creeks [please refer to Figure 2-4 of the September 22, 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR certified December 9, 2008)]. 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 acres are designated "Rural Mountainous" (RM). The OS -CH designation applies to public and private lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and other conservation plans. The RM designation is for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Within this designation there is an allowance for limited animal keeping, agriculture, recreational uses, compatible resource development (which may include the commercial extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses and governmental uses. Currently, most of the project area is zoned "Rural Residential' (R-R). The R-R zone allows a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. A small area comprised of 118 acres is currently zoned R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural with a 20-acre minimum lot size). The majority of the private properties currently have a Riverside County Land Use designation of RM (please refer to Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 of the September 22, 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation EIR). Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-2 EIR ESA/208485.02 January 2010 LEGEND Sae wm rbmre tim Nea(w 2)-ftpm Ma0'Gietl BwagarY OSane MarganaMrexemP a(Ori9iral BowEary) ® CM1yd T..w City of Temecula 9 e+.aac. m B V. �4e5 AQ $ 5 4 L N �wvn �MW.y�µY YLq. ur V 6. T Fast a KE Ciydinmglae.Xp. CMdTarecNe-Sv wfgv Pfea04tlendm.2Uaea w Figure 1 Proposed Modification of Boundary This page left intentionally blank Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-4 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 2.3 Project Description The proposed project is the annexation of 4,510 acres into the City which will include a Sphere of Influence expansion for the city; an amendment to its General Plan Land Use Map designating the land uses within the sphere of influence expansion areas; the pre -zoning of the annexation area with zoning designation consistent with the land use designation; and seeking approval for the annexation from LAFCO. The proposed SMAA includes the following land use applications: Planning Application LR09-0024 Planning Application LR09-0024 consists of the following components described as follows: General Plan Amendment proposing to amend the General Plan's Land Use Map with laud use designations over the 4,126 acres of the subject property located outside of the city of Temecula's current sphere of influence. The 159 acres currently designated RM I DU/10 AC in Riverside County will become FIR I DU/10 AC in the city of Temecula, 3,966 acres designated OS -CH in the County will be designated OS in the city of Temecula. Change of Zone proposing the pre -zoning of approximately 4,510 acres with zoning designations which follow the same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,284 acres with a zoning district of "Conservation -Santa Margarita" (OS-C-SM); and approximately 225 acres designated with a zoning district of "Hillside Residential -Santa Margarita" (HR-SM), allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC. The proposed pre -zoning will establish two new zones specifically for the SMAA through the adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. This zone change proposal will modify the existing range of permitted uses, which now include residential, open space, and mining to primarily residential and open space uses. • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the City of Temecula's sphere of influence to include that 4,126-acre portion of the 4,510-acre SMAA outside of the city's current sphere of influence, with ultimate approval by LAFCO. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,510 acres into the city of Temecula, with ultimate approval by LAFCO. Pre -zoning applies to land that is adjacent to the current City boundaries, but is not yet part of the City. The pre -zoning process provides a description of the activities the City would potentially allow on subject property once it becomes part of the City. The approval and implementation of the previously outlined planning applications by the City and LAFCO would result in the ability of the underlying private landowners to potentially develop on a 225 acre area under the HR-SM zoning designation, which is limited to 1 DU/10 AC and which will permit a maximum of 22 new dwelling units to be built. The City's designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e. churches, educational facilities, libraries, day care centers, bed and breakfast establishments). A variety of open space/conservation compatible land uses would also be allowed under these Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-5 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 proposed general plan and zoning designations. A total of 22 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario, as four dwelling units already exist and may never be reconstructed and the actual development of the remaining 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; on -site fire department water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements. It should be noted that it is considered highly likely that many residential parcels could not meet these development requirements on an individual basis. The proposed hillside development standards would require specific setback, massing, landscaping and fuel modification requirements, and would prohibit mass grading and wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes. As such, individual dwelling units would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. It is not possible to forecast when all 22 units would be constructed, as it is dependent on the intentions of each underlying landowner, market conditions and the economic feasibility of complying with the above -outlined environmental, physical and design constraints. A reasonable phasing assumption would entail development of 5 homes per year, which would require approximately 5 years to construct all 22 single-family dwelling units allowed under the proposed planning applications. ht order to implement a worst case scenario to be analyzed in this document, it will be assumed that all 22 single-family units will be developed by 2015, and all impact analyses in this document will be based on the residential units being constructed by this year. 2.4 Project Objectives A clear statement of project objectives allows for the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. A range of reasonable alternatives, both on- and off -site, that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the project, must be analyzed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The City has identified the following planning objectives for the SMAA: • To integrate the SMAA area into the City's General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development within the study area. • To preserve public lands within the SMAA area in natural open space; while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately -owned lands. • To protect the research value of the SMER by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. 2.5 Environmental Setting Geology and Soils The project site is located at the southern end of the Temescal Valley located in western Riverside County. The Temescal Valley can generally be described as ranging from the Riverside Addendum to the city of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-6 ESA / 208485,02 EIR January 2010 County/Orange County line east to the Perris Valley and from the city of Corona south to the Riverside County/San Diego County line. The northern portion of the Temescal Valley including the Lake Elsinore area, generally drains north into the Santa Ana River; while the southern portion of Tcruescal Valley generally drains south into the Santa Margarita River by way of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. The Temescal Valley area is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Range province and is dominated by rocks of the southern California batholith. The multiple intrusives of the batholith have invaded older metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of Paleozoic through early Cretaceous ages (570 to 98 million years ago). Bodies of these metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks now crop out along the edges of the batholithic rocks and as roof pendants within batholithic rocks. Rocks of Late Cretaceous through Holocene age (98 million years ago to the present) were deposited over the eroded surfaces of these older rocks and crop out in the major drainages. These younger rocks are mostly conglomerates, claystones, and sandstones of marine and continental origin. Typical rock types that can be found in this area include • Pre-Batholithic Rocks: Jurupa Complex (gneiss, schist, quartzite and marble), Bedford Canyon Formation (quartzites, slates, and argillites), Santiago Peak Volcanics (pyrite and pyrrhotite), Temescal Wash Quartz Latite Porphyry (porphyritic quartz latite). • Southern California Batholith Rocks: Gabbro, quartz diorite, granodiorite, and granite. (Silica, feldspar, lithium minerals, micas and gemstones.) • Post-Batholithic Rocks: Cretaceous Formations (sandstone, cobble and small boulder conglomerate, siltstone and shale), Silverado Forniation (marine clays, silts, quartz and arkosic sands), Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (sandstone and conglomerate). The City is located in one of the most seismically active areas of southern California. The city is traversed by the Elsinore fault and has historically experienced earthquakes of moderate magnitude. The Elsinore fault zone, which is located in proximity to the eastern boundary of the SMAA, is one of the largest in southern California and in historical times, has been one of the quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the Laguna Salada fault, ruptured in 1892 in a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but the main trace of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2: the magnitude 6.0 earthquake of 1910 near Temescal Valley, which produced no known surface rupture and did little damage. Other faults surrounding the City include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport -Inglewood, Sierra Madre -Santa Susana-Cucamonga, Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente Island faults. The eastern portion of the annexation area is part of Cieneba-Rock land-Fallbrook association that is characterized by well -drained and somewhat excessively drained soils. Typically, these soils are very shallow to moderately deep soils in undulating to steep areas and have a surface layer of sandy loam and fine sandy learn on a granitic rock base. The western portion of the annexation area is identified as being within the Cajalco-Temescal-Las Posas association which is characterized as well -drained soils in undulating to steep areas. These soils are moderately deep Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-7 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 to shallow soils that have a surface layer of fine sandy loam and loan found on gabbro and latite- poiphyry. According to the soil survey information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the primary soil types within the project boundary are Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CbF2), Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (Cli Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (FcF2), Las Posas rocky loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded (LkF3) and Rockland (RtF). A number of other soil types are found within the project boundary in small quantities throughout the site. Air Quality The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB consists of Orange County, the coastal and mountain portions of Los Angeles County, as well as Riverside and San Bernardino comities. Regional and local air quality within the SCAB is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore flows. Topographic features such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of atmospheric inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. With an inversion, the temperature initially follows a normal pattern of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude, however, at some elevation, the trend reverses and temperature begins to increase as altitude increases. This transition to increasing temperature establishes the effective mixing height of the atmosphere and acts as a barrier to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and pollutant dispersion. Air pollution generated in coastal areas is transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until a natural barrier (the mountains) is confronted, limiting the horizontal dispersion of pollutants. The result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the photochemical pollutants such as ozone formed under reactions with sunlight. The project site is located within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25. The most recent published data applicable to SRA 25 indicates that the baseline air quality conditions in the project area include occasional events of very unhealthful air. However, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade. Ozone (O3)and particulates are the two most significant air quality concerns in the project area. The yearly monitoring records document that prior to 1997, approximately one-third or more of the days each year experienced a violation of the state hourly ozone standard, with around ten days annually reaching first stage alert levels of 0.20 parts per million (ppm) for one hour. It is encouraging to note that ozone levels have dropped significantly in the last few years with less than one -fifth of the days each year experiencing a violation of the state hourly ozone standard since 1997. Locally, no second stage alert (0.35 ppm/hour) has been called by SCAQMD in the last ten years. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) maintains records as to the attainment status of air basins throughout the state, raider both state and federal criteria. The portion of the SCAB within Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-8 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2p10 which the proposed project is located is designated as a non -attainment area for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM-10), and Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5) under both state and federal standards. Detailed discussions of the air quality setting and air pollution related to the project site are included in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this document. Biological Resources The City is located within the western Riverside County MSHCP area. The overall biological goal of the MSIICP is to maintain and restore biological diversity and natural ecosystem processes that support diversity in natural areas within western Riverside County known to Support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. 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. Additionally, the Santa Ana Palomar Mountains Linkage straddles the San Diego County Northern MSHCP and the Riverside County Western MSHCP. This jurisdictional division placed an artificial boundary directly through the Linkage. The SMAA project site consists of approximately 4,510 acres of primarily undeveloped land and a 5-mile stretch of the protected Santa Margarita River. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which 4,284 acres have been conserved in the SMER within the project boundary. The SMER adjoins a "Special Linkage Area" of the Riverside County MSHCP. The SMER lies in the chaparral/coastal sage and scrub/oak woodland vegetation zone of southern California. The climate is Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and warm summers moderated by the marine influence of the Pacific Ocean that lies 18 miles (30 kilometers (km)) to the west. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 400 min and the mean annual temperature about 16.4°C. The topography is complex consisting of low hills and intervening drainages. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above msl. The northern portion of the reserve is dominated by the deep gorge of the Santa Margarita River. Most of the project site is covered by low shrub vegetation, a mosaic of mixed chaparral, charnise chaparral, and coastal sage, oak and riparian woodlands are found in the deeper drainages. Sycamore, cottonwood, and willow forests are part of a protected riparian corridor in the SMER. Coast live oak occurs along ephemeral drainages. The upland areas of the reserve support coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. Some native grassland occurs in small isolated patches. Scattered self -seeded orange, avocado and eucalyptus groves are also found throughout the project area. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-9 ESA / 208486.02 EIR January 2010 The SDSU Field Station Program for the SMER has conducted significant research of natural communities found within the reserve. The research has documented the observation of 181 animal species within the SMER. Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and SMER records identify 20 sensitive species as occurring within or in proximity to the annexation area. Two of these species, least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica ) are federally and/or state listed endangered species. Other sensitive wildlife species documented within the SMER include: two -striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), northern red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus Tuber ruber), Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Sharp -shinned Hawk (Accipiterstriatus), Bell's Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), Golden Eagle (Aquila ehrysaetos), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanus 111dovicianus), Orange -throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperyihrus), western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida), and Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii). The research has documented the observation of 331 plant species. Three sensitive plant species, the San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia), rainbow manzanita (Arctostaphylos rainbowensis) and Parry's tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus). A CNPS species 113.2 plant has been documented on the project site during SDSU surveys. San Diego thorn mint is a federally listed threatened and California listed endangered species. Rainbow manzanita is a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list IB.I species. Mineral Resources Riverside County has diverse mineral resources, including extensive deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates that have been influential in the development of the area and serve as an important component of the Comuy's economy. Riverside County consists predominantly of igneous and metamorphic rock with some sedimentary units. They vary from hard rock underlying steep slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains to the weathered granitic rocks of Joshua Tree National Park and hillsides near the city of Riverside. Alluvial (river) valleys between these mountain ranges contain sediments with significant variation in thickness. Some valleys are filled with a few hundred feet of Pleistocene and Holocene sediments, whereas others, such as the Coachella, San Jacinto and Elsinore Valleys, contain several thousand feet to several miles of sediment. The thickest sediments have been deposited in basins that are being pulled apart by the movement of tectonic plates. In the Temescal Valley, where the SMER area is located typical rock types that can be found include: • Pre-Batholithic Rocks: Jurupa Complex (gneiss, schist, quartzite and marble), Bedford Canyon Formation (quartzites, slates, and argillites), Santiago Peak Volcauics (pyrite and pyrrhotite), Temescal Wash Quartz Latite Porphyry (porphyritic quartz latite). • Southern California Batholith Rocks: Gabbro, quartz diorite, granodiorite, and granite. (Silica, feldspar, lithium minerals, micas and gemstones). • Post-Batholithic Rocks: Cretaceous Formations (sandstone, cobble and small boulder conglomerate, siltstone and shale), Silverado Formation (marine clays, silts, quartz and arkosic sands), Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (sandstone and conglomerate). Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-10 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 The site specifically has rock types that include primarily Cretaceous igneous granitic rocks, Jurassic marine sedimentary rocks and Mesozoic basic intrusive rocks. Cretaceous -age granitic bedrock is exposed throughout the area. The bedrock is comprised primarily of quartz and feldspar. The County of Riverside General Plan shows that the SMER area is located within an MRZ-3 zone; indicating that available geologic information indicates that mineral resources are likely to exist, but the significance of the deposit is undetermined. The County General Plan, however, recognizes that further exploration work could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the specific localities into MRZ-21 category. The designation for the Liberty Quarry site changed from MRZ-3 to MRZ-2, which is located outside of the currently proposed annexation area. Specifically, the area of the Liberty Quarry site is located within the original boundary (area of land within the red line), but outside of the proposed modified boundary (area of land without the blue cross -hatching) on Figure 1. For the purposes of this addendum, the impact analysis will focus on the proposed project which is the proposed 4,510-acre SMAA project which includes: (1) General Plan Amendment to adopt land use designations for 4,126 acres (OS and HR, I DU/10 AC) located outside of the City's current sphere of influence; (2) adoption of pre -zoning to implement the General Plan land use designations and hillside development standards, which will be conditioned on LAFCO approval of the annexation; (3) resolutions of application to LAFCO for an expansion of the City's sphere of influence to include the portion of the annexation area not already in the City sphere of influence and for annexation of the project area to the City; and (4) LAFCO consideration of the proposed sphere expansion and annexation. 2.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals The certified FEIR and this addendum serve as informational documents for use by public agencies, the general public, and decision makers. The certified FEIR and this addendum discuss the impacts of development pursuant to the proposed project and related components and analyze project alternatives. The certified FEIR and this addendum will be used by the City and responsible agencies in assessing impacts of the proposed project. The following public officials and agencies will use the certified FEIR and this addendum when considering the following actions: City of Temecula Planning Commission 1. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council for approval of this addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report EA-128. 2. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council regarding approval of Planning Application LR09-0024 consisting of: 'The MRZ-2 designation means that adequate inforfnation indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development should be controlled. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-11 ESA/20848502 EIR January 2010 • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula's sphere of influence to include that 4,126-acre portion of the 4,510-acre SMAA outside of the city's current sphere of influence. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,510 acres into the city of Temecula • General Plan Amendment proposing to update the General Plan's Land Use Map with land use designations over 4,126 acres of the SMAA is located outside of the city's current sphere of influence. The 159 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside County will become HR (I DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula, 3,966 acres designated OS -CH in the County will be designated OS in the city of Temecula. • Change of Zone proposing the pre -zoning of approximately 4,510 acres with zoning designations which follow the same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,284 acres with a zoning district of "Conservation -Santa Margarita" (OS-C-SM); and approximately 225 acres designated with a zoning district of "Hillside Residential -Santa Margarita" (HR-SM), allowing development of I DU/10 AC. The proposed pre -zoning will establish two new zones specifically for the SMAA through the adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. This zone change proposal will modify the existing range of permitted uses, which now include residential, open space, and mining to primarily residential and open space uses. City of Temecula City Council 1. Approval of this addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report EA-128. 2. Approval of Planning Application LR09-0024 consisting of: • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula's sphere of influence to include that 4,126-acre portion of the 4,510-acre SMAA outside of the City's current sphere of influence. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,510 acres into the city of Temecula. • General Plan Amendment proposing to update the General Plan's Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,126 acres of the SMAA is located outside of the City's current sphere of influence. The 159 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside County will become FIR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula, 3,966 acres designated OS -CH in the County will be designated OS in the city of Temecula. • Change of Zone proposing the pre -zoning of approximately 4,510 acres with zoning designations which follow the same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,284 acres with a zoning district of "Conservation -Santa Margarita" (OS-C-SM); and approximately 225 acres designated with a zoning district of "Hillside Residential -Santa Margarita" (HR-SM), allowing development of I DU/10 AC. The proposed pre -zoning will establish two new zones specifically for the SMAA through the adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. This zone change proposal will modify the existing range of permitted uses, which now include residential, open space, and mining to primarily residential and open space uses. - Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 1. Approval of Sphere of Influence Expansion expanding the city of Temecula's sphere of influence to include that 4,126-acre portion of the 4,510-acre SMAA outside of the City's current sphere of influence. 2. Approval of Annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,510 acres into the city of Temecula. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-13 ESA /2oe495A2 EIR January2010 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Prior Environmental Review and Discussion The certified FEIR for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation evaluated nine environmental factors, including air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services and utilities, transportation and traffic, noise and recreation. The FEIR also established mitigation measures to reduce the level of significant impacts. A mitigation monitoring program was adopted by the City in connection with certification of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. As previously described, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted with certification of the 2008 FEIR. To ensure consistency between this EIR Addendum, the 2008 FEIR, the same environmental topics will be evaluated. This section describes the existing setting and potential environmental impacts resulting with the proposed project, which is the amended annexation request. There has been no change in the existing setting since the time when the FEIR was prepared and certified last year. This discussion will be followed by evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting with the proposed project. The analyses will focus on those environmental impacts that are specific to the currently proposed amended annexation request. 3.1.1 Air Quality Existing Conditions The existing air quality setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.1 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request As previously described, the Applicant is now proposing to submit a revised annexation application to the Riverside Comity LAFCO that would remove approximately 487 acres of the 4,997 acres previously proposed in the September 22, 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR (certified December 9, 2008). The 487 acres not part of this amended project would include the area proposed for the Liberty Quarry Mine site and a few adjacent parcels from the previously certified FEIR project. In essence, the amended annexation request would reduce the component of potential development from 713 acres with a maximum of 81 new dwelling units and 263 Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-1 ESA 1208485,02 EIR January2010 3. Environmental Impacts and estimated new residents, as proposed under the previous LAFCO application and evaluated by the certified FEIR, to approximately 225 acres with a maximum of 22 new dwelling units and 72 estimated new residents. The amended annexation request would result in a predominantly 73% (81 dwelling units reduced to 22 dwelling units = 59 dwelling units less or 73% dwelling units less) reduction in impacts as compared to the previous project evaluated by the certified FEIR. As such, implementation of the amended annexation request would result in the following impacts to air quality: ESTIMATED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Year ROG NOx CO so, PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2 2010 13 92 46 >1 14 6 9,950 2011 12 85 45 >1 13 6 9,950 2012 12 79 44 >1 13 6 9,950 2013 11 74 43 >1 13 5 9,950 2014 11 60 37 >1 12 4 9,053 SCAQMD Daily Regional Construction Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 NA Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA Original Project Construction Year 2010 29 92 47 >1 14 6 9,950 Original Project Construction year 2010 Minus Current Project 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 Construction Year 2010 NOTE: See Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix 6) for model output report. NA is not available. SOURCE: ESA 2010 Evaluation of the above table indicates that daily worst -case emissions from construction of 22 dwelling units would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD regional air quality emissions threshold due to construction activities, therefore the impact from emissions produced during project construction would be less than significant. However to further reduce construction emissions the following mitigation measure 3.1-2a as detailed in the certified FEIR, would apply to the amended annexation request. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-2 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT OPERATION EMISSIONS (summer) Activity/Year ROG NOx Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day) CO S02 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2 SCAQMD Daily Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 NA Area source 1 <1 1 0 0 0 459 operational 2 2 21 >1 4 1 2,204 Total 3 2 22 >1 4 1 2,663 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA Original Project Total 11 10 81 >1 14 3 9,804 Original Project Total Minus current Project 8 8 59 0 10 2 7141 Total SOURCE: ESA, 2010 ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT OPERATION EMISSIONS (winter) Activity/Year ROG NOx Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day) CO so, PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2 BCAQMD Daily Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 NA Area source 5 1 10 >1 1 1 876 operational 2 3 20 >1 4 1 1,997 Total 7 4 30 >1 5 2 2,873 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA Original Project Total 24 12 109 >t 19 8 10,577 Original Project Total Minus current Project 17 8 79 0 14 6 7,704 Total SOURCE: ESA, 2010 No significant project -specific or cumulative impacts are expected, and impacts would be lower than those studied in the Final EIR. Further evaluation is not necessary. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures contained in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR remain applicable to the proposed amended annexation request. No additional mitigation is required. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-3 ESA / 208485.02 Elft January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Level of Significance after Mitigation A statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the FEIR for impacts that remained significant and unavoidable for air quality impacts. No other significant impacts are anticipated due to the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures would lessen the project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed amended annexation request or reduce them to less than significant levels. 3.1.2 Biological Resources Existing Conditions The existing biological resources setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Biological resource impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.2 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request Future development of approximately 225 acres with a maximum of 22 new dwelling units and 72 estimated new residents would have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species found within the area. The potential impacts to biological resources associated with the amended annexation request would result in a 68% reduction in the area where impacts might occur as compared to the previously proposed annexation request, resulting in a substantially reduced potential for habitat impact. Potential impacts to these species would include an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat). Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could potentially be killed or displaced by construction activities. The amended annexation request project site lies within the MSIICP. 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-la as described in the certified FEIR would 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 which prohibits take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs (in particular raptor species). 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). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-lb will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level as described in the certified FEIR would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-44 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The majority of the project area proposed for annexation will be designated "Open Space" and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 225 acres which will be designated "Hillside Residential" is limited to 1 DU/10 AC which will permit a maximum of 22 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 amended annexation request's potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP and the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-lb as described in the certified FEIR. The vast majority of the riparian habitat within the annexation area occurs on the SMER, and is therefore conserved. Therefore the amended annexation project would not result in a substantial adverse impact to riparian habitats. 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 certified FEIR. Development within the 225-acre developable portion of the amended annexation area would add to the overall loss of CSS caused by development within western Riverside County. Compliance with the MSHCP will mitigate these impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or by the USFWS would be less than significant. 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, 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. The amended annexation request would remove a substantial portion of the southeast comer of the project site which was previously (under the certified FEIR) located within a designated "Special Linkage Area." Development within the now remaining developable 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. However, compliance with the MSHCP and the conditions of the Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 3.2.6 of the certified FEIR and relevant provisions of the proposed pre -zoning would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Although most of the amended annexation request project site is located outside of criteria areas, the amended project would still be located in proximity to three subunits: Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) to the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and Pechanga Creeks) to the east and Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) also to the north. The 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. Because this area is already conserved as part of the SMER it is unlikely that development will occur in this portion of the criteria cell. The majority of the future projects within the project area would need to conform with the MSHCP requirements for non -criteria cell areas. In accordance with the MSHCP, proposed projects outside of the criteria area are to be Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-5 EIR ESA/208485.02 January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 ("Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Venial Pool" guidelines), the Section 6.1.3 ("Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species" guidelines), Section 6.1.4 ("Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface") and the Section 6.3.2 ("Additional Survey Needs and Procedures."). 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 225 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 22 new dwelling units. Future development within this area has the potential to impact riparian/riverne 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 FIR conditions listed in Section 3.2.6 of the certified FEIR. Additionally, though compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, it can be determined that the amended annexation request project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The amended project site is not located within the Narrow Endemic Plant survey areas as shown on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP [please refer to Figure 3.2-5 of the September 22, 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR certified December 9, 2008)]. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 225 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 22 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 of the certified FEIR, 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. The guidelines referenced above have been incorporated by reference through General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-10 in Section 3.2.6 of the certified FEIR. The SMAA project site is primarily located outside of identified criteria areas. A small portion of the amended annexation request project site is located within Criteria Cell 7512 along the project's northern boundary; however, in comparison to the original project, the amended project site is not 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 I (Murrieta Creek) to the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and Pechanga Creeks) to Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-6 ESA 1208485,02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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, 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 225 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 22 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. The amended annexation request project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) for plants and mammals, although one CASSA plant species, the thread - leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea flifolia) has been observed within the project boundaries. The southeast portion of the project site under the certified FEIR was located within the area shown on MSHCP Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey). This area is no longer included as part of the amended annexation request; as such, the potential for impacts to burrowing owl habitat would be greatly decreased. 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 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 amended annexation request would still have the potential to have a significant impact associated with burrowing owl habitat. However with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a and Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b (from the certified FEIR) 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 HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. No significant project -specific or cumulative impacts are expected. Further evaluation is not necessary. Addendum to the Cityof Temecula Sanla Margarita Area Annexation 3-7 esAizosass.oz EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures contained in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR remain applicable to the proposed amended annexation request. No new mitigation is required. Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant impacts are anticipated due to the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures would adequately ensure that project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.1.3 Cultural Resources Existing Conditions The existing cultural resources setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Cultural resource impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.3 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request Impacts to cultural resources caused by the amended project were identified and recommended mitigation measures as identified in the certified FEIR were developed to avoid or minimize identified impacts to cultural resources. Please refer to the certified FEIR for a summary of cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures. Any future development within the project area could result in the adverse impact to cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures as detailed in the certified FEIR (Section 3.3) would minimize this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures contained in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR remain applicable to the proposed amended annexation request. No additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant impacts are anticipated due to the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures would adequately ensure that project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be reduced to less than significant levels. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-8 ESA / 208485,02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1.4 Land Use and Planning Existing Conditions The existing land use and planning setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Land Use and Planning impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.4 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request The amended SMAA is relatively consistent with the land use designations and policies of the Riverside County General Plan and the Southwest Area Plan. Although the amended project proposes to change the existing County land use designations of the project site from OS-HC and RM to OS and HR land use designations, the allowable uses are comparable with one another and both sets of uses can currently be found in the area around the project site within Riverside County, the City, and San Diego County. All of the surrounding properties to the north and west in unincorporated Riverside County have a General Plan designation of RM. To the east of the project site, the County of Riverside designations are primarily OS-C and RM, with a small amount of "Light Industrial" and "Medium High Density Residential" along the east side of I-15. To the east of the project site, the City of Temecula General Plan land use designations are primarily HR and OS, with a small amount of "High Density Residential" and "Neighborhood Commercial" located east of I-15. South of the project site, in San Diego County the general plan land use designations are primarily "Multiple Rural Use" with some "Public/Semi-Public Lands" and "Impact Sensitive" designated property. The consistency of the proposed project with the policies of the Riverside County General Plan and with the policies of the City of Temecula General Plan are described in Table 3.4-3, City of Temecula General Plan: Land Use Policies and Table 3.4-4, Riverside County General Plan, Land Use Policies and Southwest Area Plan Policies. The amended SMAA can be viewed as being consistent with most of the relevant policies of both the City's General Plan and the County's General Plan. As part of the amended project, the project area will be pre -zoned, with zoning designations consistent with the City's chosen General Plan land use designations of OS and HR. This means that areas designated OS will be pre -zoned OS-C-SM and areas designed HR will be pre -zoned HR-SM by the City. Relevant provisions of the proposed HR-SM pre -zoning 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. The purpose and intent of the development standards under the proposed HR-SM zone are to protect the value of the community and the subject property of ridgelines, prominent landfonns, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities, and other natural, Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-9 ESA / 208485,02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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. In the General Plan Analysis, the Comity's RM land use designation and the City's HR land use designation define the same level of residential use intensity in an area of steep slopes that impose development constraints and limit land use activities to I DU/10 AC with ancillary uses. However, the majority of the amended project area is zoned R-R with a small area zoned R-A-20 by Riverside County. Based on Riverside County's Land Use Designations — Zoning Consistency Guidelines, the R-R zoning is considered to be "conditionally consistent" with the county's RM land use designation and "inconsistent" with the county's OS -CH designation. R-A-20 zoning is considered "inconsistent" with the comity's OS -CH designation. Therefore, current Riverside County zoning for most of the project area is inconsistent with County's current land use designations. Under the City's proposed HR zoning classification and the county's current R-R and R-A-20 zoning designations, there are a range of allowed use. While the residential uses under both jurisdictions are about the same, the county's additional range of land use activities under R-R and R-A-20 classifications, as set forth in Ordinance No. 348, include numerous permitted or conditionally permitted commercial or business uses. However, the County's range of permitted or conditionally permitted land uses in the R-R and R-A-20 zoning classifications include uses that are not described in the range of uses defined in the Riverside County General Plan's description for the RM land use designation, which is set forth above. Additionally, both of these county zoning classifications contain uses which are not consistent with the land use limitations imposed by the County's General Plan within the OS-HC designation. By comparison, the City's proposed OS-C-SM zoning is comparable and consistent with the County's OS-IIC land use designation with the intent of conserving open space in a natural state for the betterment and enjoyment of the community through preservation with opportunities for limited recreational use. The City's choice of HR-SM zoning permits single-family residential use which is consistent with the single-family residential use permitted in the county's RM land use designation. Although, the City's list of pennitted uses may preclude a number of uses permitted or conditionally permitted under the County zoning, the City's proposed zoning will permit the use of the subject property in a manner consistent with the current and proposed land use designations (some incompatible uses the County's R-R zone currently allows include, laundries, machine shops, oil refineries, and radio broadcast studies). Those uses lost, such as surface mining, are uses that are likely to conflict with the existing and planned "rural residential" and "habitat conservation" uses identified for these properties. The City's HR designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e. churches, educational facilities, libraries, day care centers, bed and breakfast establishments). Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-10 ESA / 208486,02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although there are inconsistencies between the County's general plan designations and zoning, the City's proposed general plan designations and pre -zoning are generally consistent with the County's general plan, and thus would not constitute a significant change in land use. Further, the amended project site's existing land uses consist of natural open space over the vast majority of the area, most of which is in the SMER, and six single-family homes with some agricultural and equestrian activities. The City's proposed general plan designations and pre -zoning would generally preserve the existing land uses, and the introduction of low density residential development that might occur pursuant to the proposed land use regime would not constitute a significant change from the existing conditions. Finally, although mining may be a conditionally permitted use in parts of the proposed annexation area colder the County regulations, mining would represent a significant change in land use from the open space and rural residential land uses that presently exist and that constitute the baseline condition. A change in land use from existing uses to mining would be inconsistent with policies designed to protect the environment and the character of rural mountainous areas, including the SMER and County policies, including but not limited to: • OS 20.1 Preserve and maintain open space that protects County environmental resources and maximizes public health and safety in areas where significant environmental hazards and resources exist. • OS 20.2 Prevent unnecessary extension of public facilities, services, and utilities, for urban uses, into Open Space -Conservation designated areas. And the following policies which apply to properties designated with the Rural Mountainous land use designation on the area plan land use maps. • LU 17.1 Require that grading be designed to blend with undeveloped natural contours of the site and avoid an unvaried, unnatural, or manufactured appearance. • LU 17.3 Ensure that development does not adversely impact the open space and rural character of the surrounding area. The proposed City land use regulations would not allow mining, therefore eliminating any potential land use impacts that would result from mining. Although disallowing mining would result in a significant impact to mineral resources, as discussed in Section 3.5 of the certified FIR, it would not result in a significant land use impact. For the above described reasons, the project will have less than significant impacts related to land use and zoning without any further need for mitigation, regulatory compliance, or design considerations. Changing the existing Riverside County Land Use designations of OS -CH and RM to City land use designations of OS -CH and HR are considered compatible changes with minimal overall differences and would have few impacts relevant to the general plan and zoning consistency requirements. Therefore the land use and planning issues related to the SMAA have been determined to be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-11 ESA/208485.02 EIR Janoery 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures No significant project -specific or cumulative impacts are expected. Further evaluation is not necessary. Mitigation Measures Mitigation was not required for Land Use and Planning impacts as determined by the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR; as such, no additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation was not required for Land Use and Planning impacts as determined by the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Project - specific and cumulative Land Use and Planning impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be less than those identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Therefore, Land Use and Planning impacts, as a result of the proposed amended annexation request, would be to less than significant. 3.1.5 Mineral Resources Existing Conditions The existing mineral resources setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Mineral resource impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.5 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request The amended project area is located within an area that until recently was classified as an MRZ-3 area, indicating that the significance of mineral deposits are undetermined from available data. The portion of the proposed project site as outlined in the certified FEIR that contained the 155 acre Liberty Quarry site (which is now classified MRZ-2a) has been removed as part of the amended annexation request. The remaining area, which is the amended annexation request portion, is still classified MRZ-3. Therefore, it is undetermined whether the amended annexation request area world result in zoning and general plan land use designations that would prohibit mining of a known aggregate resource located within the amended project area that could result in the loss of known mineral resources within the project area that would be of value to the region. Although the amended annexation request area would be clearly less impactful as compared to the project outlined in the certified FEIR, there would still be a restriction from the potential of exploiting aggregate resources because this area is still classified as MRZ-3. Therefore, the adopted statement of overriding considerations as part of the FEIR for impacts that remain significant and unavoidable to mineral resources would still apply under the amended annexation request. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-12 ESA /208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures As previously described, the City's General Plan and the County of Riverside's General Plan do not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the amended SMAA as determined by the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. The amended annexation request will not result in the loss of availability of locally -important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on a General Plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore, mitigation was not required for the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. As previously stated, the portion of the proposed project site as outlined in the certified FEIR that contained the 155 acre Liberty Quarry site (which is now classified MRZ-2a) has been removed as part of the amended annexation request. The remaining amended annexation request area is still classified MRZ-3; therefore, it is undetermined whether the amended annexation request area would result in zoning and general plan land use designations that would prohibit mining of a known aggregate resource located within the amended project area that could result in the loss of known mineral resources within the project area that would be of value to the region. Although the amended annexation request area would be clearly less impactful as compared to the project outlined in the certified FEIR, there would still be a restriction from the potential of exploiting aggregate resources because this area is still classified as MRZ-3. Therefore, the adopted statement of overriding considerations as part of the FEIR for impacts that remain significant and unavoidable to mineral resources would still apply under the amended annexation request. Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation was not required for Mineral Resource impacts as determined by the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Project -specific and cumulative Mineral Resource impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be less than those identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. However, as previously described although the amended annexation request area would be clearly less impactful as compared to the project outlined in the certified FEIR, there would still be a restriction from the potential of exploiting aggregate resources because this area is still classified as MRZ-3. Therefore, the adopted statement of overriding considerations as part of the FEIR for impacts that remain significant and unavoidable to mineral resources would still apply under the amended annexation request. 3.1.6 Public Services and Utilities Existing Conditions The existing public services and utilities setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Public services and utilities impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.6 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Addendum to me City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-13 ESA /208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request 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 amended annexation request would not require a substantial change in existing public services and utilities services provided within the project area. Therefore, the amended annexation request not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and would 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. hnpacts associated with the amended annexation request would result in a 73% (81 dwelling units reduced to 22 dwelling units = 59 dwelling units less or 73% dwelling units less) reduction in impacts to public services as compared to the originally proposed annexation request. Impacts to public services and utilities associated with the previous annexation request were determined to be less than significant and the public services and utilities impacts associated with the amended annexation request would therefore be less than significant. The amended project area is almost entirely vacant land with the potential to permit approximately 22 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 area was built to its maximum capacity, the result would be an estimated additional 72 persons living within the project area. With the limited increase in population growth and the current staffing levels, impacts to the police protection services would be less than significant. Therefore, the amended 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 police protection services. A portion of the amended project site currently within the City's sphere of influence is located within the boundaries of the'femecula Valley Unified School District. The balance of the project site is located within the Murrieta Valley Unified School District's boundaries. There is the potential for development of additional residential dwellings (22 dwellings). Due to the limited number of residences that will be constructed within the project area, the proposed project will contribute a limited number of additional students to the district. However, residential development is required to pay a school impact fee which is designated to offset the cost of constructing new schools. Therefore, potential impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant. The proposed amended project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for school services. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-14 ESA/20848502 EIR January 2010 _ 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The basic park acreage standard for the City is 5.0 acres of usable City -owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Since the project area could be developed with approximately 22 single-family homes there would be a minor impact on park facilities. Based on the highest estimated population calculation, there could be 72 additional people living within the project area. With the payment of the required fees, development within the project area would provide the necessary funding for use in expanding the existing parks system. The payment of these mandatory regulatory fees would offset the proposed project's impacts to park facilities and therefore the project would have less than significant impacts to parks services. The project site is served by existing libraries within the Riverside County Library System, which operates two libraries within the City. The project area with the possibility for development of approximately 22 additional single-family dwellings and a projected population of 72 people would create an incremental demand for library services. Due to the small increase in potential demand for library services, the project will have a less than significant impact upon library facilities. Future development in the amended project area would have to rely on water from private wells and will not impact the existing entitlements of RCWD. As discussed above, homes served by wells will need to put in a tank system that meets the City's fire -flow requirements. Therefore, this project site is considered to have no impacts to available water supplies. The amended project site is within the service area of F,MWD however, the remoteness and the topographical constraints limit the serviceability of the area to current public wastewater facilities. Therefore, development in the area will have to rely on septic systems for wastewater discharge. Since no new service will be added to EMWD existing facilities there will be no need for construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. 'Therefore, the amended project is considered to have no impact to available wastewater treatment capacity. Although the upended project area is under the jurisdiction of EMWD, wastewater treatment service is not provided into the project area. Existing properties rely on septic systems for wastewater as will future development in the project area. Since no new service will be added from expected development in the annexation area, the proposed project will not affect the capacity of EMWD's existing facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated that would affect the wastewater treatment provider's current capacity or existing service commitments. Given the limited contribution of construction -related solid waste anticipated to be generated by the amended annexation request project when construction occurs, development of the project site would not substantially contribute to the exceedance of the permitted capacity of the designated landfills. Less than significant impacts to the existing landfills are expected. Given the limited contribution of solid waste anticipated to be generated from the project area, future development in the project area will not substantially contribute to the exceedance of the permitted capacity of the designated landfills. The amended project area is primarily undeveloped and all storm waters within the area drain to the Santa Margarita River. This area is managed by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; however, they have no existing facilities in the amended project area. It is Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-15 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures not likely that extensive drainage systems will be installed or necessary in the area due to the topography and the limited development intensity of the land use designations. Storm water/surface water in the area is currently discharged into the existing watershed area. As future development occurs construction plans would be assessed for anticipated storm water run-off and appropriate containment methods will be implemented to limit off -site impacts or the need for off -site drainage facilities. Storm water drainage on -site would not require the expansion of County Flood Control, nor require new facilities, and potential impacts to storm water drainage facilities are considered to be less than significant. Future development in the amended project area will use existing electricity service provided by Southern California Edison. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and will require assessment at the fine of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical service in portions of the project area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary and the project would not significantly affect electrical services. The amended project area is not currently served by Southern California Gas Company natural gas service. Therefore development in the project area would be required to install propane systems to meet their service needs, without adversely affecting the existing natural gas system. Therefore, future development in the project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services. Future development in the amended project area would use existing service provided by Verizon. Some extension of service may be necessary into primarily undeveloped areas and will require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of communication service in portions of the project area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary and the project will not create a significant impact in communications services. No significant project -specific or cumulative impacts are expected. Further evaluation is not necessary. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures contained in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR remain applicable to the proposed amended annexation request. No additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant impacts are anticipated due to the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures would adequately ensure that project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be reduced to less than significant levels. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-16 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1.7 Transportation and Traffic Existing Conditions The existing transportation and traffic setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Transportation and traffic impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.7 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request The traffic analysis raider the certified FEIR noted that intersections and roadway segments within the study area would operate at a deficient LOS including locations within the city of "Temecula, Riverside County, and San Diego County. Impacts to these intersections and roadways segments would be reduced by approximately 73% (81 dwelling units reduced to 22 dwelling units = 59 dwelling units less or 73% dwelling units less) muter the amended annexation request, as the revised project could develop up to 22 new dwelling units as compared to 81 under the certified FEIR. Within the study area, impacts were noted at the following intersections or roadway segments: • I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd intersection • I-15 (Riverside County) from County boundary to Temecula Pkwy N roadway segment • Rainbow Canyon Road roadway segment The traffic analysis of the certified FEIR concluded that there were feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the impact at the intersection of I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd. This mitigation measure would require the installation of an all -way stop at this location. However, as this intersection is outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the city of Temecula can not guarantee that this mitigation would be implemented in a timely fashion and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures for any project impacts related to I-15 for those segments within Riverside County. Even if there were feasible mitigation measures, implementing any mitigation measures by the city of Temecula would require the concurrence of outside agencies such as Riverside County and Caltrans. Since there are no feasible mitigation measures and improvements to the freeway are outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the impacts to I-15 within Riverside County remain significant and unavoidable. The traffic analysis in the certified FEIR also concluded that there is a feasible improvement that would mitigate the project impact along Rainbow Canyon Road. This improvement would entail the widening of the roadway, which is anticipated by the Riverside County General Plan. However, our review of available documentation indicates that this project is not included in the regional traffic fee project (TUMF) and no funding has been allocated for this project at this time. Additionally, this improvement is outside of the city of Temecula and the City would be unable to assure its completion. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-17 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures contained in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR remain applicable to the proposed amended annexation request. No additional feasible mitigation is available. Level of Significance after Mitigation A statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the FEIR for impacts that remain significant and unavoidable. No other significant impacts are anticipated due to the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR, and the considerable reduced level of impacts associated with the reduced size of the proposed annexation area. Implementation of these mitigation measures would lessen project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed amended annexation request. 3.1.8 Noise Existing Conditions The existing noise setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR Noise impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.8 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request As previously described, the Applicant is now proposing to submit a revised annexation application to the Riverside County LAFCO to exclude 487 acres of the 4,997 acres previously proposed in the certified Santa Margarita Area Annexation FFIR. The 487 acres not part of this amended project would include the area proposed for the Liberty Quarry Mine site and a few adjacent parcels from the previously certified FEIR project. In essence, the amended annexation request would reduce the component of potential development from 713 acres with a maximum of 81 new dwelling units and 263 estimated new residents, as proposed under the previous LAFCO application and evaluated by the certified FEIR, to 225 acres with a maximum of 22 new dwelling units and 72 estimated new residents. The amended annexation request would essentially result in a 73% (81 dwelling units reduced to 22 dwelling units = 59 dwelling units less or 73% dwelling units less) reduction in impacts, as compared to the previous annexation request, evaluated by the certified FEIR. As such, implementation of the amended annexation request would result in the following noise impacts as summarized in the tables on the following pages. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-18 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures EXISTING PM PEAK -HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Weekday Noise Levels (Leq)a Modeled Roadway Segment Existing Incremental Significant Existing + Project increaseb (Yes/No)c La Paz St north of 60 60 0 No Temecula Pkwy La Paz St south of 50 51 1 No Temecula Pkwy Temecula Pkwy 68 68 0 No east of La Paz St Temecula Pkwy 67 67 0 No west of La Paz St Pechanga Pkwy south of Temecula 66 66 0 No Pkwy Temecula Pkwy east of Pechanga 66 66 0 No Pkwy Temecula Pkwy west of Pechanga 68 68 0 No Pkwy Rainbow Canyon Rd south of 60 60 0 No Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy east of Rainbow 65 65 0 No Canyon Rd Pechanga Pkwy south of Rainbow 65 65 0 No Canyon Rd Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on weekday peak hour Leq is approximately equal to the Lon under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998), model was run using a 73 % decrease of traffic on each segment. In The numbers from existing were subtracted from existing plus project to show the incremental increase. c Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise is greater than 5 dBA Leg in a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase of 3 dBA Lail in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and 65 dBA Lou, or an increase of 1.5 dBA Leg in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn. SOURCE: Fher and Peers, 2008; ESA, 2010. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-19 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and FUTURE PM PEAK -HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Weekday Noise Levels (Leq)a Existing + Modeled Roadway Existing+ Ambient Growth+ Incremental Significant Segment Ambient Growth Project increase' (Yes/No)` La Paz St north of 60 60 0 No Temecula Pkwy La Paz St south of 50 50 0 No Temecula Pkwy Temecula Pkwy 68 68 0 No east of La Paz St Temecula Pkwy 67 67 0 No west of La Paz St Pechanga Pkwy south of Temecula 66 66 0 No Pkwy Temecula Pkwy east of Pechanga 66 66 0 No Pkwy Temecula Pkwy west of Pechanga 68 68 0 No Pkwy Rainbow Canyon Rd south of 60 60 0 No Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy east of Rainbow 66 66 0 No Canyon Rd Pechanga Pkwy south of Rainbow 66 66 0 No Canyon Rd Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on weekday peak hour Leg is approximately equal to the Ldn under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998), model was run using a 73% decrease of traffic on each segment. b The numbers from existing plus ambient growth were subtracted from existing plus ambient growth plus project to show the incremental increase. c Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise is greater than 5 dBA Leg in a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase of 3 dBA Leg in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and 65 dBA Ldn, or an increase of 1.5 dBA Leg in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn. SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2008; ESA, 2010, Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-20 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures CUMULATIVE FUTURE PM PEAK -HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Weekday Noise Levels (Leq)a Modeled Roadway Existing + Ambient Growth Existing+ Ambient Growth+ Incremental Significant Segment + Cumulative Projects Cumulative Projects+ Project Increase ° (Yes/Nof La Paz St north of 62 82 Temecula Pkwy 0 No La Paz St south of Temecula Pkwy 50 50 0 No Temecula Pkwy east of La Paz St 70 70 0 No Temecula Pkwy west of La Paz St 70 7p 0 No Pechanga Pkwy south of Temecula 69 69 0 No Pkwy Temecula Pkwy east of Pechanga 69 69 0 No Pkwy Temecula Pkwy west of Pechanga 71 71 0 No Pkwy Rainbow Canyon Rd south of 63 63 0 No Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy east of Rainbow 68 68 0 No Canyon Rd Pechanga Pkwy south of Rainbow 69 69 0 No Canyon Rd a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on weekday peak hour Leg is approximately equal to the Ldn under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998), model was run using a 73% decrease of traffic on each segment. b The numbers from existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative projects were subtracted from existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative projects plus project to show the incremental increase. c Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise is greater than 5 dBA Leq in a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase of 3 dBA Leg in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and 65 dBA Lou, or an increase of 1.5 dBA Leg in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn. SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2008; ESA, 2010. No significant project -specific impacts are expected. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures contained in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR remain applicable to the proposed amended annexation request. No additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance after Mitigation A statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the FEIR for impacts that remain significant and unavoidable. No other significant project -specific impacts are anticipated due to the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-21 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Annexation FEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures would adequately ensure that project -specific and impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be reduced to less than significant levels. The amended annexation request would reduce the component of potential development from 713 acres with a maximum of 81 new dwelling units and 263 estimated new residents, as proposed under the previous LAFCO application and evaluated by the certified FEIR, to 225 acres with a maximum of 22 new dwelling units and 72 estimated new residents. The amended annexation request would essentially result in a 73% (81 dwelling units reduced to 22 dwelling units = 59 dwelling units less or 73% dwelling units less) reduction in impacts, as compared to the previous annexation request, evaluated by the certified FEIR. A 73% reduction in the amount of dwelling units would result in a reduced amount of noise from a reduced amount of vehicle trips and reduced amount of temporary noise impacts from construction. 3.1.9 Recreation Existing Conditions The existing recreation setting and environment remain unchanged from those discussions contained in the 2008 certified FEIR. Recreation impacts resulting from implementation of the originally proposed SMAA were discussed in detail within Section 3.9 of the 2008 certified FEIR. Environmental Impacts -Amended Annexation Request Based on the City's standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24 persons per home the project area could become home to approximately 72 additional residents. Through the payment of in - lieu fees, dedication of parks, and the joint use of school facilities, the City anticipates having sufficient parkland to meet the needs of the City residents through year 2013; as such, the increase in projected residents as part of the amended annexation request, should optimal development occur, would be considered negligible. Therefore, the amended project would not result in an increase in 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. Through the payment of in -lieu fees, dedication of parks, and thejoint use of school facilities, the City anticipates having sufficient parkland to meet the needs of the City residents through year 2013. Therefore, the 73% reduction in potential new dwelling units under the amended 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. Project impacts on the environment will be less than significant. No significant project -specific or cumulative impacts are expected. Further evaluation is not necessary. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-22 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Mitigation was not required for Recreation impacts as determined by the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR; as such, no additional mitigation is required. Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation was not required for Recreation impacts as determined by the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR Project -specific and cumulative Recreation impacts of the proposed amended annexation request would be less than those identified in the certified 2008 Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR. Therefore, Recreation impacts, as a result of the proposed amended annexation request, would be to less than significant. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3-23 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 CHAPTER 4 rinaings In accordance with Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following findings are made: I. The Addendum is the appropriate environmental clearance document to evaluate the Addendum to the Santa Margarita Area Annexation because the minor changes proposed will not result in any new significant adverse environmental impacts which were not already reviewed, analyzed, and/or mitigated in the Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR (SCH No. 2007041085), City of Temecula, September 22, 2008 (certified December 9, 2008). 2. It is the independent judgment of the Lead Agency that the Addendum includes updated data and evaluations associated with the proposed project and that the findings and conclusions from the Addendum will be considered by the Lead Agency prior to acting on the project. 3. The Lead Agency finds that the proposed project is not a new project, and does not change the nature and scope of the project evaluated in the Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR (SCH No. 2007041085), City of Temecula, September 22, 2008 (certified December 9, 2008). 'There have been no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the previous documents, because any impacts of the prior project are reduced under the amended project now raider consideration. 4. The Lead Agency finds that the Addendum has been prepared, submitted and reviewed in accordance with requirements presented in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and is complete and adequate in its evaluation of all environmental effects of the amended annexation request. The amended annexation request will not result in any additional significant, more severe, and/or unavoidable impacts that were not evaluated in the Santa Margarita Area Annexation FEIR (SCH No. 2007041085), City of Temecula, September 22, 2008 (certified December 9, 2008). .1-1— ... 1. ".. —, - I of JJe Vid oama malgWIM Area Annexation 4-1 -- EIR ESA/208485.02 January 2010 CHAPTER 5 Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations 5.1 Documents Consulted The following documents were referred to as general information sources during preparation of this document. They are available for public review at the locations noted. Some of these documents are also available at public libraries and at other public agency offices. Albert A. Webb Associates. 2008. Santa Margarita Area Annexation, Planning Application PA07-02225, Planning Application PA07-0226, Environmental Impact Report EA-128 (SCH No. 2007041085). Prepared for the City of Temecula. Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978. "Luiserio in California" in the Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. California Air Resources Board, AB 32 Fact Sheet and Timeline ---California Global Warming Solutions Act of2006, September 25, 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.art).ca.gov/cc/ficts/facts.litiTi) California Chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals, Alternative Approaches to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Final, June 29, 2007. (Available at on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at www.califaep.ore) California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 2.2 March 2007. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.climateregistry.or�/ Default.aspx?TabI D=3 347&refreslied=true) %20) California Department of Conservation, Aggregate Availability In California, Map Sheet 52 (updated 2006), 2006. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department and on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.coiisrv.ca.Gov/CGS/ information/publications/ins/MS 52 map pdf) California Department of Conservation, California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures, Guidelines for Classiipeation and Designation ofMineral Lands, 2000. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://Nvww.consrv,ca Gov/SMGB/Guidelines/ClassDesigi)d ) Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-1 ESA/ 208485.02 UR January 2010 6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of the Granite Construction Company Liberty Quarry Site, Temecula, Riverside County, California -For Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate. Special Report 200, 2007. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of The Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, Special Report 165, 1991. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Conservation, Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production -Consumption Region, 1996. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2008. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), I'echnical Noise Supplement, 1998. California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, Publication CEC-600-2006-013-SF, December 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at litti)://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600- 2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF PDF) California Energy Commission, Our Changing Climate, Publication CEC-500-2006-077, July 2006. (Available on the Internet on November 20, 2007 at l)ttu://www.eiiergv.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-077/CEC-500-2006-077 PDF) California Energy Commission, Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview, Publication CEC-500-2005-186-SF, Published December 2005. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.energy.ca gov/2005i)ublications/CEC-500-2005- 186/CEC-500-2005-186-SF PDF) California Executive Department, Executive Order S-3-05 by the Governor of the State of California, June 2005. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/enerp,v/Exec%200rder%20S-3-05.p(l California Integrated Waste Management Board, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at httu://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConUeino) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Construction and Demolition Materials. (Available on the hrternet on February 11, 2008 at http://Nvww.ciwmb.ca.gov/CoiiDeino/Materials/def,-tult.htin) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdictional Proflefor Riverside County (Unincorporated). (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at httl)://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Jtiris/JurProfilel asn?RG=U&JURID=410&iUR=River side%2D1Jn i ncomora ted) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdictional Profile for City of Temecula. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at htgn://www.ciwmb.ca gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfilel asp?RG=C&JURID=529&JUR=Terre cula Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-2 ESA/208485.02 EIR January 2010 6. Documents, organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations California Integrated Waste Management Board, Residential Waste Disposal Rates. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.ciwmb.ca.goN,/wastechar/ ResDisp hhn) California Native Plant Society. 2008. CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (available online). California Public Utilities Commission, News Release: PUC Sets GHG Emissions Performance Standard to Help Mitigate Climate Change, January 25, 2007. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at httn://docs.egue.ca eov/Published/NEWS RELEASE hhn) California State Senate, SB 1368, September 29, 2006. (Available on the Internet at http://iiifb sen.ca goy/nub/05-06/bill/sen/sb 1351- 1400/sb 1368 bill 20060929 chautered ndf on February 7, 2008) Cato Geoscience, Inc., Aggregate Resources in the Temecula and Surrounding Inland Empire Areas — Development Opportunities & Current Conditions, January 25, 2008. (This report is contained in its entirety in Appendix D of this document.) Chartkoff, J.L., and K.K. Chartkof£ 1984. The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California. City of Temecula, Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update, March, 2005, Certified April 12, 2005. (Available the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, 951-694-6444.) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet at httn://www.citvoffeinecula or«/Temecula/Govennnent/CormnDev/7oninl/fzctieralpl ai htm on January 10, 2008) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemectila orgfl,clnecula/Govenitnent/ConimDev/7oninv/geueralulaiihhn) City of Temecula Internet Site. (Available on the hTternet on January 10, 2008 at http://www.cityofteiiiecula.org) City of Temecula, Municipal Code, October 2007. City of Temecula, (Draft) Plan for Provision of Municipal Services, Planning Applications No. P07-0225 and PA07-0226, Annexation of the Santa Margarita Area to the Ci , of Temecula, California, December, 2007. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590.) Claude, Hart T. County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, Electronic Communication in regards to Surface Mines in San Diego County dated August 23, 2007. County of Riverside, Riverside County General Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the htternet on February 11, 2008 at litq)://www.i-etima.0ra/geiieralplan/iiidex,htiiil) Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation rJ-3 ESA / 208485.02 EIR January 2010 6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations County of Riverside, General Plan: Existing Settings Report, Revised in March 2000, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, and at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) County of Riverside, Geographic Information System Database. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951- 955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www3.tliiia.co.riverside.ca.us/nah-elis/ii)dex.litml) County of Riverside, Ordinance No. 348 — Regulating Land Use. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/l)laniiii) oi)teiit/zoiiitiL,./ordnaiiec/ord348 article htnil) County of Riverside, RCIP General Plan Land Use Designations - Zoning Consistency Guidelines. (Available for review on the Internet on February 15, 2008 at httv://www.rotlina.org/eeiieralplan/zoiiiiig.htm 1) County of Riverside, RCIP General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 14, 2002. (Available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200 or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at littp://www.i-ctlliia.OrQ/,_,eiierall2lan/iiidex.htiiil.) County of Riverside, Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2002051143), March 2003. (Available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200 or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at htti)://www.rctlma.ora/gei)cralplaii/index.litiiil.) County of Riverside, Southwest Area Plan, October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955- 3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://wwwrctlniaorg/gencralphn/aDI/swa html County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Adopted June 17, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.rcip.org) County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego County General Plan, January 2, 1979. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.co.san- diego.ca.us/cnty/entvdepts/landuse/plinning/apupdate/pubs/existin litin) County of San Diego, San Diego County Code, current though July 25 2008. County of San Diego Fallbrook Planning Area Land Use Map, April 29, 2004. (Available on the Internet February 8, 2008 at http://www.sdcotiiity,gi.gov/clnlu/ill(lex.11tillI to Curmif, Patrick, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Addendum to the City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-4 ESA / 208485,02 EIR January 2010 EXHIBIT C Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 (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, noise 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 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 the City of Temecula General Plan designations and zoning requirements thereby ensuring the type of ultimate development. C. The proposed Project will provide the City of Temecula with 4,284 acres designated as "Open Space — Conservation Habitat" for the enjoyment of the City's residents. D. The proposed Project will protect and maintain the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") benefitting the City and the State by ensuring the research potential in the SMER. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the individual 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. SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 EXHIBIT D Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact Compliance (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Air Quality Impact 3.1-2a: The Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: General contractors shall implement a fugitive Pre -Grading, Issuance of Developer City of proposed project dust control program pursuant to the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403. Grading, and Grading and/or Temecula could violate any air Construction Building quality standard or Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b: All construction equipment shall be properly Permits contribute tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. substantially to an Mitigation Measure 3.1-2c: General contractors shall maintain and operate existing or projected construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During air quality violation — construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would non -blasting. 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. Impact 3.1-3: The Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Residential uses shall be located at least 500 During Plan Issuance of Developer City of proposed project feet from the edge of the 1-15 freeway, consistent with CARB siting Review, Grading and/or Temecula could result in a recommendations. Grading and Building cumulatively Building Permits considerable net PlanChecks increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-1 EIR December 2008 / February 3, 2010 Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Compliance Biological Resources Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the USFWS. 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 (UrbanA/Vildlands 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 3.2-1 b: In order to avoid violation of the 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 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (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. During Grading and Building Planchecks During Grading and Building Planchecks Issuance of Building Permit Issuance of Grading and/or Building Permits Developer Developer City of Temecula City of Temecula Impact 3.2-2: The Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Future projects in the annexation area shall pay During Grading Issuance of Developer City of proposed project a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to and Building Grading and/or Temecula could have a support the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other Planchecks Building substantial adverse requirements of the MSHCP including any Additional Plan Wide Permits effect on any riparian Requirements that may apply to areas outside the MSHCP Criteria Areas as habitat or other outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp sensitive natural Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plant Species Surveys), Section community identified 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, which covers additional survey needs in local or regional and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (UrbanA/Vildlands Interface plans, policies, and Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the fee and regulations or by the compliance with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation CDFG or USFWS. requirements for the CEQA and NEPA, Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-2 Santa Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact Compliance (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Impact 3.2-3: The Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Potential impacts to Waters of the U.S. and During Grading Issuance of Developer City of proposed project Waters of the State will be reduced to below the level of significance and Building Grading and/or Temecula could have a through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which Planchecks Building Permit substantial adverse individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level effect on federally of significance: protected Waters of the U.S. and/or Prior to any activity in the project area subject to the Corps jurisdiction, wetlands as defined written documentation shall be obtained from the Corps that no permit by Section 404 of the would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all Clean Water Act the terms and conditions of the Corps permit shall be implemented. (CWA) (including, but Prior to any activity in the project area subject to CDFG jurisdiction, written not limited to, marsh, documentation shall be obtained from the CDFG that no agreement would vernal pool, coastal, be required for construction activities. Should an agreement be required, all etc.) through direct the terms and conditions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement removal, filling, shall be implemented. hydrological interruption, or other Prior to any activity in the project area subject to San Diego Regional Water means. 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. Impact 3.2-4: The Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: See Temecula General Plan Mitigation B1 - B10, a, b, Issuance of Developer City of proposed project Measures. e, f, Grading and/or gl g Temecula could interfere substantially with the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-1: The City shall require Durin Plan building permits 9 movement of any discretionary development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to Review, native resident or sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSHCP Grading and 9 migratory fish or conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS, the CDFG Building g and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine Planchecks, wildlife species or the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant with established impacts to a level below significance. native resident or B10 c, d, f, g: migratory wildlife General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-2: The City shall require the During Grading, corridors, or impede establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, and the use of native wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal Construction wildlife nursery sites. 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 other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-3 Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Compliance (continued) General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-5: 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 Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSHCP. 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 UrbanA/Vildlife 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 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-4 B1 - B10, a, b, Issuance of e, f, g: Grading and/or During Plan building permits Review, Grading and Building Planchecks, B10 c, d, f, g: During Grading, and Construction Developer City of Temecula Santa Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact Compliance (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) (continued) 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-5 B1 - B10, a, b, Issuance of e, f, g: Grading and/or During Plan building permits Review, Grading and Building Planchecks, B10 c, d, f, g: During Grading, and Construction Developer City of Temecula Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Compliance Impact 3.2-5: The Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a: (See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a). Future proposed project projects in the annexation area shall pay a development fee established by could conflict with the the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to support the financing for the MSHCP and provisions of an shall conform to the other requirements of the MSHCP including any adopted HCP, NCCP, Additional Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas outside the or other approved MSHCP Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian, local, regional, or Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic state conservation Plant Species Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, plan. which covers additional survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (UrbanA/Vildlands 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 3.2-5b: Pursuant to the 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-6 During Grading and Building Planchecks During Grading Planchecks Issuance of Building Permit Issuance of a Grading Permit Developer Developer City of Temecula City of Temecula Santa Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact Compliance (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Cultural Resources Impact 3.3-1: Project Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: All areas not previously assessed for cultural During Plan construction could resources within the 718 acres to be designated as HR-SM must be Review adversely impact assessed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of Hillside unknown cultural Development Plans, and in consultation with local appropriate Native Tribes resources, including (It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due unique to its prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially archaeological significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures and due to its resources and demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area). Should any future historic resources. 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 During grading prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all or construction 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 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 to 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. Impact 3.3-2: The Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, P33- During Plan proposed project 14894, the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, and all sites Review, could adversely affect concerning Pechanga's creation and origin should be avoided and Grading and known cultural preserved. If avoidance is not feasible, further investigation of these Building resources, including resources by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate Planchecks unique local Native Tribe, will be required to determine the significance of these archaeological resources that have not been fully evaluated. The qualified archaeologist resources and shall prepare a report evaluating each known cultural resource, noting the historic resources. 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 archaeologist, prior to the commencement of any future development within the current project area. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-7 Approval of Development Plan Issuance of Building Permits to Resume construction activities; (any documentation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy). Developer Developer City of Temecula City of Temecula Issuance of Developer City of Grading and/or Temecula Building Permit Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Environmental Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Verification Compliance Impact Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency e/Initials) (Status/Date/initials) Compliance Impact 3.3-3: The Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Consultation will occur with the local appropriate During Grading Issuance of Developer City of proposed project Native American Tribe regarding any future development to occur within the Plancheck Grading Permit Temecula could cause a project area. A Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be substantial adverse developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of the project proponent change to areas of and in consultation with the appropriate local Native American Tribe. This traditional cultural agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of significance to local traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains that Native American may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be individuals and addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. If agreement groups, as defined by with the Tribes cannot be reached, the Lead Agency will determine the Senate Bill 18. required treatment. Impact 3.3-4: The Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: If human skeletal remains are uncovered during During Grading Issuance of Developer City of project could result in project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the or Construction Permits to Temecula damage to previously Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, Resume unidentified human following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of Construction remains. the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains Activities; are Native American, the project proponent will contact the NAHC, in (any accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), documentation and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AS 2641) and the shall be Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The most likely descendant shall completed prior then make recommendations, and engage in consultation concerning the to issuance of treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. occupancy). Impact 3.3-5: The Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: In the event that paleontological resources are During Grading Issuance of Developer City of proposed project discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The or Construction Permits to Temecula would directly or paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential Resume indirectly destroy a resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth Construction unique in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are Activities; paleontological discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be (any resource, or site, or temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified documentation unique geologic paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology shall be feature. standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995). The paleontologist completed prior will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be to issuance of followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. occupancy). 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 permits) for the project, the project proponent shall retain Tribal monitors) from the appropriate local Tribe. The Tribal monitors) 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-8 Santa Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact Compliance (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Public Services and Utilities Impact 3.6-1: The Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Although the proposed project's impacts upon During Building Issuance of Developer City of proposed project fire services are less than significant, development in the project area will be Planchecks Building Permit Temecula would not result in required to comply with City DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees. Fees substantial adverse collected through the development of single-family detached homes will be physical impacts utilized to upgrade or develop new fire facilities and could total associated with the approximately $46,533.69 (81 du $574.49 per single-family detached provision of new or dwelling unit). physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire service 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. Impact 3.6-2: The Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Although the proposed project's impacts upon During Building Issuance of Developer City of proposed project police services are less than signifcant; development within the project area Planchecks Building Permit Temecula would not result in will be required to pay the DIF. Fees collected through the development of substantial adverse single-family detached homes will be utilized to upgrade or develop new physical impacts police facilities and could total approximately $19,593.90 (81 dwelling unit associated with the $241.90 per single-family detached dwelling unit). provision of new or physically altered police facilities, or the need for new or physically altered sheriff 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-9 Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Compliance Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.7-1: The Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: This impact can be mitigated by installing stop addition of project signs on all approaches at this intersection. Although this mitigation traffic adds more than measure, is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require 5 vehicles to a critical approval of other agencies including California Department of movement at the 1-15 Transportation (Caltrans) and San Diego County. Because the intersection Southbound is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because no improvement Ramps/Rainbow can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that Valley W Blvd the improvements will be made in a timely manner to mitigate the impact of intersection when the the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake intersection operates all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to at level of service install the improvements, the project's cumulative impacts on this (LOS) F. Based on intersection are significant and unavoidable. significance criteria used by the County of San Diego, a significant impact occurs. Impact 3.7-2: The Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: (See Mitigation Measure 3.7-1). This impact can addition of project be mitigated by installing stop signs on all approaches at this intersection. traffic adds more than Although this mitigation measure, is technically (physically) feasible, 5 vehicles to a critical implementation will require approval of other agencies including California movement at the 1-15 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San Diego County. Because Southbound the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because Ramps/Rainbow no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City Valley W Blvd cannot ensure that the improvements will be made in a timely manner to intersection when the mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although intersection operates the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego at LOS F. Based on County and Caltrans to install the improvements, the project's cumulative significance criteria impacts on this intersection are significant and unavoidable. used by the County of San Diego, a significant impact occurs. An impact was also identified in the Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Scenario. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-1 D During Issuance of Developer, Cal -Trans, Implementation will require Construction Permits by all Cal -Trans, San Diego approval of other agencies jurisdictions to San Diego County, including California Department proceed with County, City City of of Transportation (Caltrans) and installation of of Temecula Temecula San Diego County. Because the Stop signs 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. During Issuance of Developer, Cal -Trans, Implementation will require Construction Permits by all Cal -Trans, San Diego approval of other agencies jurisdictions to San Diego County, including California Department proceed with County, City City of of Transportation (Caltrans) and installation of of Temecula Temecula San Diego County. Because the Stop signs 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. Santa Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Environmental Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency Verification Compliance Impact Compliance (Status/Date/initials) e/Initials) Impact 3.7-3: The Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Based on our review of available documents, no During Issuance of Developer, Cal -Trans, The City of Temecula would not project contributes plans currently exist to widen 1-15, which would be required to improve Construction Permits by all Cal -Trans, County of be able to guarantee the traffic to several operations. Therefore, it would not be feasible to mitigate the project jurisdictions to County of Riverside, implementation of mitigation segments of 1-15 impacts on the segments of 1-15. Additionally, if there were feasible proceed with Riverside, City of measures. within Riverside mitigation measures, theywould require the concurrence of both Caltrans Widening 1-15 City of Temecula County which are and Riverside County to be implemented. As such, the city of Temecula Temecula The necessary mitigation projected to exceed would not be able to guarantee the implementation of any mitigation measures are not feasible and the target LOS. All of measures, even if any mitigation measures were feasible. are outside the jurisdiction of the these roadway city of Temecula. segments are Given the above considerations, we can conclude that the necessary projected to operate mitigation measures are not feasible and are outside the jurisdiction of the at LOS F with volume city of Temecula, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. to capacity (V/C) ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.41. These roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, regardless of whether project traffic uses this facility or not. This LOS F conditions occurs not because of project trips but because of existing traffic travel on 1-15, the projected growth in regional travel because of development outside of the city of Temecula, and the addition of traffic from Cumulative Projects. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-11 Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Environmental Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Verification Compliance Impact Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency e/Initials) (Status/Date/initials) Compliance Impact 3.7-4: The Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: The Riverside County General Plan anticipates During Issuance of Developer, County of The city of Temecula would not project contributes that Rainbow Canyon Road would be widened from two to four lanes at Construction Permits by all County of Riverside, be able to guarantee that this traffic to Rainbow some point in the future with the Build -out of the Riverside County General jurisdictions to Riverside, City of mitigation measure is Canyon Road which Plan land uses. With this widening the roadway would operate at an proceed with City of Temecula implemented in a timely fashion is projected to acceptable LOS. As this widening is anticipated to occur by the Riverside Widening Temecula (outside the jurisdiction of the exceed the target County General Plan, it can be considered to be a feasible mitigation Rainbow city of Temecula). LOS. This roadway measure. Canyon Road segment is projected from two to four to operate at a V/C There are several barriers to the timely implementation of this mitigation lanes ratio of 1.12 which is measure; however. First, this improvement is not funded by the regional indicative of LOS F traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear to be available operations. 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. Given the above considerations, we can conclude that this widening is feasible but outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.7-5: The Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: (See Mitigation Measure 3.7-4). The Riverside During Issuance of Developer, County of The city of Temecula would not project contributes County General Plan anticipates that Rainbow Canyon Road would be Construction Permits by all County of Riverside, be able to guarantee that this traffic to several widened from two to four lanes at some point in the future with the Build -out jurisdictions to Riverside, City of mitigation measure is segments of 1-15 of the Riverside County General Plan land uses. With this widening the proceed with City of Temecula implemented in a timely fashion within Riverside roadway would operate at an acceptable LOS. As this widening is Widening Temecula (outside the jurisdiction of the County which are anticipated to occur by the Riverside County General Plan, it can be Rainbow city of Temecula). projected to exceed considered to be a feasible mitigation measure. Canyon Road the target LOS. Al of from two to four these roadway There are several barriers to the timely implementation of this mitigation lanes segments are measure; however. First, this improvement is not funded by the regional projected to operate traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear to be available at LOS F with V/C funding for this improvement based on our review of available documents. ratios ranging from While the project could make a contribution to the widening of this 1.34 to 1.54. 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. Given the above considerations, we can conclude that this widening is feasible but outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-12 Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Environmental Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Verification Compliance Impact Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency e/Initials) (Status/Date/initials) Compliance Impact 3.7-6: The Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: (See Mitigation Measure 3.7-5). The Riverside During Issuance of Developer, County of The city of Temecula would not project contributes County General Plan anticipates that Rainbow Canyon Road would be Construction Permits by all County of Riverside, be able to guarantee that this traffic to Rainbow widened from two to four lanes at some point in the future with the Build -out jurisdictions to Riverside, City of mitigation measure is Canyon Road which of the Riverside County General Plan land uses. With this widening the proceed with City of Temecula implemented in a timely fashion is projected to roadway would operate at an acceptable LOS. As this widening is Widening Temecula (outside the jurisdiction of the exceed the target anticipated to occur by the Riverside County General Plan, it can be Rainbow city of Temecula). LOS. This roadway considered to be a feasible mitigation measure. Canyon Road segment is projected from two to four to operate at a V/C There are several barriers to the timely implementation of this mitigation lanes ratio of 1.12 which is measure; however. First, this improvement is not funded by the regional indicative of LOS F traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear to be available operations. 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. Given the above considerations, we can conclude that this widening is feasible but outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise Impact 3.8-1: Project Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in the 3.8-1a — e: No Code Developer City of construction could San Diego County Code, and the City noise ordinance, that no construction During Grading Enforcement Temecula expose persons to or may occur during the following hours: 6:30 pm — 7:00 am, Monday through or Construction violations generate noise levels Saturday. At any time on Sunday or any legal holiday. in excess of the applicable city of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction Temecula or County equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. of San Diego noise Mitigation Measure 3.8-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction standards. staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. 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 residences. 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-13 Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Environmental Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Verification Compliance Impact Mitigation Measure Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency e/Initials) (Status/Date/initials) Compliance Impact 3.8-1: Project Mitigation Measure 3.8-1f: A blasting plan for construction must be Surveyslfests Issuance of Developer City of construction could prepared and followed that includes the following: conducted and Grading or Temecula expose persons to or Plans provided Building Permit generate noise levels 1) The Blasting Plan must meet the approval of the appropriate City during Grading in excess of the department with jurisdiction over the project and blasting. or Construction applicable city of 2) Primary components of the Blasting Plan shall include: PlanCheck Temecula or County of San Diego noise a) Identification of blast officer; (All post (All post standards. b) Scaled drawings of blast locations, and neighboring buildings, streets, construction construction 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; 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-14 reports reports shall be provided post submitted prior construction to issuance of activities) occupancy) Santa Maraarita Area Annexation No. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 Environmental Monitoring Action(s) Responsible Monitoring Verification Compliance Mitigation Measure Impact Phase(s) Indicating Party Agency e/Initials) (Status/Date/initials) Compliance Continued Surveyslfests Issuance of Developer City of conducted and Grading or Temecula 4) The survey shall include visual inspection of the structures, Plans provided Building Permit documentation of structures by means of photographs, video, and a level during Grading survey of the ground floor of structures or the crown of major and critical or Construction utility lines, and these shall be submitted to the City. This documentation PlanCheck 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 (All post (All post prior to the visual inspections. construction construction 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. 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. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Page-1 5 reports reports shall be provided post submitted prior construction to issuance of activities) occupancy) DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY (LR09-0024) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final E I R"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — DRAFT Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary as depicted on the maps attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 3, and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. DRAFT M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal that comprise the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2 proposal. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment and Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. R. At the conclusion of the Planning 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. 10-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Amendment including: (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 No 2; (2) approve a pre -zoning Ordinance for the pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2; and (3) approve a zoning Ordinance 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- DRAFT SM) and Conservation District -Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for a pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. S. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment, 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. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the components of the Amendment and the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the City Council adopted Resolution No. , approving the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. T. On February 23, 2010, 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. The City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Amendment, including the General Plan Amendment, Pre -Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Code Amendment, and all the comments and testimony thereon and the entire record concerning the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal, 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. _. On [INSERT DATE] the City held the second readings of and adopted Pre -Zoning Ordinance No. and Zoning Code Amendment No. U. 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 (No. 2) into the City's General Plan; The proposed Amendment integrates the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) 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 (No. 2) consisting of Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS). Currently, 384 acres of the 4,510 acres of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and are already designated on the City's General Plan Land Use Map with 318 acres as Open Space (OS) and 66 acres Hillside Residential (HR). The Amendment will adopt the remaining 4,126 acres into the City's General Plan Land Use Map designating 3,966 acres as Open (OS) and 159 acres as Hillside Residential (HR). In total, the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) encompasses 4,510 acres of which 4,284 acres will be designated as Open Space (OS) and 225 DRAFT 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 (No. 2) 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 (No. 2) encompasses approximately 4,510 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 225 acres propose Hillside Residential —Santa Margarita (HR-SM) as the Zoning District to implement the Hillside Residential (HR) General Plan Land Use Designation. 1. 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. 2. 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). 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 DRAFT 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. 7. The Community Design Implementation Programs of the City of Temecula General Plan including CD-6 Viewshed Preservation which states, "Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development, including critical escarpment and major hillside areas on the west and south edges of the City. This should include working with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development." The General Plan land use designations shall not be effective unless or until such time as any of the properties are annexed to the City. 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 (No. 2) 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 (No. 2) which will establish the framework to preserve public lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) 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 DRAFT 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 (No. 2) 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 (No. 2). 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 95% of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) 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 (No. 2) 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 DRAFT as the scenic hillsides. Ultimate approval of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) 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 (No. 2). 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. 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 all or part 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 all or part 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 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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 33rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►Nll0dil:1di1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Properties with Hillside Residential (HR) designation APN ACRES 918060009 20.91 918060010 20.78 918060021 9.44 918060024 9.64 918060013 39.32 918060023 9.81 918060022 9.38 918060011 24.14 918060008 15.77 918080008 30.12 918080009 35.89 Total: 225.2 91rzil=I ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 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 NO. 2 OF APPROXIMATELY 4,510 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY (LR09-0024) 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 December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final E I R"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. 91rZil=I D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary as depicted on the maps attached hereto as Exhibit A -A, and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. 91rZil=I L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-3 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal that comprise the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2 proposal. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment and Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. R. At the conclusion of the Planning 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. 10-03 recommending that the City Council 91r1il=I approve the Amendment including: (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 No 2; (2) approve a pre -zoning Ordinance for the pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2; and (3) approve a zoning Ordinance 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 for a pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. S. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment, 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. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the components of the Amendment and the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-_, approving the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. T. On February 23, 2010, 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. 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: Table 17.03.010 Planning and Zoning Approval Authority Application Administrative Approval Planning Director Planning Commission City Council "Hillside Development Permit X' 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: 91r1il=I "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. 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. 91r1il=I 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 (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 91_IRIaI Description of Use ... "HR-SM9 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 ... Agriculture/open space uses 6 ... 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 ... - 91-IRIaI Description of Use ... "HR-SM9 Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats s ... 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 s, s 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: 91Nil =I 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: 91Nil =I "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. 91Nil =I 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. 91Nil =I 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 91Mil MI 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. 91r1il=I 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. 91Nil =I (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. 91Mil MI 91 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. EnergV 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. (f) All structures for human habitation shall incorporate dual pained glass windows 91Mil MI (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 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. 91Mil MI 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. J. Conservation Required. Any project for which a Hillside Development Permit is required by this Section shall be designed to protect wildlife habitat areas, biological 91Nil =I corridors, native plants and plant communities, and where practicable, support interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserve areas. A Hillside Development Permit shall be in compliance with the MSHCP. K. Hillside Cluster Development Option. 1. The purpose of the hillside cluster development option is to provide (a) Site planning and unity of design in harmony with the natural features and constraints of specific sites, and particularly on sites possessing unique or severe topographic or hydrologic features and biological resources; (b) Protection of natural, historic and man-made elements of scenic, environmental or cultural significance; (c) Design innovation; (d) Flexibility of siting of structures and roadways; (e) More cost effective development due to decreased grading and more efficient servicing of the development with utilities, roads and other essential services; (f) Additional open space for private or community purposes; (g) A preferred planning tool for the development of land within the HR-SM zone. 2. Definitions. Cluster Open Space: Open space, either natural or functional, provided to compensate for lot size reductions from minimum lot size area requirements in the applicable zone. Public Open Space: Open space owned by a public agency, such as the City of Temecula, or the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority and maintained for scientific and biological values or in furtherance of the goals of the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Scope: The cluster development option is permitted in the HR-SM Zoning District. 91r1il=I 3. Planned Development Overlay Required. Proposed cluster developments must be processed pursuant to the requirements of the Planned Development Overlay District as set forth in Section 17.22 of the Development Code. 4. Development Standards. (a) Minimum Site Area: None in the HR Zoning District. (b) Overall Density: Greater than 10 acres per dwelling unit in the HR Zoning District. (c) Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: No minimum lot size, as may be approved by the Hillside Development Plan. (d) Minimum Set Back Requirements: As may be approved by the Hillside Development Plan. (e) Minimum Distance Between Buildings: As may be approved by the Hillside Development Plan. (f) Utilities: Utilities shall be located within the development portion of the site wherever possible to reduce the future impact of maintenance and repair activities on cluster open space. (g) Excess cut and fill material shall be disposed of in accordance with the Title 18 of the Temecula Municipal Code. (h) Roads: All streets and highways must have horizontal and vertical alignments consistent with an approved design speed, and roadway geometrics consistent with an approved design vehicle, as specified in (the City of Temecula road design manual). (i) Landscaping: In accordance with subsection G.4 of this Section and section 17.32 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Q) Exterior Lighting: Any exterior lighting shall conform to subsection G.6 of this Section. (k) Environmental Protection: Cluster developments within the HR-SM district shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the pre -zoning annexation of the property to the City. 91Nil =I 5. Open Space Requirements. (a) Cluster Open Space Requirements: Cluster open space shall be designed to save as much as the natural open space feasible, but in no case shall the open space be less than 90 percent of the gross site area. (b) Cluster open space ownership and control shall be only: (1) As part of and individual, private lot with recorded open space covenants running with the land; (2) By the City of Temecula, as legally dedicated to and approved by the City Council; (3) By the Western Riverside County Resource Conservation Authority; (4) By a qualified nonprofit conservation organization as deemed acceptable by the City. (c) Cluster open space shall not include public or private streets, driveways, parking areas, channelized drainage ways, and disturbed, unvegetated areas." Section 8. A new subsection D is hereby added to Section 17.14.020 of Chapter 17.14 (Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Zoning Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other portions of Section 17.14.020 remaining unchanged: D. Conservation -Santa Margarita District (OS-C-SM). The conservation zoning district is intended for those lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation boundaries that are in public or quasi -public ownership for open space purposes that should remain in a natural state as much as feasible without intrusions from active uses. Improvements may be made to these areas to allow for safe limited public access or for control of erosion, geologic stability, or other public safety or utility purposes. The construction of buildings or other structures is not permitted except for flood control structures or public utility facilities, which may be permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit." Section 9. A new column entitled "OS-C-SM" immediately following the column entitled "OS-C" is hereby added to Table 17.14.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses -Open Space) of Section 17.14.030 (Use Regulations) of Chapter 17.14 (Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Zoning Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other portions of the table remaining unchanged: 91-110aI 17.14.030 USE REGULATIONS. The primary uses permitted in the open space zoning districts is indicated in Table 17.14.030. Table 17.14.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses — Open Space Schedule of Uses ... "OS-C-SM Agricultural uses ... - Athletic field ... - Bicycle paths ... - Campground ... - Caretakers quarters ... - Cemeteries, mausoleums and related uses ... - Flood control structures ... C Game courts, badminton, tennis, racquetball ... - Golf driving range not part of a golf course ... - Golf course and clubhouse ... - Golf course resort (including accessory visitor supporting accommodations and commercial uses such as hotels, fractional ownership units, day spa, restaurants, and conference center.) ... - Government and public utility facilities ... C Gymnasium ... Communications and microwave installations' Nature centers/exhibits ... - Nurseries ... - Outdoor exhibits ... - Picnic group facilities ... - Private parks and recreation facilities ... - Parking areas ... - Public parks and recreation facilities ... - Recreational vehicle park ... - Riding stable, public or private ... - Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses ... - Single-family dwellings (1 unit per 40 acres) ... - Tree farms ... Note: All development subject to the standards set forth in Section 17.06.080. 91r1il=I Section 10. A new column entitled "OS-C-SM" immediately following the column entitled "OS-C" is hereby added to Section 17.14.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 17.14 (Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Zoning Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other portions of the table remaining unchanged: The development standards for the open space zoning districts are as indicated on Table 17.14.040. Table 17.14.040 Open Space Development Standards — Open Space Development Standards ... "OS-C-SM Minimum lot size ... - Maximum lot coverage . . . - Maximum height . . . - Floor area ratio . . . - Setback from street RM/ line . . . - Setback from adjoining property lines . . . - Minimum open space ... 100%11 Section 11. 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 12. 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, or any territory within it including the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2, is approved by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. 91rZil=I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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 I , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►Nll0diIAdi1:l4:&1 IG1:i.��G11►�K�1�1►Nll�dil�dil:l�:i.� Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 PRE -ZONING APPROXIMATELY 4,510 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 WITH ZONING DESIGNATIONS HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL-SANTA MARGARITA (HR-SM) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT-SANTA MARGARITA (OS-C-SM) (LR09-0024) 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 December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final E I R"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning DRAFT designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary as depicted on the maps attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 3, and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local DRAFT Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal that comprise the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2 proposal. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment and Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. R. At the conclusion of the Planning 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. 10-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Amendment including: (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 No 2; (2) approve a pre -zoning Ordinance for the pre -zoning of the Santa DRAFT Margarita Area Annexation No. 2; and (3) approve a zoning Ordinance 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 for a pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. S. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment, 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. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the components of the Amendment and the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the City Council adopted Resolution No. , approving the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. T. On February 23, 2010, 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. . 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 (No. 2). The Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) encompasses approximately 4,510 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 225 acres propose Hillside Residential — Santa 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 (No. 2) 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 EIR and the General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs as follows: DRAFT -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. -The Community Design Implementation Programs of the City of Temecula General Plan including CD-6 Viewshed Preservation which states, "Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development, including critical escarpment and major hillside areas on the west and south edges of the City. This should include working with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development." DRAFT The Pre -Zoning designations shall not be effective unless or until such time as any of the properties are annexed to the City. 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 within the City of Temecula. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which approximately 95% of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 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 all or part 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 all or part 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 or the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2, or any territory within it, 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 23 day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero , 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. 10- 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 , 2010, by the following vote: IG\'Ix.�K�1�1►Nll�dil�dil:l�:i.� NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk n Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) 1 0 San Diego Courq Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 • • City of Temecula Corporate Limits Streets Zoning Designations for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation Q HR a s, O Y� flbt 4 3 y . Y:L. City of Temecula - Santa Margarita Area Anexation No. 2 Exhibit 1 Pre -Zoning Amendment Properties with HR-SM Designation R`GI9MGMMNgMYPYnrvnySAl+A_FYrloSankw bmcMe mE I EXHIBIT 2 PRE -ZONING Properties with Hillside Residential - Santa Margarita (HR-SM) Zoning Designation APN ACRES 918060009 20.91 918060010 20.78 918060021 9.44 918060024 9.64 918060013 39.32 918060023 9.81 918060022 9.38 918060011 24.14 918060008 15.77 918080008 30.12 918080009 35.89 Total: 225.2 Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) 0 San Moo County' Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 City of Temecula Corporate Limits Streets Zoning Designations for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation 0 oS-c-SM do yJr y y�y,oh .......... 7 m IN o Of-Y" r V .t a A� l�4r ..y •y' y•�94l �yy4�y♦ ::i � •: d::.::.::{�� N4 y•�s O�✓„yl�Jr•�•r •y'wl••�Ir���.•�..y �y � `•:..:: : 'i'�•F• yLLA •� cps y:�AJeti •� a.. ryA pAA •�AJ �A .` a rh lwd � ey as i ' +i• �4 1• �4 r .�6 yam• d\ y�y N�4 yy y N� �y �d0 NL �4 '" I � ' qJh AJh� Jh AJh �Jh �J �Jh �J.:ti�J.!Y Jh:� ati y !s _'�»,' _ 4�s" v�:~~uf:.l""+„uMs"� J -+-_J• +�_Jy'�.•,w~'K •M'-' �•,��'� It —Y4.�" i ,�.,� a4 . � .�: a4 d a4 , Kati • ati '�.:. w,. da4 . � ate. �a� 1 i i' t City of Temecula - Santa Margarita Area Anexation No. 2 Exhibit 3 Pre -Zoning Amendment Properties with OS-C-SM Designation birlilmil RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 BY APPROXIMATELY 4,126 ACRES TO INCLUDE ALL TERRITORY OF THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY4,610 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITYOF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-16 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE -KNOX-H ERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 66000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 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 December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final ElR"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. birlilml D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese - Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). A legal description of the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. birlilml L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal that comprise the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2 proposal. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment and Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. R. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due birlilmil consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed Amendment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Amendment including (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 No 2; (2) approve a pre -zoning Ordinance for the pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2; and (3) approve a Zoning Ordinance 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 for a pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. T. On February 2, 2010 the City mailed a notice to LAFCO, each interested agency and each subject agency that on February 23, 2010 the City of Temecula City Council would be considering the adoption of this proposed Resolution of Application requesting LAFCO to take proceedings to extend the City of Temecula's sphere of influence for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation no. 2 proposal described above. This notice was mailed twenty-one days prior to the City Council hearing pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, section 56654. U. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Certified Final EIR, and the various components of the Amendment, 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. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the components of the Amendment and the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the City Council approved the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and adopted Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in connection therewith forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. V. At this same hearing, the City Council considered 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. The City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Amendment, including the General Plan Amendment, Pre -Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Code Amendment, and all the comments and testimony thereon and the entire record concerning the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal, 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. _. On [INSERT DATE] the City held the second readings of and adopted Pre -Zoning Ordinance No. and Zoning Code Amendment No. W. The City is scheduling a meeting with County representatives to discuss the Sphere of Influence expansion for the Santa Margarita Annexation No. 2 proposal. birlilml X. The City Council desires to initiate a proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence to include Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. Y. The reasons forthe proposed expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 are as follows: (1) The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") is now partially within the City's Sphere of Influence and the City believesthe balance of the SMER, to the extent that it is within Riverside County, should be located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Placing the area of the SMER that is within the County of Riverside and not already within the City's Sphere of Influence, as well as some surrounding residential lots that include residents who wish to be a part of the City of Temecula, in the City's Sphere of Influence would facilitate annexation of this territory to the City. This would allow the City to ensure the protection and preservation of the SMER, and ensure that any development within the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 does not occur in a manner that is incompatible with the SMER; (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 territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. 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 territory of the proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby directs the City Manager to file this Resolution, and any necessary application documents with LAFCO, and hereby requests LAFCO to take all proceedings necessary for Sphere of Influence expansion to include the area described in Exhibit A to be within the City of Temecula Sphere of Influence, pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, with LAFCO. birlilml PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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 ofthe City of Temecula, do hereby certify thatthe foregoing Resolution No. 10- 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: 1►to] x.�Ko1l1►NJlNd/IAd/l1J4:&1 ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk birlilmil IN*IS]11,1JI1[Q01101 WN[III 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 NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,610 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE- EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-16 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO/RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITYOF TEMECULAAND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX- HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 66000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 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 December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final EIR"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") birlilml C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese - Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). A legal description of the proposed annexation territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. birlilml K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal that comprise the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2 proposal. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment and Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, birlilmil adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. R. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. At the conclusion of the Planning 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. 10-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Amendment including (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 No 2; (2) approve a pre -zoning Ordinance for the pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2; and (3) approve a zoning Ordinance 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 fora pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. T. On February 2, 2010 the City mailed a notice to LAFCO, each interested agency and each subject agency that on February 23, 2010 the City of Temecula City Council would be considering the adoption of this proposed Resolution of Application requesting the local agency formation commission to take proceedings to extend the City of Temecula's sphere of influence for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation no. 2 proposal described above. This notice was mailed twenty-one days prior to the City Council hearing pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, section 56654. U. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Certified Final EIR, and the various components of the Amendment, 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. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the components of the Amendment and the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the City Council approved the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and adopted findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in connection therewith forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. V. At this same hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered 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. The City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Amendment, including the General Plan Amendment, Pre -Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Code Amendment, and all the comments birlilmil and testimony thereon and the entire record concerning the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal, 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. _. On [INSERT DATE] the City held the second readings of and adopted Pre -Zoning --Ordinance No. and Zoning Code Amendment No. W. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered a proposed Sphere of Influence expansion and adopted a Resolution requesting LAFCO to begin proceedings to consider expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence to include the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 territory. X. The proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 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 and attached hereto as Exhibit A. Y. This Annexation proposal is consistent with the Sphere of Influence expansion requested in Resolution No. 10-_ adopted by the City on [INSERT DATE] as noted above. Z. The City of Temecula has introduced pre -zoning ordinances for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 as of the date of this Resolution. Copies of the adopted ordinances will be filed concurrently with this resolution along with the City's LAFCO application documentation including a prepared plan for providing services to the annexation area. AA. The City Council desires to initiate a proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District. BB. The reasons for the proposed annexation of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District are as follows: (1) The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") is now partially within the City's jurisdiction. Based upon its close proximity, the City believes the balance of the SMER that is within Riverside County should be located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Placing the area of the SMER that is within the County of Riverside and not already within the City's boundaries, as well as some surrounding residential lots that include residents who wish to be a part of the City of Temecula, would allow the City to ensure the protection and preservation of the SMER, and ensure that any development within the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 does not occur in a manner that is incompatible with the SMER. Further, the birlilmil boundaries of the SMER contiguously extend through three jurisdictions including the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside and the County of San Diego and, therefore, annexation of the County of Riverside SMER area to be within the City of Temecula would reduce the jurisdictional variation of the SMER. (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 territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. 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 territory of the proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby directs the City Manager to file this Resolution, and any necessary application documents with LAFCO, and hereby requests the LAFCO to take all proceedings necessary for the annexation of certain territory described herein as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, with LAFCO. birlilml PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23 day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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 ofthe City of Temecula, do hereby certify thatthe foregoing Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk birlilmil IN*IS]11,1JI1[Q01101 WN[III 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 NO. 2 COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,610 ACRES, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE- EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE-16 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO/RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITYOF TEMECULAAND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX- HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 66000 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (LR09-0024) 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 December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-110 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 1), a proposed expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15. The City Council also adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program in connection therewith (collectively, "Certified Final Environmental Impact Report" or "Certified Final EIR"). B. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 08-111 and 08-112 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for an expansion of the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and Annexation to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Annexation Area") birlilml C. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-113 amending the General Land Use Map within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. D. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-14 prezoning the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. E. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-15 amending the official zoning map of the City of Temecula by adopting zoning designations Hillside -Santa Margarita (SM) and Open Space Conservation District — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) and adopting Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation, contingent upon LAFCO's approval of the annexation. F. Thereafter, the City of Temecula submitted to LAFCO a Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and Annexation Application along with requisite application submittal documents in connection therewith for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal ("LAFCO Applications"). G. On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-42 confirming that the proposal for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation was pursuant to the Cortese - Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. H. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the LAFCO Applications made by the City for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal and approved the City's Municipal Service Review; and adopted resolutions in connection therewith on June 25, 2009. I. On July 23, 2009, the City of Temecula submitted an Application for Reconsideration by LAFCO of the LAFCO Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. The City's proposal removed approximately 487 acres of the southeast corner of the uninhabited 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation territory, and included revised boundaries of the Sphere of Influence expansion from 4,443 acres to 4,126 acres to match the boundaries of the area to be annexed to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District comprising of 4,510 acres of that certain uninhabited territory located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary line, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego/Riverside County boundary ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). A legal description of the proposed annexation territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. J. On September 24, 2009 LAFCO denied the City's Application for Reconsideration and determined the City of Temecula must file a new LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment Application and a new LAFCO Annexation Application to proceed with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal. birlilml K. On December 3, 2009 LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period to allow the City to proceed with LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal and LAFCO approved a reduction in the application fees by fifty percent. L. On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03 authorizing the preparation of documents and actions necessary to proceed with a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. M. The City of Temecula proceeded with the preparation of documents associated with the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal including a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Map, zoning amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code including hillside development standards and pre -zoning designations, and Sphere of influence and Annexation applications (LR09-0024) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Municipal Code and are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 4,510 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula boundary, west of Interstate 15 and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County boundary referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal (collectively, the "Amendment'). N. 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 and pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code. O. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was prepared forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 1 ("Addendum") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA") to address the reduced boundaries of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal that comprise the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2 proposal. P. The Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and the various components of the Amendment on February 3, 2010, 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. Q. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Amendment and Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, birlilmil adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. R. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. At the conclusion of the Planning 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. 10-03 recommending that the City Council approve the Amendment including (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 No 2; (2) approve a pre -zoning Ordinance for the pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2; and (3) approve a zoning Ordinance 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 fora pre -zoning of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. T. On February 2, 2010 the City mailed a notice to LAFCO, each interested agency and each subject agency that on February 23, 2010 the City of Temecula City Council would be considering the adoption of this proposed Resolution of Application requesting the local agency formation commission to take proceedings to extend the City of Temecula's sphere of influence for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation no. 2 proposal described above. This notice was mailed twenty-one days prior to the City Council hearing pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, section 56654. U. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the Certified Final EIR, and the various components of the Amendment, 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. After considering all the testimony and comments and the entire record concerning the components of the Amendment and the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, the City Council approved the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR and adopted findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in connection therewith forthe Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. V. At this same hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered 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. The City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Amendment, including the General Plan Amendment, Pre -Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Code Amendment, and all the comments birlilmil and testimony thereon and the entire record concerning the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal, 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. _. On [INSERT DATE] the City held the second readings of and adopted Pre -Zoning --Ordinance No. and Zoning Code Amendment No. W. On February 23, 2010, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered a proposed Sphere of Influence expansion and adopted a Resolution requesting LAFCO to begin proceedings to consider expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence to include the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 territory. X. The proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 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 and attached hereto as Exhibit A. Y. This Annexation proposal is consistent with the Sphere of Influence expansion requested in Resolution No. 10-_ adopted by the City on [INSERT DATE] as noted above. Z. The City of Temecula has introduced pre -zoning ordinances for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 as of the date of this Resolution. Copies of the adopted ordinances will be filed concurrently with this resolution along with the City's LAFCO application documentation including a prepared plan for providing services to the annexation area. AA. The reasons for the proposed annexation of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District are as follows: (1) The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") is now partially within the City's jurisdiction. Based upon its close proximity, the City believes the balance of the SMER that is within Riverside County should be located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Placing the area of the SMER that is within the County of Riverside and not already within the City's boundaries, as well as some surrounding residential lots that include residents who wish to be a part of the City of Temecula, would allow the City to ensure the protection and preservation of the SMER, and ensure that any development within the territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 does not occur in a manner that is incompatible with the SMER. Further, the boundaries of the SMER contiguously extend through three jurisdictions including the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside and the County of San Diego and, therefore, annexation of the County of Riverside SMER area to be within the City of Temecula would reduce the jurisdictional variation of the SMER. birlilmil (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 territory of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. 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 territory of the proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby directs the City Manager to file this Resolution, and any necessary application documents with LAFCO, and hereby requests the LAFCO to take all proceedings necessary for the annexation of certain territory described herein as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, with LAFCO. birlilml PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23 day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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 ofthe City of Temecula, do hereby certify thatthe foregoing Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX 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 AND THE TEMECULA 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 O ESTRIBO, A DISTANCE OF 387.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; O THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID CENTERLINE EASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08' 03' 21 ", AN ARC LENGTH OF 421.80 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 81° 44' 07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF O3 499.39 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; ® THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET AND SAID CENTERLINE NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34` 39' 10", AN ARC LENGTH OF 120.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 47° 04' 57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF O 329.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; © THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET AND SAID CENTERLINE NORTHERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56' 40' 03", AN ARC LENGTH OF 197.81 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 09` 35' 06" WEST, A DISTANCE OF O 153.94 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; THENCE SOUTH 49° 08' 24" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 716.40 FEET ALONG SAID ® EASTERLY BOUNDARY TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835 AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE; PAGE 1 OF 5 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: 12 THENCE SOUTH 07' 15' 21" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE 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 HAVING A RADIUS OF 1700.00 FEET AND SAID 14 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTHERLY 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 15 DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 79° 03' 38" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1800.00 FEET, ALSO BEING 16 SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTHERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03' 55' 38", AN ARC LENGTH OF 123.38 FEET; 17 THENCE SOUTH 14' 52' 00" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 421.96 FEET; 18 THENCE SOUTH 04' 14' 48" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 623.94 FEET; 19 THENCE SOUTH 00° 46' 48" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 895.70 FEET; 20 THENCE SOUTH 07' 36' 10" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 847.81 FEET; PAGE 2 OF 5 THENCE SOUTH 15' 38' 32" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 296.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF 21 SECTION 36 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; 22 THENCE NORTH 89° 24' 01 " WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 36 A DISTANCE OF 2498.53 FEET TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36 23 THENCE NORTH 89° 37' 37" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 36 A DISTANCE OF 2666.28 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 00° 17' 07" WEST ALONG THE WEST SECTION LINE OF SAID 24 SECTION 36 A DISTANCE OF 2653.23 FEET TO THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 00° 21' 08" WEST ALONG SAID SECTION LINE OF SECTION 36, A 25 DISTANCE OF 2618.49 FEET TO SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH AS SHOWN ON SAID CALTRANS MONUMENTATION MAP; 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 26 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 8832 PAGES 1 THROUGH 26 INCLUSIVE FILED IN BOOK OF RECORD OF SURVEY MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 89° 59' 23" WEST ALONG SAID TOWNSHIP LINE AND THE 27 SOUTHERLY 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 28 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 29 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 30 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 31 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 ; PAGE 3 OF 5 THENCE NORTH 00° 22' 47" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 32 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 1/2 OF 33 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 34 SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 1313.47 FEET TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER THEREOF; 35 THENCE NORTH 89' 26' 32" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 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, 36 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 37 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 SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT EASEMENT PER 38 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 39 DISTANCE OF 815.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 3100.00 FEET AND SAID 40 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 41 DISTANCE OF 333.94 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF CAMINO GAZAPO AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO, 6835; 42 THENCE SOUTH 06° 17' 41" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 37.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS THEREOF; 43 THENCE SOUTH 45° 00' 21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 6835; 44 THENCE NORTH 87° 14' 44" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1138.19 FEET; PAGE 4 OF 5 45 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 46 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, 47 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 48 BEING ON A NON —TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 28' 00' 33" EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET AND SAID qg 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 50 CENTERLINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET AND SAID 51 CENTERLINE NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26' 42' 11", AN ARC LENGTH OF 279.63 FEET; 52 THENCE NORTH 73' 40' 46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1016.47 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA = 4,520 ACRES, MORE OR LESS SEE ENCLOSED EXHIBIT "A" PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION H Z w No. 26159 ^ Exp. 3/31 /10 6KEVIN B. C ZAD DATE rT c1v1� REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 'rs of cn�1Fo�� EXPIRES: 3-31-10 PAGE 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX VICINITY AND SHEET INDEX MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1 r uA' 111 SHEET 8 No. 26159 * Exp. 3/31/10 'r19 CIVIL Tf OF CA�1i� ED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 3-31-10 LEGEND ANNEXATION BOUNDARY ------------ EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY 4,520 ACRES MORE OR LESS 918001002 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. INDICATES EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY r SHEET2 SHEET 10 1 — I �SHE—ET i SHEET 7 —FFSHEET6 ir I SHEET►D MAP . 000 3� EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX g�5 6 g P PG�S CAMINO ESTRIBO O "'�;_;. _ VIA NOVILLO CAMINO POTRPD ���< VIA GOR RION �0� mm CAMINO ESTRIBO 9 5 \ \ 940260004 \ •940260002 \\ �940260005 \ � 940250003 940250006 O` EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA L BOUNDARY R.S. 56/39-41 940260001 ) I w RASP © PM 10814 I \ M.W.D. R/W J� 1 \ w P.M.B. 78 1 CAMINO GAZAPO ® ® 918070014 PAGES _5_ 8 w -� _ / _ ----_ wl j41 ®-------- --- SECTION 24 V) I T. 8 S� R. 3 W 1 918070019 W 1 I I 918070012 918070011 918070018 I I I 1 T940280006 1 23 24 1 1 I T- 1 918080002 1918080003 26 25918080010 I 918080011 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE EVIL ZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 oQROFESS/C* EXPIRES: 3-31-10 q`� y 9 CO2gQ `�2c ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA y z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - No. 26159 A 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA Exp. 3/31 /10 f7 1�t RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN CIV1� �P THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY 9lE OF CAI�FO�a OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Scale 1" = 1,000' LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX 1 SHEET 2 OF 12 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX R.S. 56/39-41 j PM 10814 P.M.B. 78 PAGES 5-8 I 918070014 SECTION 24 T.BS, R.3W I 918070018 I I I I I I I I I 9,80800,0 I I SECTION 25 T.BS, R.3W I SEE SHEET 2 EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY 918070019 I I I I 918080008 I I 918080011 I I 918080009 I I I SEE SHEET 4 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE O QROFESS/ON q� COIq� �c _y CD i No. 26159 * Exp. 3/31/10 soo 0 5w 1 oo 1 J'I91 CIVIL ll Scale 1" = 1,000 F OF CpL Q o 3: LLJ LLJ n Q o� Ln Owl �J0 I F- L� N 000 r�U �% 0ry > „ ti0 O J EVIL —AD /DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-10 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABiE I I slaoa000s I I I I I I 6 I I SECTION 25 T.8S, R.3W I 918080010 918080011 I I I I I I I----4 — — — — - — — — -- / ----L---L--- I I I I J SECTION 36 - - - - i --- T.8S, i R.3W i SEE SHEET 5 500 O SOD 1.000 1 Scale 1" = 1,000' QROFESS/0 0 j4Q h h No. 26159 * Exp. 3/11/10 rl CIVIl- qlP OF CAL, Z z EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY 5�'// g1"v// g1"v VIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-10 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX SEE SHEET 1 SEE SHEET 4 SEE SHEET 11FOFORLEGEND COURSE TABLE 2 6 1 2 5 918080010 ; 918080011 351 36 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I / ------+---+----a 918060007 — — — I I I I I I Q0 R.S.1 119/8 / Ld S LL1---+----- -----+----4 o 1 O Z�'� a C)�� 918060018 — — — ----i----1--- i ---� C1�. �� R.S. i 119/88 i �J r� 35 36 1 S0. LINEIOF TSS 1 I� RIVERSIDE COUNTY ----L----L—=-1-- ® S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 4z/qIlo SAN DIEGO COUNTY -EVE IN B. cozAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 oQROFESS/0 EXPIRES: 3-31-10 COI44 �yc ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA h = BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - w No. 26159 rmn 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 6 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND Exp. 3/31/10 A ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA it �t RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN soo o wo low i Jjq CIVll Scale 1" = 1,000' lF OF CAS EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO.2010-XX-XX ---� I 918060008 I I I 918090026 1 918060019 1 918060013 1- - I SECTION 35 1 _ _ _ 918060009 T. 8 S,j R. 3 W i i 918090030 ® - - - - - - 918060014 918060018 I 918060021 I 918060010 918060022 LEMAIRE DRRRJ� RAINBOW 918090034 I� 918060015 - - - - - - GLENIRD. 918060023 1� - - - Ln 3435 3 5 _ _ - - - - - 91806001, ; 916090038 W RIVERSIDES s,sosooz4 11 COUNTY I 35 i w -- w ® ® S 1/4 W SEC 35 Cn S. D. CO. R.O.S. 8832 w w w SAN DIEGO COUNTY LLJ Un (n SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE 17 KLVI." OZAD /DAT1lO REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 O QRof ESS/O* EXPIRES: 3-31-10 h'VQ4 fig. COIgo <60 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA i BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - No. 26159 a 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S. R. 3 W. S.B.M. AND ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA * Exp. 3�31 �10 RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN wo LOW � `rT CIVIL �P THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY SC016 1" = 1 ,000' 9TP 0F CAL1Fo�� - OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX 918060002� I/ 918060003 ---- I/ L — 1 / 918060019 918060001 v I I I I -------- SECTION 34 --------- T.8S, R.3W I I I I 00 918060017 I I 918060015 I S 1 /4 I 34 135 W 33 34Ld ... �� RIVERSIDE SEC 34� COUNTY W — _ C S.D.CO. R.O.S. 8832 w w w SAN DIEGO COUNTY w Cn (n SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLEzz/ el ® / EVIN B. ICOZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 oV,pfESS/0 EXPIRES: 3-31-10 OOI4 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA Z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - �' m 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W. S.B.M. AND xp No. 26159 ENo 26159 0 "o ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA ft iY RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN 500 IM �'i00 `TT CIv0- THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY Scale 1" = 1,000' qlf OF Dpl�EO�� -_ OF RIVERSIDE:STATE OFCALIFORNIA - 3 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO.2010-XX-XX SEE SHEET 9 ® I 918040003 iC—N 1/16 � SEC 33 N 1/16 SEC 33 R.S. 10/22 918040004 SECTION 33 T. 8S, R. 3W r I W 1/4 I SEC 33 I I I I I I I I I I I -� L - - - - - - - - ------- I I 918040012 918040011 918060017 I 33 RIVERSIDE SEC 33—\I COUNTY 33 134 S. D. CO. R.O.S. 8832 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE o q?,Qf ESS/ON q� COIgo c y 7- No. 26159 �^ * Exp. 3/31/10 500 0 s00 I'm i J} CIV11. �! Scale 1" = 1,000' 9Tf OF CA 1 0��� W W v W U) � EVIL ZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-10 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX SP � PN�P FRS 56� S P�� R.S. 56/39-41 SECTION 28 T. 8 S, R . 3 W 918050002 918050001 29 J28 N 1/4 28 27 SEC 33 32 33 ® 33 34 R.S. 10/22 N 1/16 SEC 33 918040004 C—N 1/16 SEC 33 SEE SHEET 8 SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE 500 0 500 1.000 1 Scale 1" = 1,000, ,'6FESS/ Co �9 0 *. /95162oN E./10 �14 C I CIS O���P OF A0 I I I 918040003 I 918060001 I I I L---------i O W W W w 4REVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 EXPIRES: 3-31-10 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX a�jGJ 6 g P PG�S C/L CAMINO o.. �I NG %� CGS P 56 I -59 918070008 940280006 N 22 23 918070008 J 27 26 WESTERLY LINE OF LOT w 92 OF PM 6835 (� I 918050009 I 918080001 U) R.S. 56/39-41 W wI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I_ LLJ co I I 918050004 i SECTION 26 SECTION 27 i T. 8S, R. 3W T.8S,I R.3W L - - - - - - _ _ 1 918050005 918080006 918050002 I I I 918050006 I SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 11 FOR COURSE TABLE p� EVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 OQROFESS/O* EXPIRES: 3-31-10 CO2go Fyc ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - w No. 26159 � 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA Exp. 3/31 /10 ft •lY RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN 600 0 500 1000 I J�. C1V1%- �Q' THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF CA%I OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Scale 1" = 1,000' EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX COURSE SHEET EVIN B. COZAD DATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 oQ�pFESS/uV EXPIRES: 3-31-10 COIgo F� ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA y Z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - w No. 26159 z 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND Exp. 3/31/10 ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA sk it RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN `r' C/V11- �P THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY 4V Fp(l� OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF CAl1 LAFCO NO. 2010-XX-XX SHEET 11 OF 12 BEARING DELTA DISTANCE LENGTH RADIUS RECORD DATA PER COUNTY OF RECORD 1 N 73'40 46 E 387.96 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 2 OS'03 21 421.80 3000 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 3 N 81'44 07 E 499.39 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 4 34'3910 120.96 200 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 5 N 47'04 57 E 329.51 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 6 56'40 03 197.81 200' PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 7 N 09'35 06 W 153.94 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 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 RIVERSIDE 10 S 39'48 32 E 4514.27 RS 56 39-41 RIVERSIDE 11 S 00'28 33 W 680.30 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 12 S 07'15 21 E 230.22 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 13 S 15'37 52 E 570.32 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 14 L 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'S2'00" E 421.96 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 18 S 04'1448 E 623.94 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 19 S 00'46 48 W 895.70 204 10-714 RIVERSIDE 20 S 07'36 10 W 847.81 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 21 S 15'38 32 W 296.02' 204 710-714 RIVERSIDE 22N 89'2401 W 2498.53' 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE 23 N 89'37 37 W 2666.28' 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE 24 S 00'17 07 W 2653.23 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE 25 S 00'21 08 W 2618.49 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SANTA MARGARITA) AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (SUBSIDIARY) AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO NO.201 O-XX-XX COURSE SHEET BEARING DELTADISTANCE LENGTH RADIUS RECORD DATA PER COUNTY OF RECORD 26 N 89'55 18 W 5259.28 205 134-144 RIVERSIDE 27 N 89'59 23 W 2741.72 ROS 8832 1-26 SAN DIEGO 28 S 88'59 17 W 2721.55 ROS 8832 1-26 SAN DIEGO 29 S 89'40'46" W 2707.45' ROS 8832 1-26 SAN DIEGO 30 N 89'27'23" W 2694.63 ROS 8832 1-26 SAN DIEGO 31 N 00'16 35 E 2637.86' RS 10 22 RIVERSIDE 32 N 00'22 47 E 1331.69 RS 10 22 RIVERSIDE 33 S 89'50 20 E 2653.19' RS 10 22 RIVERSIDE 34 N 00'22 10" W 1313.47 RS 10 22 RIVERSIDE 35 N 89'26 32 W 2636.01 RS 10 22 RIVERSIDE 36 T 00'29 50 E 1344.23 T7 T 67'1958 E 12997.33 RS 39-41 RIVERSIDE 38 S 00'00 20 E 999.86 PM 29 27-41 192 RIVERSIDE 39 W 51'S1 46 E 815.78 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 40 10'25 39" 564.18 3100 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 41 N 41'26'07" E 333.94 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 42 S 06'17'41 E 37.87 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 43 S 45'00 21 E 86.00 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 44 N 87'1444 E 1138.19 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 45 N 60'47 31 E 835.90 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 46 N 76'29 23 E 457.79 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 47 T 07'27 46 E 918.42 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 48 N 28'00 57 W 466.70 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 49 L 15'00 28 157.16 600 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 50 N 46'58 35 E 714.57 PM 29 27-41 RIVERSIDE 51 26'4211 279.63 600 PM 29 27-41 1 RIVERSIDE 521 N 73'40 46 E 1 1016.47 PM 29 27-41 1 RIVERSIDE ':Z4-KEVIN R.z_',d_zZADATE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 26159 oQpOFESS�0N9` EXPIRES: 3-31-10 COIgo ANNEXATION TO CITY OF TEMECULA z BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 23 - No. 26159 28 AND SECTIONS 33 - 36, T. 8 S, R. 3 W, S.B.M. AND Exp. 3/31 /10 ALSO LYING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SANTA ROSA RANCHO AND THE TEMECULA RANCHO, SITUATED IN * TglF �1 CA`\EO���P THE UNINCORPORATEDOF TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY RIVERSIDE, OFF CALIFORNIA Betsy Lowrey From: Mike Jurkosky [mikej21 @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:22 PM To: Betsy Lowrey Subject: Annexation Hearing In regards to project No. LR09-0024 The 7urkosky Family, 47910 Rainbow Glen rd., (within the annexation area) support the new annexation proposal as well as the Munoz and Perez families. Emergency services would be welcomed. If Granite Construction opposes his new annexation ion area then it becomes apparent they are an hostile neighbor and their true Mike 7urkosky 1 MAMEY INVESTMENT CORPORATION January 29, 2010 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula, California 92589 Re: Objection to City of Temecula's Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On February 3, 2010, the City of Temecula ("City") will hold a hearing to annex approximately 4,510 acres from the unincorporated jurisdiction of the County of Riverside into the incorporated jurisdiction of the City of Temecula and the City of Temecula Community Services District. The City Planning Commission will be asked to consider an application to the Riverside County Local Agency Commission (LAFCO)) to 1) amend the City's Sphere of Influence to include the SMAA and 2) to allow the City to annex the SMAA. I adamantly oppose the action of the City and do not support the annexation of my property into the City's Jurisdiction. I am a property owner in the area in question and a member of the State Bar of California. I respectfully object to the City's SMAA No. 2 for several reasons. At the hearings last year in June and September, there was testimony by SDSU, the City and others about developing the SMER area into a park. This means more visitors, which means more traffic, noise and air impacts. CEQA law requires you to fully analyze all environmental effects that may result from developing the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) into a park. You cannot defer this analysis as it has been discussed in enough detail that your intentions are already known. The potential impacts of dust, noise, and traffic need to be analyzed. How does the SMER intend to handle all of the traffic, noise, and air emissions that would result from creation of such a park? Will there be impacts to the on going research projects at SMER? How will the creation of a great park impact my property? . The questions above need to be answered and the impacts mitigated, and until they are, I oppose the City's actions to annex my property. Very truly yours, Nelson G. AV4&�-)t' CC: George Spiliotis, LAFCO 5160 Birch Street. Suite 200. Neport Beach. CA 92660 949-851-8100 Fax 949-851-8188 www.m wamey.net February 16, 2010 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula, California 92589 GRRnITE � (p onSTRUET1011 EQ111PRnu Si`c e 2 F since t921 EB 1 2010 Dear Mayor and Council Members, As the City of Temecula seeks to annex open space designated within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, Granite Construction would like to express our intention to work with the City of Temecula, San Diego State University and other stakeholders to find a way to maximize the value of this important public, natural asset. As you are well aware, Granite is pursuing a Surface Mining Permit and related entitlements from the County of Riverside on approximately 414 acres of property located immediately adjacent to the City's proposed annexation area. As we discussed with you on February 8`h, we would like to make the following requests related to your annexation proposal: 1. Understanding that the City's LAFCO application will include a Sphere of Influence amendment, we ask that the City modify its request to remove Granite's property from the City's existing Sphere of Influence. 2. We further ask that the City continue to work diligently with all private landowners within, and adjacent to, the proposed annexation area and that the City use its best efforts to remove any objections that these property owners might have to the annexation. 3. We ask that the City acknowledge that it is not its intent to impose additional burdens or thresholds on natural resource development permitting activities within adjacent County lands. The City may continue to exercise its right to comment on the proposed Liberty Quarry project. The City will not, however, use the annexation as a basis for opposing the Liberty Quarry project. Nor will the City use the annexation to place additional burdens or thresholds on the Liberty Quarry project. It is Granite's hope that the City would support the inclusion of these acknowledgements as findings of fact or terms and conditions attached to any final annexation approval by LAFCO. Southwest California Office 38740 Sky Canyon Drive, Suite C Murrieta, CA 92563 951,304-9283 FAX: 951,1304-9486 Finally, we have reviewed the package that was released for the February 3, 2010 City Planning Commission hearing. We assume that similar documents will be in the package released for the City Council's agenda item for the February 23, 2010 meeting. We have prepared suggested changes to the documents that we feel more accurately reflect the intent of the annexation. These are attached for your consideration. Granite supports the City's overall desire to improve public access to this vital reserve and we would like to be in a position to support the City's annexation proposal. We hope this annexation can be finalized in a manner that can be supported by a wide variety of stakeholders, including Granite Construction Company. Si rely, Gary John n Aggregate Resource Development Manager Attachment: (1) cc: Riverside County Board of Supervisors LAFCO Commissioners San Diego State University Temecula Annexation No. 2 — Review of Planning Commission Staff Materials Suggested Changes to Language within the Documents February 16, 2010 Staff Report • Project Area Description - Page 3 — "The preservation of the SUER and its surroundings is an integral part of preserving and protecting the entire Santa Margarita River." Recommendation: Remove the underlined language or replace the underlines language with the following: "and other lands within the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No 2." • Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Proposal— Page 5 — "[Objective] 3. To protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties." Recommendation: Remove the underlined language altogether or add the following language at the end of the sentence "within the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2.11 • Conclusion —Page 10 —"This action will enable the City to prohibit incompatible land uses on properties within the City's jurisdiction and adjacent to the SMER, which are incompatible with the biologically sensitive and ecologically rich property." Recommendation: Replace the underlined language with the following: "the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2". PC Resolution (CEOA) Exhibit B — Addendum to the Santa Margarita Area Annexation EIR Project Objectives — Page 2-6 — "To protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties." Recommendation: As noted above, pursue clarification of the issues by requesting that the City remove the underlined language altogether or add the following language at the end of the sentence "within the Santa Margarita Annexation Area No. 2." Page 1 of 2 STAFF REPORT —PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: February 3, 2010 PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey, Case Planner APPLICANT NAME: City of Temecula PROJECT Long Range Planning Project No. LR09-0024, consideration of whether SUMMARY: to apply to the Riverside County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) regarding the project site referred to as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 ("SMAA"), located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula, west of Interstate 15, and north of the San Diego County/Riverside County border. The SMAA encompasses approximately 4,510 acres of primarily undeveloped privately and publicly owned land located within the unincorporated area of southwest Riverside County. Currently, 384 acres of the SMAA are located within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence. This project proposes an amendment to the City's existing Sphere of Influence in order to ultimately annex 4,510 acres from the unincorporated jurisdiction of the County of Riverside ("County") into the incorporated jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. The final approval of the Sphere of Influence expansion and annexation of the SMAA will be decided by the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). This project also includes a General Plan Amendment to the City of Temecula's Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,126 acres of the subject property located outside the current Sphere of Influence boundary; and Zoning Amendment for the entire SMAA property, including the property that is currently located both inside and outside of the Sphere of Influence boundaries. The General Plan Amendment will change the current County of Riverside land use designations of Rural Mountainous (RM) and Open Space - Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) to Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) under the City of Temecula General Plan land use designations. The Zoning Amendment includes a change from the County of Riverside's current Zoning Designations of Rural Residential (RR) and Residential Agriculture (R-A-20) to the City of Temecula's Zoning Designations of Hillside Residential —Santa Margarita (HR-SM) and Conservation —Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM), which are proposed as a part of the project. This application also includes the Pre -Zoning of the SMAA, since the Zoning Amendment is contingent upon the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation of this area into the City. RECOMMENDATION Recommend Approval to the Temecula City Council CEQA: Final Certified Environmental Impact Report (certified on December 9, 2008). In accordance with CEQA Section 15164, an Addendum to Final Certified Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. PROJECT DATA SUMMARY NAME OF City of Temecula APPLICANT: EXISTING CONDITIONS/LAND USE FOR THE PROJECT SITE: Site: Existing Conditions Primarily undisturbed natural open space within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and six large lot residential dwelling units Land Use City of Temecula: Open Space (OS) and Hillside Residential (HR); County of Riverside: Rural Mountainous (RM) and Open Space -Conservation Habitat (OS - CH) EXISTING CONDITIONS/LAND USE FOR SURROUNDING AREA: North: Existing Conditions Undisturbed natural open space and large lot residential dwelling units Land Use City of Temecula: Open Space (OS)/Hillside Residential (HR); County of Riverside: Rural Mountainous (RM) and Open Space -Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) South: Existing Conditions Undisturbed natural open space and large lot residential dwellings units Land Use County of San Diego: Multiple Rural Use (1 du/ 4,8,20 acres); Public/Semi Public Lands East: Existing Conditions Undisturbed natural open space and Interstate 15, large lot residential dwellings and sporadic commercial activity east of Interstate 15 Land Use City of Temecula: Open Space (OS) and Hillside Residential (HR); County of Riverside: Rural Mountainous (RM), Rural Residential (RR), Public Facilities (PF) and Light Industrial (LI) West: Existing Conditions Undisturbed natural open space and large lot residential dwellings units Land Use County of Riverside: Rural Mountainous (RM) BACKGROUND SUMMARY On December 9, 2008, the City of Temecula ("City") City Council adopted Resolutions to apply to LAFCO for an expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence and Annexation of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City of Temecula Boundary line, west of Interstate-15 ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation"). Resolutions also included a General Plan Amendment to the City's Land Use Map, Pre -Zoning of the area, adoption of associated hillside development standards and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Annexation. On June 4, 2009, LAFCO denied the City's Sphere of Influence and Annexation Applications determining that an application by Granite Construction for a proposed surface mine permit ("Liberty Quarry") within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation should be allowed to continue its process under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and not the City of Temecula. LAFCO adopted formal Resolutions on June 25, 2009 disapproving the City's Sphere of Influence and Annexation request. In light of the LAFCO's discussions that the proposed Liberty Quarry project be processed through the County, the City requested LAFCO to reconsider the Santa Margarita Annexation Application with reduced boundaries removing the territory associated with the proposed Liberty Quarry project site (and a few surrounding parcels). A Reconsideration Hearing was held by LAFCO on September 24, 2009 and LAFCO determined new Sphere of Influence and Annexation Applications would need to be filed to remove the proposed territory from the City's Annexation request. On December 3, 2009, upon motion by LAFCO Commissioner Robin Lowe, LAFCO voted unanimously to waive the one-year waiting period for the City of Temecula to file the requisite Sphere of Influence and Annexation Applications in order to allow the City to proceed with the proposal of modified boundaries as soon as possible. Furthermore, LAFCO voted to reduce the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation application fees by fifty percent. On January 12, 2010, the City Council voted to proceed with the preparation of documents for a new Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Application consisting of reduced boundaries of the original Santa Margarita Area Annexation. The new Santa Margarita Area Annexation boundary is referred to in this staff report as "Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2" or "SMAA". It is anticipated the City's Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Applications for Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 would be submitted to LAFCO if ultimately approved by City Council. Barring any unforeseen delays, it is anticipated that LAFCO would thereafter schedule a hearing within four months. ANALYSIS The original Santa Margarita Annexation Area consisted of approximately 4,997 acres of primarily undisturbed natural habitat area located southwest of the City of Temecula. The proposal herein (Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2) reduces the boundaries by approximately 487 acres and eliminates all territory associated with the proposed Liberty Quarry project site described above (as well as a few adjacent privately owned lots) from the annexation proposal. As a result, the proposed Liberty Quarry project would continue its review through the County's permitting and CEQA process, as desired by LAFCO, and the City would annex the remaining area into the City's jurisdiction. Project Area Description The Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 project area encompasses approximately 4,510 acres of which approximately 4,284 acres is part of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") preserved as open space and the 225 acres is primarily undeveloped rural residential. Although most of the subject property is undeveloped and pristine land, there are six dwelling units within the 4,510-acre site. Four of these units are on privately owned land and appear to be occupied. The other two units are located within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and are periodically occupied by the San Diego State University (SDSU) Field Research Program researchers. The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is designed to serve as a living laboratory and open classroom. All field stations are located within natural areas, and scientific monitoring stations exist at various locations within the Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve 3 Area to assist SDSU with continual research and educational programs. The project area is adjacent to a designated "Special Linkage Area" of the MSHCP. This Special Linkage Area connects the San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program with the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and is the only remaining natural habitat connection for the coastal Santa Ana Mountains to the inland ranges. 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 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. The subject property's topographic character is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders, sloping in a southwesterly direction, with elevations ranging from approximately 530 to 2,330 feet above mean sea level. At the lower elevations of the project, a five -mile stretch of the protected Santa Margarita River flows southwesterly through the SMAA from the northeast portion to the southwest portion of the subject property. The Santa Margarita River begins at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek at the Temecula City Limits. The river flows through the Temecula Gorge traversing through the primarily undeveloped lands of Camp Pendleton to the west, and ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Margarita River is the last intact riparian corridor in southern California and an important water source for Camp Pendleton. Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Proposal Currently, 384 acres of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 are located within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence boundaries. The City land use designation of this 384-acre area is a combination of Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS). Since the property is not located within the City of Temecula jurisdiction the zoning designation for the property is not currently determined by the City, but by the County of Riverside ("County"). However, the proposed Pre-Zoning/Zoning Designation for the property is a combination of both Hillside Residential — Santa Margarita (HR-SM) and Conservation —Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM), which is consistent with the current General Plan land use designations. The remaining 4,126 acres of the SMAA are located outside the City of Temecula's current Sphere of Influence boundaries and requires an expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence boundary to include these acres in order to ultimately annex the 4,510 acres from the unincorporated jurisdiction of the County of Riverside into the incorporated jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. The Sphere of Influence expansion and associated Annexation of the SMAA into the City of Temecula involves a shift in land use jurisdiction and services from the County to the City. Upon annexation, municipal services property within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 boundary will be provided by the City of Temecula. Ultimate approval of the annexation will be decided by LAFCO. The City's objectives for annexing the 4,510-acre project site of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 area remain unchanged from the City's objectives to annex the original 4,997- acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation proposal. These objectives are identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report certified on December 9, 2008 as follows: 4 1. To integrate the Santa Margarita Area into the City's General Plan, adopting General Plan and Zoning Amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate land use within the study area. 2. To preserve public lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation area in natural open space; while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately -owned lands. 3. To protect the research value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. The proposed annexation is consistent with a number of Policies and Goals existing within the City's General Plan (as hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein). For example, the City's General Plan Open Space Conservation Element (page OS-26; policy 3.7) requires the City to maintain and enhance the resources of the Santa Margarita River to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement. The City's General Plan also recognizes that the topographical features including the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, and environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should be protected from incompatible development and activities. In addition, public views to these areas should be maintained (page OS-26, 27). Policy 5.1, in the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element (page OS-27), requires conservation of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence and other important Iandforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Implementation Program CD-6, in the General Plan Community Design Element (page CD-28) requires the City to establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development, including critical escarpment and major hillside areas on the west and south edges of the city. This should include working with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development. If LAFCO approves requests to amend the City's sphere and annex this area, the City would assume the role of land use regulator, and could effectively preserve the quality of the existing hillsides and the Santa Margarita River. The land use designations and zoning regulations contemplated by the City would reduce potential hazards associated with hillside development by incorporating Hillside Development Standards within the zoning for the SMAA. Further, in addition to the City's objectives related to the preservation of open space, the research potential and unique ecological value of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve are also significant reasons for the City's request to annex this area. The incorporation of the SMAA into the Temecula City limits would enable the City to enforce its proposed General Plan and Zoning regulations to implement the City's goals for this area, including preserving natural conditions and resources as well as the valuable hillside and scenic resources. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Land Use Designation This project requires an amendment to the City's existing Sphere of Influence in order to ultimately annex 4,510 acres from the unincorporated jurisdiction of the County of Riverside ("County") into the incorporated jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. Of the 4,510 acres, there are 225 acres within the SMAA currently designated Rural Mountainous (RM) (1 du/10 acres) under the County of Riverside land use designation. This entire 225-acre area will be designated as Hillside Residential (HR) (1 du/10 acres) under the City of Temecula General 5 Plan land use designation. The remaining 4,284 acres within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 are currently designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat (OS -CH) under the County of Riverside's land use designation and will be designated as Open Space (OS) under the City of Temecula General Plan land use designation. Consistency with the City's current General Plan The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. The objectives of the General Plan Amendment, and other associated components of the project, will ensure the protection and preservation of sensitive habitat and natural resources, as well as sensitive biological and ecological resources that exist, or potentially exist within the annexation area. This is consistent with the direction, goals and policies outlined in the City of Temecula General Plan (examples include Land Use- Goal 6, Policies 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4; Open Space — Goal 2, Policy 2.1, 2.9 Open Space - Goal 3, Policies 3.1 — 3.7, Open Space - Goal 5, Policies 5.1-5.3 and 5.8.). The Amendment is also consistent with a number of General Plan implementation programs (examples include Land Use Implementation Programs: LU-14; LU-19; LU-20; LU-21; Open Space Implementation Programs: OS-9; OS-10; OS-11; OS-1 2; OS-13; OS-19; OS-21; OS-22; OS-25; OS-33; OS-34; OS-35; Community Design Implementation Program: CD-6) and is intended to further implement the General Plan of the City of Temecula. These General Plan implementation programs, like the goals and policies, also emphasize the preservation of natural and biological resources, as well as the aesthetic quality of the hillsides surrounding the City. Copies of the referenced General Plan policies are attached hereto, and are hereby incorporated by reference. Consistency with the existing character of the area The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area. The General Plan Amendment, which changes the land use designation from the County of Riverside designations of Rural Mountainous (RM) and Open Space Conservation Habitat (OS -CH), to the land use designations of Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) for the City of Temecula, will retain the rural character of the surrounding area and protect and maintain the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve as Open Space. The Amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of the area, and will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The Amendment will effectively limit certain land uses allowed under the County regulations and preserve the Santa Margarita River and its associated natural resources. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment (in conjunction with the proposed annexation, Sphere of Influence Expansion, and Zoning Amendments) will enable the City to prohibit land uses within the City's jurisdiction on properties within, and adjacent to, the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve that are incompatible with, or may have a significant impact on, the character of this biologically sensitive and ecologically rich property. Preservation of the public health, safety and welfare The health, safety and general welfare status will effectively remain unchanged as a result of the General Plan Amendment. The intent of the Amendment is to maintain the existing rural character and preserve the open space that currently exists within the project area. Since the General Plan Amendment proposes that the majority (4,284 acres) of the site is to be designated under the City's General Plan, as Open Space, with the remaining portion of the project area designated as Hillside Residential (HR), development will be limited to relatively 9 rural uses. As a result, it has been determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Furthermore, as development occurs over time, the City will review all development plan applications pursuant to the proposed zoning regulations discussed below to ensure that all appropriate utilities and municipal services will adequately serve development. Further, it serves to protect the area's health, safety and welfare by preventing the adverse impacts associated with any future development. In conclusion, the Amendment is not detrimental, and in fact will effectively maintain the existing public health, safety and welfare of the community. ZONING AMENDMENT The project includes a proposal to pre -zone the SMAA. The authorization to change the zoning of the property within the SMAA is contingent upon the approval of the Sphere of Influence Expansion and Annexation by LAFCO. The discussion which follows addresses the proposed zone change and Hillside Development Standards: Pre-Zone/Zone Change The Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 proposal encompasses 4,510 acres total. Upon the approval of the Sphere of Influence amendment and Annexation by LAFCO, the zoning will fall under the City of Temecula's jurisdiction. The pre -zone and formal Zoning Amendment, which is contingent upon the approval of the Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation by LAFCO, proposes that 4,284 acres within the overall project boundary will be zoned as Conservation Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM), with the remaining 225 acres proposed to be zoned as Hillside Residential Santa Margarita (HR-SM). The City's proposed Zoning Designation of Conservation Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) limits development within the 4,284 acre Conservation Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM) portion of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 to construction of public utilities or government facilities, such as flood control structures, or essential public infrastructure improvements that may be required to preserve public health and safety, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This will ensure the preservation of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve primarily as open space and guarantee the protection of the natural and ecological resources that exist in the area. As discussed above, the remaining 225 acres within the SMAA will be zoned as Hillside Residential —Santa Margarita (HR—SM; 1 du/10 acres) by the City. This zoning designation will effectively preserve the rural character of the area. Additionally, the proposed zoning designation of Hillside Residential —Santa Margarita (HR-SM) for 225 acres will result in development that is compatible with the open space and conservation goals and land use goals of the City, as well as maintain compatibility with the adjacent land pre -zoned as Conservation — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM). The proposed zoning of the 225 acres will also ensure that incompatible land uses within the City's jurisdiction will not be constructed adjacent to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and provide the necessary buffer land to further ensure the preservation and protection of the natural and biological resources that exists or are known to exist within this area. Hillside Development Standards In addition to the proposed Pre-Zoning/Zoning Amendment, the City of Temecula also proposes Hillside Development Standards to guide any development that may occur in the future within the SMAA in the HR-SM and OS-C-SM zones. These standards would be added to the City's Municipal Code, but would only take effect as to 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 anticipated the implementation of these Hillside Development Standards. 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 (page, LU-39). The implementation of these standards is appropriate since the aesthetic quality and biological preservation of the hillsides and the Santa Margarita River is important as outlined in the goals and policies of the General Plan. The implementation of these standards will ensure that all development occurring within the project area will achieve the City's goals and policies as they relate to the protection and preservation of natural and biological resources. The Hillside Development Standards require the approval of a Hillside Development Permit application, (or a Hillside Cluster Development Plan Option) prior to the commencement of any grading or construction activity within the SMAA. Some land uses may also require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, dependent upon the proposed use, for any development occurring within the annexation area. Hillside Development Permit applications, Hillside Cluster Development Plan Option, and Conditional Use Permits, (as required by the zoning), shall be reviewed to ensure that any development and/or construction occurring within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 shall be designed to protect wildlife habitat, biological corridors, native plants and plant communities, and where practical shall be designed to support inter -connected, contiguous and integrated open space systems within the area. The Hillside Development Standards require sensitive development, resulting in the least aesthetic impact to the hillside, and biological, ecological and natural resources. Hillside Development Plan applications (or a Hillside Cluster Development Plan Option) and/or Conditional Use Permits (as required) submitted for development in the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 will also be reviewed to ensure compliance with the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Consistency with the City's General Plan The proposed Pre -Zoning and Development Code Amendment is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and do not create any internal inconsistencies between the proposed zoning and the existing land use designations for the area within the current Sphere of Influence, or between the land use designations proposed for the General Plan Amendment. The proposed zoning for the SMAA will ensure consistency with the General Plan as amended, and continue to implement the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. The City's proposed zoning of Hillside Residential Santa Margarita (HR-SM), will allow for one dwelling unit per ten acres, and will encompass 225 acres within the SMAA. This is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Hillside Residential (HR) for this property. The remaining portion of the property within the SMAA will be assigned a Zoning Designation of Conservation — Santa Margarita (OS-C-SM). This is also consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Open Space (OS) for this property. As such, the proposed General Plan land use designations and proposed pre-zoning/change of zone are consistent with one another and will not create an internal conflict. As a result of the proposed zoning designations, the majority of the property (4,284 acres) will be preserved as open space, which is consistent with a number of General Plan goals and policies. Copies of each of the referenced General Plan policies are attached hereto, and are hereby incorporated by reference. The General Plan currently emphasizes the importance of the preservation of natural and biological resources, as well as the aesthetic quality of the hillsides surrounding the City (examples include Land Use- Goal 6, Policies 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4; 9 Open Space - Goal 2, Policy 2.1, 2.9 Open Space - Goal 3, Policies 3.1 — 3.7, Open Space - Goal 5, Policies 5.1-5.3 and 5.8.). The proposed Zone Change is also consistent with a number of implementation programs outlined in the General Plan (examples include Land Use Implementation Programs: LU-14; LU-19; LU-20; LU-21; Open Space Implementation Programs: OS-9; OS-10; OS-11; OS-12; OS-13; OS-19; OS-21; OS-22; OS-25; OS-33; OS-34; OS-35). The Sphere of Influence Expansion, Annexation, and consequently the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, will ensure the protection and preservation of sensitive habitat and natural resources, as well as sensitive biological and ecological resources which exist or potentially exist within the project area. The proposed zone change, along with the other components of the project, will achieve the City's preservation goals and polices outlined in the General Plan. Consequently, the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as they relate to the protection and preservation of sensitive resources and hillsides within the project area. To ensure that the development that may occur within the annexation area maintains consistency with the General Plan's direction, goals and policies, Hillside Development Standards for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 have been established. The implementation of Hillside Development Standards is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies, related to natural resources and community aesthetics, as outlined in the Land Use Element (Page; LU-39). The Hillside Development standards are intended to preserve the aesthetic and sensitive biological resources within the project area, as consistent with the various General Plan goals and polices, relating to preservation and the protection of sensitive resources. Existing General Plan policies (Open Space - Policies 3.1-3.7 and Open Space - Policies 5.1- 5.3 and 5.8) emphasize the protection of significant ecological and biological resources within the City boundaries, as well as within the surrounding area. CONCLUSION Staff and the EIR consultant have reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed project and find that the project, as proposed, serves the best interest of the community. The proposed Sphere of Influence expansion, Annexation and coinciding General Plan and Zoning Amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community as well as the existing and surrounding uses. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the goals and policies adopted by the General Plan. The annexation of the SMAA will ensure the preservation of 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 and the only remaining natural habitat connection for the coastal Santa Ana Mountains to the inland ranges. 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 Area Annexation No. 2 boundary. In addition to the City's objectives related to the preservation of open space, the research potential and unique ecological value of the SMER is at the forefront of the City's request for the annexation of this area. The SMER is designed to serve as a living laboratory or an open classroom as all field stations are natural areas and there are scientific monitoring stations at various locations within the Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve Area to assist San Diego State University with their continual research and educational programs. The pristine nature of the project area, as well as the property located within the SMER, has made this area a valuable resource for ecological 0 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 reserve. The integration of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 into the Temecula City limits will enable the City to implement the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments and maintain consistency and compatibility with the City's goals for this area, including preserving natural conditions and resources as well as the valuable hillside and scenic resources. This action will enable the City to prohibit incompatible land uses on properties within the City's jurisdiction and adjacent to the SMER, which are incompatible with this biologically sensitive and ecologically rich property. In addition to maintaining the resources of the Santa Margarita River to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement, the City's General Plan also recognizes that the topographical features including the western escarpment and southern ridgelines must be preserved. Furthermore, the General Plan recognizes that the environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should be protected from insensitive development and activities, as well as public views to these areas should be maintained. Therefore, the conservation of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes and other important Iandforms and historic landscape features will be protected through the development review process using the proposed Hillside Development standards. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on January 23, 2010 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. Four signs have been posted on the property pursuant to the requirements in Development Code Section 17.03.040 "Public Hearing and Notification." Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission is controlled by the statute of limitations provisions set forth in Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, or void any decision of the Temecula Planning Commission is controlled by Chapter 2.36 of the Temecula Municipal Code. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Temecula Planning Commission, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing as provided in Chapter 2.36 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Copies of the procedures for the conduct of City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Director public hearings are available from the City Clerk. If you wish to challenge the above [project] in court, the challenge will be limited to 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 described in this notice, and must be commenced within the time limit specified in Section 1094.5 and Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified on December 9, 2008 ("Certified Final Environmental impact Report" or "FEIR"). Further, in accordance with CEQA Section 15164, an Addendum to the Final Certified Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which addresses the reduction in acreage of the annexation area. 10 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt the proposed Resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in connection therewith and that the City Council take various actions related to the Annexation of the Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2. ATTACHMENTS Area Map PC Resolution (CEQA) Exhibit A - Map Exhibit B - Addendum to Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Exhibit C - Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit D - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program PC Resolution (Recommending Project Approval to the City Council) Exhibit AA - Map Exhibit A - CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment) General Plan Amendment Resolution Attachments Exhibits 1-4 Exhibit B - CC Ordinance (Development Code Amendment) Map Exhibit C - CC Ordinance (Pre -Zoning Amendment) Pre -Zoning Amendment Ordinance Attachments Exhibits 1-4 Exhibit D - CC Resolution (LAFCO Application for Sphere of Influence) Legal Description and Map Attachments Exhibit E - CC Resolution (LAFCO Application for Annexation) Legal Description and Map Attachments Excerpts of General Plan Policies and Table 3.4-3 City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Policies from the Certified Environmental Impact Report City of Temecula General Plan on website: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/GovernmentCommDev/Zoning/generalplan. htm Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for Santa Margarita Area Annexation with Appendixes (certified December 9, 2008) on website: httD://www.citvoftemecula.ora/Temecula/Government/CommDev/ Notice of Public Hearing 11 The proposed Santa Margarita Area Annexation, Sphere of Influence Expansion, General Plan Amendment, Pre -Zoning and Zoning Amendment are consistent with goals, policies and implementation programs as in the adopted City of Temecula General Plan including but not limited to the goals and policies outlined in table 3.4-3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs outlined below: Land Use Element Goals and Policies Goal 6: A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the Planning Area. Policy 6.1: Preserve the natural aesthetic quality of the hillsides and reduce hazards associated with hillside development within the Planning Area. Policy 6.3: Conserve the natural resources of area watercourses, including the Santa Gertrudis, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities, managing stormwater run-off, and conservation site planning. Policy 6.4: Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and surrounding Temecula. Open Space/Conservation Element Goals and Policies Goal 2: Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy 2.1: Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural resources of the local creeks and riparian forests of the Santa Margarita River, Policy 2.9: Participate in regional planning efforts for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with federal, state, regional and local agencies, and non-profit organizations. Goal 3: Conservation of important biological habitat and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. Policy 3.1: Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provisions of replacement habitats, and other appropriate measures. Policy 3.2: Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve and enhance significant biological resources. Policy 3.3: Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies for the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Policy 3.4: Encourage developers to incorporate drought resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. Policy 3.5: Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the city. Policy 3.6: Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are sensitive biological resources as needed to protect these resources. Policy 3.7: Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to ensure the long term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and the protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1: Conserve 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. Policy 5.2: Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design, and building techniques. Policy 5.3: Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open space. Policy 5.8: Require re -vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. Community Desiqn Element Goals and Policies Policy 5.1: Work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development that affects the visual backdrop of the valley. Policy 5.2: Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. Policy 5.3: Establish a program to acquire or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development. Land Use Element Implementation Programs LU-14: Establish a process to review and approved development projects within Rural Preservation Areas, including the pre -zoning process for such areas currently outside City jurisdiction, to ensure that the proposed projects are consistent with the objectives identified for each area. LU-19: Promote the preservation of hillsides surroundings the community through the following actions: Enforce 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 consider the site constraints in determining the location, type, and intensities of development along the western escarpment and other surrounding hillside areas. LU-20: Protect the resources of the Santa Gertrudis, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, San Diego Aqueducts, and other waterways within the Planning Area. Open Space Element Implementation Programs OS-9 Biological Assessments: Require development proposals in all areas inside of adjacent to sensitive habitat area, designated critical habitat, and the MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance. OS-10 Open Space Area: 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. OS-11 Resource Protection Measures: Require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a vegetation management program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provisions of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and the use of project design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize the impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitat. OS-12 Acquisition of Biologically Significant Area: Evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resources significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement or gift; dedication of conservation, open space and scenic easements, joint acquisition with other local agencies, transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements, state and federal grants, and impact/mitigation fees/banking. OS-13 Partnerships with Conservation Organizations: 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. OS-19 Acquisition of Open Space: Where feasible, secure permanent open space through the dedication, easement or other acquisition mechanisms. OS-21 Hillside Grading Ordinance: Implement a Hillside Grading Ordinance to preserve sensitive hillside and canyon areas, and require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and other soil related problems. OS-22 : Land Development Regulations: Preserve the natural open space character through the development of effective land use development regulations. These regulations may include limiting grading of natural land forms, regulating setbacks, requiring vegetation, conserving mature trees, and limiting the intensity of development in certain areas. OS-25 Open Space Protection: Establish priorities and take steps to permanently protect critical open space. OS-33 Native Species Conservation: Require project proponents to minimize impacts to coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grasslands consistent with the MSHCP. 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 the MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. OS-34 Riparian Areas Conservation: Require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest and Water vegetation 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, wetlands 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 function and values. OS-35 Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency: Review development associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and require compliance with the MSHCP UrbanM/ildlife Interface Guidelines. Community Design Implementation Programs CD-6 Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development, including critical escarpment and major hillside areas on the west and south edges of the City. This should include working with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development. Item No. 22 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Implementation of Existing 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Contract Provision - PERS Contract Amendment/Early Retirement Option PREPARED BY: Grant Yates, Deputy City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. 2. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. 3. Certify PERS Form CON-12, Certification of Governing Body's Action 4. Certify PERS Form CON-12AA, Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507. Approve a second early retirement option for City employees for 180 days from July 1, 2010 to December 27. 2010. BACKGROUND: On June 10, 2008, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provided to amend the retirement benefit formula for City employees from 2.5% @ 55 to 2.7% @ 55 effective July 1, 2010. The deferral of this retirement program allowed the Citythe opportunityto reduce staffing commensurate with current activity levels prior to that increase. As such, the overall personnel cost to the City on an annual basis has been substantially reduced in an amount of approximately $2.2 million. On February24, 2009, the City's CalPERS contract was amended to provide two additional years of service credit to eligible employees. It is recommended to provide employees with another opportunity to receive an early retirement service credit option, from July 1, 2010 to December 27, 2010. Government Code Section 20903 allows local agencies contracting with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) to grant two (2) years of additional service credit to employees under certain circumstances. This action will allow the City an opportunity to even further reduce ongoing operating expenses on an annual basis. FISCAL IMPACT: The PERS contract amendment, related to the implementation of the MOU, will increase the City's cost for retirement by 3.05% for the employer's portion. This equates to a total cost of approximately $384,947 annually. However, due to staffing reduction levels since the inception of the MOU (July 1, 2008), the City will pay $58,000 less in retirement costs for FY 10/11 than what was paid in FY 08/09. Further, the City will pay $2.2 million less in overall salary and benefits for City employees in FY 10/11 than in FY 08/09. Regarding the early retirement option with an estimated ten employees participating, the annual cost will be approximately $35,000 per year over the next 20 years; however, the City will save approximately $1.1 million annually in salary, retirement and benefit costs. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Resolution, w/Amendment to Contract Exhibit Form CON-12, Certification of Governing Body's Action Form CON-12AA, Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507 Proposed Ordinance, w/Amendment to Contract Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law. B. One of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing board of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract. C. The following is a statement of the proposed change: To provide Section 21354.5 (2.7% @ 55 Full formula) for local miscellaneous members. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Temecula and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and by this reference made a part hereof. The Council expects to take final action on said amendment at its meeting of March 23, 2010. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, 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 23rd day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Ca1PERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees' Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of Temecula A160- The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 1, 1990, and witnessed November 8, 1990, and as amended effective October 25, 1997, August 24, 2002, July 10, 2004 and April 24, 2009 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective April 24, 2009, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after December 1, 1990 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "LEXHIBIT ONLY" 3. Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and its trustees, agents and employees, the CaIPERS Board of Administration, and the California Public Employees' Retirement Fund from any claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, expenses and costs, including but not limited to interest, penalties and attorneys fees that may arise as a result of any of the following: (a) Public Agency's election to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas under this Contract that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under the Public Agency's prior non-CaIPERS retirement program. (b) Public Agency's election to amend this Contract to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas that are different than existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas. (c) Public Agency's agreement with a third party other than CaIPERS to provide retirement benefits, provisions, or formulas that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under this Contract and provided for under the California Public Employees' Retirement Law. (d) Public Agency's election to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 (commencing with section 901) of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and/or Public Agency's election to reject this Contract with the CaIPERS Board of Administration pursuant to section 365, of Title 11, of the United States Bankruptcy Code or any similar provision of law. (e) Public Agency's election to assign this Contract without the prior written consent of the CaIPERS' Board of Administration. (f) The termination of this Contract either voluntarily by request of Public Agency or involuntarily pursuant to the Public Employees' Retirement Law. (g) Changes sponsored by Public Agency in existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas made as a result of amendments, additions or deletions to California statute or to the California Constitution. 4. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 5. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. SAFETY EMPLOYEES. 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment before and not on or after July 10, 2004 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment on or after July 10, 2004 and not on or after the effective date of this amendment to contract shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.4 of said Retirement Law (2.5% at age 55 Full). 8. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment on or after the effective date of this amendment to contract shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.5 of said Retirement Law (2.7% at age 55 Full). 9. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation). b. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post -Retirement Survivor Allowance). C. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). d. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). e. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the :!.day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIONCITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENTS STEM CITY OF TEMECULA V ! BY = BY LORI MCGA,I� D, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEE SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM tC, Witness Kai, Attes� Clerk AMENDMENT ER# 1522 PERS-CON-702A ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Temecula and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment is attached hereto, marked EXHIBIT, and by such reference made apart hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City of Temecula. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of 30 days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the Californian, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Temecula and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 12010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor r_T40r:61n 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 23rd day of March, 2010, 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 I , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: rG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Al li,, Ca1PERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees' Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of Temecula The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 1, 1990, and witnessed November 8, 1990, and as amended effective October 25, 1997, August 24, 2002, July 10, 2004 and April 24, 2009 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective April 24, 2009, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after December 1, 1990 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 3. Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and its trustees, agents and employees, the CaIPERS Board of Administration, and the California Public Employees' Retirement Fund from any claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, expenses and costs, including but not limited to interest, penalties and attorneys fees that may arise as a result of any of the following: (a) Public Agency's election to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas under this Contract that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under the Public Agency's prior non-CaIPERS retirement program. (b) Public Agency's election to amend this Contract to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas that are different than existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas. (c) Public Agency's agreement with a third party other than CaIPERS to provide retirement benefits, provisions, or formulas that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under this Contract and provided for under the California Public Employees' Retirement Law. (d) Public Agency's election to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 (commencing with section 901) of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and/or Public Agency's election to reject this Contract with the CaIPERS Board of Administration pursuant to section 365, of Title 11, of the United States Bankruptcy Code or any similar provision of law. (e) Public Agency's election to assign this Contract without the prior written consent of the CaIPERS' Board of Administration. (f) The termination of this Contract either voluntarily by request of Public Agency or involuntarily pursuant to the Public Employees' Retirement Law. (g) Changes sponsored by Public Agency in existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas made as a result of amendments, additions or deletions to California statute or to the California Constitution. 4. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 5. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. SAFETY EMPLOYEES. 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment before and not on or after July 10, 2004 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment on or after July 10, 2004 and not on or after the effective date of this amendment to contract shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.4 of said Retirement Law (2.5% at age 55 Full). 8. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member in employment on or after the effective date of this amendment to contract shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.5 of said Retirement Law (2.7% at age 55 Full). 9. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation). b. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post -Retirement Survivor Allowance). G. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). d. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). e. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION q��ss\i1\ t, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RET hF�L��Y9UTEM BY LWIMGARTLAND, CHIEF EMPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ER# 1522 PERS-CON-702A day of CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA ey{� 4�I&&p BY PRESIDING Q R �C Witness Date Attest: Clerk CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Branch Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (888) CalPERS (225-7377) CERTIFICATION OF GOVERNING BODY'S ACTION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the City Council ofthe (governing body) City of Temecula (public agency) on (date) Clerk/Secretary Susan W. Jones City Clerk Title PERS-CON-12 (rev. 1/96) CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Branch Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (888) CalPERS (225-7377) CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7507 By signing below, I hereby certify that in accordance with Section 7507 of the Government Code statements 1, 2, and 3 are true; and that statement 4 is applicable and is true if I have placed my initials beside the statement: Services of an actuary were secured to provide a statement of the actuarial impact upon future annual costs before authorizing changes in retirement plan benefits. The actuary prepared a statement of the actuarial impact of the proposed changes in benefits upon future annual costs, including normal cost and any additional accrued liability. The statement of the actuarial impact for the increase in benefits was made public on at a public meeting (date) of the of the (governing body) (public agency) which is at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the Resolution / Ordinance. Adoption of the retirement benefit increase will not be placed on the consent calendar. 4. [INITIAL HERE IF THIS STATEMENT APPLIES] An actuary was present to provide information as needed at the public meeting at which the adoption of the benefit change was considered. (The presence of an actuary is required if future costs of the benefit changes exceed 1 /2 of 1 % of the future annual costs of the existing benefits.) Signature Print Name of Authorized Signer ritle EM PERS-CON-12AA (rev. 6/09) CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7507 The Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507 requires you to certify that: "The actuary prepared a statement of the actuarial impact of the proposed changes in benefits upon future annual costs, including normal costs and any additional accrued liability. The statement of the actuarial impact for the increase in benefits was made public on February 23, 2010 at a public meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula. Based upon the actuarial study completed by PERS, the change in the Present Value of Benefits is $3,886,575 and the change in the Accrued Liability is $2,698,982 resulting in a change in the Total Employer Rate of 3.050%. Item No. 23 Approvals City Attorney /10 Director of Finance City Manager Go,, CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Authorization for partial prepayment of the Civic Center Certificates of Participation bonds PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to initiate the prepayment of up to $12 million of the Certificates of Participation bonds. BACKGROUND: On February 12, 2008, the City Council approved the issuance of the Certificates of Participation (bonds) for the new Temecula Civic Center including a new city hall office building, an attached council chambers and a community room, totaling approximately 95,500 square feet. The bonds were issued on February 27, 2008, in an amount of $24,535,000 for a thirty-year term and were structured to allow the City to prepay the Certificates early if there are available funds to do so. The annual debt service obligation for these bonds is approximately $1.58 million for the life of the bonds and the current outstanding balance of the bonds is $24,105,000. When the Civic Center project was awarded in September 2008, the City realized a significant savings in the actual construction bid of approximately $9.7 million. This savings was designated as a Secondary Reserve Fund Balance to address any potential revenue shortfalls in the current or upcoming fiscal year, or to offset any potential impacts resulting from the State budget issues. In addition, the General Fund maintains a $10.7 million Fund Balance Designated for Economic Uncertainty, and also has Undesignated General Fund fund balance of $10.8 million on a budgetary basis. In an effort to reduce the City's annual debt service payment obligation and the overall cost of interest for the bonds, staff is recommending a principal reduction of up to $12 million in Fiscal Year 2010-11. This early prepayment will result in overall interest savings to the General Fund of approximately $10.07 million over the term of the bond. FISCAL IMPACT: A prepayment of $12 million will result in a reduction to the debt service payments of approximately $770,000 annually and an overall interest savings to the General Fund of approximately $10.07 million over the term of the bonds. Fund Balance Designated for Economic Uncertainty remains untouched at $10.7 million, and in addition, the Secondary Reserve Fund Balance will be maintained at $8.4 million. 9]01V_1:MI►�i101 Allk I REPORTS Item No. 24 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the attached Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Reports for the month of January, 2010. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Supervisor DATE: February 8, 2010 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report -January, 2010 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of January, 2010: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 56 B. Total signs installed 11 C. Total signs repaired 54 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 55 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 1,145 B. Total Tons 15 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 348 B. Down Spouts 6 C. Under sidewalks 3 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 0 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations 63 B. Total S.F. 4,202 VIL STENCILING A. 70 New and repainted legends B. 0 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose D 0 Thermal Plastic RAMAINTAIMM0AC`rRPT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 123 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A. C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 85 service order requests for the month of December, 2009. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 293.5 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of January, 2010 was $135,648.00 compared to $55,740.00 for the month of December. 2009. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 Electronic Copies: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Dan York, City Engineer Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer $ 82,768.00 $ 52,880.00 $ -0- (Capital Improvements) (Traffic Division) R:WA1NTA1NWOACTR" .. e s ® s• a . • s• • . o •• ��\�L..\-y. moo.\��y' �:\�1ap•i 3" '1 11 pit 1 1 ' ����`4�.���.' `''ice •• . • . a .1 •1 1 .1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 Asphalt Square Feet Concrete Square Feet Drainage Channels CONTRACT STRIPING Striping Linear Feet Sandblasting Linear Feet TREE CONTRACTORS Trees Trimmed Trees Removed TOTAL COSTS R.O.W. SPRAYING SQUARE FEET TOTAL COSTS CITY MAINTENANCE CREW Signs Replaced Signs Installed Catch Basins Cleaned Trees Trimmed R.O.W. Weed Abatement New & Repainted Legends After Hours Call Outs Service Order Requests Graffiti Removal - So Ft Date Submitted: 08-Fab-10 Submitted By: GREG BUTLER Prepared By: RODNEY TIDWELL 2NDHALF 0 1,972,023 0 0 6 1,164 1 15 467,600 1.852.00 56 291 11 129 348 2,135 55 550 0 3,300 70 2,489 294 7,929 123 588 Rt NTNNWM RP RT.. MR K WMPLETEO I JANI NNE STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of January, 2010 DATE ACCOUNT .STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE DESCRIPTION `-OF WORK T—ITOTALCOST SIZE :CONTRACTOR: , RENEISCOMMERCIAL,MANAGEMENT-' Date: 01 /05/ 10 CITYWIDE APPLICATION OF PRE & POST EMERGENT HERBICIDES TO CITY LOTS AND R.O.W. TOTAL COST $ 30,950.00 CONTRACTOR: WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC Date: 01/15/10 CITYWIDE ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING TOTAL COST $ 18,070.00 Date: TOTAL COST Date: # TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: ` MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Date: 01 / 19/ 10 01 / 22 / 10 VIA LOBO CHANNEL THE REMOVAL OF SAND, SILT AND DEBRIS FROM CHANNEL CAUSED FROM RECENT STORMS TOTAL COST $ 37,042.00 Date: 01 /20/ 10 01 /25/ 10 VALLEJO CHANNEL THE REMOVAL OF SAND, SILT AND DEBRIS FROM CHANNEL CAUSED BY RECENT STORMS TOTAL COST $ 41,106.00 CONTRACTOR: ?. BACKER ENGINEERING " Date: 01 /07/ 10 DE PORTOLA ROAD AT BUTTERFIELD PARK REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGED GUARDRAIL CAUSED FROM TRAFFIC ACCIDENT TOTAL COST $ 3,860.00 Date: 01 /28/10 JOHN WARNER RETENTION. POND THE REMOVAL OF SAND, SILT AND DEBRIS CAUSED FROM RECENT STORMS TOTAL COST $ 4,620.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $52,880.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $82,768.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 -0— :awrvriveiutinistir:rui CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 DATE Al LOCgON SCQFE OF WORD e S F. = r' T11 O TAL TONS: 01/05/10 NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLES 12 01/06/10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLES 4 WINCHESTER AT 15 FWY POTHOLES 4 01/11/10 MARGARITA 850' N/0 PIO PICO R & R 25 7 01/12/10 CHALON COURT AT LA SERENA R & R 300 8 01/13/10 CITYWIDE POTHOLES 58 TEMP 01/20/10 YNEZ AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLES 2 JEFFERSON AT OLD TOWN FRONT POTHOLES 8 CITYWIDE POTHOLES 32 W ELTON AT CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO POTHOLES 2 01/21/10 CITYWIDE' POTHOLES 14 01/22/10 MARGARITA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLES 5 MARGARITA AT SANTIAGO POTHOLES 8 NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLES 10 01/25/10 WOLF STORE AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD POTHOLES 4 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET POTHOLES 3 YNEZ AT RANCHO VISTA POTHOLES 2 MORENO AT MERCEDES POTHOLES 1 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLES 2 SANTIAGO AT YNEZ POTHOLES 2 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT JEREZ POTHOLES 2 TWILIGHT AT COSMIC POTHOLES 2 RAINBOW CANYON POTHOLES 6 DE PORTOLA POTHOLES 10 MARGARITA ROAD POTHOLES 24 01/26/10 MARGARITA ROAD POTHOLES 138 01/27/10 NICOLAS POTHOLES 71 WINCHESTER AT WINCHESTER CREEK POTHOLES 10 R:N AINTAINjWKCMPLTDWPHALT.RPR DATE LQCAION .' ....: �_... SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TON, 01/27/10 WINCHESTER BETWEEN YNEZ & 1-15 FREEWAY POTHOLES 16 PECHANGA PARKWAY POTHOLES 3 YNEZ AT E. VALLEJO POTHOLES 14 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT DIAZ POTHOLES 2 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT OLD TOWN FRONT POTHOLES 5 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLES 10 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD POTHOLES 32 01/26/10 JEFFERSON POTHOLES 10 31165 TEMECULA PARKWAY POTHOLES 12 YNEZ ROAD POTHOLES 14 SOLANA AT MARGARITA POTHOLES 4 NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLES 4 PESCADO ROAD POTHOLES 10 VINCENT MORAGA AT YNEZ POTHOLES 10 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT MORAGA POTHOLES 12 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 1.145 TOTAL TONS 15 R:\ MWAINjWKCMPLTD\ASPHALT.RPR CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 DATE ZOCATIQN R ORK COIPLETED . 01/04/10 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS 01/05/10 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 2 CATCH BASINS 01/07/10 CALLE REDONDELA CLEANED & CHECKED 3 CATCH BASINS 01/11/10 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 17 CATCH BASINS 01/12/10 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 51 CATCH BASINS 01/13/10 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 6 DOWN SPOUTS AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 13 CATCH BASINS 01/14/10 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 6 CATCH BASINS AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 3 UNDERSIDEWALK 01/19/10 DE PORTOLA FROM JEDEDIAH SMITH TO MARGARITA CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS HOT SPOTS / CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 51 CATCH BASINS 01/20/10 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS 01/21/10 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 53 CATCH BASINS CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 14 CATCH BASINS CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 41 CATCH BASINS 01/25/10 CITYWIDE "HOT SPOTS" CLEANED & CHECKED 34 CATCH BASINS 01/27/10 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 19 CATCH BASINS 01/28/10 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 348 RAMAINTAIM W KCMPLUMCATCHBAS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 DATE EOCATT +I N WORK.,COMPLETEIb 01/04/10 PECHANGA PARKWAY BRIDGE REMOVED 1,020 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SUNNY MEADOWS AT CAMPANULA REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YNEZ AT PREECE REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA FANITA AT PREECE REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PAUBA AT YNEZ REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO VISTA AT YNEZ REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/05/10 SUNNY MEADOWS AT FERMO REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/06/10 PASEO PARALLON AT CAMINO PALENCIA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MCCABE AT CALLE ALACON REMOVED 32 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NICOLAS AT VIA LOBO REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/08/10 SUNNY MEADOWS AT CAMPANULA - REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT HARVESTON REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT SANTA GERTRUDIS REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/11/10 VIA LAS COLINAS REMOVED 95 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TARGET CENTER REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YNEZ AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT SANTA GERTRUDIS BRIDGE REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BEHIND KOHL'S ON REDHAWK PARKWAY REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI REDHAWK PARKWAY AT REDHAWK PARKWAY REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 140 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 OVERLAND BRIDGE REMOVED 120 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PEACH TREE AT VINE STREET REMOVED 134 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PEACH TREE AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PEPPERCORN AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:WAINTAIMWKCMPLTMGRA FITI\ LQIA PERALESLACOLORADA REMOVED g 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI IA PERALES AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI A LA COLORADA AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SUNNY MEADOWS AT CALLE PORTOFINO REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO VISTA AT PASEO GOLETA REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO VISTA AT VIA EL GRECO REMOVED 37 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/12/10 VAIL RANCH AT CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MIRA LOMA AT EDISON PLANT REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VINTAGE HILLS AT CHANNEL REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY AT CHANNEL REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RYCREST AT NIGHTVIEW REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/14/10 YUKON AT SWEET SHADE REMOVED 7 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 41519 ASHBURN REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/25/10 ROCKY BAR AT SPORTS PARK REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PECHANGA AT WOLF CREEK REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA PERALES AT VIA COLORADA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI AVENIDA DE MISSIONS AT VIA RIO TEMECULA REMOVED 44 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DE PORTOLA AT VIA SABINO REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT SIB 1-15 FWY ON -RAMP REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI N/B 1-15 FWY AT SANTIAGO BRIDGE REMOVED 260 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOWER PLAZA REMOVED 17 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/26/10 SOLANA AT CALLE FUEGO REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 28450 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/27/10 WOLF CREEK CHANNEL REMOVED 90 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NORTH END OF YNEZ REMOVED 117 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA LANE AT CANTERFIELD REMOVED 402 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/28/10 MORAGA AT CHURCH REMOVED 95 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TARGET CENTER REMOVED 60 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 360 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI N0. GENERAL KEARNY BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 260 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RMIAINTAIMW KCMPLTD\GRAFFITI\ DATE LOCA;TIOL� WORK COTgLETED 01/28/10 41596 BIG SAGE MARGARITA AT LA SERENA 31293 JURA COURT REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 72 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 01/29/10 RANCHO VISTA AT PASEO GOLETA 1-15 FWY AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED REMOVED 60 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 400 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 4.202 TOTAL LOCATIONS 63 R:WA1NTAIM W KCMPLTD\GRAFFITI\ January 4,202 February March April May June July August September October CITY OF TEMECULA 2010 GRAFFITI REMOVAL TOTAL CALLS January 63 February March April May June July August I October 5000 3000 1000 DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV Totals for the Year To Date: February 1, 2010 Sq. Foot 4,202 Calls 63 -�- SO FT R:WAINTNAWRGRAF UGwKIi Clw.10 d. CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 DATE REC'D `LOCATION REQUEST ' DATE WORK COMPLETED 12/10/09 6TM STREET AT PUJOL DEBRIS 12/01/09 12/30/09 45496 CORTE NARBONNE TREE 01/04/10 01/01/10 39623OAK CLIFF DRIVE GRAFFITI. 01/04/10. 01/04/10 RANCHO VISTA AT YNEZ GRAFFITI 01/04/10 01/05/10 41098 VIA HALCON TREE 01/05/10 32000 CORTE SAGUNTO TREE 01/07/10 PASEO PARALLON AT CAMINO PALENCIA GRAFFITI 01/06/10 SUNNY MEADOWS AT FERMO COURT GRAFFITI 01/05/10 OVERLAND TRAIL AT VAIL RANCH TREE 01/05/10 01/06/10 31265 ENFIELD LANE ASPHALT REPAIR 01/06/10 40193 ODESSA DRIVE TREE 01/07/10 SERONO AT PASEO PARALLON ASPHALT REPAIR 01/11/10 31819 VINEYARD AVENUE DEBRIS 01/07/10 01/07/10 41800 SKYWOOD TREE 01/07/10 41800 SKYWOOD TREE 01/07/10 ' SUNNY MEADOWS GRAFFITI 01/08/10 27521 MARIAN ROAD TREE 01/13/10 CAMPANULA AT AUGUSTA GRAFFITI 01/08/10 01/08/10 STARLING COURT ATSTANFORD GRAFFITI 01/08/10 CAMINO SAN DIMAS AT VIA LA COLORADA GRAFFITI 01/08/10 45125 VIA DEL CORONADO SIGN REPAIR 01/11/10 VIA PERALES AT VIA LA COLORADA GRAFFITI 01/12/10 01/11/10 NICOLAS ROAD AT LONG RIDGE GRAFFITI 01/11/10 44053 NORTHGATE AVENUE TREE 01/11/10 OVERLAND BRIDGE GRAFFITI 01/1/110 VIA EL GRECO AT RANCHO VISTA ROAD GRAFFITI 01/11/10 CALLE PORTOFINO AT SUNNY MEADOWS GRAFFITI 01/11/10 R: W AI NTAI M W RKCOMPLTMSOR S\ DATE REC,D LOCATION 'REQUEST' :DATE WORK OMPLETED 01/11/10 BUTTERFIELDSTAGE ATCROWNEHILL TREE 01/11/10 RANCHO VISTA AT MEADOWS GRAFFITI 01/11/10 01/12/10 45656 CORTE LOBOS TREE 01/13/10 RYCREST AT NIGHTVIEW GRAFFITI 01/12/10 WINCHESTER ROAD AT WINCHESTER CREEK POTHOLE 01/12/10 01/14/10 41519 ASHBURN ROAD GRAFFITI 01/14/10 SWEET SHADE AT YUKON GRAFFITI 01/14/10 PEPPERCORN STREET HAZMAT 01/14/10 MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD POTHOLES 01/14/10 01/15/10 29924 CORTE CANTERA TREE 01/20 /10 MORAGA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD DEBRIS 01/20/10 29930 VIA NORTE DEBRIS 01/15/10 01/17/10 WOLF VALLEY AT WOLF CREEK GRAFFITI 01/20/10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT HUMBER GRAFFITI 01/17/10 01/19/10 OLD TOWN FRONT AT MAIN DEBRIS 01/20/10 WOLF VALLEY AT PECHANGA GRAFFITI 01/20/10 40312 ATMORE COURT DEBRIS 01/20/10 40237 TUOLOMNE COURT DEBRIS 01/20/10 WELTON AT CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO POTHOLES 01/20/10 28950 VALLEJO AVENUE DEBRIS 01/20/10 OVERLAND CHANNEL DEBRIS 01/20/10 BANANAL WAY AT OVERLAND TRAIL DEBRIS 01/20/10 PUJOL NEXT TO PANTRY TREE 01/20/10 01/20/10 MORAGA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD DEBRIS 01/20/10 RORIPAUGH HILLS AT WINCHESTER POTHOLE 01/20/10 28841 E. VALLEJO DEBRIS 01/20/10 VIA LOBO CHANNEL DEBRIS 01/21/10 MARGARITA AT MORAGA TREE 01/20/10 WOLF CREEK DRIVE AT WOLF VALLEY GRAFFITI 01/20/10 MARGARITA AT MORAGA DEBRIS 01/26/10 01/21/10 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD DEBRIS 01/21/10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MARGARITA TREE 01/21/10 31625 DE PORTOLA CHANNEL 01/21/10 40775 CAMINO CAMPOS VERDE DRAINAGE ISSUE 01/22/10 R:WAINTAIMW KCOMPLTD\ OM DATE REC'D -LOGAT' "- REQUEST DATE WORK' COMPLETED 01/21/10 SUNNY MEADOWS AT MEADOWS PARKWAY TREE 01/21/10' PREECE AT GATE W OOD TREE 01/21/10 41837 BOREALIS DRIVE TREE 01/21/10 YNEZ AT YORBA LINDA TREE 01/21/10 OLD TOWN FRONT FLOODING 01/21/10 HONORS AT MARGARITA TREE 01/21/10 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT VIA EDUARDO TREE 01/21/10 YUKON AT MARGARITA TREE 01/21/10 LA SERENA AT CALLE PINA COLADA TREE 01/21/10 LOMA LINDA AT PECHANGA FLOODING 01/21/10 30232 STRAWBERRY LANE FLOODING 01/22/10 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO TREE 01/21/10 SANTA CECILIA AT MIRA LOMA TREE 01/21/10 DEL REY AT AVENIDA BARCA SIGN REPAIR 01/22/10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT HUMBER DEBRIS Ot/26/10 WOLF VALLEY AT DAVANA WAY GRAFFITI 01/25/10 WOLF VALLEY AT WOLF CREEK GRAFFITI 01/25/10 SANTIAGO ROAD (VAN AVERY PREP) SIGN REPAIR 01/25/10 DIAZ AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TREE 01/21/10 YNEZ AT LA PAZ TREE 01/21/10 01/22/10 29500 VIA PRINCESA TREES 01/25/10 29110 VALLEJO AVENUE TREE 01/22/10 OVERLAND AT MARGARITA TREE 01/22/10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BTWN. DIAZ & BUSINESS PARK TREE 01/22/10 MIRA LOMA AT SANTA CECILIA TREES 01/22/10 CAMINO RUBANO AT VAIL RANCH TREE 01/22/10 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT TEMECULA PARKWAY POTHOLE 01/22/10 01/23/10 CALLE FUEGO AT SOLANA GRAFFITI 01/26/10 01/25/10 OAK PARK AT AUBURN SIGN REPAIR 01/27/10 - YNEZ AT FLORES TREE 01/25/10 SANTIAGO / HILLCREST ACADEMY GRAFFITI 01/25/10 28905 BRISTOL CONCRETE REPAIR 01/26/10 SAGE AT SO. GENERAL KEARNY GRAFFITI 01/25/10 L:�:BIG OVERLAND OVERPASS DEBRIS 01/25/10 R:WiAlN MN\WRKCOMPLTD\SORS\ DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST' DATE WORK COMPLETED MARGARITA ATYUKON GRAFFITI 01/25/10 SANTIAGO AT YNEZ SIGN REPAIR 01/25/10 TYLMAN AT SAN MARCO TREE 01/25/10 30483 DANUBE TREE 01/26/10 29005 LAKE HOUSE SIGN REPAIR 01/26/10 28840 LAKE FRONT SIGN REPAIR 01/26/10 01/26/10 MARGARITA CREEK (OLD TOWN) GRAFFITI 01/26/10 MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD DEBRIS 01/26/10 AVENIDA CIMA DEL SOL AT DAHLIA WAY TREE 01/27/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY (31165) POTHOLE 01/27/10 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT WOLF VALLEY POTHOLE 01/26/10 REDHAWK AT PEPPERCORN SIGN DOWN 01/26/10 CAMINO MARACA SIGN DOWN 01/26/10 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT VIA GILBERTO POTHOLE 01/26/10 01/27/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY (31165) POTHOLE 01/28/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY (31165) POTHOLE 01/28/10 STONEWOOD ROAD DEBRIS / SHOPPING CARTS 01/28/10 32266 FIRESIDE DRIVE SIGN REPAIR 01/27/10 31890 CORTE MENDOZA ASPHALT REPAIR 01/27/10 29830 MIRA LOMA DRIVE TREES 01/27/10 01/2810 MARGARITA ROAD AT TUSCANY APARTMENTS DEBRIS 01/28/10 LIEFER ROAD GRADE ROAD 01/28/10 STONEWOOD ROAD DEBRIS/SHOPPING CARTS 01/28/10 31957 PASEO FARALLON SIDEWALK REPAIR 01/28/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT PECHANGA POTHOLE 01/28/10 30858 CANTERFIELD GRAFFITI 01/28/10 WOLF CREEK FIRE STATION GRAFFITI 01/28/10 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 123 R:WMWAIM WRKCOMPLTD\SORS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 DACE,! 01/04/10 YNEZ ROAD AT FORD DEALER REPLACED 1 R4-7 & 2 R6-1 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REPLACED R4-7 & TYPE K 01/05/10 MEADOWS PARKWAY REPAIR 8 R4-7 MEADOWS AT DE PORTOLA REPLACED R26-81 MARGARITA AT DE PORTOLA REPAIR R4-7 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT MARGARITA REPLACED R-26 REDHAWK PARKWAY AT DOG PARK REPLACED 1 DELINEATOR 01/06/10 PASEO PARALLON AT CAMINO PALENCIA REPAIR R1-1 PIO PICO AT MARGARITA REPLACED C-PACKAGE ROYAL CREST AT REGENTS HILL REPLACED SNS BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT ROYAL CREST REPAIR CITY LIMIT SIGN LA PAZ AT YNEZ REPLACED R2-35 VIA DENZO AT CALLE NOVELDA REPAIR SNS & R7-1 MEADOWS AT PARDUCCI REPAIR R1-1 AT THE END OF DE PORTOLA NEW INSTALLS 1 W 14-1 & 6 OM3-4 01/07/10 E/B TEMECULA PKWY / AVENIDA DE MISSIONS NEW INSTALLS W3-3 W/B TEMECULA PKWY/AVENIDA DE MISSIONS NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' E/O MEADOWS PARKWAY NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' E/O MARGARITA NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' E/O COUNTRY GLEN NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' E/O AVENIDA DE MISSIONS NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' W/O LA PAZ NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' W/O COUNTRY GLEN NEW INSTALLS W3-3 TEMECULA PKWY 400' W/O MARGARITA NEW INSTALLS W3-3 CAMINITO OSUNA AT CAMINITO OLITE REPLACED R 1-1 MEADOWS AT ROYAL OAKS REPAIR Rt-1 R:WA1NTAIM W KCWLTMSlGN\ LO`CATTQN ,, -, WQRI� COMPLETED' " �R4-7 DOWS AT ROYAL OAK REPAIR PANULA BETWEEN AUGUSTA AND PAVIA REPAIR W3-3 INO DEL SOL AT MAHLON VAIL INSTALL W3-3 AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD rDF REPAIRED R18-2 / Wt-7 OM3-1 AWK AT WOLF VALLEY REPAIRED TYPE K RANCH AT JOHNSTON REPAIRED W 1-7 RANCH AT NIGHTHAWK REPLACED W1-7 & OM3 RTOLA AT MARGARITA REPAIRED R6-1 VAIL RANCH AT CAMINO RUBANO REPLACED 01/13/10 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT WELTON REPAIR BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT WELTON REPAIR BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT WOLF STORE REPAIR MEADOWS PARKWAY AT PAUBA REPAIR MARGARITA AT PAUBA REPLACED TORS IS4-3 WINCHESTER ATZEVO REPAIR 6 RANCHO WAY AT VIA MONTEZUMA REPLACED MARGARITA ATNICOLE REPLACED MARGARITA AT LA SERENA REPAIR MIRA LOMA AT AVENIDA DE CALAZADA REPAIR MIRA LOMA AT SANTA CECILIA REPLACED SCHOOL XING MIRA LOMA AT CALLE CARRANZA REPLACED S1-1 & S4-3 MIRA LOMA AT CASA CHATA REPAIR W3-3 MIRA LOMA AT RANCHO VISTA REPAIR R4-7 & R1-1 (2) 01/15/10 CAPRI AT SUNNY MEADOWS REPLACED R4-7 SANTIAGO AT OLD TOWN FRONT STREET REPLACE3D R-26 JEFFERSON AT WINCHESTER REPLACED R4-7 01/19/10 MARGARITA AT DARTOLO REPLACED R3-7 01/20/10 JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO REPLACED R6-7 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET PARK-N-RIDE REPLACED R26 01/22/10 DEL REY AT NO. GENERAL KEARNY REPLACED R2-35 01/25/ 00 PECHANGA AT CUPENO REPAIR W3-3 PECHANGA AT PRIMROSE REPAIR W 1-7 E/B DE PORTOLA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD REPLACED CA 74 (L) SANTIAGOATYNEZ REPLACED W3-3 R:WAINTAIM WKCMPLT0I lC;N& DATE. L©CATION ORK COMPLETED'; M . 01/25/10 DE PORTOLA AT MARGARITA REPAIR R8-7 01/26/10 DIAZ AT VIA DOS PICOS REPAIR R-26 CALLE GIRASOL AT NICOLAS REPAIR R2-40 28690 DIAZ REPLACED 9 DELINEATORS TEMECULA PKWY AT PECHANGA PKWY REPAIR OMI-3 LAKE FRONT AT BOOTH BAY REPAIR SNS HARVESTON DRIVE AT HARVESTON WAY REPLACED W6-1 & )MI-3 JEFFERSON AT CHERRY REPLACED R-48 01/27/10 OVERLAND AT MARGARITA REPLACED R26-81 CAMINO MARACA REPLACED W14-2 FIRESIDE AT LOGGER REPAIR SNS 01/28/10 27313 JEFFERSON REPLACED 1 DELINEATOR AVENIDA DE MISSIONS REPLACED W 14-1 PECHANGA AT WOLF VALLEY REPAIR R-26 01/29/10 OLD TOWN FRONT AT TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAIR "WELCOME HOME" WINCHESTER AT FRONTAGE REPAIR W3-3 SOLANA AT VIA NORTE REPAIR R1-2 & W3-3 CALLE PINA COLADA AT VIA NORTE REPAIR W1-2A RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT I-15 FREEWAY REPAIR R3-2 RANCHO VISTA AT HIGH SCHOOL R4EPAIR S1-1 TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 56 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 11 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 54 R:WAINTAIM WKCMPLTD\SIGNS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 DATE ,;; LOCA7!TON y � ;'�iTORK'COMPLETED ' 01/05/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAINT 25 LEGENDS 01/06/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAINT 26 LEGENDS 01/07/10 TEMECULA PARKWAY NEW INSTALLS 15 LEGENDS TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAINTED 4 LEGENDS TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 70 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 0 R:WA1NTAIMWRKC0MPLTD\ TRIPING CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 LOCA`TIO an h ORI C®MP W LETED 01/05/10 VIA LOBO AT NICOLAS TRIMMED 9 R.O.W. TREES OVERLAND CHANNEL TRIMMED 3 R.O.W. TREES MEADOWS PARKWAY AT DE PORTOLA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES ALCOBA AT ADELANTE TRIMMED 3 R.O.W. TREES 43600 SAN FERMIN TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES RANCHO HIGHLAND AT YNEZ TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES REDHAWK AT OVERLAND TRAIL TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 01/07/10 CALLE REDONDELA TRIMMED 6 R.O.W. TREES 01/14/10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MARGARITA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 01/20/10 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 01/21/10 RANCHO VISTA AT MARGARITA TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES CITYWIDE/STORM RELATED TRIMMED 9 R.O.W. TREES CITYWIDE/STORM RELATED TRIMMED 7 R.O.W. TREES NO. GENERAL KEARNY AT DEER MEADOWS TRIMMED 4 R.O.W. TREES 01/22/10 MARGARITA ATHARVESTON TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES LA PAZ AT E. VALLEJO TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES CAMINO RUBANO AT VAIL RANCH TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES- 29110 VALLEJO TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 01/28/10 VILLA DEL SUR DRIVE AT DE PORTOLA TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 55 RAMAINTAIM\ KCOWLTD\TREES CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2/11/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) PROJECTS UNDER CON RUCTION Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The majority of work was completed by April of 2006. The remaining work will be Contractor: Tovey Shultz Construction, Inc. completed when the mainline utilities are installed, which the City is undertaking - PW03-01 I ContractAmount: $3,298,000 David McBride 97% (9110) 93% estimated start in March of 2010. A fire engine/truck venting system (requested/added on Approved Change Orders: $212,768.24 2/06) will be installed when the Contractor re -mobilizes, this cost is also included in the Account No. 210-165-741 approved change order total. City Property at Diaz Road and Dandy Parkway This project provided for the rough grading of the vacant City property at Diaz Road and (Northwest RDA Property) - Rough Grading Dandy Parkway. Al work was completed on March 28, 2007. Site restoration, including Contractor: Skanska hydroseeding, was completed in December of 2008. A notice of completion was approved PW06-03 I Final Contract Cost $5,948,799.71 David McBride Complete 100% by the City Council at the 1/13/09 meeting. Ongoing maintenance expenses will be incurred for NPDES measures until such time the property is developed. Minor BMP improvements were completed in late November of 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Project -Town Square and This project involves construction of the Town Square and street improvements on Mercedes & Main Street Mercedes & Main Streets. The project was awarded on March 18, 2008. All storm drain, Contractor: LH Engineering Contract Amt: sewer, and water improvements are complete and all the roadways are paved. Work near PW06-07 $3,4Appro8,495.00 vedChange Approved Change Orders) $ 265,133.48 DavidMcBride 99% (17109) 97% completion in the Town Square and the Fountain is fully functional. Various specialty 1C & 1 E ( 1 items and added work extended the completion date through December 2009. Account Nos.: 210-165-636 210-165-643 Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements This project widens Pechanga Pkwy to its ultimate width from Temecula Pkwy to from Temecula Parkway to City Limits @ Pechanga Pechanga Rd. The contractor has essentially completed the improvements including the PW99-11 Rd. Mayne De La "dual right turn lanes" work. The remaining work includes punch list items to include (Ph II) Contractor: All American Asphalt Contract Amount: $8,131,964.98 Tome/Amer Attar 100% 95% ridability and EMWD manhole adjustments. There is a claim to the City from EMWD regarding damages to their facilities that the contractor has allegedly caused. The project Account No. 210-165-668-58XX is substantially complete, as of August 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Projects This project includes the site grading and retaining walls for the Civic Center & the Parking - Parking Structure & Office/Retail Frontage Structure site as well as construction of a parking structure, including office frontage shell PW06-07 David space. Work is ongoing on exterior facade, landscaping and hardscapes. The structure is (1 D) Contractor: PCL Construction Contract Amount: $15,797,010.00 McBride/ Bill 98%(2128110) 95 % anticipated to open near the end of February 2010. Approved Change Orders: $138,809.91) McAteer Account No. 210-165-644 Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Silt Removal & This project includes restoring the Best Management Practices (BMP) of the Stormwater Desiltation Pond Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Contractor: Sean Malek William the requirements of RWQCB by desilting the basin located near the Sports Park. 401 PW05-13 I Engineering Contract Amount: $182,900 Becerra/ Avlin 57% 0% Certification, Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Nationwide Permits have been Account No. 210-190-187-58XX Odviar acquired. Bids were opened on 08/26/08 and awarded on 12/08/09. Notice to Proceed effective 01/01A 0. Construction has begun. Contractor is working on vegetation removal and habitat creation area grading. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2111/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Old Town Civic Center This project will construct the Old Town Civic Center. City Council awarded the contract to Edge Development, Inc. on 09/09/08. Edge began work on 4/8/09. Work is ongoing on PW06-07 Contractor: Edge Development Bill McAteer/ 53.5% steel stud framing, and rough in of mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Ph2 Contract Amount: $31,555,500 David McBride (10104110) 50 Approved Change Orders: $88,093 Account No. 210-165-751-58XX Redhawk Park Improvements This project will add amenities, which include ADA accessible parking, a restroom, a half - Contractor: IAC Engineering, Inc. Kendra court basketball court, and permanent dog park at Redhawk Community Park. As part of PWO6-O6 Contract Amount:$787,094.92 Hannah- 20%(0612010) 0% this project, a seatwall will be installed at Sunset Park. The Notice To Proceed was Account No. 210-190-144-58XX Meistrell1 Avlin Odviar issued 12/21/09. Construction activities began in January 2010. Completion is anticipated in June 2010. De Portola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project This project involves rehabilitating De Portola Rd pavement from Jedediah Smith to (from Jedediah Smith to Margarita) Margarita Rd. This is a federally funded project. Construction began the week of 3/16/09. Contractor: Hardy & Harper, Inc. Catch basin filter insert installation is the only remaining item of contract work. Change PW06-10 I Contract Amount: $1,161,000 Jon Salazar/ 124% 92% order work involving modification of an existing drainage structure is complete; Approved Change Orders (1-7): $251,660.95 Amer After hydroseeding the drainage channel took place on 1/15/10. Specified catch basin filters Account No. 210-165-656-58XX have been found to be incompatible, and will need to be re-specified/re-ordered. Final installation to take place by mid -February. Pavement Rehabilitation Rancho California Road This project will rehabilitate Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the City limits on (Ynez to East City Limit) - STPL Project Kendra the east. Construction began on June 3, 2009 and is anticipated to be completed by the PW06-14 I Contractor: All American Asphalt Hannah- gg% (02/2010) 78% end of February 2010. The contractor is working on punchlist items. Contract Amt: $3, 666, 004.25 Meistrell 1 Avlin Odviar Account No. 210-165-657 Winchester Road / State Route 79 North - North This federally funded project will design and construct landscaping and irrigation Corridor Beautification enhancements to the existing raised medians along Winchester Road between Ynez PW06-15 I Contractor: Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. Chris Whiter 0% 0% Road and the easterly City limits. The project was awarded at the 12/08/09 City Council ContractAmount: $ 920,027.00 Amer After meeting to Belaire-West Landscape. The award amount was $920,027. Construction is Account No. 210-165-638 1 1 1 scheduled to start some time after March 1, 2010. Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation This project will install traffic signal interconnect equipment on Margarita Road, from Contractor: High -Light Electric, Inc. Chris Rancho California Road to Pio Pico Road. The Notice to Proceed letter was given to the PW04-05 I Contract Amount: $211,878.00 White/Maym 92 34 contractor to start on November 23, 2009 fora 50-work day duration. Construction Account No. 210-165-712-58xx De La Torre continues. Project completion is scheduled for Mid February. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS Temecula Community Center Expansion - Escallier Work began on January 13, 2009. The building is complete SAFE has moved in. Exterior House William punchlist is pending. The Escallier house and barn have been fumigated for termites. Dry PW06-05 III Contractor: Becerral David 100% 100% rot & termite infested wood has been removed and replaced. Project is being advertised Contract Amount: McBride with bids scheduled to be opened on March 4, 2010. Account No. 210-190-197 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2111/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2009-2010 This project will slurry seal local streets within the Roripaugh Hills Estates, Campus Contractor:xx Chris Verdes and Nicholas Valley Areas. Proposition 1 B funds will be used to fund this project. PW 09-06 1 White/Mayra 0% 0% Project is scheduled for a March 2, 2010 bid opening date. Contract Amount:xx De La Torre Account Number: PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED BY CONSULTANTS Re -Stripe Route 79 South to 8lanes from Pechanga This project will provide four lanes in each direction on Temecula Parkway (formerly State Parkway to I-15 Kendra Route 79 South) from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway. The City is working to meet Caltrans PW07-08 I Consultant: JMD Hannah- 60% (0212010) 50% requirements to do the striping. Amount: $29,210.00 ain Odll l Avlin viar Account No. 210-165-676-58XX Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements- This project includes construction of new wetlands for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Environmental Mitigation Improvements -Stage 1. The wetlands will be created through construction of new Iandscapelrrigation systems. The site is located along the north bank of Temecula Creek Consultants: Community Works Design (within flood-plain/way areas). The environmental regulatory agencies have approved this PW99- Contract Amount: $29,840 Mays De La new mitigation area. Mylars are ready for signature. Offers for purchase of the properties 11 EM 1 Torre 98% 98% were made and City Council adopted a Resolution of Necessity to acquire the property on Account No. 210-165-668-58XX 11/25/08. The proposed improvements can't be implemented until the City obtains possession of the property. The California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) will have to sign off on this acquisition since they have jurisdiction over land the City will use for access. The DFG just sent the City a response with significant demands. Further discussions and a site visit are necessary. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension The project includes the extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz from Commerce Center to Diaz Rd Road with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. Coordination with RCFC & WCD, U.S. Army PW00-26 Consultant: Project Design Consultants Chris White 1 Mays De La 97% 97% Corps of Engineers and the state environmental regulatory agencies is required. The City Contract Amount: $466,940 Torre just received 100%plans. There are comments and the consultant will have to resubmit. Account No. 210-165-602-58XX CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2/11/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. Design (Replacement) consultant Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) and the City are continuing to pursue Consultant: Simon Wong Engineering environmental permitting and coordination issues associated with pursuing the bridge Contract amount: $Contr 9 Amendment No. 1: Contract extension replacement as a project separate from the Army Corps of Engineer's Murrieta Creek tertermm Amendment No 2: Contract term extension Improvement project. Comments on the environmental technical reports were received Amendment No. 3: $322,305 from Caltrans on 4/28/09, and are being addressed by the consultant. The draft 100% Amendment No. 4: $24,063 (RCWD waterline) PS&E package was received from the design consultant on 2/17/09, and staff review is 93%(Phases I complete. Comments on draft 100% plans resubmitted to design consultant 8/31/09. An PW03-05 Account No. 210-165-743-58XX Jon Salazar/ 97% (2/10) & II) - 97% inter -agency meeting was held on 9/16/09 to determine mitigation requirements for this Amer Attar (Phase 3) project. The outcome of this meeting was that the City will be required to mitigate for temporary vegetation loss incurred during construction; all other mitigation will be included in the USACOE overall Murrieta Creek flood control project. The environmental submittal/review process will now move forward accordingly. The mitigation plan for temporary impacts was delivered to the City for comment on 1/15/10, and returned to the design consultant for finalization on 1/21/10. Additional revisions to environmental documents have found to be required; resubmittal of environmental technical reports to Caltrans anticipated by mid -February. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis This project includes the construction of an approx. 150' ped/bike bridge over Santa Creek Gertrudis Creek near Chaparral H.S. This is a federally funded project, which will involve a Consultant: Nolte Associates NEPA document. The approved Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) form was ContractAmount: $132,807 received from Caltrans on 12/03/08; technical reports were submitted to Caltrans on PWOS-11 Account No. 210-165-738-58XX Jon Salazar/ 99� (2/10) 91 % 5/13/09. Staff comments on draft 100% plans were returned to consultant on 5/27/09. Amer Attar Comments on environmental technical reports received from Caltrans in June, and have been addressed by City staff and consultants. Comments from Caltrans on second submittal of environmental technical reports received from Caltrans on 1/20/10, and are being addressed by the design consultant and City staff. Resubmittal of environmental technical reports to Caltrans is anticipated by mid -February. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project involves the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new Consultant: TYLIN International bridge over Murrieta Creek at the westerly terminus of Western Bypass and an extension Contract Amt: $378,776.20 William of Pujol Street to the new structure. Once constructed, this will serve as the southerly PW06-04 I Amendment 2Amt: $244,824.80 Becerra/Avlin 80% 88% connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. Design is underway. Geotech nical Account No. 210-165-660-58XX Odviar investigations have been initiated and 90% Plans and Specs are being reviewed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. Applications to the various environmental agencies have been submitted. Temecula Park and Ride (79 South) This project will design and construct a park and ride facility on Temecula Parkway (formerly 79 South) at La Paz. The 70% design drawings were returned to AAE for revision and resubmittal. City and consultant discussing some of the comments. The PW06-09 Design Development AAE, Inc. Contract amount $109,085 Amer Attar 75% 75% are consultant is working to finalize the plans. 90 /o submittal is expected in February. Amendment#1 $20,500 Account No. 210-165-747-58XX CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2/11/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Pechanga Pkwy-Dual Right Turn Lanes from This project included the design and construction of 2 right -turn lanes on eastbound Temecula Parkway (SR 79S) Temecula Pkwy to southbound Pechanga Pkwy. The contractor for the Pechanga Pkwy PW06-11 I Consultant: Cozad & Fox Mayne De La 100% 98% Ph II Street Improvements has completed this work, as a change order to their contract. Contract Amount: $29,010 Tome Account No. 210-165-637-58XX French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing A southbound off -Ramp to Jefferson, an auxiliary lane, and widening the bridge over and Interchange Improvements- Phase 1 (PS&E) Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Winchester southbound off -ramp are the components of Consultant: Moffatt & Nichol Phase 1. City continued the design work. Status is as follows: Amend. No. 1: $ 507,881.00 Amend. No. 4: $ 632,058.00 William > PS&E - City is preparing 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate. PW07-04 Amend. No. 8: $1,087,300.00 Becemat 60% (05110) 61 % > Right of Way Establishing limits of dedication. Notes: AvAmerttarl > Declaration of Units - Calt ans Approved Metric Exception for this hase. pp p p > Amend. Nos. 1, 4, & 8 amend original agreement mr Attar > Utilities -Pothole of existing utilities within APE are complete. under PW02-11. > Conceptual Landscape/Aesthetics - Concept was selected, with Murrieta, Caltrans, and > Amendment amounts represent portion IBC concurrence. Selection was incorporated into Draft Structures PS&E submittal. appropriated for PW07-04. Old Town Gymnasium This projects involves the design of the approximately 9,000 square foot gymnasium Consultant: WLC Architects adjacent the Boys & Girls Club on Pujol Street. The land is to be utilized as staging area Contract Amount: $307,390.00 for the Murrieta Creek Improvements project and it will need to be acquired from Riverside PW07 05CSD II Account No. 210-i90-186 Amer Attar 10%(12J09) 5% County Flood Control (RCFC) for the current design. A time line was established by TCSD for the design and environmental work. The City Council subcommittee gave staff the go ahead to proceed with the construction drawings on 01-26-2010. TCSD is scheduling this item for Commission and Council approval. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail The project will provide a Class I bicycle trail that connects the existing Santa Gertrudis Extension and Interconnect Kendra Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail at Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail at Alignment Study, Design & Environmental Clearance Hannah- Diaz Road. The City Council approved an agreement with Hall & Foreman at the 11/25/08 PW08-04 II Consultant: Hall & Foreman, Inc. Meistrell1 70% (0812010) 40% meeting. The kick off meeting was held on 01/08/09. The alignment study has been Contract Amount: $246,865.00 Avlin Ociviar completed. Extension of time for the Bicycle Transportation Account funds was approved Account No. 210-165-739-58XX on 05/01/09. The consultant has submitted 70% plans, specifications and estimate. Nicolas Valley- Assessment District (Liefer Road) This project will study assessment district feasibility and formation, including completing Consultant: David Evans &Associates (DEA) Kendra the street and minor storm drain improvements on the unimproved portions of certain Contract Amount: $120,900.00 Hannah- streets within Nicolas Valley (Liefer Road) area. The City Council approved an agreement PW08-06 II Mn Oci 11 l 90% (0212010) 70% for the street improvement design with David Evans and Associates at the 10/28/08 City Account No. 210-165-502-58XX AAmerttarl Amr Attar Council Meeting. The kick off meeting for the design of the street improvements was held g� g g P on 12/17/08. Consultant has submitted 90% plans, specifications and estimate. Roripaugh Ranch Street Improvements- Phase I Phase I includes the design & construction of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) from Murrieta Construction of Butterfield Stage Road/MHSR Hot Springs Road (MHSR) to Calle Chapos, a portion of MHSR, Calee Chapos, South Consultant: David Evans &Associates (DEA) Loop Rd and making the Fire Station functional. Liens and settlements have been Contract Amount: $304,125 Mayne De La resolved. On 11/24/09, David Evans and Associates' (DEA) was awarded a contract to PW09-02 I Account No. 210-165-723-58XX Tome/Amer0% Attar ar 0% complete the design. On 1/12/10 Hirsh & Associates, Inc. was awarded a contract to complete the landscape design. Both consultants are working on completing the designs. Staff is working on the Bid Package. The City Attorney is to review the impacts associated with Paradigm's involvement in regards to the FDIC's new involvement. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2111/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide Kendra This project will install traffic signals at two intersections; Meadows Parkway at Pauba Meadows Parkway at Pauba Road and Rancho Hannah- Road and Rancho California Road at Yukon Road. Notice To Proceed was issued PW09-07 I California Road at Yukon Road Meistrell / 50% (0612010) 0% 12/21/09 for design activities. Completion of Plans and Specifications is anticipated in Consultant: Willdan Engineering Avlin R. June 2010. Consultant has submitted 70% plans. Contract Amt: $26, 610 Odviar -15 / SR-79S Ultimate Interchange The City's consultant is preparing 65% PS&E package for Caltrans review in February PW04-08 Consultant: RBF Avlin Odviar 40% (1012010) 25% 2010. Contract Amt: $2, 032, 600 PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED BY STAFF Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road Plans and specifications are 90% complete. City is seeking FEMA funds to remove PW04-07 I ?????????? 0% NIA excess silt deposited within the basin before constructing the access road. Project is on hold until FEMA determination is finalized. Road and Storm Drain Repair at Rancho California Staff is in the data -gathering stage to determine the best method of pipe/roadway repair. Road A video inspection of the pipe's interior was performed on 11/4/09, and revealed evidence Projectwill replace approximately 140 feet of aging of possible corrosion. A physical inspection of the pipes' interior was performed on corrugated metal pipe under Rancho California Road, Jon Salazar/ 12/17/09 with the assistance of a local pipeline contractor which revealed that the pipe PW09-08 I east of Hope Drive, with reinforced concrete pipe, and 0% 0% reconstruct that portion ofthe roadway. Amer Attar wall was essentially in good condition, with some areas of rust in the pipe invert. The approach from this point may take the form of rust removal and application of a protective coating to extend the life of the pipe; no major repair is anticipated. Repair/rehab method being finalized; bid package to be complete by mid -February. Citywide Storm Drain Improvements- Rancho Staff is modifying existing storm drain plans that were a part of the Diaz Road California Rd at Vincent Moraga Dr Realignment project (Phase 11), but were never constructed due to a conflict with Rancho Design and construct storm drain improvements to California Water District (RCWD) facilities. Draft construction plans have been completed, correct Flooding problems during storm events at this and a Notice to Relocate was issued to RCWD. RCWD has responded with a request to PW09-09 I location. Jon Salazar/ 0% 0% incorporate the facility relocation into the City construction contract, and has provided a Amer Attar relocation plan to the City. RCWD relocation plan has been incorporated into City construction documents; bid package is under final review by CIP staff. Authorization to bid was received from City Council at the January 26, 2010 City Council Meeting; bid advertisement is to begin in mid -February. Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road Staff is coordinating with a consultant to develop a bid package based on ARAM (Asphalt Projectwill rebuild 28 feet (width) of roadway on Jon Salazar/ Rubber Aggregate Membrane) technology. Bid package is anticipated to be complete by PW09-10 I Jedediah Smith Road between Temecula Parkway Amer Attar 0% 0% mid -February; authorization to bid is to be requested from City Council at first March and Cabrillo Ave. meeting. Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2009-2010 This Project is the annual slurry seal project that will slurry seal local streets within the PW 10-01 1 Contractor: xx ���������� 0% 0% City. Contract Amount: xx Account Number: xx Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2009-2010 This project will consist of various concrete repair throughout the City. PW 10-02 1 Contractor: xx ?????????? 0% 0% Contract Amount: xx Account Number: xx CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2/11/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) PROJECTS IN THE PLAI STAGE French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing Project Report - Approved January 2010. and Interchange Improvements (PA & ED) Environmental Document - Approved January 2010. Consultant: Moffatt & Nichol New Connection Report - City preparing 2nd submittal. Agreement Amount: $1,091,693.00 Freeway Agreements - Initiating execution. : Amend. No. 1202,652.40* Amend. No. 2: 21,630.00 CCO No. 1: 25,000.00 CCO No. 2: 8,000.00 CCO No. 3: 18,008.00 CCO No. 4: 11,320.00 William PW02-11 I CCO No. 5: 37,645.00 Becerral Avlin 80%(03110) 85% Amend. No. 3: 283,982.52 Odviarl Amer Amend. No. 4: See PW07-04 Attar Amend. No. 5: 169,000.00 Amend. No. 6: 110,917.00 Amend. No. 7: 14,573.36 Amend. No. 8 See PW07-04 Amend. No. 9 100,000.00 Amend No. 10 414,774.00 Notes: > Amend. No. 1 also applies to PW07-04. See PW07 -04 for add'1 apportionment. PROJECTS WAITING IN THE WINGS Temecula Creek Crossing - Access to Highway 79 The project consists of performing an alignment study to set a specific horizontal and South (Temecula Parkway) vertical alignment for an extension of Avenida de Missions southerly to gain vehicular Bridge Alignment Study- Avenida de Missions over Kendra access to Loma Linda Road, including a bridge crossing over Temecula Creek. Final PW08-03 II Temecula Creek Consultant Creek Associates, Inc. Hannah- Hannah - Meisannh- 100% 100% engineering report is complete. Project is pending allocation of funds for design. Contract Amount: $87,923.00 Odviar Account No. 210-165-677-58XX Multi -Trails System- Margarita Road Under Crossing This project will construct a trail for bicycles and pedestrians along Santa Gertrudis Creek Consultant: LAN Engineering under Margarita Road. Data regarding existing utilities are being incorporated into the PW04-13 I Contract Amount: $114,426.00 William 100% 100% design. RCFC has provided an Encroachment Permit. Plans & Specs are complete. This Becerm project cannot be constructed until adequate funds are identified. An application was submitted for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds on 12/1/06. Auxiliary Lanes on 1-15 in Temecula A feasibility study will be conducted to determine if auxiliary lanes can be added between on and off -ramps on 1-15 in Temecula to improve the freeway operation. An RFP to PW06-17 I Amer Attar conduct the study was published on the City's website on 02/14/07. Proposals were received on 03/16/07. The City reviewed the proposals and selected a consultant. Due to funding constraints, this project is being delayed indefinitely. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2111/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) RIGHT OF WAY REL PROJECTS French Valley Parkway/ I-15 Overcrossing and William The review appraisal is complete. Caltrans has approved the appraisals. The City Council PW02-11 I Interchange, Project Report (PR) Becerral Amer NIA NIA reviewed this matter in Closed Session on June 9, 2009. Negotiations with two property Attar owners have begun and are on -going Butterfield Stage Road - Roripaugh CFD The developer will perform his MOU commitments and Obtain the required RAN. He was Project Description: Right -of -Way issues associated directed to first focus on the RAN issues related to properties within Ph 1 of the project. He with the construction of specific improvements (BSR, Mayne De La was given City Attorney -approved release forms that the property owners must sign CFD 03-02 MHSR, fire station, etc.) Contractor: N/A; Contract: N/A Tome/Amer releasing the developer from all obligations. To date, the developer hasn't obtained any Attar signed release form. The FDIC has taken over the bank, Amtrust. Any funds to be disbursed will have to be approved by the FDIC. It is unclear if the Developer is going to have any future involvement. Discussions with the City Attorney are on -going. Pechanga Parkway, Dual Right Turn Lanes from Purchase & Sale Agreement was sent to the property Owner. He did not accepted the Temecula Parkway City's offer. City Council adopted the Resolution of Necessity at the 11/25/08 meeting. A check was prepared for court deposit to file eminent domain lawsuit. Lawsuit was fled in PW 06-11 Amer Attar mid February. The City gained possession of the property as of June 5, 2009. Settlement papers were signed by the property owner. The City attorney office is fling these papers with the courts so the funds can be disbursed to the property owner and the matter can be closed. Pechanga Parkway, Mitigation Land Purchase & Sale Agreement was sent to the property Owner. He has not accepted the City's offer. City Council has adopted the Resolution of Necessity at the 11/25/08 meeting. The City is working on the legal documents to gain possession of the property. The PW 99-11 Amer Attar California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) is now involved due to impacts to properties that has Conservation Easements on them. They will have to sign off on this acquisition. This will require discussions with them. The DFG just sent the City a response with significant demands. Further discussions and a site visit are necessary. Riverside County Flood Control Parcels -Old Town Beryl City Attorney and RCFC legal counsel have approved final agreements/legals for portions Yasinoskyl of Museum, Theater and vacant property parcels. Anticipated Council approval on Amer Attar 3/09/10. 1st/Front Street parcel agreement/legal descriptions is still in review. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension To initiate this right of way work, seven title reports were ordered on 12/2/08. The City received all legals and plats from the consultant. Staff met with the appraiser to go over PW00-26 Amer Attar what needs to be acquired. The appraiser submitted a proposal for this work to the City. A PO is being processed so the work can begin. Property staking will be done to facilitate the appraisal process. "Letters of a Decision to Appraise" were sent to all affected property owners. The appraisal process is underway. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek Will Becerral City accepted the Offer of Dedication that was not accepted by County on Parcel Map PM PW06-04 I Beryl 8248, which was recorded on 2/15/1977. Four legals and plats will be prepared by the Yasinoskyl consultant. Title Reports for the required parcels were ordered. Once legals/plats are Amer Attar received, the City will obtain appraisals. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2111/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS Roripaugh Ranch CFD Staff reviewed the submitted Reimbursement Request for the two bridges. Comments were provided to Ashby USA representatives. Meetings were held with the developer CFD 03-02 Annie Bostre- NIA seeking these reimbursements to finalize the numbers. The City Attorney was provided Lei Amer Attar the information. All outstanding liens have been paid. Developer is working on meeting his MOU requirements so monies withheld can be released. CFD 01-02 Harveston CFD Amer Attar NIA No activities during the last period CFD 03-06 Harveston CFD Amer Attar NIA NIA No activities during the last period. CFD 03-01 Crown Hill CFD Amer Attar NIA NIA During the last period, the developer submitted reimbursement request for the retention. Wolf Creek CFD Standard Pacific continues to obtain the required soundwall waivers. As of 09-08-09, 23 waivers have been received by the City. These waivers have been recorded. With respect to properties in foreclosure, Caltrans advised the the developer is to write letters to the CFD 03-03 Amer Attar NIA NIA banks asking them to sign the waivers and that if developer does not hear from them within a reasonable time, they can assume that the bank does not want the wall. In addition, the developer started raising the walls the week of 07/06/09. Work on raising the walls continues. CFD 02-08 Serena Hills CFD Amer Attar NIA NIA No activities during the last period. Quarterly Review- Tracking, preparing, and Various Projects. Various I processing Federal, State and TUMF Funds Julie Dauer On -going NIA Reimbursements Contract Administration On -going review of CIP project contracts, amendments, extra work authorizations & Various I Julie Dauer On -going NIA change orders and maintaining budget accounts. Providing assistance to staff in processing invoices for all CIP division projects. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail Project is complete and balance of federal funding to be requested for reimbursement and PW01-27 Julie Dauer NIA NIA submitted along with 'Final Report of Expenditures' for project closeout. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - De Portola Federal funding reimbursement requests will be submitted to Caltrans as project PW06-10 I Road Pavement Rehabilitation Julie Dauer NIA NIA progresses. $458,990 STP funds PW03-05 I Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation Julie Dauer NIA NIA Total HBRR funds $4,337,970. Program (HBRR) - Main Street Bridge SR2S- Safe Routes to School Program - Ped/Bicycle Awaiting approval of environmental document from Caltrans. SR2S funding has been PW05-11 I Bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek to Chaparral Hig Julie Dauer NIA NIA awarded in the amount of $425,520. In addition to SR2S funding we have been awarded $132,000 in SB821 funding. Various I Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Julie Dauer NIA NIA TUMF reimbursement requests prepared quarterly for submittal to WRCOG & RCTC. TE - Transportation Enhancement Received approval of our 'Request for Allocation' through the CTC and have submitted our PW06-15 I Winchester Road/State Route 79 North Corridor Julie Dauer NIA NIA RFA package to Caltrans for'Authorization to Proceed with Construction'. Total funds Beautification Projec awarded per TE Funding adjustments $1,646,000. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10 OF 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 2/11/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements- Project is essentially complete and upon payment of retention to contractor will process PW99-11 I Public Land & Highways Funded Julie Dauer NIA NIA 'Final Report of Expenditures' and final invoice for reimbursement to Caltrans. Total PLH (Phase II) funding is $4,000,000. Various I Bond Releases Julie Dauer NIA NIA Continued review of CIP project bonds scheduled for release. 2006/07 Bicycle Transportation Account Cooperative Work Agreement (CWA) has been approved by Caltrans, BTA division. The BTA Funds CWA will extend the terms of the original agreement to allow for the continuation of project PW08-04 I Santa Gertrudis Creek Bicycle Trail Extension and Julie Dauer NIA NIA design. 2006/07 BTA funds approved for the planning & preliminary engineering and total Interconnect award of $395,000. Standardize the format of the Specifications for all Specifications library is continuously being updated and amended. The boiler -plate section projects is also being reviewed and updated. Federal Specifications were updated and David McBride On -going NIA standardized for De-Portola and Rancho California Road. All specifications were updated to 2009. Federal specifications were updated to new DBE regulations. Circulation Element Implement Plan This Project is to identify all future projects necessary so that the current Circulation Element of the General Plan is fully implemented. Data entry into the database is complete. The tasks of field verification, cost estimates preparation, and aerial mapping Amer Attar NIA NIA have all been completed. The information gathering and the reporting stage of this project is complete. CIP staff will work with GIS to automate the availability and the update of the information. Update Plans to Reflect As -Built Conditions for All City receives blue prints from many contractors marked with As -Built conditions for various Recent Projects projects. Some of these As -Built conditions have never been transferred to the project On -going 9 9 NIA mylars. As -Built plans will be created for all recent projects, if it was not done at the time of submission. Consultant Selection Information is now available on the City's web -site on how to be placed on the consultant Various I Julie Dauer On -going NIA (vendor) list and data stored in this manner will be source for future RFP's & RFQ's for upcoming projects. Pavement Rehabilitation - Rancho California Road Project is currently in construction and preparation of reimbursement invoices will be PW06-14 I (STPL) Julie Dauer NIA NIA prepared for submittal to Caltrans as project progresses. STPL funding of $2,958,000. Pavement Rehabilitation of Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Butterfield Stage Road Citywide Traffic Light Synchronization System City has been awarded $515,000 in Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP) funding Purchase, install & implement an adaptive traffic (Prop 1 B). Our request for Allocation has been submitted to the California Transportation TBD signal synchronization system along six corridors Julie Dauer NIA NIA Commission (CTC) for placement on their agenda for November 12, 2009 meeting. State within the City. to sell additional bonds to meet allocation requests. 14FI-11:111r_l0I►yi1:1:101TANI►yiINIL1119:1:1110]N161K Monthly Activity Report January / February Prepared by: Amer Attar Submitted by: Greg Butler Date: 2/23/2010 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The majority of work was completed by April of 2006. The remaining work will be completed when the mainline utilities are installed, which the City is undertaking - estimated start in March of 2010. A fire engine/truck venting system (requested/added on 2/06) will be installed when the Contractor re- mobilizes, this cost is also included in the approved change order total. City Property at Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway (Northwest RDA Property) - Rough Grading This project provided for the rough grading of the vacant City property at Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. All work was completed on March 28, 2007. Site restoration, including hydroseeding, was completed in December of 2008. A notice of completion was approved by the City Council at the 1/13/09 meeting. Ongoing maintenance expenses will be incurred for NPDES measures until such time the property is developed. Minor BMP improvements were completed in late November of 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Project -Town Square and Mercedes & Main Street This project involves construction of the Town Square and street improvements on Mercedes & Main Streets. The project was awarded on March 18, 2008. All storm drain, sewer, and water improvements are complete and all the roadways are paved. Work near completion in the Town Square and the Fountain is fully functional. Various specialty items and added work extended the completion date through December 2009. Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements from Temecula Parkway to City Limits @ Pechanga Rd. This project widens Pechanga Pkwy to its ultimate width from Temecula Pkwy to Pechanga Rd. The contractor has essentially completed the improvements including the "dual right turn lanes" work. The remaining work includes punch list items to include ridability and EMWD manhole adjustments. There is a claim to the City from EMWD regarding damages to their facilities that the contractor has allegedly caused. The project is substantially complete, as of August 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Projects - Parking Structure & Office/Retail Frontage This project includes the site grading and retaining walls for the Civic Center & the Parking Structure site as well as construction of a parking structure, including office frontage shell space. Work is ongoing on exterior facade, landscaping and hardscapes. The structure is anticipated to open near the end of February 2010. Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Silt Removal & Desiltation Pond This project includes restoring the Best Management Practices (BMP) of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and the requirements of RWQCB by desilting the basin located near the Sports Park. 401 Certification, Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Nationwide Permits have been acquired. Bids were opened on 08/26/08 and awarded on 12/08/09. Notice to Proceed effective 01/01/10. Construction has begun. Contractor is working on vegetation removal and habitat creation area grading. Old Town Civic Center This project will construct the Old Town Civic Center. City Council awarded the contract to Edge Development, Inc. on 09/09/08. Edge began work on 4/8/09. Work is ongoing on steel stud framing, and rough in of mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Redhawk Park Improvements This project will add amenities, which include ADA accessible parking, a restroom, a half -court basketball court, and permanent dog park at Redhawk Community Park. As part of this project, a seatwall will be installed at Sunset Park. The Notice To Proceed was issued 12/21/09. Construction activities began in January 2010. Completion is anticipated in June 2010. De Portola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (from Jedediah Smith to Margarita) This project involves rehabilitating De Portola Rd pavement from Jedediah Smith to Margarita Rd. This is a federally funded project. Construction began the week of 3/16/09. Catch basin filter insert installation is the only remaining item of contract work. Change order work involving modification of an existing drainage structure is complete, hydroseeding the drainage channel took place on 1/15/10. Specified catch basin filters have been found to be incompatible, and will need to be re-specified/re- ordered. Final installation to take place by mid -February. Pavement Rehabilitation Rancho California Road (Ynez to East City Limit) - STPL Project This project will rehabilitate Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the City limits on the east. Construction began on June 3, 2009 and is anticipated to be completed by the end of February 2010. The contractor is working on punchlist items. Winchester Road / State Route 79 North - North Corridor Beautification This federally funded project will design and construct landscaping and irrigation enhancements to the existing raised medians along Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the easterly City limits. The City received construction authorization from Caltrans. The City Council approved the plans and specifications at the 10/27/09 meeting. Bids were opened on 11/30/09. This project was awarded at the 12/08/09 City Council meeting to Belaire-West Landscape. The award amount was $920,027. Construction is scheduled to start some time after March 1. 2010. Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation This project will install traffic signal interconnect equipment on Margarita Road, from Rancho California Road to Pio Pico Road. The Notice to Proceed letter was given to the contractor to start on November 23, 2009 for a 50-work day duration. Construction continues. Project completion is scheduled for Mid February. Ianell]*4&1--1ml1LI[r1_1sin ;1:4961;1oil 7e]:a--]Ism Temecula Community Center Expansion - Escallier House Work began on January 13, 2009. The building is complete SAFE has moved in. Exterior punchlist is pending. The Escallier house and barn have been fumigated for termites. Dry rot & termite infested wood has been removed and replaced. Project is being advertised with bids scheduled to be opened on March 4, 2010. Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2009-2010 This project will slurry seal local streets within the Roripaugh Hills Estates, Campus Verdes and Nicholas Valley Areas. Proposition 1 B funds will be used to fund this project. Project is scheduled for a March 2, 2010 bid opening date. :111110]ME" &IIL1IQ*1NL1I Re -Stripe Route 79 South to 8 lanes from Pechanga Parkway to 1-15 This project will provide four lanes in each direction on Temecula Parkway (formerly State Route 79 South) from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway. The City is working to meet Caltrans requirements to do the striping. Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements - Environmental Mitigation This project includes construction of new wetlands for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Improvements - Stage I. The wetlands will be created through construction of new landscape/irrigation systems. The site is located along the north bank of Temecula Creek (within flood-plain/way areas). The environmental regulatory agencies have approved this new mitigation area. Mylars are ready for signature. Offers for purchase of the properties were made and City Council adopted a Resolution of Necessity to acquire the property on 11/25/08. The proposed improvements can't be implemented until the City obtains possession of the property. The California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) will have to sign off on this acquisition since they have jurisdiction over land the City will use for access. The DFG just sent the City a response with significant demands. Further discussions and a site visit are necessary. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension from Commerce Center to Diaz Rd The project includes the extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. Coordination with RCFC & WCD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state environmental regulatory agencies is required. The City just received 100% plans. There are comments and the consultant will have to resubmit. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. Design consultant Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) and the City are continuing to pursue environmental permitting and coordination issues associated with pursuing the bridge replacement as a project separate from the Army Corps of Engineer's Murrieta Creek Improvement project. Comments on the environmental technical reports were received from Caltrans on 4/28/09, and are being addressed by the consultant. The draft 100% PS&E package was received from the design consultant on 2/17/09, and staff review is complete. Comments on draft 100% plans resubmitted to design consultant 8/31/09. An inter -agency meeting was held on 9/16/09 to determine mitigation requirements for this project. The outcome of this meeting was that the City will be required to mitigate for temporary vegetation loss incurred during construction, all other mitigation will be included in the USACOE overall Murrieta Creek flood control project. The environmental submittal/review process will now move forward accordingly. The mitigation plan for temporary impacts was delivered to the City for comment on 1/15/10, and returned to the design consultant for finalization on 1/21/10. Additional revisions to environmental documents have found to be required, resubmittal of environmental technical reports to Caltrans anticipated by mid -February. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis Creek This project includes the construction of an approx. 150' ped/bike bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek near Chaparral H.S. This is a federally funded project, which will involve a NEPA document. The approved Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) form was received from Caltrans on 12/03/08, technical reports were submitted to Caltrans on 5/13/09. Staff comments on draft 100% plans were returned to consultant on 5/27/09. Comments on environmental technical reports received from Caltrans in June, and have been addressed by City staff and consultants. Comments from Caltrans on second submittal of environmental technical reports received from Caltrans on 1/20/10, and are being addressed by the design consultant and City staff. Resubmittal of environmental technical reports to Caltrans is anticipated by mid -February. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project involves the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek at the westerly terminus of Western Bypass and an extension of Pujol Street to the new structure. Once constructed, this will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. Design is underway. Geotechnical investigations have been initiated and 90% Plans and Specs are being reviewed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. Applications to the various environmental agencies have been submitted. Temecula Park and Ride (79 South) This project will design and construct a park and ride facility on Temecula Parkway (formerly 79 South) at La Paz. The 70% design drawings were returned to AAE for revision and resubmittal. City and consultant are discussing some of the comments. The consultant is working to finalize the plans. 90% submittal is expected in February. Pechanga Pkwy-Dual Right Turn Lanes from Temecula Parkway (SR 79S) This project included the design and construction of 2 right -turn lanes on eastbound Temecula Pkwy to southbound Pechanga Pkwy. The Pechanga Pkwy Ph II Street Improvements' contractor has completed this work, as a change order to their contract. French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements - Phase 1 (PS&E) A southbound off -Ramp to Jefferson, an auxiliary lane, and widening the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Winchester southbound off -ramp are the components of Phase 1. City continued the design work. Status is as follows: > PS&E - City is preparing 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate. > Right of Way - Establishing limits of dedication. > Declaration of Units - Caltrans Approved Metric Exception for this phase. > Utilities - Pothole of existing utilities within APE are complete. > Conceptual Landscape/Aesthetics - Concept was selected, with Murrieta, Caltrans, and IBC concurrence. Selection was incorporated into Draft Structures PS&E submittal. Old Town Gymnasium This projects involves the design of the approximately 9,000 square foot gymnasium adjacent the Boys & Girls Club on Pujol Street. The land is to be utilized as staging area for the Murrieta Creek Improvements project and it will need to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) for the current design. A time line was established by TCSD for the design and environmental work. The City Council subcommittee gave staff the go ahead to proceed with the construction drawings on 01-26- 2010. TCSD is scheduling this item for Commission and Council approval. Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road Plans and specifications are 90% complete. City is seeking FEMA funds to remove excess silt deposited within the basin before constructing the access road. Project is on hold until FEMA determination is finalized. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect The project will provide a Class I bicycle trail that connects the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail at Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail at Diaz Road. The City Council approved an agreement with Hall & Foreman at the 11/25/08 meeting. The kick off meeting was held on 01/08/09. The alignment study has been completed. Extension of time for the Bicycle Transportation Account funds was approved on 05/01/09. The consultant has submitted 70% plans, specifications and estimate. Nicolas Valley - Assessment District (Liefer Road) This project will study assessment district feasibility and formation, including completing the street and minor storm drain improvements on the unimproved portions of certain streets within Nicolas Valley (Liefer Road) area. The City Council approved an agreement for the street improvement design with David Evans and Associates at the 10/28/08 City Council Meeting. The kick off meeting for the design of the street improvements was held on 12/17/08. Consultant is preparing 90% plans, specifications and estimate. Roripaugh Ranch Street Improvements - Phase I Phase I includes the design & construction of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) to Calle Chapos, a portion of MHSR, Calle Chapos, South Loop Rd and making the Fire Station functional. Liens and settlements have been resolved. On 11/24/09, David Evans and Associates' (DEA) was awarded a contract to complete the design. On 1/12/10 Hirsh & Associates, Inc. was awarded a contract to complete the landscape design. Both consultants are working on completing the designs. Staff is working on the Bid Package. The City Attorney is to review the impacts associated with Paradigm's involvement in regards to the FDIC's new involvement. Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide This project will install traffic signals at two intersections, Meadows Parkway at Pauba Road and Rancho California Road at Yukon Road. Notice To Proceed was issued 12/21/09 for design activities. Completion of Plans and Specifications is anticipated in June 2010. Consultant has submitted 70% plans. Road and Storm Drain Repair at Rancho California Road Staff is in the data -gathering stage to determine the best method of pipe/roadway repair. A video inspection of the pipe's interior was performed on 11/4/09, and revealed evidence of possible corrosion. A physical inspection of the pipes' interior was performed on 12/17/09 with the assistance of a local pipeline contractor which revealed that the pipe wall was essentially in good condition, with some areas of rust in the pipe invert. The approach from this point may take the form of rust removal and application of a protective coating to extend the life of the pipe, no major repair is anticipated. Repair/rehab method being finalized, bid package to be complete by mid -February. Citywide Storm Drain Improvements - Rancho California Rd at Vincent Moraga Dr Staff is modifying existing storm drain plans that were a part of the Diaz Road Realignment project (Phase II), but were never constructed due to a conflict with Rancho California Water District (RCWD) facilities. Draft construction plans have been completed, and a Notice to Relocate was issued to RCWD. RCWD has responded with a request to incorporate the facility relocation into the City construction contract, and has provided a relocation plan to the City. RCWD relocation plan has been incorporated into City construction documents, bid package is under final review by CIP staff. Authorization to bid was received from City Council at the January 26, 2010 City Council Meeting, bid advertisement is to begin in mid -February. Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road Staff is coordinating with a consultant to develop a bid package based on ARAM (Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane) technology. Bid package is anticipated to be complete by mid -February, authorization to bid is to be requested from City Council at first March meeting. 1-15 / SR-79S Ultimate Interchange The City's consultant is preparing 65% PS&E package for Caltrans review in February 2010. Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2009-2010 This Project is the annual slurry seal project that will slurry seal local streets within the City. Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2009-2010 This project will consist of various concrete repair throughout the City. nell]*@1&11LlII:I ;a»_lLlILlI ILl [elm r_W0 French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements (PA & ED) Project Report - Approved January 2010. Environmental Document -Approved January 2010. New Connection Report - City preparing 2nd submittal. Freeway Agreements - Initiating execution. Item No. 25 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report - January 2010 PREPARED BY: Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file On January 6, 2010 Council Member Ron Roberts traveled to Los Angeles, California to attend the Southern California Association of Governments Executive/Administration Committee, Transportation Committee, and Regional Council meetings. Attachment: Meeting Agendas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-343S t (213) 236-1800 f(213)236-1825 .v Scag.ca.gov Officers President Jon Edney, El Centro First Vice President Larry McCallcn. Highland Second Vice President Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Immediate Past President Richard Chain, Lake Forest Executive/Administration Committee Chair Jon Edney, El Centro Policy Committee Chairs Community, Economic and Human Development Carl Morehouse, Ventura Energy& Environment Keith Ranks, Azusa Transportation Mike Ten, South Pasadena No. 515 MEETING OF THE Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:15 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. SCAG Offices 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Deby Salcido at (213) 236-1993 or via email salcido0scag.ca.gov. In addition, regular meetings of the Regional Council may be viewed live or on demand at www.scaq.ca.gov/scagty Agendas & Minutes for the Regional Council are also available at: www.scag.ca..qov/committees/rc.htm SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to participate in this meeting. If you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. The Regional Council is comprised of83 elected officials representing 189 cities, six counties, five County Transportation Commissions, Imperial Valley Association of Governments and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 6.16.09 REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 7, 2010 PAGE# The Regional Council may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Flon. Jon Edney, President) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Council, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes. The President may limit the total time for all comments to twenty minutes. 3.0 REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS 4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Approval Items 4.1.1 Minutes of December 3, 2009 Joint Meeting Attachment 1 4.1.2 Minutes of December 3, 2009 Meeting Attachment 5 4.1.3 LOSSAN Corridor -wide Stratepc Assessment Member Attachment 13 Agency MOU 4.1.4 Sponsorship of Southern California LeadershiiR Attachment 21 Network's California Connections Initiative ($5,000) 4.2 Receive & File 4.2.1 Contracts/Purchase Orders between Attachment 23 $5,000 - $200,000 5.0 PRESIDENT'S REPORT 5.1 New Committee Appointments i�4SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA i ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 PAGE# 6.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS/ACTION ITEMS 6.1 Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) Report (Hon. Jon Edney, Chair) 6.1.1 Preliminary Draft FY 2010/2011 Comprehensive Attachment 41 Budget Mailed Separately (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer) Recommended Action: For information purposes only; no action to be taken. 6.1.2 SCAG Clean Cities E85 Ethanol Fueling Attachment 42 Infrastructure Proiect (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer) Recommended Action: Authorize the SCAG Executive Director or his designee to 1) Negotiate and execute grant agreements for the "SCAG Clean Cities Coalition Expanding California's E85 Ethanol Fueling Infrastructure" project; and 2) Amend the Memorandum of Understanding with the Partnership to provide reimbursement of pre -award administrative costs and marketing/outreach tasks; and 3) Negotiate and execute a sole source contract with Pearson Fuels to oversee and coordinate the installation of E85 tanks and dispensers. 6.1.3 Contracts $200,000 or Greater Attachment 44 (Leyton Morgan, SCAGStaffi Recommended Action: Approve. 6.2 Legislative/Communications and Membership Committee Report (Hon. Glen Becerra, Chair) 6.2.1 Final Adopted CALCOG 2010 Priority Actions -Update Attachment 47 (Sharon Neely, Director of Legislation) Recommended Action: Monitor SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 7.0 REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 PAGE# Legislative/Communications and Membership Committee Report — Cont'd 6.2.2 CALCOG Board Proposal to Sponsor SB 406 in Attachment 50 FY 2010 State Legislative Session (Sharon Neely, Director of Legislation) Recommended Action: Monitor 6.2.3 SCAG Sponsorship of the `Fixing California' Conference Attachment 52 Series (in -kind) (Darin Chidsey, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Approve in -kind sponsorship. 6.2.4 Regional Council Host Committee for 2010 General Attachment 54 Assembly (Tiffany Delepine, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Approve. 6.2.5 Federal and State Legislative Update Attachment 56 (Sharon Neely, Director of Legislation) Recommended Action: For information purposes only; no action to be taken. 6.3 Community, Economic and Human Development Committee (CEHD) Report (Hon. Carl Morehouse, Chair) 6.4 Enerey and Environment Committee (EEC) Report (Hon. Keith Hanks, Chair) 6.5 Transportation Committee (TC) Report (Hon. Mike Ten, Chair) (Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA III ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 8.0 INFORMATION ITEM PAGE# 8.1 CFO Monthly Financial Report Attachment 82 (Wayne Moore, CFO) 9.0 ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Regional Council is scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010, at the SCAG Los Angeles office. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IV ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 WestSeventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 1 (213) 236-7800 f (213) 2361 825 w scagxa,gov Officers President Jon Edney, El Centro RrstVice President Larry McCallon, Highland Second Vice President Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Immediate Past President Richard Dhron, take Forest Executive/Administration Committee Chair Jon Edney, El Centro Policy Committee Chairs Community, Economic and Human Development Carl Morehouse, Ventura Energy&Environment Keith Hanks, Azusa Transportation MikeTen, South Pasadena MEETING OF THE Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. SCAG Offices 818 W. 71h Street, Board Room Los Angeles, CA (213) 236-1800 12th Floor 90017 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda item§, please contact Deby Salcido at (213) 236-1993 or via email salcido Ca-)scaa.ca.aov Agendas & Minutes for the Executive/ .Administration Committee are also available at: www.sca-g.ca.govlcommiftees/eac.htm SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to participate in this meeting. if you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. The Regional Council is comprised of 83 elected officials representing 189 cities, six counties, five CountyTransportation Commissions, imperial Valley Association of Governments and aTribai Government representative within Southern California. 6.16Ag EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 TIME PG# The Executive/Administration Committee may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Hon. Jon Edney, Chair) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Executive/Administration Committee, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant Prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes. The chair may limit the total tune for an comments to twenty minutes. 3.0 REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS 4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Approval Items 4.1.1 Minutes of December 3.2009 Meetine Attachment 4.1.2 Sponsorship of Southern California Leadership Attachment Network's California Connections Initiative 5 000 4.1.3 LOSSAN Corridor -wide Strategic Assessment Attachment Member Agency MOU 4.2 Receive & File 4.2.1 Contracts/Purchase Orders between Attachment $5,000 - $200,000 5.0 ACTION ITEMS 5.1 Contracts $200.000 or Greater Attachment (Leyton Morgan, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Approve and recommend Regional Council approval 1. 6 8 16 5 min 34 EAC — January 2010 DOC#154611 SUMMERS �� SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 ACTION ITEMS — Cont'd TIME 5.2 SCAG Clean Cities E85 Ethanol Fueling Attachment 5 min Infrastructure Project (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer) Recommended Action: Authorize the SCAG Executive Director or his designee to 1) negotiate and execute grant agreements for the "SCAG Clean Cities Coalition Expanding California's E85 Ethanol Fueling Infrastructure" project; 2) amend the Memorandum of Understanding with The Partnership to provide reimbursement of pre -award administrative costs and marketing/outreach tasks; and 3) negotiate and execute a sole source contract with Pearson Fuels to oversee and coordinate the installation of E85 ethanol fueling stations. 6.0 INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Preliminary Draft FY 2010/2011 Comprehensive Budget (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer 7.0 CFO MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer) 8.0 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Any Committee member or staff desiring to place items on a future agenda may make such request. 9.0 10.0 ADJOURNMENT Attachment 20 min Mailed Separately Attachment 5 min The next meeting of the Executive/Administration Committee is scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010 at the SCAG Los Angeles offices PG# 37 39 40 FAC — January 2010 DOC#154611 SUMMERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ii SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office Thursday, January 7, 2010 818 West Seventh Street 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.. 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-343S SCAG Offices 1(213)236-1800 818 We 71h Street, 12th Floor f (213) 236-1825 - Board Room �.scagm.gov Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 Officer President Jon Edney, El Centro If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have FirstVicePreent Larry McCallon,Highland any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Deby Second Vice President Salcido at (213) 236-1993 or via email salcidoC�scag.ca.gov Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Immediate Past President Agendas & Minutes for the Transportation Committee are also Richard Dixon, Lake Forest available at: www.scag.ca.gov/committees/tc.htm Executive/Administration Committee Chair Jon Edney, El Centro SLAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to Policy Committee chair participate in this meeting. If you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at Community, Economic and (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to Human Development Cad Morehouse, Ventura make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. Energy&Environment Keith Hanks, Azusa Transportation Mike Ten, South Pasadena The Regional Council is comprised of83 elected officials representing 189cities, six counties, five County Transportation Commissions, Imperial Valley Association of Governments and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 6.16.09 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 .................................................................................................... TIME PG# The Transportation Committee may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Hon. Mike Ten, Chair) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Transportation Committee, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes. The Chairman may limit the total time for all comments to twenty minutes. 3.0 4.0 5.0 REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Approval Item 4.1.1 Minutes of December 3.2009 Meeting Attachment INFORMATION ITEMS 5.1 Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) Attachment 20 min 8 - Status Report and Integration with 2012 RTP (Tarek Hatata, System Metrics Group) Follow up to the July 2009 Transportation Committee presentation on CSMP efforts in the SCAG Region and discussion on a proposed approach for integration with the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan. 5.2 Aviation Task Force Status Report Attachment 10 min 12 (Annie Nam, SCAG Staff Staff will present an update on the status of SCAG's Aviation Task Force. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA rnxltaRvzolo rc— ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS TC-DOC4ANU strain-12/152009 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 79 2010 .................................................................................................... 5.0 INFORMATION ITEM — CONT'D 5.3 Goods Movement Task Force Status Report (Annie Nam, SCIIG Stafg Staff will present an update on the status of SCAG's Goods Movement Task Force. 5.4 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Guidelines Update (Naresh Amatya, SCAG StafD The California Transportation Commission is in the process of updating the RTP Guidelines to reflect the requirements of SB 375. Staff will provide a brief report on the status of this effort. 6.0 CHAIR'S REPORT 7.0 STAFF REPORT (Naresh Amatya, SCAGStaffi 8.0 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TIME PG# Attachment 10 min 15 Attachment 10 min 17 Any Committee member or staff desiring to place items on a future agenda may make such a request. 9.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS 10.0 ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010 at the SCAG Los Angeles office. ii SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS D00154963 ae zolo Dock 154963 Strain-12/15/2009 Item No. 26 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department for the month of January, 2010. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 52 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations including 4 applications for public hearings during the months of November and December. Special Projects & Long Range Planning Activities The Long Range Planning Division commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities currently in progress are described in the paragraphs below: Temecula Regional Hospital — This project was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008. The CEQA challenge period for the Supplemental EIR expired on February28, 2008. No legal challenges were filed regarding the SEIR. The CEQA challenge period for the second reading of the Zone Change expired on March 14, 2008. The Public Works Department and Planning Department metwith the applicant and the applicant's architect on May 21, 2009 regarding the status of grading plans, street improvement plans, the project's Water Quality Management Plan, and fees. Staff met with representatives from UHS on November 20 and December 18, 2009, to discuss revisions to the phasing plan. The approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the project would expire on January 22, 2010, however on December 30, 2009 the applicant submitted an application for a one year extension of time and Council approved this extension on January 26, 2010. Staff met with the applicant on February 1, 2010 at the applicant's request to discuss grading plan, Water Quality Management Plan, traffic signal plan, and median plan submittal requirements. Staff also made clear the Council's expectation for grading plan and building plan submittals and timing for the start of construction at the February 1 meeting. Staff continues to await re -submittal of plans to address comments regarding permits for rough grading, precise grading, street improvement plans, and a Water Quality Management Plan. (FISK) • General Plan Housing Element Update —Staff submitted the final draft Housing Element to HCD on April 9, 2009, and HCD completed its review on June 9, 2009. Comments received on the final draft contained a handful of suggested corrections and sample language to add to the Housing Element. Staff completed an initial study and circulated a Negative Declaration for a 30-day public review and comment period from July 31, 2009 through August 31, 2009. A Planning Commission hearing was held on September2, 2009, and the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Housing Element Update and adopt the Negative Declaration. City Council adopted the Housing Element on November 10, 2009 and the Housing Element has been submitted a final time to HCD for a 90-day Certification review. (SCHUMA) • Nicolas Valley Rural Preservation Area — The March 2009 community survey responses clearly indicated that there is not support for a CFD for roadway improvements (57% of owners and 83% of registered voters within the CFD boundary would not support). The survey did not clearly reveal an overwhelming decision on preferred zoning for each of the districts. A Community Meeting was held on May 21, 2009 where 55 residents attended to inform the residents of the survey responses and discontinue this work effort. The residents requested the opportunity to conduct their own follow up survey to determine if a majority could agree on a zoning preference for the area, but staff has yet to receive any results. Staff finalized and posted on the website the revisions to the Dirt Road Policy to allow more leniency for additions and replacement of existing residences. A hydrology study was completed in September, providing a mapped boundary of properties impacted by the 100- year floodplain. Staff is currently working to complete the roadway design and traffic study. No additional technical studies/consultant work will be completed. (PETERS/KITZEROW) • SCE Triton Substation — The CPUC has granted the City's request for "Party" status in the approval process. This is a significant step as it (1) ensures that the City will get noticed of all actions involving this case/project, and (2) gives the City the right (versus the privilege) to file comment/participate in the process. In addition to Party Status, staff provided a comment letter on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Triton Substation to be located at the southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa in the Nicolas Valley Rural Preservation Area. It is the City's opinion that the Draft MND fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA. The City's interests in this matter include ensuring that the proposed Triton Substation does not adversely impact the City of Temecula and its residents, businesses or visitors. Based on substantial inadequacies in the Draft MND, the City has requested that the California Public Utilities Commission suspend any further consideration of the project and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report that fully discloses the potential impacts of the Project and fully complies with all other CEQA requirements. Specifically, the City contends that Site Alternative B (located further to the west along Nicolas Road) is a superior site and would significantly reduce aesthetic impacts to the Nicolas Valley. The City wants a full analysis of alternative sites as is required in a Draft ElR. The City objects to any further CPUC action on the Project and is formally requesting to become a Party in any further proceedings. The PUC staff is currently reviewing comments received on the MND and is especially concerned with the City's comment regarding hydrology impacts at the proposed site. (PETERS/KITZEROW) 1-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) — Staff is working with WRCOG, SCAG, RCTC, RTA, SANDAG, and the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore on Phase III of the 1-15 IRP which includes the development of a Smart Growth Concept Map, which will coordinate land use and transportation decisions to accomplish the goals of SIB 375 and AB 32. The Smart Growth Concept Map is intended to be used as the Sustainable Communities Strategy requirement of SIB 375. A draft of the plan has been completed and was presented to the 1-15Interregional Partnership Policy Committee on December 16, 2009. The balance of Phase 111 work of the 1-15 IRP will pursue coordinated economic development and housing strategies as identified in Phase 11. (WEST/INNES) • City Sustainability Plan —Staff continueswith the preparation of the draft Sustainability Plan by focusing on the Green House Gas Emissions Inventory (explained below) and the development of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant — The City was awarded the initial grant award amount of $250,000 on September 24, 2009. The total dollar amount available to the City is $940,700. Staff has prepared the energy efficiency and conservation strategy and submitted the application to the Department of Energy. (WEST) The Green House Gas (ghg) Emissions Inventory- The committee selected 2007 as the base year for ghg emissions inventory analysis. There are two separate inventories being prepared; 1) a municipal operations inventory and 2) a communitywide inventory. Staff has worked through the various City Departments to obtain data for the municipal operations inventory, and worked with the utility companies and water agencies for the communitywide inventory. The municipal operations emissions inventory has been completed. Staff presented the results of the analysis to the Sustainability TAC on January 26, 2010 and to initiate the next steps, which is to select a target emission reduction and identify implementation measures that will achieve the target. Staff is currently reviewing the data for the communitywide emissions inventory for completeness and anticipates completing this analysis by March 2010. (WEST) Energy Efficiency Loan Program — Staff is currently developing a program which would allow property owners to applyfor a low -interest loan for energy improvements that would be paid through property taxes. This program is being modeled after the Palm Desert program as authorized under AB 811. The draft Administrative Guidelines and loan documentation has been prepared and staff is now identifying eligible improvements for the program. Additionally, staff is working with the Redevelopment Agency to make energy efficiency improvements an available component of the Residential Improvement Program and working with Western Riverside Council of Governments on a regional approach for an AB 811 type program. (WEST) • Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance —The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt an updated state model ordinance developed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), or an equivalent, no later than January 1, 2010. The second reading of the Ordinance was on January 12, 2010. The Ordinance will become effective February 12, 2010. (WEST) Santa Margarita Area Annexation — On January 12, 2010, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the preparation of documents necessary to file for a Sphere of Influence amendment and Annexation application with LAFCO to annex approximately 4,510 acres southwest of the City including SDSU's Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and some hillside residential properties ("Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2"). The Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2 is a reduced area from the original annexation proposal that was denied by LAFCO on June 4, 2009. The Santa Margarita Area Annexation No. 2 removes all territory associated with Liberty Quarry and a few other private lots. This proposal was presented to the City of Temecula Planning Commission on February 3, 2010 at which time the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending its approval to the City Council. The project is scheduled for City Council on February 23, 2010. (LOWREY/RICHARDSON) Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report — The County of Riverside has released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Granite Construction's Liberty Quarry Surface Mining Permit, Change of Zone, and Noise Ordinance Exception. The project is a 75-year land use permit for a rock quarry and associated aggregate processing facilities, hot mix asphalt plant, ready mix concrete plant, concrete and asphalt recycling facility, administration and employee buildings, a maintenance facility with diesel, gas and propane tanks, water tanks, natural gas fuel engines for electric power generation, water and gas lines, settling ponds, truck scales, and truck and equipment parking areas within a 414 acre -site located approximately % mile from the City's southwest boundary within the County of Riverside. The public review and comment period was extended 60 days beyond the original commenting deadline. The City reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and provided comments to the County of Riverside on November 23, 2009. The City is awaiting a response to comments from the County. (LOWREY/RICHARDSON) Development Code Update — Staff is preparing an update of the Development Code with various changes that include: codification of the City's current policywhich allows directional signs for colleges and universities; amendment to large family daycares consistent with State Law; removal of granny flats from the code consistent with State Law; updating the square footage allowance for guest houses to be the same as what is allowed for second dwelling units; wine tasting to require a CUP, minimizing requirements which trigger processing a sign program, and other minor clarifications within the Code. A public hearing is anticipated for Planning Commission on February 17, 2010 and Planning Commission recommendations will be brought forward to the City Council March 23, 2010. (LOWREY) Old Town Specific Plan Update —Staff is working in conjunction with consulting firms Inland Planning+Design and Fehr and Peers (parking and circulation) to prepare an update to the Old Town Specific Plan that addresses the ten goals and recommendations for Old Town presented to City Council on March 25, 2008. On August 11, 2008, the Old Town Local Review Board formed a steering committee forthe Specific Plan Update currently consisting of Board Members Blair and Moore, with the purpose of this committee being to provide the Old Town Local Review Board with additional opportunities to review and comment on concepts and preliminary plans as the Specific Plan update progresses and for the committee to report back to the other Board members on the progress of the update. Commissioners Guerriero and Kight are also members of the Steering Committee, which most recently met on November 5, 2009 to review progress on the proposed sign section for the Specific Plan Amendment. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being prepared for the project, and staff held a scoping meeting with the community on July 21, 2009 to solicit input on environmental concerns that should be addressed in the EIR. The first draft of the traffic impact analysis for the Specific Plan Amendment revealed the need for additional circulation routes and revised mitigation measures. The second draft of the traffic impact analysis has been completed and staff believes it is acceptable in its current form. Staff anticipates beginning the 45-day EIR review period in February. Staff has completed the first draft of the Specific Plan Amendment and intends to hold Council briefings in March. (FISK/INNES/LOWREY) SCAG 2012 RTP - The update to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is underway. The RTP will include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); a new component to the RTP as a result of the passage of SIB 375. Staff will be working with the abovementioned agencies throughout the update process. The first order of business is to provide input into the Base Year Conditions and General Plan Based Growth Forecast/Distribution and Land use for years 2020 and 2035. (WEST) WRCOG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan — Staff is working with Western Riverside Council of Governments on a multi -jurisdictional network of bike and pedestrian routes which will link transit and regional points of interest to local bicycle and multi -use trails linkages. The first meeting was held on January 19, 2010 to review the components of the plan. The project is funded through the SCAG Compass Blueprint program and is expected to be completed by summer of 2010. (WEST) Planning Agenda Report 1 /1 /2010 through 1 /31 /2010 Recently Approved APN # • PA09-0338 Empowerment Center MCUP 909324013 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility without daycare or an educational component located at 27262 Via Industria Submitted Date Approved Date 11/19/2009 Jan 14 2010 1 of 4 Planning Agenda Report 1 /1 /2010 through 1 /31 /2010 Scheduled for Hearing APN # • PA08-0117 T-Mobile Cell Tower Redhawk 962040012 ERIC JONES A Conditional Use Permit and Antenna Facility Application for a cell tower facility developed as three 35' flag poles located 45100 Redhawk Parkway. An equipment enclosure will be incorporated with the project. (Previous Application: PR07-0020) Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision 5/22/2008 Mar 17 2010 APN # • PA09-0347 Stratford @ Redhawk Rich Am TR230653 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Residential Tract Product Review for the remaining 57 (of 106) lots at Stratford in Redhawk (Planning Area 9) to be constructed by Richmond American. Units range in size from 1,700 square feet to 2,625 square feet and include four plan types with three elevation types. Original Product Review by Centex - PA06-0137/ Richmond American Pre-app for new product - PR09-0016 Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Directors Hearing 12/8/2009 Feb 25 2010 APN # • PA09-0268 Feduniw Family Day Care Minor 957550002 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a home -based family day care facility to operate with up to 12 children at 30713 East Gate Parkway Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Directors Hearing 9/2/2009 Feb 25 2010 APN # • PA08-0125 Temecula Village PDO-5 Amend1 944290012 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Zoning Amendment to modify PDO-5 (Temecula Village) to permit Grocery Stores up to 15,000 square feet with a Conditional Use Permit (currently allowed up to 10,000 SF w/CUP). Other changes include reducing landscape buffer/setback along Rancho California Road from 25 to 20 feet and miscellaneous clean-up/references to previous approvals. Temecula Village is located along the south side of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. (Associated projects PA08-0122 and PA08-0123 - Fresh and Easy DP/CUP) Pending City Council hearing (date to be determined). Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision 6/4/2008 6/26/2008 Oct 15 2008 APN # • PA09-0335 Masia de Yabar Winery CUP 922024028 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow Masia De Yabar Winery to conduct live entertainment, located at 41955 5th Street Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 11 /17/2009 TBD 2 of Planning Agenda Report 1 /1 /2010 through 1 /31 /2010 New Submittals Pending DRC Meeting APN # • PA10-0002 Mimi's Minor CUP 910290005 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow Mimi's Cafe, located at 40705 Winchester Road, to upgrade their existing liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47 Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 1 /11 /2010 TBD APN # • PA10-0008 Killarney's 2010 St. Patty TUP 960020056 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit for Killarney's Restaurant and Irish Pub St. Patrick's Day Celebration to be held in the parking lot of 32475 Temecula Parkway Suite G10 scheduled from 9 a.m. to 2 a.m. March 17-18, 2010 with live entertainment (amplified), alcohol (two beer trailers), food and vendors. Estimated total attendance is 1,200 people. Approximately 45 parking spaces will be eliminated during the event. Proposed flood lighting, stage, generator, 20'x60' canopy and 13 10'x10' canopies. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 1 /15/2010 TBD APN # • PA10-0009 Bob/Gary's Straw Stand TUP 921700016 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Major Temporary Use Permit for Bob and Gary's Field Fresh Berries open from March 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010, seven days a weekfrom 9:30 a.m. until dusk. The 16' x 12' stand will be located in a landscaped area along Margarita Road and the southeast entrance to the center, setback approximately 40 feet from Margarita with approximately six parking spaces provided for customers located at 42225 Margarita Road (Palomar Village) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 1 /19/2010 TBD APN # • PA10-0010 River Springs Minor CUP 955150027 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the River Springs Charter School (K-12) to occupy an existing building located at 43040 Margarita Road Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 1 /19/2010 TBD APN # • PA10-0019 PromenadeCarnival MTUP 910420005 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit to conduct a carnival at the Promenade Mall west parking lot from February 25 through February 28 featuring rides, food, and games of chance Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 1 /28/2010 TBD APN # • PA10-0021 Richmond Amer HarvestonProduct 916410004 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Home Product Review application for the remaining 87 single family lots in Harveston's Barrington and Prescott neighborhoods generally located at the northeast corner of Ynez and Date Roads with unitt types range in size from 2,027 SF to 2,740 SF for 4 plans Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 3 of Planning Agenda Report 1 /1 /2010 through 1 /31 /2010 1 /29/2010 TBD APN # • PA10-0024 Rod Run 922026008 CHRISTINE DAMKO Spring Rod Run to take place in Old Town on Friday, March 12 and Saturday, March 13 with Front Sreet street closure Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 2/1 /2010 TBD 4 of Item No. 27 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Economic Development Departmental Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Christine Damko, Economic Development Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following lists some recent highlights of the Economic Development Department for the months of December 2009 and January 2010. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEWS On January 28th, Staff presented economic development highlights and capital improvement projects both planned and underway at the Association of Commercial Real Estate's (ACRE) 3d Annual Inland Empire Economic Summit in Ontario. ACRE is a non-profit, professional association formed to promote working relationships and professionalism within the commercial real estate community. ACRE brings together commercial brokers and affiliated professionals for business networking, educational presentations and discussion of industry developments. OLD TOWN PROMOTIONS Winterfest festivities continued throughout the month of December with a variety of entertainment including live bands, kids face painting and balloon making, carolers walking the streets, real snow at Pennypickle's Winter Wonderland, and visits from Santa at his workshop. On December 18th, 2009 Mayor Maryann Edwards gave the first skate and kicked off "Ice Skating on the Square", a seasonal ice skating rink located in the newly constructed Town Square. The event was a huge success, drawing an estimated 10,000 people to Old Town over the two week event. The First Annual New Year's Eve in the Town Square on December 31'` drew thousands with a 9:OOpm east coast and midnight west coast Grape Drop. Spectators danced the night away in front of a live band and kids enjoyed balloon prop making, face painting, and a bouncy jump. MEETINGS OF INTEREST December 10`h, 2009 Mayor Maryann Edwards and Staff along with other local cities and business representatives attended the Job Creation and Economic Growth Forum sponsored by the EDC in Murrieta. This forum was requested by the White House Intergovermental Affairs Office which seeked to gain input on the current economic state of our country. January 6`h, Quality of Life Master Plan City Council Subcommittee Ron Roberts and Chuck Washington met with Staff and the project consultant, AIDE to discuss the progress of the Temecula 2030 Plan. Discussions included a status update on the Environmental Scan from AIDE and how the Blue Ribbon Committee should be formed. January 6`h, Economic Development City Council Subcommittee Ron Roberts and Chuck Washington met with Staff to review the Economic Development Funding Application requests for the upcoming 2010-2011 fiscal year. January 21 '`, Staff attended the EDC Executive Board of Directors Meeting. January 26`h, Staff along with the SW Riverside EDC, San Diego North EDC, other local cities including some San Diego cities met to discuss the possibility of collaborating on a Economic Development Strategy document (CEDS) that will allow for each of the organizations to apply for future federal economic development funding. January 26`h, Staff along with other local cities and business representatives attended a networking luncheon and presentation at the Storm Stadium in Lake Elsinore. January 28`h, Council Member Chuck Washington and Staff attended the EDC Quarterly Luncheon where a presentation was given from the Senior Business Development Officer of Export -Import Bank of the United States that focused on exporting financing opportunities. Item No. 28 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of January 2010. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service.................................................................................................. 2500 "Priority One" calls for service....................................................................................................... 46 Average response time for "Priority One" calls.............................................................5.31 Minutes VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours................................................................................................... 313 SpecialEvents.............................................................................................................................. 92 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours....................................................................................... 912 Reserve officer hours (patrol)....................................................................................................... 16 Traininghours............................................................................................................................... 54 TotalVolunteer hours................................................................................................................ 1389 CRIME PREVENTION/GRAFFITI Crime prevention workshops /Neighborhood watch meetings conducted ..................................... 2 Residential/business security surveys conducted.......................................................................... 0 Businessesvisited........................................................................................................................ 15 Businesses visited for past crime follow-up.................................................................................... 3 Crime prevention articles................................................................................................................ 1 Total square footage of graffiti removed.................................................................................. 4,202 Number of Graffiti Locations........................................................................................ 63 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served............................................................................................................... 314 Setsof fingerprints taken.............................................................................................................. 33 Policereports filed........................................................................................................................ 12 Citationssigned off....................................................................................................................... 95 Totalreceipts..................................................................................................................... $5,099.50 SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT TEAM (SET TEAM) On sight felony arrests ......................................... On sight misdemeanor arrests ............................. Felony arrest warrants served ............................. Misdemeanor arrest warrants served .................. Follow-up investigations ....................................... Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks .............................. Massage Compliance Checks ............................ Crime Free Housing Checks ............................... Citations issued for hazardous violations................................................................................... 353 D.U.I. checkpoints conducted......................................................................................................... 0 D.U.I. Arrest..................................................................................................................28 Non -hazardous citations............................................................................................................. 241 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations......................................................... 54 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations................................................................... 54 Parkingcitations.......................................................................................................................... 230 SchoolZones..............................................................................................................16 SeatbeIts..................................................................................................................18 CellPhone Cites............................................................................................................. 81 Injurycollisions.............................................................................................................................. 21 Presentations.............................................................................................................0 INVESTIGATIONS BeginningCaseload.................................................................................................................... 110 TotalCases Assigned.................................................................................................................. 46 TotalCases Closed....................................................................................42 Number of community seminars/presentations conducted............................................................ 7 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Calls for service ........................ Felony arrest/filings.................. Misdemeanor arrest/filings....... Vehicle burglaries .................... Vehicle thefts ............................ Total receipts ............................ Felonyarrests................................................................................................................................. 4 Misdemeanor arrests...................................................................................................................... 4 Citations........................................................................................................................................ 30 Youthcounseled........................................................................................................................ 127 Presentations............................................................................................................ 1 IN14�:IeCKK�1�L ��e1-31������e1P� Schoolvisits.................................................................................................................................. 32 Homevisits.................................................................................................................................... 12 Presentations (Jail Tour)...................................................................................................1 DrugTests................................................................................................................6 TruancySweep..........................................................................................................1 REQUESTS TO SPEAK REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date _ ' 93- /0 For Subject: /1 L l yKL fC, 4,c� ✓`I i G I wish to speak on Agenda Item No Against /' Address:_City/State/ZipJ� �/, `f-y (/,2 jg If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA fter completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You.T�J/ Date 3 l 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No. l C° For Against Subject: If you are representing an orqanization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. Z REQUEST TO SPEAK 3 CITY OF TEMECULA ' After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date'2-,2 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item N 0lx�j For Against Name;ZZ�/t'/ - /z/ x— Phone:_(` Address: City/State/Zip:,&—,, /zycU� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Than u. Date -c23-10 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No CCI For Against 1� Phone: Address: City/State/Zip:z� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. I REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Than i Date/�, I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: Name: Phone:_ Address: � City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. N REQUEST TO SPEAK (o CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date .2— 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item Nop For _� Against Subject: Name: [)"I 4 L= //Z�Phone: Address: —?- City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA rlPr 7_ 11 After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date a/a 3 ' 1 6 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For 1/ Against Subject: 4 U 1 Name: Ic F� W 1A 1 PQ,[ .�. 4 Phone: / Address: "/q `1R If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After c mpleting, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 23 I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: 5 A,-DA v�A,2 Ae-" Ll Y7 vle V AT 0 Name: AARA 4^-) Phone:j ) l: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. 7 REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 2123,11/0 For Z�(� Subject: I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Z 1 Against Name: I /PAD ' 1-5191P7Z e: � 3 Address: City/State/Zip: T mgGval, CFI 92S92 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date Z3�Io I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For _/ Against Subject: y� Name: I L)/t'���%� Phone: < Address: � City/State/Zip:�'� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date For Su S� I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Against Name: 0 6 riA W1 II City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: V►5)C-n U,iI�,PA S cpinIrP_� The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2010 CITY CLES;!(S DEPT.Elsinore - Murrieta - Anza Resource Conservation District Date: February 23, 2010 To: City of Temecula City Council Address: 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula Ca. 92590 Dear Council, The Board of the Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District is in full support of the Santa Margarita Annexation No. 2. The Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation Districts' mission is to protect the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed and this proposal will provide one of the most important areas of the watershed permanent protection. Environmental programs are another key component of the Districts' mission. Annexation of this permanent open space will provide a much needed area for education to the Temecula and surrounding valleys on the importance of the watershed, its wildlife and the healthy connection to us all. Working together we will protect the Santa Margarita watershed resources through education, preservation and sustainable growth. Sincerely, Vick ong President Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District The E6/mre Murrieta Ama Re ece Converradm 11bvhl it a mb division of the State ofCa/ijornia Pubdc Resources Code MvWan 9 Seaton 9003, nde 16 USC (1xwx l Revenue Codr) Serdon 170( c)(1) not for pmfAorgaxk im. *21535 Palomar St. ##A# W ildomar#CA. #92595# *Phone (951-609-0066#Fax(951-609-0066# CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PRESENTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO SB547 WHICH CREATED THE CMCR AND PROVIDED STATE FUNDING. PREPARED FEBRUARY 11, 2010 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH UCSD - CMCR ALL 35 PAGES OF ACTUAL REPORT ON A CLINICAL TRIAL (WITH LINK TO THE REST OF IT) "SMOKED MEDICINAL CANNABIS FOR NEUROPATHIC PAIN IN HIV: A RANDOMIZED, CROSS -OVER CLINICAL TRIAL" DOUBLE BLIND BIO OF PROFESSOR RONALD J. ELLIS, MD, PhD UCSD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, NEUROSCIENCES. HE WAS THE LEAD RESEARCHER ON THE ABOVE CLINICAL STUDY. HE HAS AUTHORIED OVER 40 PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS AND OVER 100 SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACTS, AND IS INVOOLVED IN HUNDREDS OF OTHER STUDIES AND SOCIETIES. NEWSPAPER ITEM, FEB. 17, 2010 IOWA BOARD OF PHARMACY RECOMMENDS STATE LEGALIZE MMi FOR THERAPEUTIC USE AND RECLASIFY IT AS A SCHEDULE II DRUG TO TEMECULA CITY CLERK FEB 23, 2010 ec-M15 FROM DONALD LAMBERT FEBRUARY 23, 2010 Ca4ifornia Courts - Appellate Court Case Information Page 15 of 18 12/21 /2 and submitted Submission vacated by order. for aplts. Atty Moses W. Johnson argued for resp. Atty Joe Elford argued for amicus curiae American for Safe Access on behalf of aplt. Atty Martin J. Mayer argued for amicus curiae Calif. Police Chiefs Assoc. et al. on behalf of resp. Atty Ellin Davtyan argued for amicus curiae for Calif. Cities on behalf of resp. On the court's own motion and for good cause, submission in the above -entitled matter is VACATED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(e).) The parties and their respective amici curiae are invited to submit letter briefs concerning Health and Safety Code section 11570, as follows: Health and Safety Code section 11570 bars as a nuisance the use of any premises for unlawful distribution, storage, or manufacture of controlled substances, but it does not appear to provide for its enforcement with state criminal sanctions. Nevertheless, Health and Safety Code sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 provide that persons engaging in medical marijuana activities shall not be subject to criminal sanctions under, inter alia, "[s]ection ... 11570." Why? Does the inclusion of section 11570 reflect a legislative intent to preempt local government action, if any, that may criminally punish medical marijuana activity as a nuisance? If so, does that lend support to the conclusion the Medical Marijuana http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?di... 2/23/2010 California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information Page 16 of 18 Program Act (MMPA) preempts local government legislation purporting to criminalize medical marijuana activities? Or does the inclusion of section 11570 have some other significance? The parties are requested to provide and explain any legislative history bearing on section 11570's inclusion in the MMPA. Appellants' letter brief, and any submitted by amici curiae in support of appellants, are due on or before January 15, 2010. Respondent's letter brief, and any submitted by amici curiae in support of respondent, shall be filed no later than January 29, 2010. The matter will be resubmitted by a subsequent order of this court when supplemental briefing is completed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(e). ) 01/13/2010 Request filed to: by aplt. Qualified Patients for ext. of time to file Ibf 01 /13/201 C (Order filed The court has received the parties' stipulation to extend the time for appellants to file their supplemental letter brief (see our order, filed Dec. 21, 2009), because they are awaiting results from a legislative research service and because of counsel's preplanned, prepaid vacation. The request for an extension is GRANTED. Appellants' letter brief, and any submitted by amici curiae in support of appellants, are due on or before February 16, 2010. Respondent's letter brief, and any submitted by amici curiae http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?di... 2/23/2010 Mark Lena Sacramento, CA 95814 February 12, 2010 The Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division Three 925 N. Spurgeon Street Santa Ana, CA 92701-3724 Re: Qualified Patients Association v. City ofAnaheim, No. G040077 POST -HEARING LETTER BRIEF To the Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices By Order dated December 21, 2009, this Court called for additional briefing on a question of legislative intent concerning certain sections of the Health and Safety Code. I am writing in response to that Order. 1 am a resident of the State of California and I currently serve as the State Senator representing the 3rd Senate District. From 2002 to 2008, I was an Assembly member representing the 13th Assembly District. While serving as an Assembly member, I was a principal coauthor of Senate Bill 420, which created the Medical Marijuana Program Act, Stats. 2003, ch. 875, (Health & Safety Code § 1 ] 362.7, et seq.) [hereinafter "MMPA"]. Prior to that, I was actively involved in issues concerning the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5.) It is therefore my opinion that I am qualified to speak to the legislative intent of the MMPA and that my personal understanding may be helpful to this Court. Prior to the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, the possession and use of marijuana was illegal for nearly 0 purposes in the State of California, and that illegality was expressed in many places in the statutes, including Health and Safety Code Section 11570. The voters' enactment of the Compassionate Use Act by initiative in 1996 not only changed this, but it called upon the Legislature to "implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana." (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C).). The MMPA was the legislative response to this challenge. To this end, the Legislature enacted Health and Safety Code Section I ] 362.765 and 11362,775, which provided for medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives. In order to make such provision complete, the Legislature exempted such entities from a host of Health and Safety Code Sections that could be used to hinder medical marijuana collectives, including the nuisance statute (§ 11570), which bars as a nuisance the use of any premises for distribution, storage, or manufacture of controlled substances without providing any explicit enforcement mechanism. The intent of this provision was to prevent government entities from seeking to target medical marijuana collectives for sanctions of any kind based on nuisance law, since this would interfere with the practical implementation of the distribution system envisioned by the MMPA. Thus, although Section 11570 does not refer to criminal sanctions, it was appropriate for the MMPA to refer to this Section in order to provide practical regulations permitting medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives to operate throughout the State. The use of the term "criminal" in Sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 refers to the relevant Health and Safety Code Sections listed in these Sections. It was never my intention that this term would allow for less -than -criminal or civil sanctions against persons or entities attempting to operate under the MMPA. To permit otherwise would undermine the expressly stated intent of the legislation: to "enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" and to "promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." For these reasons, I submit that the clear intent of the MMPA in providing an exemption under the nuisance law was to preempt local ordinances and enforcement efforts based on nuisance law of any kind. Respectfully submitted, 7`,'' Mark Leno AmericansFor SafeAccess tu'eaneng Lr.. Medical ", iquana IM r;wtics and Research Joseph D. Elford Chief Counsel Americans for Safe Access 1322 Webster St., Suite 402 Oakland, CA 94612 February 11, 2010 The Hon. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division Three 925 N. Spurgeon St. Santa Ana, CA 92701-3724 Re: Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheirn, No. G040077 POST -HEARING LETTER BRIEF OF AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS To the Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices: By Order, dated December 21, 2009, this Court requested additional briefing whether the inclusion of Health and Safety Code section 11570 in the exemption of medical marijuana collectives from criminal sanctions evidences an intent by the Legislature to preempt municipal ordinances banning medical marijuana collectives. Amicus curiae Americans for Safe Access ("ASA') respectfully submits that the Legislature's inclusion of the nuisance statute in its list of exemptions evidences an intent to preempt local efforts to ban medical marijuana collectives as nuisances. In 2003, the Legislature enacted Health and Safety Code sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 as part of the "Medical Marijuana Program Act" or "the MMPA." The express purposes of the MMPA are to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" (Stats, 2003, C. 875 (S.B. 420), § 1, subd. (b)(3)) and to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." (Stars, 2003, C. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2).) To these ends, Health and Safety Code sections 11362.765, subd. (a) and 11362,775 provide, respectively, as follows: Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the individual to smoke or otherwise consume marijuana unless otherwise authorized by this article, Headquarters National office General Information 1321 Wetwer St. Sc le 407 Ca1'arw1. CA 94C t2 t730 V Sow 'AV, 0C 20136 WFa: ,.�nvNx Tan•fv5..'elscwerv9 "I M: 510 25I.16,6 FAX: 510 251.2036 PMM: 202.857 4272 FAX 202 857.4273 TOLL FREE: I FIB 929 U67 nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit. Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570." Because Health and Safety Code Section 11570 does not provide for criminal sanctions to abate a nuisance, this Court asked the parties and amici to brief the significance of the inclusion of 11570 into sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 of the Health and Safety Code. Since the Legislature cannot be presumed to have engaged in idle acts (see Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 1, 22 ["We do not presume that the Legislature performs idle acts, nor do we construe statutory provisions so as to render them superfluous"]; Department ofAlcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd (2006) 40 CalAth 1, 14 [courts will avoid constructions that render statutory language surplusage]), the Legislature's exemption of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives from sanctions under the nuisance statute (§ 11570) should be interpreted to preclude all sanctions, criminal or civil, for qualified medical marijuana activities under the MMPA, and to preempt local ordinances that impose such sanctions. This interpretation is consistent with the expressed purposes of the MMPA to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" (Stats, 2003, C. 875 (S.B. 420), § 1, subd. (b)(3)) and to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state," (Stats, 2003, C. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2)); cf. White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 ["Under general settled canons of statutory construction, we ascertain the Legislature's intent in order to effectuate the law's purpose"] [citation omitted].)' Furthermore, in Section 11362.765, the Legislature stated its intention not to "authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit." Under the maxim of statutory construction, expresseo unius est exclusio a/terius, this suggests that the Legislature intended that groups who cultivate and distribute marijuana on a not - for -profit basis would be authorized. (Cf. Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407, 424.) Anaheim's absolute ban on medical marijuana collectives conflicts with the intent of these laws. ' By contrast, this interpretation does not render the term "criminal" in Sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 nugatory because most of the statutes contained therein provide for criminal sanctions. Headquarters National Office General Information 1322 W&wr SC Sure 402. Oaklard, CA 94612 1730 M SUM NW, WIAVv. OC 20036 WE! w _knericmFodde'•ansay PHONE- SI0.251.1856 FAX- 510.251.2036 PNONE 202.957.4272 FAX 202.857.4273 70LLFIUt 1.9889394367 In sum, the Legislature's exemption of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives from sanctions under the nuisance law evidences an intent to preempt local ordinances to the contrary. Respectfully Submitted, f ' 0 Y Joseph D. Elford Chief Counsel Americans for Safe Access Fleadquartem National Office General lnforrnation 1322 Webster S1. Swte 402, OaUard, CA 94612 1730 M SUM NW,1W"VW OC 2036 WO: x Am KWsForSaFWaes:.019 ?NONE: 510.251.1856 FAX 510.251.2036 N10NE 202.857.4272 FAX 202.857.4273 MU FREE 1.888.939.4367 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years. My business address is Americans for Safe Access, 1322 Webster St., Suite 402, Oakland, CA 94612. On February 11, 2010, I served the within document(s): POST -HEARING LETTER BRIEF OF AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS Via first-class mail to: Anthony Curiale 418 S. Brea Blvd. Brea, CA 92821 Orange County Superior Court Department C 12 700 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Peter A. Krause Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Moses Johnson Assistant City Attorney City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Ellin Davtyan Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1670 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Martin J. Mayer Jones & Mayer 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on this I! (-day of February, 2010, in Oakland, California. `!,._.r_ SQ, 4-f Joseph D. E ord Headquarters National Office General Information 1322W46so S, 5une 402, Oakland. CA 94612 1730 M Sum NW.Waslnngw DC 2D036 ME: mvw.AmerKarjorSale;cCes: aq PHONL510251. 1856 FA%:510 SI.2036 PHONE: 20215TQ72 FAc 202 857 4273 mu Ra I8P8.9394367 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs and Appellants, V. CITY OF ANAHEIM, Defendant and Respondent. et al.,) D040077 (Superior Court No 07CC09524) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS Appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court County of Orange, State of California Honorable David R. Chaffee, Judge Presiding JOSEPH D. ELFORD (SBN 189934) Americans for Safe Access 1322 Webster St., Suite 402 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 573-7842 Facsimile: (510) 251-2036 Attorney for Amicus Curiae AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL APP-008 Caat of APMW Ceoa NW~ COURT Of APPEAL, Fourth APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION Three G040077 Supmor Can Coe NM ATTORNEY ORPARTYWTHOOI ATTORNEY p.m. staleaarm-w ende —): 07C`CQ9524 Joseph D. Eiford (SBN 189934) - Americans for Safe Access FO CWR USEONLY 1322 Webster St., Suite 402 Oakland, CA94812 FAxNo.roywaa0:510-251-2036 T , Epwm No: 4I5-573-7842 E- ILADDRESS(OO-W ATTORNEY FOR (Nomad: APPELLANTIPETITIONER: QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION, et al. RESPONDENTI EAL PARTY IN INTEREST: CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS (Check one): INITIAL CERTIFICATE [_) SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE — ---- YOU may use this form Notice: Please read rules You file your 6fnef ore ra prebriefrng mompleting this tion, application, or ppositionht Initial a certificate in a civil appeal when when you file a petition for an extraordinary writ in a motion or application in the Court of Appeal, and tal certificate when you learn of changed or additional case. You may also use this form as a supplemen— information that must be disclosed._ 1. This form is being submitted on behalf of the following party (name): Amicus Curiae Americans for Safe Access_ 2. a. There are no interested entities or persons that must be listed in this Certificate under rule 8.208. b. Interested entities or persons required to be listed under rule 8.208 are as follows. pa Nona Nature of interest Full name of Interested (Explain): entity or person (Check one): 0 0 (z) (3) O O (4) (5) 0 Continued on Attachment. 2. The undersigned certifies that the above -listed persons or entities (corporations, partnerships, firms) an ownership , or any other association, but net more in the panty if it is lanentity" uding government (2) a financial or other ant rest in the outcomegencies) have ofther of the proceeding that the justices percent or should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves, as defined in rule 8.208(e)(2). Date: November 3, 2008 �� A Gvf.( Joseph D. Elford „SIONATUREOF ARTY ORATTORNE (TYPE OR PRINT NAMEI e... •,N J. ju" w,rrn m iN�ooe'; APP-r09INev.Jan,a'y OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PER5ura5 :arl rdtaa aZ09, a.1a0(l) IAmanan Lepvnr i� a..w Fom�r4tbnoroW run TABLE OF CONTENTS . TABLEOF CONTENTS ................................................................................ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................. INTRODUCTION.................................................. STATEMENTOF FACTS...................................................................................... ARGUMENT....................................................................................................... I. THE CITY'S BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES OF ALL TYPES THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND COOPERATIVES ............. CONFLICTS WITH, AND IS PREEMPTED BY THE IvIMPA........... 3 IL THE MMPA DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AMEND THE I 1 COMPASSIONATE USE ACT .............................. III. FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PREEMPT THE MMPA .................................. A. Legal Standards ................................................................................. B. The CSA Expressly Provides for Federal Preemption.of State Drug Laws Such that the Two Sets Only Where There Is a "Positive Conflict" 17 of Laws Cannot Stand Together.......................................................... C. There Is No Positive Conflict Between State and Federal Law....................19 D. Even if Obstacle Preemption Were to Apply, the MMPA Does Not Stand 21 as an Obstacle to the Objectives of Congress ......................................... . IV. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF CALIFORNIA'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA 23 BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT ............................. LAWS IS FORECLOSED CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................24 CERTIFICATE OF WORD CO •••••••••-••••••••••••••-• ..................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................... I............................... I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES State Cases Americans Financial Services Association v. City of Oakland .......... . 3,6 (2005) 34 CalAth 1239................................................... ........................ Amwest Surety Insurance Co. V. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243 ........................11, 12, 13 943 Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly (2004) 33 CalAth.............................. ................... 15 City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.AppAth 355................. ..... City of Hartford v. Tucker (Conn. 1993) 621 A.2d 1339 ............................ Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 27 ........................................................ Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court (1988) 45 Cal.3d 491 ................... County of San Diego v. NORML (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th.798................................ passim In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99......................................................................... Intl Voice for Animals v. Adidas Prom. Retail Ops., Inc. . passim (2007) 41 CalAth 929.................................................................... Jevne v. Superior Court (2005) 35 CalAth 935................................................. Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 CalAth 389 ...................................................................3, 6, 9 Knight v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.AppAth 14.................................. 12, 13 Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 805.......................................... Mobilepark West Homeowners Assn. v. Escondido Mobilepark West 11 (1995) 35 Ca1.App.4th 32................................................. ............. Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 CalAth 725 ............................... O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 CalAth 1061..................................................7, 8 People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1994) 36 Cal.3d 476................ ii People v. Bass (1963) 225 Cal.App.2d Supp. 777 .............................................................. 8 People v. Cooper (2002) 27 CalAth 38 ....................................................................... 11,13 People v. Mower (2002) 29 Cal.4th 457 ..................................................................... 20,22 People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433 ............................................................ 6 People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Ca1App.4th 747 .................................................. 4,11,13 Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 CalAth 893 ................................. 3 Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal-AppAth 1109 ................9 Toss v. County of Fresno (2008) 161 Cal.AppAth 799 .................................................. .... 8 Federal Cases Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (1988) 487 U.S. 500 ............................................. - 22 Conant v McCaffrey (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629 ................................................. 24 Conant v. McCaffrey (N.D. Cal. 1997) 172 F.R.D. 681 .................................... 23 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood (1993) 507 U.S. 658 16 Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243 ....... I ............................................... 17,18,21,22 ..... 20,21,23 Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. I ....................................................... Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991) 501 U.S. 452 ............................... *** .....................................15 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001) 533 U.S. 525 - .................. w .................................. 16 Medtronic v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470 ......................................... _W .............. ........... 16,17 Nat'l Federation of Republican Assemblies v. United States .... 23 (S.D. Ala. 2002) 218 F.Supp.2d 1300 ...................................................................... New York v. United States (1991) 505 U.S. 144 .............................................................. 23 Oregon v. Ashcroft (9th Cir. 2004) 368 F.3d 1118..................................................... 21,22 iii Oregon v. Ashcroft (D. Or. 2002) 192 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1092, affd. in 368 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004), affd. in 126 S.Ct. 904 (2006)......................................................21 printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898...............................................................23, 24 Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine (2002) 537 U.S. 51...........................................................116 United States Cash &Currency (7th Cir• 1987) 830 F.2d 44 ................. ..........................17 United States v. Bass (1971) 404 U.S. 336...........................................15 ............................ United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club (N.D. Cal. 1998) 5 F.Supp.2d 1086.............19 Statutes 21 U.S.0 § 903.................................17, 18 ........................................................................... 21 U.S.C. § 801(2)............................................................................................................ 21 21 U.S.C. § 811(t)................................... . ................................22 ...... 21 U.S.C. 885 d ...................................... 20 a.................. Health &Saf. Code § 11000.......................................................................... 78 Health 8c Saf. Code § 11362.5..............................................................................1, 2, 5, 11 .....2 Health &Saf. Code § 11362.7.................................................................. Health &Saf. Code § 11362.775 ....................................................................................2, 4 Health & 5af. Code § 11362.83.................................................. ......................................10 Other Authorities 82 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 165,167-170 (1999) .................................................................... 9 83 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 24, 26-29 (2000) ..........................................................................9 88 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 113, 4 fn. 5 (2005) .......................................... 9 0 INTRODUCTION Because many medical marijuana patients are unable to cultivate the medicine they need to augment their health, the California electorate called upon the State to devise a distribution system to ensure that qualified patients are able to obtain marijuana. In response, in 2003, the Legislature authorized the formation and operation of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, which enable patients to associate together to provide each other with medical marijuana. Some cites, however, do not wish to have medical marijuana collectives, so they have banned them. These bans contravene state law and are, therefore, preempted. While municipalities may pass reasonable regulations over the location and operation of medical marijuana collectives, they cannot simply ban them. STATEMENT OF FACTS On November 4, 1996, the California electorate enacted the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5) [hereinafter "the CUA" or "the Act"] "[t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides rclief." (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Although the Act did not expressly provide for a distribution system for marijuana to the seriously ill, it sought "[t]o encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana." (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(l)(C).) To meet the voters' challenge, on September 10, 2003, the California Legislature passed S.B. 420, also (mown as the "Medical Marijuana Program Act" or "the MMPA" (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.7 et seq.), which provides that "Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570." (Health & Safety Code § 11362.775). In passing the MMPA, the Legislature declared at the outset its purpose to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" (Stats, 2003, C. 875 (S.B. 420), § 1, subd. (b)(3)) and to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." (Stats, 2003, C. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2).) Notwithstanding these state laws expressly designed to ensure access to medical marijuana for seriously ill patients throughout the state through patient collectives, the City of Anaheim has passed an outright ban on such collectives under threat of criminal sanction. Anaheim Ordinance No. 6067, enacted pursuant to the City's police powers to implement federal law (see CT 311), broadly defines a medical marijuana dispensary as "any facility or location where medical marijuana is made available to and/or distributed by or to three or more of the following: a qualified patient, a person with an identification card, or a primary caregiver." (CT 312) The Ordinance, then, states: "It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct, or operate any Medical Marijuana Dispensary or to participate as an employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity, in any Medical Marijuana Dispensary in the City of Anaheim." (CT 313) Qualified Patients Association, which is a nonprofit medical marijuana collective comprised of medical marijuana patients living in Anaheim (CT 4), has challenged this ban. ARGUMENT I. THE CITY'S BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES OF ALL TYPES THROUGHOUT THE CITY CONFLICTS WITH, AND IS PREEMPTED BY THE MMPA The California Constitution provides that a municipal ordinance is preempted and, therefore, void if it conflicts with state law. (See Americans Financial Services Association v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 CalAth 1239, 1251; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 747; Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 290; People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476, 484; Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, 807.) Such conflict between state law and a local ordinance exists where a local "ordinance duplicates or is coextensive therewith, is contradictory or inimical thereto, or enters an area either expressly or impliedly fully occupied by general law." (American Financial Services Association v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1251 [Italics added]; see Sherwin- Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897-898.) Stated differently, a local ordinance conflicts with, and is preempted by state law if it is repugnant to a matter of statewide concern. (See Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, 404.) Here, in enacting the NUVTA, the Legislature declared that its purposes were to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" and to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." (Stats, 2003, C. 875 (S.B. 420), Section 1, subd. (b)(2), (3).) To this end, the Legislature enacted Health and Safety Code section 11362.775, which exempts medical marijuana collectives from the state laws criminalizing marijuana cultivation, possession, distribution, and maintaining a place where marijuana is cultivated or sold. (Health & Safety Code § 11362.775). The courts have construed this legislation as the State's initial response to the voters' request for a safe and affordable distribution system for marijuana, exempt from the criminal laws pertaining to marijuana distribution, as well as "the laws declaring the use of property for these purposes a nuisance." (People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 785.) In Urziceanu, supra, the court, described the MIv1PA as "represent[ing] a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers and fits the defense defendant attempted to present at trial. Its specific itemization of the marijuana sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana." (Id. at p. 785.) The Urziceanu court properly understood that the Legislature intended the N"A to establish medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives as the mechanisms to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is n deemed appropriate...." (See Health & Safety Code § It 362.5, subd. (b)(1)(A); see also Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C) [encouraging "the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana"].) Consistent with the Legislature and the judiciary, the Attorney General issued Guidelines on August 25, 2008, that recognize the legality of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives under California law. (California Attorney General's Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use [hereinafter "AG Guidelines"].) The AG Guidelines state "the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law," so long as it comports with the Guidelines. (AG Guidelines at p. 11.) Thus, the AG Guidelines, like the MMPA and Urziceanu, affirm the legality of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives under California law. In direct conflict with the purposes of the MWA to ensure the "formation and operation" of medical marijuana collectives and to establish uniformity of the medical marijuana laws throughout the State in order to promote the health and well-being of seriously ill Californians, the City of Anaheim has exercised its police powers to legislate the contrary federal view. Anaheim Ordinance No. 6067 states: "[B]ecause of the inconsistency between state and federal law relating to the possession, sale and distribution, and because of the documented threat to public health, safety and welfare, it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Anaheim that the City prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Anaheim...:' (CT 311) While the City of Anaheim is free to disagree with the policy choice made by the California electorate and legislature, it may not pass laws that are "inimical to" (American Financial Services Association v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 CalAth at p. 1251) or "repugnant to" a matter of statewide concern (see Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 CalAth at p. 404). And it may not exercise its police powers to enforce competing federal law. (Cf. City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 380 ["we think judicial enforcement of federal drug policy is precluded in this case because the act in question -possession of medical marijuana -does not constitute an offense against the laws of both the state and the federal government. Because the act is strictly a federal offense, the state has "no power to punish ... [it] ... as such."] [Italics in original] [quoting People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.AppAth 1433, 1445].) The City contends that it has the authority to ban medical marijuana collectives because the MMPA does not expressly `require that cities provide for or allow the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries... " (CT 310; see also Respondent's Brief at p. 34 ["It defies logic to conclude the Legislature intended to strip cities of their police power merely by creating a limited exemption from state criminal liability."].) This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant law on preemption, as preemption under California law need not be express. In In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99, the California Supreme Court held that a city ordinance criminalizing adultery conflicted with state law and was, therefore, void C. because the State had extensive regulations governing sexual activity but had chosen not to criminalize adultery. (Id. at p. 105.) The Court described the panoply of state laws relating to sexual activity and found that the exclusion of adultery from these laws makes "clear that the Legislature has determined by implication that such conduct shall not be criminal in this state." (Id. at p. 104. [citing Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 53 Cal.2d 674, 685].) "Accordingly, a city ordinance attempting to make sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other criminal is in conflict with the state law and is void." (Id, at p. 105.) Citing Lane, supra, the California Supreme Court held in O'Connell V. City of Stockton (2007) 41 CalAth 1061, that a municipal ordinance permitting the city to seize and hold for forfeiture any motor vehicle used to purchase a controlled substance was preempted, and rendered void, by California's Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Health & Saf. Code § 11000 et seq.) [hereinafter "UCSA"]. The Court reasoned that "[tlhe comprehensive nature of the UCSA in defining drug crimes and specifying penalties (including forfeiture) is so thorough and detailed as to manifest the Legislature's intent to preclude local regulation." (Id. at p. 1071.) Comparing Lane, the Court concluded: Here too the Legislature's comprehensive enactment of penalties for crimes involving controlled substances, but exclusion from that scheme of any provision for vehicle forfeiture for simple possessory drug offenses, manifests a clear intent to reserve that severe penalty for very serious drug crimes involving the manufacture, sale, or possession for sale of specified amounts of certain controlled substances. (Ibid.) Because the city, in essence, made a legislative judgment that state law did not go far enough in combating the vice of drug transactions in the city, the Court held that the local regulation was preempted and void. (See id. at pp. 1077-1078 [dis. Opn. of Corrigan, J]; cf. Tosi v. County of Fresno (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 [holding that county ordinances imposing obligations on scrap metal dealers were preempted by state law; "the County of Fresno apparently determined that the state legislation did not go far enough in regulating the conduct of scrap metal dealers. Because the ordinances regulate in a more restrictive manner the very conduct regulated in state law, the ordinances impermissibly conflict with state law"]; see also People v. Bass (1963) 225 Cal.App.2d Supp. 777, 782 [Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting possession of a knife with a blade over three inches long found void; "having prohibited the carrying of dirks, daggers and switch -blade knives, [the Legislature] has not only itself not forbidden one to carry the knife possessed by the defendant, but has shut off the power of the city to forbid it"].) It is, thus, established that the Legislature's exclusion of certain conduct from the penal provisions of the UCSA evidences the Legislature's intent to preempt municipal laws that penalize such conduct. (See Tosi, supra, 161 Cal.AppAth at p. 806 [`"The local laws in O'Connell did conflict with state law —and were preempted —because they imposed the penalty of forfeiture in circumstances in which state law comprehensively regulated the conduct but did not impose that penalty."] [citing O'Connell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1071 & 10751.) Here, the Legislature's intent to preempt local taw can be gleaned not just through omission, as it was in O'Connell and Lane, but through the affirmative actions of the Legislature. In enacting the MMPA at the voters' behest, the Legislature stated that it intended to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state" (Stats, 2003, C. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2)) and it carved out specific exceptions to the comprehensive scheme of marijuana laws that would otherwise make medical marijuana collectives illegal under state law in order to "[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects." (Stats, 2003, C. 875 (S.B. 420), § 1, subd. (b)(3).) As in O'Connell, Stockton, and the other authorities cited, the municipal ordinance penalizing conduct deemed noncriminal by the State is preempted. (See also Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Ca1.App.4th 1109, 1124 [a local ordinance is "inimical to state law [if] it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes"].) Thus, when the Attorney General was asked whether various local ordinances regarding medical marijuana would be preempted by state law, he answered as follows [T]he establishment and protection of a right to possess and use medical marijuana notwithstanding state criminal statutes is plainly a matter of statewide concern. Further, it is self evident that the procedures and protections afforded by the 2003 legislation are reasonably related to the resolution of this statewide concern. Hence, these state laws would prevail over any conflicting regulatory acts of a charter city. (See, e.g., Jonson v. Bradley, supra, 4 CalAth at p. 404; Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court (1988) 45 Cal.3d 491, 507; 83 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 24, 26- 29 (2000); 82 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 165, 167-170 (1999).) (88 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 113, 4 fil. 5 (2005); see also id. at pp. 4-5 ["a city would be preempted from allowing possession of marijuana at levels less than what the state law permits ... because such provision0 would directly contradict state law. ... Similarly, a city program that defined `attending physician' and `primary caregiver' more narrowly than state law would be preempted"].)' In response, the City contends that the MMPA leaves open the possibility of local bans of medical marijuana dispensaries because it provides: "Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article." (Respondent's Brief at p. 40 [quoting Health & Safety Code § 11362.83].) This provision, however, only authorizes municipalities to pass laws that are "consistent with" the state's medical marijuana laws --such as creating possession guidelines that exceed those set forth in the N"A or adopting regulations governing the operation of medical marijuana collectives --not to pass laws that criminalize conduct deemed legal by the State. As explained above, the City's absolute ban on medical marijuana collectives is inconsistent with the MMPA's goals of "[e]nhanc[ing] the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" and "[p]romot[ing] uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state" (Stats, 2003, C. 875 (S.B. 420), Section 1, subd. (b)(2) & (3).) Under both the express language of the NOOPA and generally applicable preemption principles, the Anaheim Ordinance is preempted. t The City misleadingly cites this Attomey General opinion for the proposition that "[e]ven the Attorney General has found no preemption in the area of medical marijuana" (Respondent's Brief at p. 36.) To discern the true opinion of the Attorney General, this Court should request briefing directly from him. 10 II. THE MMPA DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AMEND THE COMPASSIONATE USE ACT Properly understood as the Legislature's response to the voters' request that it "implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana" (Urziceanu, supra, 132 Cal.AppAth at p. 785 [quoting Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C)]); the MMPA does not amount to an unconstitutional amendment of a voter -approved initiative. Under Section 10(c) of Article II of the California Constitution, "The Legislature ... may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute ... when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval." (See also Amwest Surety Insurance Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243, 1251 [electorate may authorize legislature to amend an initiative].) Moreover, "legislative enactments related to the subject of an initiative statute may be allowed" if they address a "related but distinct area" or if they address a "different legal relationship." (Knight v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.AppAth 14, 22; Mobilepark West Homeowners Assn. v. Escondido Mobilepark West (1995) 35 Cal.AppAth 32, 43; see also People v. Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 47 [legislation may be passed relating to the subject of an initiative that the initiative "does not specifically authorize or prohibit"].) Here, the MMPA advances the electorate's goal of "ensur[ing] that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" where recommended to do so by a physician." (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(A).) And it does so at the voters' behest. (See Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C) 11 [encouraging state to "implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana"].) The MMPA, therefore, is not an unconstitutional amendment of a voter -approved initiative — either because it addresses a "different legal relationship" (marijuana distribution) than that addressed by the Compassionate Use Act (cf. Knight, supra, 128 Cal.AppAth at p. 22) or because it was authorized by the electorate (cf. Amwest Surety Insurance Co. v. Wilson, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1251). The court explained the disputed provisions of the MMPA in Urziceanu as follows: Under the law that preexisted the Medical Marijuana Program Act, the collective cultivation and distribution of marijuana was not provided for in the Compassionate Use Act. (See part 1A, ante.) As we have noted, the Compassionate Use Act stated that one of its purposes was to encourage the state and federal government to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana to those patients who need it. (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C).) The Medical Marijuana Program Act is the Legislature's initial response to that directive. (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1.) In the Medical Marijuana Program Act, the Legislature sought to: "(1) Clarify the scope of the application of the [Compassionate Use Act] and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers. [¶] (2) Promote uniform and consistent application of the [Compassionate Use Act] among the counties within the state. [¶] (3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects." (Stats.2003, ch. 875, § l(b), p. 2.) The Medical Marijuana Program Act fiuther evidenced "the intent of the Legislature to address additional issues that were not included within the [Compassionate Use Act], and that must be resolved in order to promote the fair and orderly implementation of the act." (Stats.2003, ch. 875, § 1(c), p. 2.) 12 (Urziceanu, supra, 132 Cal.AppAth at p. 783.) Urziceanu, thus, makes clear that the medical marijuana collective provision of the MNTA does not constitute an unconstitutional amendment. Underscoring the point that the collective and cooperative provision of the MMPA does not constitute an unconstitutional amendment of the Compassionate Use Act is that it does not "undo" what the electorate has done. In Knight, supra, the court explained that the purpose of the constitutional provision forbidding legislative amendments of voter -approved initiatives is to "protect the people's initiative powers by precluding the Legislature from undoing what the people have done, without the electorate's consent." (Knight, supra, 128 Cal.AppAth at p. 22 [quoting Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473, 14841.) Rather than undermine the purpose of the Compassionate Use Act to ensure access of marijuana to seriously persons who need it, the MMPA furthers this purpose by providing for a marijuana distribution system. (Cf. Cooper, supra, 27 CalAth at p. 47-48 [holding that trial court's restriction of presentence credits does not unconstitutionally amend the Briggs Initiative where it did not "circumvent the intent of the electorate in adopting the Briggs Initiative"]; see also Amwest Surety Insurance Co. v. Wilson, supra, 11 CalAth at P. 1255 ["constitutional limitations on legislative power are strictly construed and may not be given effect as against the general power of the legislature unless such limitations clearly inhibit the act in question"].) 13 III, FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PREEMPT THE MMPA Despite the coexistence of California's medical marijuana laws with federal law for nearly twelve years, the City of Anaheim contends that the conflict between the two sets of laws is so intractable that California law must be held invalid. Although there can be no question that California has chosen to tread a different path than the federal government when it comes to medical marijuana, this does not mean that California's laws in this area are preempted. Federal officials may enforce the federal government's prohibition on marijuana for all purposes, even in derogation of the medical marijuana laws of the state, if that is how they choose to expend their resources. Notably, the federal government has not itself claimed that its laws preempt and invalidate California's medical marijuana laws. To the contrary, out of respect for our federalist system of government and the historical power of the states over matters of health and safety, Congress included in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) [hereinafter "CSA"] an express anti -preemption provision that disclaims any intent that the federal drug laws preempt those of the states, unless there is a positive conflict "so that the two cannot consistently stand together." Here, the N4MPA and the CSA can coexist. A. Legal Standards "[Cjourts are reluctant to infer preemption, and it is the burden of the party claiming that Congress intended to preempt state law to prove it" (Viva! Int'1 Voice for Animals v. Adidas Prom. Retail Ops., Inc. (2007) 41 CalAth 929, 936 [quoting Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 CalAth 798, 8151; accord Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly (2004) 33 14 Cal.4th 943, 956-957.) Courts "start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress" (Viva! Int'1, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 938 [quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. (1947) 331 U.S. 218, 2301; accord United States v. Bass (1971) 404 U.S. 336, 349; see also Bronco Wine Co., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 974 [in areas of traditional state regulation, a "strong presumption" against preemption applies and state law will not be displaced "unless it is clear and manifest that Congress intended to preempt state law"].) The strong presumption against preemption "'provides assurance that the "federal state balance" will not be disturbed unintentionally by Congress or unnecessarily by the Courts."' (Olszewski, supra, 30 CalAth at p. 815 [quotation omitted].) To find preemption, the Court must be "absolutely certain that Congress intended" that result. (See Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991) 501 U.S. 452, 464.) Ordinarily, there are four ways in which a statute may be preempted: (1) where Congress enacts a statute that explicitly preempts state law, (2) where state law actually conflicts with federal law, (3) where federal law occupies a field to such an extent that it is reasonable to conclude that Congress does not wish the states to regulate in that area, or (4) where the state law at issue stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the objectives of Congress. (Viva!, supra, 41 CalAth at p. 936.) At its core, the preemption question is one of Congressional intent, which is the "ultimate touchstone." (Viva!, supra, 41 CalAth at P. 939 [quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 4851; Jevne v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 935, 949; County of San 15 Diego v. NoRML (2008) 165 Ca1.App.4th.798, 822; Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.AppAth at p. 382.) To determine whether Congress intended to preempt state law, courts look to the statutory text as the best indicator of Congress' intent. (Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine (2002) 537 U.S. 51, 62-63.) Where, as here, "Congress has expressly identified the scope of the state law it intends to preempt, [courts] infer [that] Congress intended to preempt no more that that absent sound contrary evidence." (Viva!, supra, 41 Ca1.4th at p. 945; see also Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, supra, 537 U.S. at pp. 62-63 [where a stature "contains an express pre-emption clause, our `task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent"'] [quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood (1993) 507 U.S. 658, 664]; Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001) 533 U.S. 525, 541 ["In these cases our task is to identify the domain expressly preempted, [citation], because `an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statute ... supports a reasonable inference ... that Congress did not intend to preempt other matters"] [quotation ornitted].) `Because the N AP and CUA address fields historically occupied by the states --medical practices (Medtronic v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700) and state criminal sanctions for drug possession (City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 383-386, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656)--the presumption against preemption informs our resolution of the scope to which Congress intended the CSA to supplant state laws, and cautions us to narrowly interpret the scope of Congress's intended invalidation of state law. (Medtronic, supra.)" (San Diego, 16 supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 823.) Due to this historical allocation of power to the states regulate in these areas, as well as their status as "independent sovereigns in our federalist system," the United States Supreme Court has concluded that a clear statement is required before the Court will conclude that Congress intended to interfere with those powers. (Medtronic Inc., supra, 518 U.S. at pp. 475 & 485.) B. The CSA Expressly Provides for Federal Preemption of State Drug Laws Only Where There Is a "Positive Conflict" Such that the Two Sets of Laws Cannot Stand Together It was out of respect for the traditional role of the states in regulating medicine and crime that Congress included in the CSA an express preemption provision, which contains an unambiguous expression of intent not to preempt state law. 21 U.S.0 § 903 provides as follows: No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together. This express preemption provision has been referred to as the CSA's "anti -preemption" provision. (Cf. United States v. $79,123.49 in United States Cash & Currency (7th Cir. 1987) 830 F.2d 94, 98 [referring to 21 U.S.0 § 903 as the "anti -preemption provision of Controlled Substances Act"]; City of Hartford v. Tucker (Conn. 1993) 621 A.2d 1339, 1341 [same]; Am. Jur. 2d Drugs and Controlled Substances § 30 (2007) [same]; see also Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 251 ["The CSA explicitly contemplates a role for the States in regulating controlled substances, as evidenced by its pre-emption 17 provision"]; City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 383 ["in enacting the CSA, Congress made it clear it did not intend to preempt the states on the issue of drug regulation" "This express statement by Congress that the federal drug law does not generally preempt state law gives the usual assumption against preemption additional force"] [Italics in Original] [citation omitted].) Division One of this Court found in County of San Diego v. NORAE, supra, that this anti -preemption provision precludes the implied conflict analysis of obstacle preemption. (San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 823-824 [citing Southern Blasting Services v. Wilkes County (4th Cir. 2002) 288 F.3d 5841; cf. Viva!, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 945 [where "Congress has expressly identified the scope of the state law it intends to preempt, [courts] infer [that] Congress intended to preempt no more that that absent sound contrary evidence"]; see also Gonzales v. Oregon, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 270-271 ["Further cautioning against the conclusion that the CSA effectively displaces the States' general regulation of medical practice is the Act's pre-emption provision, which indicates that, absent a positive conflict, none of the Act's provisions should be `construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates ... to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State"'] [quotation omitted].) Under title 21 United States Code section 903, the CSA only preempts state laws that positively conflict with the CSA "so that simultaneous compliance with both sets of laws is impossible." (San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.AppAth at p. 825.) 19 C. There Is No Positive Conflict Between State and Federal Law Judged by this appropriate standard, there is no positive conflict between the challenged provision of the N VIPA and the CSA. Notwithstanding the City's attempt to create a conflict by pointing to the very different treatment of medical marijuana under state versus federal law, the important points for CSA preemption purposes are that the N VTA does not require anyone to violate federal law and it does not purport to immunize persons from prosecution under the CSA. With regard to federal preemption of California's medical marijuana laws, this Court stated in Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, as follows: In considering the City's preemption argument, it is also important to recognize what the CUA does not do. It does not expressly "exempt medical marijuana from prosecution under federal law." (United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club (N.D. Cal. 1998) 5 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1100.) "[O]n its face," the Act "does not purport to make legal any conduct prohibited by federal law; it merely exempts certain conduct by certain persons from California drug laws." (Ibid.) While in passing the CUA the voters may have wanted to go further and actually exempt marijuana from prosecution under federal law, a result which would have led to an irreconcilable conflict between state and federal law ( ibid.), we know from Raich that the Commerce Clause forecloses that possibility. So, what we are left with is a state statutory scheme that limits state prosecution for medical marijuana possession but does not limit enforcement of the federal drug laws. This scenario simply does not implicate federal supremacy concerns. (United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, supra, 5 F.Supp.2d at p. 1100.) (Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Ca1.App.4th at pp. 385-385 [Italics in original] [footnote omitted].) Likewise, here, the Qualified Patients Association is not asking the City to participate in its activities; rather, it is only asking that the City remain neutral and not 19 ban collectives.Z If it so chooses, the federal government may continue to prosecute seriously ill Californians for cultivating and possessing marijuana for medical purposes (Gonzales v. Roich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 28-29), but this can be accomplished, while at the same time leaving California's medical marijuana laws, "which involve state law alone" (People v. Mower (2002) 28 CalAth 457, 465 fn. 2), intact. There is no positive conflict under the CSA where, as here, the two sets of laws can stand together in this fashion. (See San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.AppAth at pp. 825-826; cf. Viva, int'1, supra, 41 CalAth at p. 944 [stating that there is no conflict preemption where compliance with both federal and state law is not a "physical impossibility"] [quoting Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs., Inc. (1985) 471 U.S. 707, 713].) a In its amici curiae brief, the Cities contend that that a decision in the Qualified Patients Association's favor will require cities to issue business licenses to medical marijuana collectives. (Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent at pp. 15-16.) Aside from the fact that this issue is not presently before the Court, this does not mean that state law is preempted. The mere issuance of a business license, which is largely ministerial, does not subject the city official who issues the license to criminal liability under the CSA, since the city official does not actively participate in the medical marijuana collective and, license or not, it might never even come to fruition. (See San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at 825 fn. 13 ["the Garden Grove court has already concluded, and we agree, that governmental entities do not incur r and abettor Garden liability by complying with their obligations under the iv W"] [citing ty f Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.AppAth at pp. 389-3921; cf. Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.AppAth at p. 368 ["The requisite intent to transgress the law is so clearly absent here that the argument is no more than a straw man"].) Furthermore, the city official would be immunized from liability under the CSA by 21 U.S.C. § 885(d), which provides that "no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed btythe virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal officer lawfully engaged enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof, ... who shall be lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances." (Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.AppAth at pp. 368-369.) 20 D. Even if Obstacle Preemption Were to Apply, the MMPA Does Not Stand as an Obstacle to the Objectives of Congress In any event, California's medical marijuana laws do not stand as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress in enacting the CSA. The purpose of the CSA, as declared at its outset, is to promote the "health and general welfare of the American people." See 21 U.S.C. § 801(2). To this end, as the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and this Court have recognized, the CSA was narrowly drafted to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices." (San Diego, supra, 165 CalAppAth at p. 826 [citing Gonzales v. Oregon, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 270-2721; see Garden Grove v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.AppAth at p. 383; cf. Oregon v. Ashcroft (9th Cir. 2004) 368 F.3d 1118, 1128 & 1129, affd. in Gonzales v. Oregon, supra ["Congress clearly intended to limit the CSA to problems associated with drug abuse and addiction;" noting "CSA's limited mandate to combat prescription drug abuse and addiction"] [collecting citations]; see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12 (2005) ["The main objectives of the CSA were to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances."]; Oregon v. Ashcroft (D. Or. 2002) 192 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1092, affd. in 368 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004), affd. in 126 S.Ct. 904 (2006) ["The CSA was never intended, and the USDOJ and DEA were never authorized, to establish a national medical practice or act as a national medical board."].) "The particular drug abuse that Congress sought to prevent [in the CSA] was that deriving from the drug's 'stimulant, depressive, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system."' (See Statement of Attorney General Reno on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (June 5, 1998) [found at 21 http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/attygen.htm [quoting 21 U.S.C. § 811(f)]; see also Gonzales, supra, 546 U.S. at p. 273 ["The statutory criteria for deciding what substances are controlled, determinations which are central to the Act, consistently connect the undefined term drug abuse' with addiction or abnormal effects on the nervous system."].) With these objectives of Congress properly understood, it can be seen that the MMPA does not pose a "significant conflict" with the CSA. (See San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 826 [under obstacle preemption, "not every state law posing some de minimus impediment will be preempted. To the contrary, `[d]isplacement will occur only where, as we have variously described, a significant conflict' exists between an identifiable `federal policy or interest and the [operation] of state law,"'] [quoting Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (1988) 487 U.S. 500, 5071 [Italics in original].) Seriously ill persons who use marijuana after having this treatment recommended to them by a physician are not engaging in drug abuse, as that term has been conventionally understood. (Cf. People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 482 [equating possession of marijuana in compliance with the CUA to "the possession of any prescription drug with a physician's prescription"]; Oregon v. Ashcrof (9th Cit. 2004) 368 F.3d 1118, 1166, ci fd. in 126 S.Ct. 904 (2006) [contrasting "drug abuse" and "medical practice"].) In any event, because medical marijuana patients comprise only a tiny fraction of all marijuana users, medical marijuana collectives, which consists only of qualified patients, will not significantly conflict with Congress' goal of curbing drug abuse. (Cf. Garden Grove, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 384 ["[i]t is unreasonable to believe that use of medical 22 marijuana by [qualified users under the CUA] for [the] limited purpose [of medical treatment] will create a significant drug problem, so as to undermine the stated objectives of the CSA"] [quoting Conant v. McCaffrey (N.D. Cal. 1997) 172 F.R.D. 691, 694 fn. 5, affd. in Conant v. Walters, supra, 309 F.3d 6291; see also Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 63 (dis. opn. of Thomas, J.) ["many law enforcement officials report that the introduction of medical marijuana laws has not affected their law enforcement efforts"] [Italics added).) IV. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF THE MMP IS FORECLOSED BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT If the federal government had sought to preempt state law in this area, which it has not, such "commandeering" of the states would violate the Tenth Amendment. (See Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 930-31; New York v. United States (1991) 505 U.S. 144, 157; Nat'l Federation of Republican Assemblies v. United States (S.D. Ala. 2002) 218 F.Supp.2d 1300, 1352 ["the federalism concerns that the Tenth Amendment embodies counsel hesitation before construing Congress's enumerated powers to intrude upon the core aspects of state sovereignty"].) Under the'renth Amendment, the federal government may not "commandeer" state officials to enforce federal law -- "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." (New York, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 935.) The reason is that under our federalist system of government, sovereign states, at a minimum, must be able to control their own purse strings. As the Court stated in Printz, 23 supra: "The power of the Federal Government would be augmented immeasurably if it were able to impress into its service —and at no cost to itself --the police officers of the 50 States." (521 U.S. at p. 922.) Here, whereas the State of California has made a decision to conserve its scarce judicial resources by not subjecting medical marijuana patients who form patient collectives to criminal sanction, the City of Anaheim contends that federal law requires it to pass such criminal laws. Such conscription of local government violates the Tenth Amendment. (Cf. San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 828 [holding that the CSA does not preempt the NIWA, even if Congress intended this result, due to the Tenth Amendment]; Conant v McCaffrey (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 646-647 (cone. op. of Kozinski, J.) [explaining that federal government's threat of revoking DEA licenses of California physicians who recommend marijuana to their patients violates the Tenth Amendment.].) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the trial court's judgment. DATED: November 3, 2008 Respectfully submitted, JOSEW D.ELFORD Counsel for Americans for Safe Access 24 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT I, JOSEPH D. ELFORD, declare as follows: I am the attorney for Amicus Curiae Americans for Safe Access in this matter. On November 3, 2008, I performed a word count of the above -enclosed brief, which revealed a total of 6,913 words. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this? day of November in Oakland, California. J0SEjf1 �ORD�� 25 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years. My business address is Americans for Safe Access, 1322 Webster St., Suite 402, Oakland, CA 94612. On November 3, 2008, I served the within document(s): AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS TN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS Via first-class mail to: Anthony Curiale 418 S. Brea Blvd. Brea, CA 92821 Orange County Superior Court Department C12 700 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Moses Johnson Assistant City Attorney City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Chrystal James Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1670 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Martin J. Mayer Jones & Mayer 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on this ]" day of November, 2008, in Oakland, California. JOSEPH D. LLFORD W., �i a CMCR=- Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research University of California 0 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH Report to the Legislature and Governor of the State of California presenting findings pursuant to SB847 which created the CMCR and provided state funding Director: Igor Grant, M.D. University of California, San Diego Co -Directors: J. Hampton Atkinson, M.D. Andrew Mattison, Ph.D" University of California, San Diego Thomas J. Coates, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles 'Deceased O U/�[� _ `,T-mDiego Prepared February 11, 2010 1 University of California I www.cmcr.ucsd.edu HEAL1it SCIENCES Objective In 1999, the California legislature passed and Governor Gray Davis signed SB847, which commis- sioned the University of California to establish a scientific research program to expand the public scientific knowledge on purported therapeutic usages of marijuana. We hereby submit this report of our scientific findings pursuant to this objective. WWW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................. Summary of Results to Date .................................... Other CMCR Activities ............................................... Conclusion ............. MissionStatement............................................................................................................4 Scientific and Legislative Precursors of the CMCR...................................................... 5 Discovery of Cannabis Receptors in the Brain.........................................................................5 ScientificReports............................................................................................................................5 LegislativeOrigins..........................................................................................................................5 CMCRReview Process.......................................................................................................6 CMCRVision for Cannabis Therapeutics Research...................................................... 7 Stagel: Smoked Cannabis............................................................................................................7 Stage ll: Non -Smoked Preparations...........................................................................................7 Stage Ill: Molecules To Target Endocannobinoid System.....................................................7 Overview of Research Program......................................................................................8 Studies in Pain and Other Neurologic Conditions..................................................................8 Synopsis of CMCR Published Clinical Study Results.................................................10 "The Effect of Cannabis on Neuropathic Pain in HIV -Related Peripheral Neuropathy.................................................................................................................................. 10 "Placebo -Controlled, Double Blind Trial of Medicinal Cannabis in Painful HIV Neuropathy.................................................................................................................................. 10 A Double -Blind, Placebo -Controlled Crossover Trial of the Antinociceptive Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Subjects with Neuropathic Pain" .............................................. 11 Analgesic Efficacy of Smoked Cannabis"............................................................................. I i "Short -Term Effects of Cannabis Therapy on Spasticity in Multiple -Sclerosis" ............. 12 "Vaporization as a Smokeless'Connabis Delivery System" .............................................. 12 Recently Completed And Ongoing Studies................................................................13 "Sleep and Medicinal Cannabis"............................................................................................. 13 "Impact of Repeated Cannabis Treatments on Driving Abilities" ................................... 13 "Efficacy of Inhaled Cannabis in Diabetic Painful Peripheral Neuropathy .................. 13 "The Analgesic Effect of Vaporized Cannabis on Neuropathic Pain. ............................. 13 Completed Pre -Clinical Studies....................................................................................14 "Mechanisms ofConnabinoid Analgesia"............................................................................ 14 "Cannabinoids in Fear Extinction".......................................................................................... 14 "Effects of Cannabis Therapy on Endogenous Cannabinoids"........................................ 14 "Effects of Medicinal Cannabis on CD4Immunity in AIDS" .............................................. 15 DiscontinuedStudies......................................................................................................1S Summary And Future Directions..................................................................................16 CMCRRoster.....................................................................................................................17 CMCRSupported Publications.....................................................................................18 Resultsof CMCR Studies............................................................................................................ 18 PublishedAbstracts.................................................................................................................... 18 Other CMCR-Supported Publications..................................................................................... 19 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA "Research should continue into the physiological effects of synthetic and plant -derived cannabinoids and the natural function of cannabinoids found in the body." - Institute ofMedicine, 1999 "The question of whether marijuana has any legitimate medical purpose should be determined by sound science and medicine." -Asa Hutchinson, Former DEA Administrator, 2007 "The scientific community, the medical community in particular, is divided on the real therapeutic effectiveness of marijuana. Some are quick to say that opening the door to medical marijuana would be a step toward outright legalization of the substance. But none of that should matter to physi- cians or scientists. It is not a question of defending general public policy on marijuana or even all illegal drugs. It is not a question of sending a symbolic message about "drugs". It is not a question of being afraid that young people will use marijuana if it is approved as a medicine. The question, and the only question, for physicians as professionals is whether, to what extent and in what circumstances, marijuana serves a therapeutic purpose." - Canadian Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs. Cannabis: Summary Report, 2002. "Although the indications for some conditions (e.g., HIV wasting and chemotherapy -induced nausea and vomiting) have been well documented, less information is available about other potential medical uses. Additional research is needed to clarify marijuana's therapeutic properties and deter- mine standard and optimal doses and routes of delivery." - American College of Physicians, 2008 "The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research is currently conducting scientific studies to determine the efficacy of marijuana in treating various ailments. Until that research is concluded, however, most of what the public hears from marijuana activists is little more than a compilation of anecdotes." - John Walters, Former Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2002 WW W.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 1 i Executive Summary The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the University of California was created in 2000 to conduct clinical and pre -clinical studies of cannabinoids, including smoked marijuana, to provide evidence one way or the other to answer the question "Does marijuana have therapeutic value?" To accomplish this objective, the CMCR issued calls for applications from researchers at leading California institutions, developed a close working relationship with state and federal agencies to gain regulatory approvals, established panels of nationally -recognized experts to rigorously review the merit of appli- cations, and funded carefully designed studies that have now been published in high impact scientific journals, making significant contributions to the available literature on cannabis and the cannabinoids. Summary of Results to Date In total, the CMCR has approved fifteen clinical studies, including seven clinical trials, of which five have completed and two are in progress. The CMCR has also approved four pre -clinical studies, all of which have completed. By design CMCR clinical studies focused on conditions identified by the Institute of Medicine for which cannabis might have potential therapeutic effects, based on current scientific knowledge (Institute of Medicine, 1999). To date, four CMCR-funded studies have demonstrated that cannabis has analgesic effects in pain conditions secondary to injury (e.g. spinal cord injury) or disease (e.g. HIV disease, HIV drug therapy) of the nervous system. This result is particularly important because three of these CMCR studies utilized cannabis as an add -on treatment for patients who were not receiving adequate benefit from a wide range of standard pain -relieving medications. This suggests that cannabis may provide a treatment option for those individuals who do not respond or respond inadequately to currently available therapies. The efficacy of cannabis in treatment -refractory patients also may suggest a novel mechanism of action not fully exploited by current therapies. In addition to nerve pain, CMCR has also supported a study on muscle spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Such spasticity can be painful and disabling, and some patients do not benefit optimally from existing treatments. The results of the CMCR study suggest that cannabis reduces MS spasticity, at least in the short term, beyond the benefit available from usual medical care. Table 1. Clinical Studies Published or Submitted for Publication Donald Abrams, M.D. Cannabls forTreatment of HIV -Related Peripheral UC San Francisco Neuropathy Donald Abrams, M.D. Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System UC San Francisco Jody Corey -Bloom, M.D., Ph.D. Short -Term Effects of Cannabis Therapy on spasticity in MS UC San Diego Ronald Ellis, M.D., Ph.D. Placebo -controlled, Double Blind Trial of Medicinal Cannabis UC San Diego in Painful HIV Neuropathy Mark Wallace, M.D. Analgesic Efficacy of Smoked Cannabis UC San Diego Barth Wilsey, M.D. Double Blind, Placebo Controlled Trial of Smoked Marijuana UC Davis on Neuropathic Pain 2 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA To date, six of the studies have published (or are in the process of publishing) results in respected medi- cal journals, garnering national and international attention from other researchers, media outlets, governmental agencies, and the general public (see Table 1). These results have helped to bring togeth- er accomplished international experts on cannabis and cannabinoids and foster scientific dialog on the possible utility of cannabis as a therapeutic agent. Adverse side effects experienced by participants included cough, nausea, dizziness, sedation and changes in cognition. However, these effects were typically mild and resolved rapidly after treatment. Currently approved analgesics are not without side effects, and the effects observed in CMCR studies tended to be no worse than would be expected with other potent analgesics. Following the conclusion of the two studies currently in progress, CMCR will have exhausted its available funding for clinical work, though the CMCR will continue to maintain a sample bank and to consult with researchers and policy - makers as needed. The majority of CMCR studies that have been discontinued were cancer studies that experienced difTi- culty in recruiting participants. Many severely ill individuals were reluctant to volunteer for a rigorous research protocol where the experimental treatment addressed disease symptoms (i.e. nausea, pain) but did not affect tumor growth directly. Other factors, such as requirement that patients have stable pain scores over a period of time leading into the study, prohibition from driving for the duration of the study, and difficulty in providing cannabis for home administration may also have played a role in the lack of success in recruiting this population. A further impediment to participation in CMCR stud- les, particularly in cancer patients, was the inability of CMCR to continue to provide study drug beyond the study period to patients who find active treatment beneficial. Additionally, some individuals already were using cannabis to treat pain or other symptoms, and so had less incentive to participate in research. The CMCR portfolio also included basic science studies in animals and in human cells (pre -clinical research). This research was supported because it had the potential to provide insights into therapeutic use of cannabinoids in human disease. One study provided evidence, by way of recordings of nerve cell activity and in awake animals, of analgesic effects of cannabis -like compounds on head and facial pain, suggesting that clinical trials of cannabis might be warranted in patients with headache or other facial pain. Another study reported that cannabis did not interfere with the function of blood cells involved with immunity, an important finding considering potential therapeutic use of cannabis compounds will be in persons with chronic illnesses. Other CMCR Activities In addition to the research, CMCR has also functioned as a catalyst for discussion and examination of the potential development of cannabis as medicine. In July, 2002, CMCR sponsored a workshop *Future Directions in Cannabinoid Therapeutics" featuring presentations by intellectual and scientific leaders in the field of cannabinoid science from around the world. CMCR hosted a second meeting in summer 2004 to address recent progress in science that would be likely to lead to clinical trials of new cannabi- noid compounds. "Future Directions in Cannabinoid Therapeutics II: From the Bench to the Clinic' brought together the major stakeholders in the development of cannabinoid therapeutics in order to survey laboratory compounds that are most promising for testing in human trials and to confront potential stumbling blocks to testing and development of these compounds. A special issue of the journal Neuropharmacology (2005) was dedicated to publishing the research presented at this meeting. WWW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 1 3 Executive Summary (cont.) CMCR researchers have also published two literature reviews on the neuropsychological effects of cannabis use in order to better understand the potential hazards of cannabis use in short and long-term treatment settings (Grant, et al., 2003 & Gonzalez, et. al, 2002 — see reference list). Conclusion As a result of the vision and foresight of the California State Legislature Medical Marijuana Research Act (S8847), the CMCR has successfully conducted the first clinical trials of smoked cannabis in the United States in more than 20 years. As a result of this program of systematic research, we now have reason- able evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment in selected pain syndromes caused by injury or diseases of the nervous system, and possibly for painful muscle spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. Obviously more research will be necessary to elucidate the mechanisms of action and the full therapeu- tic potential of cannabinoid compounds. Meanwhile, the knowledge and new findings from the CMCR provide a strong science -based context in which policy makers and the public can discuss the place of these compounds in medical care. Mission Statement `The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) will conduct high quality scientific studies intend- ed to ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of cannabis products and examine alternative forms of cannabis administration. The Center will be seen as a model resource for health policy plan- ning by virtue of its close collaboration with federal, state, and academic entitles. 4 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Scientific and Legislative Precursors of the CMCR Discovery of Cannabis Receptors in the Brain During the late 1980's and early 1990's, a series of significant scientific breakthroughs revealed an in-built system of cannabinoid receptors and cannabinoid signaling molecules in the human brain. Cannabinoid receptors are located throughout the central nervous system and peripheral tissues and are implicated in nervous system excitability, movement, analgesia, neuroprotection, and feeding behaviors, including newborn suckling. Scientific Reports Following this period of scientific discovery and expanded understanding of the physiological basis of cannabinoid action, there was renewed interest in potential therapeutic applications of cannabinoid chemicals. The National Institutes of Health Ad Hoc Group of Experts and the Institute of Medicine, follow ing thorough review of the existing scientific literature, identified medical conditions warranting further research regarding the possible therapeutic effects of marijuana. Medical evidence for likely therapeutic benefit was identified in the areas of appetite stimulation, neurological and movement disorders, analge- sia, and nausea and vomiting. 1997: National Institutes of Health, Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana 1999: Institute of Medicine Report, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base" (Available through the CMCR website at: httpJ/cmccucsd.edulgeninfolmonjuana.htm) Legislative Origins The triggering event which led to the creation of the CMCR was the passage by the people of California in 1996 of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which approved the medical use of marijuana (although at that time the exact role the substance should play in patient care remained ambigu- ous). Following that, in 1999, the Legislature of California passed Senate Bill (SB) 847, authored by then Assemblyman, later Senator John Vasconcellos, after extensive negotiations with then Attorney General Dan lungren, providing the bipartisan legitimacy that enabled this bill to obtain the required two-thirds vote in each house of the California legislature. SB847 proposed (subject to the approval of the Board of Regents of the University of California) to create a three-year program overseeing objective, high quality medical research that would "...enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent," stressing that the project "should not be construed as encour- aging or sanctioning the social or recreational use of marijuana." In August 2000, the Center for Medici- nal Cannabis Research was established at the University of California to carry out this mission. In 2003, after CMCR had demonstrated its ability to carry out the proposed program of research, SB295 was approved to remove the 3-year program limitation included in the founding legislation. 1996: California voters pass the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. 1999: California State Legislature passes the Medical Marijuana Research Act of 1999 (SB847). 2000: Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research is established as a state -funded research center at the University of California to solicit, review, and support clinical and limited preclinical research 2000: CMCR issued its first call for proposals 2003: SB295 is passed, re -authorizing the CMCR to continue indefinitely WWW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 1010 1 5 CMCR Review Process In order to evaluate the scientific validity of the proposals submitted, the CMCR engaged senior scientists from around the nation to serve as a Scientific Review Board (SRB). Studies recommended for funding by the Scientific Review Board were then submitted for review to the Research Advisory Panel of California (RAP-q, the Office of Public Health and Science of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Food and Drug Administra- tion (FDA), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the Drug Enforcement Adminis- tration (DEA). Upon final approval from each of the above agencies, studies were authorized to order cannabis cigarettes from NIDA and to begin recruiting patients. This process is described in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1. CMCR Scientific Review reviewed Application assigned 3 SRO reviewers for detailed critique Results I Application sent to full SRO I Investigator SRO members submit critiques to Telephone meeting of entire SRB. Each protocol is reviewed and scored. Suggest major revisions for next Necessary modifications (including round budget'are discussed NOT Recommended CMCR Director communicates review to proposal Declined Investigators Figure 2. CMCR Regulatory Approval Process CMCR j SRBApproval Revisions i Review .................. State of F—RAK7 DHHS MDA DNNS CaliforniaRevkw Review pevisions Revised Apprcrved RNislpns i FDA Review Order Product Begin Studies 6 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CMCR Vision for Cannabis Therapeutics Research CMCR envisions its role in the investigation of cannabis and cannabinoid compounds in three main research domains involving smoked cannabis, non -smoked preparations, and eventually new pharmaceu- tical drug candidates formulated to act directly on the endocannabinoid system. Stage I: Smoked Cannabis Develop state and federal review process, and solicit proposals for initial studies. L Conduct well -designed, rigorously controlled clinical trials of smoked cannabis. Until alternative delivery systems and new molecules are available, smoked cannabis offers the most efficient delivery of cannabinoids for clinical trials. Cannabis cigarettes are provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Work Accomplished CMCR has developed the scientific and administrative infrastructure to support application, review, selection, and implementation of studies, and has developed a rigorous process of peer review of scien- tific proposals by independent Scientific Review Board. CMCR has also established a relationship with state and federal agencies (RAPC, DEA, FDA, DHHS, NIDA) to facilitate regulatory approval. The CMCR first solicited applications In fall 2000, and has funded fifteen clinical and four pre -clinical studies throughout California. The CMCR has issued five calls for proposals, most recently in summer 2006. Stage II: Non -Smoked Preparations Explore the safety and effectiveness of non -smoked forms of medicinal cannabis. Expand trials to include alternative, non -smoked delivery of cannabis preparations. Alternative delivery may include vaporization, patches, suppositories, and alternative oral forms. Work Accomplished In the area of non -smoked routes of cannabis administration, Dr. Donald Abrams' study, "Vaporization as a'5mokeless' Cannabis Delivery System," has been completed and the results published in the Jour- nal of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. This study found that vaporization was a safe and effective mode of delivery. Two CMCR clinical trials are now in progress utilizing vaporization. Stage III: Molecules To Target Endocannabinoid System Stage III represents long-term goals for cannabinoid research. If the CMCR were to continue, the long- term research objectives would be to: Collaborate with laboratories around the world who are working on specific molecules (both natural and synthetic) to activate, modulate, or deactivate the body's in-built cannabinoid system. Perform Phase I, II, and III clinical trials on new molecules targeting the endocannabinoid system. W WW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 1 7 Overview of Research Program Studies in Pain and Other Neurologic Conditions Chronic pain —pain on a daily or almost daily basis for six months or longer —is one of the most prevalent and disabling conditions in California and in the US generally. Whereas many types of pain are caused by stimulation of specialized pain receptors on nerve endings, due to injury of tissues, neuropathic pain is produced either by direct damage to the central (brain, spinal cord) or peripheral nervous system itself, or by abnormal functioning of these systems. Infections, diabetes, physical trauma, strokes, and many other diseases can injure the nervous system, with resulting pain, which persists even though pain receptors themselves are not directly activated. It is therefore not surprising that neuropathic pain is widespread, affect- ing 5-10% of the US population. Only a few classes of medications are approved for use as analgesics in these conditions (opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants), and many patients obtain only partial relief, even when using combinations of all available therapies. Among the most difficult to treat neuropathic pain conditions are those secondary to HIV, diabetes, and to physical trauma to the nervous system. Because these neuropathic disorders are so prevalent, and treatment alternatives are so limited, the CMCR focused on these conditions. A distinguishing scientific feature of this program of pain research, made possible only by the coordinating function of the CMCR, is the commonality of measures and methods across the research studies. This allows for the distinctive advantage of comparability of results across studies. Additionally, when possible we studied treatment of the same type of pain condition (e.g., HIV neuropathy) in more than one geographic site. Finding comparable results at two or more sites studying the same disease is scientifically important, since this suggests that the results are generally valid, rather than being due to chance or the specific characteristics of a single sample of patients, or of a particular team of researchers. This research used the gold standard design for assessment of therapeutic effects, the randomized clinical trial. In this approach participants are assigned by chance, like flipping a coin, to an experimental treatment, In this case cannabis, or to a placebo (an inactive treat- ment). The placebo in all of our studies was a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette, made with cannabis from which the "active" ingredients, for example delta-9-tetrahydrocanna binol (THC), had been removed. The cigarette therefore had the appearance and the aroma of a marijuana cigarette, but without the crucial chemical ingredients hypothesized to be thera- peutically active. Randomization ensures factors which might skew the results (like age, dura- tion or intensity of pain) are equally present in both the experimental and placebo condition. Placebo is essential, since the expectation of pain relief from any treatment Is a powerful anal- gesic itself. All of our protocols used measures of pain recommended by expert consensus as standard in the field. For studies of smoked cannabis, the researchers used a standard, timed method of inhalation; research using vaporized cannabis used similar, state -of -the art technol- ogy. Researchers measured blood concentrations of the primary active ingredient of cannabis (THQ, allowing estimates of relationships between dose, concentration, and magnitude of pain relief. To date, the CMCR has completed four studies in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Two studies have focused on neuropathic pain resulting from HIV infection or the drugs used to treat HIV, one has focused on neuropathic pain of varying causes, and one has used an experi- 8 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVER5ITY OF CALIFORNIA mental model of neuropathic pain tested in healthy volunteers. The results from these four studies have been convergent, with all four demonstrating a significant decrease in pain after cannabis administration. The magnitude of effect in these studies, expressed as the number of patients needed to treat to produce one positive outcome, was comparable to current thera- pies. Two additional studies involving neuropathic pain are underway. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most common chronic and disabling diseases of the nervous system. Caused by loss of the insulating sheath surrounding nerve fibers, the disease usually begins in young adulthood. Although it may initially wax and wane in intensity and be of mild severity, it often steadily progresses, causing fatigue, loss of balance, muscle weakness, and muscle spasticity. Affecting up to 70% of people with the disease, muscle spasms lead to pain, inability to walk, and difficulties with self -care, causing most of the everyday life disabil- ity from this disease. There is as yet no cure for MS. Treatments for muscle spasticity are only partially effective and have side effects which are not easily tolerated, making the search for new therapies of high importance. Given this background, the CMCR identified MS spasticity as an additional target for therapeutic research. As with all CMCR studies, the research used the most rigorous scientific approach to testing therapies, a randomized clinical trial, supple- mented by modern measurement of muscle spasticity, everyday function, life quality, and side effects. Results to date have found a significant improvement in both an objective measure of spasticity and pain intensity in patients whose standard therapy had provided inadequate relief. W W W.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 1 9 Synopsis of CMCR Published Clinical Study Results "The Effect of Cannabis on Neuropathic Pain in HIV -Related Peripheral Neuropathy" Donald I. Abrams, M.D., University of California, San Francisco The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of smoked cannabis when used as an analgesic in persons with neuropathic pain from HIV -associated distal sensory polyneuropathy (DSPN). In a double blind, randomized, five-day clinical trial patients received either smoked cannabis or place- bo cannabis cigarettes. Patients continued on any concurrent analgesic medications (e.g., gabapentin, amitriptyline, narcotics, NSAIDs) which they were prescribed prior to the trial; the dose and amount of the medications were recorded daily. The full results of this study appear in thejournal Neurology (Abrams, et al., 2007- see reference list). In brief, 55 patients were randomized and 50 completed the entire trial. Smoked cannabis reduced daily pain by 34% compared to 17% with placebo. The study concluded that a significantly greater proportion of patients who smoked cannabis (52%) had a greater than 30% reduction in pain Intensity compared to only 24% in the placebo group. This result is clinically important, since the threshold of a 30% reduction in pain Intensity is associated with meaningful Improvement in quality of life in other research on pain outcomes. Cannabis appeared to be well -tolerated and there were no safety concerns raised. By design, all patients had smoking experience with cannabis. There were more side effects in those receiving cannabis than placebo, with the most frequent being sedation, anxiety, and dizziness, but these were all rated as "mild." "Placebo -Controlled, Double Blind Trial of Medicinal Cannabis in Painful HIV Neuropathy" Ronald J. Ellis, M.D., Ph.D., Universityof California, San Diego The primary objective of this study also was to evaluate the efficacy of smoked cannabis when used as an analgesic in persons with HIV -associated painful neuropathy.In a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial of the short-term adjunctive treatment of neuropathic pain in HIV -associated distal sensory poly- neuropathy, participants received either smoked cannabis or placebo cannabis cigarettes. A structured dose escalation -titration protocol was used to find an individualized, effective, safe, and well -tolerated dose for each subject. Participants continued on their usual analgesic medications throughout the trial, with the dose and amount of these medications being recorded daily. The full results of this study were published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology (Ellis, et al., 2008 - see reference list). In brief, 34 eligible subjects enrolled and 28 completed both cannabis and placebo treatments. Among completers, pain relief was significantly greater with cannabis than placebo. The proportion of subjects achieving at least 30% pain relief was again significantly greater with cannabis (46%) compared to placebo (18%). It was concluded that smoked cannabis was generally well -tolerated and effective when added to concomitant analgesic therapy In patients with medically refractory pain due to HIV -associated neuropathy. Once again these results appeared to be relevant to everyday clinical practice, because the magnitude of pain relief is associated with that which improves life quality, and also because the benefit was above and beyond that conferred by the patients' usual analgesics. As in the study described above, side effects were more frequent with cannabis than with placebo, with the most common being sleepiness or sedation, fatigue, and difficulty with concentration. These were "mild' for the most part and did not raise safety concerns. 10 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA "A Double -Blind, Placebo -Controlled Crossover Trial of the Antinociceptive Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Subjects with Neuropathic Pain" Barth Wilsey, M.D., University of California, Davis This study's objective was to examine the efficacy of two doses of smoked cannabis on pain In persons with neuropathic pain of different origins (e.g., physical trauma to nerve bundles, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, diabetes). In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial participants received either low - dose, high -dose, or placebo cannabis cigarettes. As customary in CMCR trials, participants were allowed to continue their usual regimen of pain medications (e.g., codeine, morphine, and others). The full results of this study have been published in the Journal of Pain (Wilsey, et al., 2008 - see refer- ence list). Thirty-eight patients underwent a standardized procedure for smoking either high -dose (7%), low -dose (3.5%), or placebo cannabis; of these, 32 completed all three smoking sessions. The study demonstrated an analgesic response to smoking cannabis with no significant difference between the low and the high dose cigarettes. The study concluded that both low and high cannabis doses were effi- cacious in reducing neuropathic pain of diverse causes. Disagreeable or unpleasant side effects were significantly more likely with high dose cigarettes compared to low dose or placebo, whereas there was no difference in these effects between low dose and placebo sessions. There was no indication of mood changes (e.g., sadness, anxiety, fearfulness). "Analgesic Efficacy of Smoked Cannabis" Mark Wallace, M.D., University of California, San Diego This study used an experimental model of neuropathic pain to determine whether pain induced by the injection into the skin of capsaicin, a compound which is the 'hot' ingredient in chili peppers, could be alleviated by smoked cannabis. Another aim of the study was to examine the effects of 'dose' of canna- bis, and the time course of pain relief. In a randomized double -blinded placebo controlled trial, volun- teers smoked low, medium, and high dose cannabis (2%, 4%, 8%THC by weight) or placebo cigarettes. The full results of this study were published in the journal Anesthesiology (Wallace, et al., 2007 - see refer- ence list). Nineteen healthy volunteers were enrolled, and 1S completed all four smoking sessions. In brief, five minutes after cannabis exposure, there was no effect on capsaicin-induced pain at any dose. By 45 minutes after cannabis exposure there was a significant decrease In capsaicin-induced pain with the medi- um dose (4%) and a significant increase in pain with the high dose (8%). There was no significant effect seen with low dose (2%). There was a significant inverse relationship between pain perception and plasma THC. In summary, this study suggested that there may be a "therapeutic window' (or optimal dose) for smoked cannabis: low doses were not effective; medium doses decreased pain; and higher doses actually increased pain. These results suggest the mechanism(s) of cannabinoid analgesia are complex, in some ways like non-opioid pain relievers (e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen) and in others like opioids (e.g., morphine). W W W.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 1 11 Synopsis of CMCR Published Clinical Study Results (cont.) "Short -Term Effects of Cannabis Therapy on Spasticity in Multiple -Sclerosis" Jody Corey -Bloom, M.D., University of California, San Diego This objective of this study was to determine the potential for smoked cannabis to ameliorate marked muscle spasticity (chronic painful contraction of muscles), a severe and disabling symptom of multiple sclerosis. In a placebo -controlled, randomized clinical trial spasticity and global func- tioning was examined before and after treatment with smoked cannabis. Patients were allowed to continue their usual treatments for spasticity and pain while participating in the research. The full results of this study are being submitted for publication. Initial results were presented at the meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology in 2007. Thirty patients with multiple sclerosis were enrolled. Compared to placebo cigarettes, cannabis was found to signifi- cantly reduce both an objective measure of spasticity, and pain intensity. This study concluded that smoked cannabis was superior to placebo in reducing spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis, and provided some benefit beyond currently prescribed treatments. "Vaporization as a'Smokeless' Cannabis Delivery System" Donald Abrams, M.D., University of California, San Francisco The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a vaporization system (the Volcano; VAPORMED` Inhalatoren; Tuttlingen, Germany) as a "smokeless" delivery system for inhaled cannabis. Because of concerns regarding the practicality and palatability of using cannabis cigarettes as a standard treatment, there has been an interest in developing alternative deliv- ery systems. Participants were randomly assigned to receive low, medium, or high dose (1.7, 3A, or 6.8% tetrahydrocannabinol) cannabis cigarettes delivered by smoking or by the vapor- ization system on six study days. The full results of this study have been published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Thera- peutics (Abrams, et al., 2007 — see reference list). Eighteen healthy volunteers were recruited to participate in the research. The analysis indicated that the blood levels of vaporized cannabis are similar to those of smoked cannabis over a six hour period. However, blood concentrations of THC at 30 and 60 minutes after inhalation were significantly higher in vaporized cannabis as compared to smoked cannabis. In addition, carbon monoxide levels were significantly reduced with vaporization compared with smoked cannabis. Fourteen participants preferred vaporiza- tion, 2 preferred smoking, and 2 reported no preference. In summary, vaporization of cannabis was found to be a safe mode of delivery, and participants had a preference for vaporization over smoking as a delivery system in this trial. 12 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Recently Completed And Ongoing Studies "Sleep and Medicinal Cannabis" Sean Drummond, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego The primary objective of this study was to determine the effects of cannabis on insomnia and poor sleep quality, which are experienced by up of 90% of HIV -infected individuals. Participants in this study were individuals enrolled in the UCSD randomized trial comparing cannabis and placebo as an analge- sic in painful HIV -associated neuropathy (see Dr. Ellis, above). The results of this study suggest that cannabis administration during the day does not affect objective or subjective measures of sleep approximately 7-8 hours after the last use of cannabis. "Impact of Repeated Cannabis Treatments on Driving Abilities" Thomas Morcotte, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego The principal aim of this study was to examine whether routine administration of cannabis in the medi- cal treatment of HIV -related neuropathy and spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis results in significant impairment in driving abilities. Participants in this study were individuals enrolled in the randomized clinical trials of cannabis for painful HIV neuropathy and for spasticity in multiple sclerosis conducted at UCSD (see Dr. Ellis and Dr. Corey -Bloom, above). The results of this study are in preparation. Subjects were tested using a computerized driving simulator commonly used to demonstrate the effects of alcohol on driving ability. The driving simulator presents different driving conditions and circumstances and was done at four points: before cannabis, and at one, three, and 18 hours after the final dose in the therapeutic trials. These data will provide insights regarding the real life impact of using cannabis as medicine. "Efficacy of Inhaled Cannabis in Diabetic Painful Peripheral Neuropathy" Mark Wallace, M.D., University of California, San Diego The primary objective of this ongoing study is to evaluate the efficacy of smoked cannabis when used as an analgesic in painful neuropathy due to diabetes. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo - controlled trial, participants will inhale low, medium, or high dose vaporized cannabis or placebo. Concurrent testing with experimentally -induced pain will help identify the potential mechanisms of therapeutic effects. This study is actively recruiting its intended sample of 20 participants. No preliminary results are avail- able at this time. "The Analgesic Effect of Vaporized Cannabis on Neuropathic Pain" Barth Wilsey, M.D., University of California, Davis The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the analgesic effects of vaporized cannabis in patients with neuropathic pain of different origins. In a randomized clinical trial the effects of placebo and of low and medium (1.7 %and 3.5%) dose cannabis on clinical pain and on experimentally induced pain will be assessed. As noted above, use of experimentally -induced pain may help identify mechanism of actions. This study is beginning to recruit participants. No preliminary results are available at this time. WWW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 1010 1 13 Completed Pre -Clinical Studies In addition to testing the possible benefits of medicinal cannabis, the CMCR supported a small number of laboratory and animal studies which might lead to either developing new treatments in humans, or better understanding the mechanisms of therapeutic actions. "Mechanisms of Cannabinoid Analgesia" Howard Fields, M.D., Ph.D., University of California, San Francisco The aim of this study was to determine whether cannabinolds might be a useful class of medication for migraine and other headaches or facial pain conditions. The full results of this study were published in thejournal Pain (Papanastassiou et al., 2003 - see reference list). A cannabis -like drug (WIN 55.212-2) given to rats under anesthesia showed reduced activity of individual nerve cells transmitting pain, whereas giving another drug which blocked cannabis receptors on these nerve endings reversed this effect. Moreover, the analgesic effect of the cannabis -like drug was evident in tests of facial pain (heat) in awake rats. This studytherefore provided direct scientific evidence, at the level of both individual nerve cells and in awake animals, of analgesic effects of cannabis -like compounds on head and facial pain. Randomized clinical trials in humans might be conducted to determine if cannabis could treat facial pain or headache. "Cannabinoids in Fear Extinction" Mark Barad, M.D., Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles The aim of this study was to determine if a cannabis -like agent could suppress fear -inducing memories or imagesthat might be the basis for some psychiatric conditions such as Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety disorders. Therapeutic effects were thought possible because earlier research suggested that specialized in-built cannabinoid receptors in the brain are necessary for suppression of normal fears. Tests using three different synthetic cannabis -like compounds showed no significant differences in behavior between mice treated with study drugs and untreated mice trained to fear specific locations. This study suggests that acutely enhancing the brain's internal cannabinold system does not extinguish specific fears (of place memory) in animals. "Effects of Cannabis Therapy on Endogenous Cannabinoids" Daniele Pfomelli, Pharm.D., PILD., University of California, Irvine The aim of this study was to determine the short -and longer -term effects ofTHC on the natural in-built system of nervous system chemical transmitters called endocannabinoids, which help regulate move- ment, cognition, pain and other physiological processes. Amplification or interference with activity of this system could influence outcomes of cannabinoid treatment. These experiments contributed preliminary data to work that was later published in thejournal Neuropsy- chopharmacology (Giuffrida et al., 2004- see reference list). A synthetic cannabis -like compound had no effects on the levels of anandamide, an endocannabinoid, in blood or in brain tissue from regions involved in memory, motivation, movement, and wakefulness. Chronic, but not acute, treatment caused a marked increase in anandamide levels in the brain hippocampus, a region crucially involved in learning and memory. This study provides evidence indicating that exposure to cannabis -like drugs can alter endocannabinoid signaling in the brain. Alterations in this important signaling system might be involved in mediating the actions of cannabis in humans. 14 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA "Effects of Medicinal Cannabis on CD4 Immunity in AIDS" Rachel Schrier, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego The aim of this study was to determine if cannabis might suppress the immune system in individuals with HIV. This Is an important question since already fragile immunity is characteristic of AIDS and other serious Illness where cannabis might be used. Results of the study are being prepared for publication. Briefly, immune system cells (CD4+ white blood cells) obtained from 15 individuals with AIDS participating in another study were exposed to three concentrations of THC in tests of their functional 'competence." There was no evidence of acute impair- ment of Immune function at concentrations achievable in living humans. These results parallel other research showing that short-term cannabis administration does not diminish the circulating number of this white blood cell essential for immunity. Discontinued Studies Five clinical studies were discontinued before completion, because they could not accrue a sufficient number of participants. The scientific and safety design of two studies, one studying the combination of cannabis and opioids (e.g., morphine) for cancer pain relief, and one on relief of muscle spasticity in multiple sclerosis, required either a nine day hospitalization or 16 weeks without driving an automobile. Understandably, chronically ill patients were reluctant to be re -hospitalized for research, or to surrender driving privileges for an extended period. Two other cancer studies faced different "real life" obstacles to recruitment. One study on cannabis for severe nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy could not identify a sufficient number of patients with sufficiently severe nausea. It appeared that current anti -nausea treatments are often highly effec- tive. Alternative or adjunctive therapy may be required only by a minority of patients. Another project on cannabis for advanced cancer pain unresponsive to all other analgesics found that local hospice agencies were willing to refer potential participants. These patients, however, were often already smok- ing cannabis for pain control. One study of cannabis for use at home for neuropathic pain did not elicit sufficient interest, despite outreach to the community through advertisements and focus groups. Although the outcomes of these studies is disappointing, valuable lessons were learned in terms of design of future studies and selection of appropriate populations for study. WWW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY It, 2010 1 15 Summary And Future Directions Results of CMCR studies support the likelihood that cannabis may represent a possible adjunctive avenue of treatment for certain difficult -to -treat conditions like neuropathic pain and spasticity. In establishing the University of California CMCR, the California Legislature enabled the creation of what is now arguably a world -class resource both for state-of-the-art clinical trials on medicinal cannabis and its derivatives, and for developing knowledge on the potential and limitations of cannabinoid therapeutics for selected indications. By facilitating high caliber clinical trials, whose results are published in leading peer -reviewed scientific journals, the CMCR is providing physicians and policy makers with solid scien- tific data to inform both medical research and policy decisions. As a seasoned and unique resource, the CMCR is well -positioned to inform public health and policy decision -makers. Worldwide, the merit of new therapies is rigorously evaluated by a series of clinical trials, termed Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, and Phase IV. In Phase I, usually involving 20-50 participants, several possible doses of a drug are tested, safety is assessed, and hints of therapeutic value are revealed. Drug development then proceeds to Phase II trials (which may recruit up to several hundred individuals) to more accurately gauge the efficacy of treatment along with determining short term side effects and risks. Results from Phase II trials with smoked cannabis in neuropathic pain form the basis of the CMCR's efforts to date. In the next step, Phase III trials, involving hundreds to several thousand patients, are designed to provide definitive assessment of the efficacy of new treatment for specific conditions (usually by comparing the newer therapy to the best "standard" treatment available), while also adding to a better understanding of benefit -risk relationships. Finally Phase IV trials, conducted after a treatment is licensed or approved for general medical use, gather additional information on benefits, risks, and optimal use of the therapy The expertise developed at CMCR is well -suited to contribute to each of these phases of cannabinoid research. Were support for the CMCR to continue, research might focus on 1) larger placebo -controlled stud- ies to generate definitive data on therapeutic merit (i.e., Phase III trials), 2) head -to -head comparisons with other current therapies (in Phase II or III studies), or 3) expanded studies evaluating cannabis as an adjunct to existing treatment with opioids and non -steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (i.e. Phase 11 and III research determining if cannabinoids have an "opioid-sparing" effect, that is, if they might allow use of lower doses of opioids without sacrificing pain relief). Other Phase 11 and III studies might move from the question of efficacy to overall effectiveness, that is, evaluating 1) alternative delivery systems (e.g., vaporization) that reduce the harmful effects of smoking, 2) models of take-home treatment that more accurately mimic the way drugs are prescribed, and 3) long-term studies to assess emergent toxici- ties, stability of treatment effects, and possible development of tolerance to treatment over time. This research might extend into formal Phase IV trials. Studies also might be conducted on newly -developed synthetic agents which enhance, antagonize, or otherwise modulate the cannabinoid system, comparing their efficacy to cannabis as a botanical product. In any event the "fundamental" nature of the endocannabinoid system —evident by its partici- pation in essential functions like movement, pain, moods and other behaviors —suggests continuing clinical research on cannabis might yield important contributions to health care. 16 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CMCR Roster Scientific Review Board James Anthony, Ph.D., M.Sc. Johns Hopkins University William Breitbart, M.D. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Alan Budney, Ph.D. University of Vermont Don Cherek, Ph.D. University of Texas Health Sciences Center Steven Childers, Ph.D. Wake Forest University Reena Deutsch, Ph.D. University of California, San Diego William L. Dewey, Ph.D. Virginia Commonwealth University Judith Feinberg, M.D. University of Cincinnati Holmes Hospital Richard Foltin, Ph.D. Columbia University Richard Gracely, Ph.D. NIDCR - National Institutes of Health Margaret Haney, Ph.D. Columbia University Miles Herkenham, Ph.D. National Institute of Mental Health Karl Kieburtz, M.D., M.P.H. University of Rochester Robert A. Parker, Sc.D. Harvard University Frank Porreca, Ph.D. University of Arizona Judith Rabkin, Ph.D., M.P.H. Columbia University Srinivasa Raja, M.D. Johns Hopkins University Richard Rauck, M.D. Wake Forest University Wilfred Van Gorp, Ph.D. Columbia University Leslie Weiner, M.D. University of Southern California Sandra P. Welch, Ph.D. Virginia Commonwealth University Tanya Wolfson, M.A. University of California, San Diego National Advisory Council J. Richard Crout, M.D. Crout Consulting Samuel A. Deadwyler, Ph.D. Wake Forest University Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. California NORML Lester Grinspoon, M.D. Professor Emeritus, Harvard Medical School Janet Joy, Ph.D. Institute of Medicine Lewis Judd, M.D. University of California, San Diego Alexandros Makriyannis, Ph.D. University of Connecticut T. Philip Malan, M.D., Ph.D, University of Arizona Billy Martin, Ph.D' Virginia Commonwealth University Charles O'Brien, M.D., Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania John Phair, M.D. Northwestern University Medical School June Machover Reinisch, Ph.D. R2 Science Communications, Inc. Roger A. Roffman, D.S.W. University of Washington Donald P. Tashkin, M.D. University of California, Los Angeles Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Scott Thorpe, J.D. Special Assistant Attorney General, State of California John Vasconcellos Retired, California State Senate Tom Vischi Retired, Department Health and Human Services "Deceased Acknowledgement CMCR particularly wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Tom Marcotte, Ph.D. as Center Manager, Shondra Neumayer, R.N. and Heather Bentley, CCRA as Project Managers, and Ben Gouaux as a Research Associate. WWW.CMCR.UCSD.EDU • FEBRUARY 11, 2010 1 17 CMCR Supported Publications Results of CMCR Studies Abrams DI, Jay CA, Shade SB, Vizoso H, Reda H, Press S, Kelly ME, Rowbotham MC, Petersen KL. Cannabis in painful HIV -associated sensory neuropathy: A randomized placebo -controlled trial. Neurology 2007 68: 515-521. Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB, Jay C, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study, Clin Pharmocol Theo 2007 82(5): 572.578. Ellis R, Toperoff W, Vaida F, van den Brande G, Gonzales J, Gouaux B, Bentley H, Atkinson JH. Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2008. 34(3):672-680. Giuffrida A, Leweke FM, Gerth CW, Schreiber D, Koethe D, Faulhaber J, Klosterkotter 1, Piomelli D. 2004. Cerebrospi- nal anandamide levels are elevated in acute schizophrenia and are inversely correlated with psychotic symptoms. Neuropsychophormacology, 29, 2108-2114. Papanastassiou AM, Fields HL, Meng ID. (2004). Local application of the cannabinoid receptor agonist, WIN 55, 212-2, to spinal trigeminal nucleus caudalis differentially affects nociceptive and non-nociceptive neurons. Pain, 107 (3); 267-75. Wallace M, Schulteis G, Atkinson JH, Wolfson T, Lazzaretto D, Bentley H, Gouaux B, Abramson I. Dose -dependent Effects of Smoked Cannabis on Capsaicin-induced Pain and Hyperalgesia in Healthy Volunteers. Anesthesiology. 107(5):785-796, November 2007. Wilsey B, Marcotte T, Tsodikov A, Millman J, Bentley H, Gouaux B, Fishman S. April 2008 A Randomized, Placebo - Controlled, Crossover Trial of Cannabis Cigarettes in Neuropathic Pain. Journal ofPain, 9 (6); 506-521. Published Abstracts Abrams, D., Jay, C., Vizoso, H., Shade, S., Reda, H., Press, S., Kelley, M.E., Rowbotham, M., Petersen, K. Smoked Canna- bis Therapy for HIV -Related Painful Peripheral Neuropathy: Results of a Randomized, Placebo -Controlled Clinical Trial. 2nd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Cannabis as Medicine. 2005. Abrams DI, Jay C, Petersen K, Shade S, Vizoso H, Reda H, Benowitz N, Rowbotham M. The Effects of Smoked Canna- bis in Painful Peripheral Neuropathy and Cancer Pain Refractory to Opioids. Proceedings of the International Asso- ciation of Cannabis as Medicine, Cologne, 2003, p.28. Abrams D, Vizoso H, Shade S, Jay C, Kelley ME, Benowitz N. Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study. 2nd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Cannabis as Medicine. 2005. Corey -Bloom 1, Wolfson T, Gamst A, Jin S, Marcotte T, Bentley H, Gouaux B. Short -Term Effects of Medicinal Canna- bis on Spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis. Poster presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (Chicago, IL). 2008. Jay C, Shade S, Vizoso H, Reda H, Petersen K, Rowbotham M, Abrams D. The Effect of Smoked Marijuana on Chronic Neuropathic and Experimentally -Induced Pain in HIV Neuropathy: Results of an Open -Label Pilot Study. Proceed- ings 11th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, abstract 496, p.243, 2004. Lopez C, Toperoff W, van den Brande G, Tapert S, Atkinson 1H, Drummond SPA. Increased Sleep Disturbances in Patients with HIV -Related Neuropathy. 2005 Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies. Marcotte T. Rosenthal T, Corey -Bloom J, Roberts E, Lampinen S, Allen W. The Impact of Cognitive Deficits and Spasticity on Driving Simulator Performance in Multiple Sclerosis. Proceedings of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. 2005. Schrier R, Soto P, Hamlat C, Durand D, Ceci K, Ellis R. (2004, 3). Effects of in Vitro Cannabinoids on T-cell Responses of HIV Infected Patients. Poster presented at the 10th Society on Neuroimmune Pharmacology Conference (Santa Fe, NM). 13 1 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Other CMCR-Supported Publications t Darmani NA, Izzo AA, Degenhardt B, Valenti M, Scaglione G, Capasso R, Sorrentini I, Di Marzo V. 2005. Involvement of the cannabimimetic compound, N-palmitoyl-ethanolamine, in inflammatory and neuro- pathlc conditions: Review of the available pre -clinical data, and first human studies, Neuropharmacology, 48:8.1154-1163. t Fattore L, Spano 5, Cossu G, Deiana 5, Fadda P, Fratta W. 2005. Cannabinoid CB1 antagonist SR 141716A attenuates reinstatement of heroin self -administration in heroin -abstinent rats, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1097-1104. t Fride E, Ponde D, Breuer A, Hanus L, 2005, Peripheral, but not central effects of cannabidiol derivatives: Mediation by CB7 and unidentified receptors, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1117-1129. t Fu J. Oveisi F. Gaetani S, Lin E, Piomelli D. 2005. Oleoylethanolamide, an endogenous PPAR-[alpha] agonist, lowers body weight and hyperlipidemia in obese rats, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1147-1153. t Grant I. 2005. Foreword by Igor Grant, M.D., Director, Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR), Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1067. Grant I, Cahn BR. (2005). Cannabis and Endocannabinoid modulators: Therapeutic Promises and Challenges. Clinical Neuroscience Research. 5(2-4):185-199. Grant I, Gonzalez R, Carey C, Natarajan L, Wolfson T. 2003. Non -acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta -analysis study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9, 679-689. Gonzalez R. Carey C, Grant I. Nonacute (Residual) Neuropsychological Effects of Cannabis Use: A Qualitative Analysis and Systemic Review. JCJIn Phormacol 2002:42; 48S-575. t Hillard CJ, Jarrahlan A- 2005. Accumulation of anandamide: Evidence for cellular diversity,Neurophormocol- ogy, 48:8, 1072-1078. Ilan A, Gevins A, Role K. Vizoso H, Abrams D. The Cognitive Neuropysiological Effects of Medicinal Mari- juana in HIV+ Patients with Peripheral Neuropathy. 2nd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Cannabis as Medicine. 2005. t Lupica CR, Riegel AC.2005. Endocannabinoid releasefrom midbrain dopamine neurons: a potential substrate for cannabinoid receptor antagonist treatment of addiction, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1105-1116. t Makriyannis A, Mechoulam R, Piomelli D. 2005. Therapeutic opportunities through modulation of the endo- cannabinoid system, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1068-1071. t Father P, B3tkai S, Kunos G. 2005. Blood pressure regulation by endocannabinoids and their receptors, Neuropharmacology, 48:8. 1130-1138. t Pertwee FIG, Thomas A, Stevenson LA, Maor Y, Mechoulam R. 2005. Evidence that (-)-7-hydroxy-4'-dimethyl- heptyl-cannabidiol activates a non -CBI, non-CB2, non-TRPV1 target in the mouse vas deferens, Neurophar- macology, 48:8, 1139-1146. t Salim K, Schneider U, Burstein S, Hoy L, Karst M. 2005. Pain measurements and side effect profile of the novel cannabinoid ajulemic acid, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1164-1171. t Ueda N, Tsuboi K. Lambert DM. 2005. A second N-acylethanolamine hydrolase in mammalian tissues, Neuropharmacology, 48:8, 1079-1085. t Zhuang SY, Bridges O, Grigorenko E, McCloud S, Boon A, Hampson R, Deadwyler SA. 2005. Cannabinoids produce neuroprotection by reducing intracellular calcium release from ryanodine-sensitive stores, Neurop- harmacology, 48:8, 1086-1096. tCon tents of CMCR special issue of thejournal Neuropharmacology WWW.CMCR.UCSO.EOU . FEBRUARY 11. 2010 1 19 0 UC 5an Diego HEALTH SCIENCES University of California I www.cmcr.ucsd.edu ELLIS 1 Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A randomized, cross -over clinical trial R.J. Ellis, MD, PhD', W. Toperoff, RN, FNP', F. Vaida, PhD 2, G. van den Brande, RN3, J. Gonzales, PharmD4, B. Gouaux5, H. Bentley, CCRA5, J.H. Atkinson, MD5 From the Departments of Neurosciences', Family and Preventive Medicine2; Medicine3; Pharmacy' and Psychiatry5 University of California, San Diego, California Keywords: HIV, clinical, neuropathic pain, cannabis, polyneuropathy Statistical analyses were conducted by Florin Vaida, Ph.D. Corresponding Author: Ron Ellis, MD, PhD University of California, San Diego 150 W. Washington St. San Diego, CA 92103 USA roellis(cDucsd.edu Telephone: 619-543-5079 Fax: 619-543-4744 THESE COMMENTS WERE ADDED BYA MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC Feb. 23, 2010 This study is mentioned on page 10 of the Feb. 11, 2010 CENTER FOR MEDICINAL CANNIBIS RESEARCH Report to the Legislature and Governor of the state of California presenting findings pursuant to SB847 which created the CMCR and provided State Funding. THIS COPY WITH ALL 35 PAGES WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK. The sets given to council members include only the first 10 pages of the 35 page report The ABSTRACT, The INTRODUCTION, and the METHODS. The f ll report can be viewed on the web site www. cnicr. edu linked from the list of scientific reports, or directly athttp11www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/Qeninfo/Ellis 2008.pdJ ELLIS 2 Abstract Background and ObjectivesDespite management with opioids and other pain modifying therapies, neuropathic pain continues to reduce the quality of life and daily functioning in HIV infected individuals. Cannabinoid receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems have been shown to modulate pain perception. We conducted a clinical trial to assess the impact of smoked cannabis on neuropathic pain in HIV. Design and Methods: This was a phase II, double-blind, placebo -controlled. crossover trial of analgesia with smoked cannabis in HIV -associated distal, sensory predominant polyneuropathy (DSPN). Eligible subjects had neuropathic pain refractory to at least two prior analgesic classes, they continued on their pre -study analgesic regimens throughout the trial. Regulatory considerations dictated that subjects smoke under direct observation in a hospital setting. Treatments were placebo and active cannabis ranging in potency between 1 and 8% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). four times daily for five consecutive days during each of two treatment weeks, separated by a two -week washout. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity as measured by the Descriptor Differential Scale (DDS) from a pretreatment baseline to the end of each treatment week. Secondary measures included assessments of mood and daily functioning. Results Of 127 volunteers screened, 34 eligible subjects enrolled and 28 completed both cannabis and placebo treatments. Among completers, pain relief was greater with cannabis than placebo (median difference in DDS pain intensity change, ELLIS 3 3.3 points, effect size=0.60, p = 0.016). The proportions of subjects achieving at least 30% pain relief with cannabis versus placebo were 0.46 [95%CI 0.28, 0.65) and 0.18 [0.03, 0.321. Mood and daily functioning improved to a similar extent during both treatment periods. Although most side effects were mild and self- limited, two subjects experienced treatment -limiting toxicities. Conclusions: Smoked cannabis was generally well -tolerated and effective when added to concomitant analgesic therapy in patients with medically refractory pain due to HIV DSPN. ELLIS 4 Introduction In 1999, a report of the United States Institute of Medicine (Watson, et al., 2000) recommended further investigations of the possible benefits of cannabis (marijuana) as a medicinal agent for a variety of conditions, including neuropathic pain due to HIV distal sensory polyneuropathy (DSPN). The most abundant active ingredient in cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and its synthetic derivatives, produce effective analgesia in most animal models of pain (Mao. et al., 2000, Martin and Lichtman, 1998). The antinociceptive effects of THC are mediated through cannabinoid receptors (CB1, CB2) in the central and peripheral nervous systems (Calignano, et al., 1998) which in turn interact with noradrenergic and kappa opioid systems in the spinal cord to modulate the perception of painful stimuli. The endogenous ligand of CB1, anandamide, itself is an effective antinociceptive agent (Calignano, et al., 1998). In open -label clinical trials and one recent controlled trial (Abrams, et al., 2007), medicinal cannabis has shown preliminary efficacy in relieving neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain in HIV is an important and persisting clinical problem, affecting 30% or more of HIV infected individuals. While combination antiretroviral (ARV) therapy has improved immunity and survival in HIV, it does not significantly benefit neuropathic pain. In fact, certain nucleoside -analogue HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors such as didanosine and stavudine contribute to the frequent occurrence of painful DSPN, possibly through mitochondrial toxicity. Existing analgesic and adjunctive treatments are inadequate, neuropathic pain in DSPN persists in many cases despite attempts at management with opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and adjunctive pain ELLIS 5 modifying therapies, and patients suffer unfavorable side effects, reducing life quality and socioeconomic productivity. Cannabis also may have adverse effects, including cognitive and motor dysfunction. Yet the extent to which these effects are treatment -limiting has received little study. Given the paucity of rigorous scientific assessment of the potential medicinal value of cannabis, the State of California in 2001 commissioned research addressing this topic. Because at that time alternative cannabis delivery systems had not been developed to provide the rapid tissue distribution afforded by smoking, the State specifically solicited research using smoked cannabis. We therefore conducted a clinical trial to ascertain a safe, clinically useful and efficacious dosing range for smoked medicinal cannabis as a short-term analgesic in the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain in HIV DSPN. We evaluated the magnitude and clinical significance of side effects. Methods Design This was a phase II, single group, double-blind, placebo -controlled, cross -over trial of smoked cannabis for the short-term treatment of neuropathic pain associated with HIV infection. Each subject participated in five study phases over seven weeks as schematized in Figure 1: (1) a one week wash -in phase to obtain baseline measurements of pain and neuropsychological (NP) functioning, (2) five days of smoked active or placebo cannabis, (3) two weeks wash -out to allow for drug clearance and to assess possible extended benefits or rebound worsening of pain after treatment is withdrawn, (4) five days smoked active or placebo cannabis, and (5) two weeks final wash -out. ELLIS 6 Participants Study participants were adults with documented HIV infection, neuropathic pain refractory to a least two prior analgesics, and an average score of 5 or higher on the pain intensity subscale of the Descriptor Differential Scale (DDS), described below. HIV DSPN was diagnosed by a board -certified clinical neurologist (RJE). The association of DSPN with HIV disease and ARV treatment was established according to previously published research diagnostic criteria and included the presence of abnormal bilateral physical findings (reduced distal tendon reflexes, distal sensory loss) or electrophysiological abnormalities (distal leg sensory nerve conduction studies), plus symptoms of pain and paresthesias, acquired in the setting of HIV infection (AAN, 1991). Exclusion criteria were: 1) current DSM-IV substance use disorders, 2) lifetime history of dependence on cannabis: 3) previous psychosis with or intolerance to cannabinoids; 4) concurrent use of approved cannabinoid medications (i.e. Marino]), 5) positive urine toxicology screen for cannabinoids during the wash -in week prior to initiating study treatment; and 6) serious medical conditions that might affect participant safety or the conduct of the trial. Individuals with a prior history of alcohol or other drug dependence were eligible provided that criteria for dependence had not been met within the last 12 months. Subjects were excluded if urine toxicology demonstrated ongoing use of non -prescribed, recreational drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine. Screening and Baseline Evaluations Before administering study treatments, all subjects underwent comprehensive clinical and laboratory evaluations. Plasma HIV RNA (viral load; VL) was quantified by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (Amplicor, Roche Diagnostic Systems, ELUS 7 Indianapolis, IN) using the ultrasensitive assay (nominal lower limit of quantitation, 50 copieslmL). Blood CD4+ lymphocyte counts were measured by flow cytometry. Standard blood chemistry and hematology panels were performed. The overall severity of DSPN was characterized using the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS) (Cornblath, et al., 1999). The TNS is a validated measure which combines information obtained from assessment of reported symptoms, physical signs, nerve conduction studies, and quantitative sensory testing. To evaluate potential cardiovascular, pulmonary and other medical risks, we performed an electrocardiogram (ECG) and chest radiography, and assessed past medical history, medication history, and conducted a focused general physical and neurological examination. Also performed were a drug use history, NP testing and an abridged Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to assess for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, recent drug or alcohol addiction and other psychiatric exclusion criteria. Participants watched a video demonstrating the standardized smoking technique (Foltin, et al., 1988), and each participant was observed practicing the smoking technique with a placebo cigarette. Regulatory Issues and Study Medication This trial was performed as an outpatient study at the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center. This study was approved and monitored by the UCSD Institutional Review Board, the Research Advisory Panel of California, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. Confidentiality ELLIS 8 of research participants was protected by a federal Certificate of Confidentiality All participants gave written informed consent to participate in this study. All cannabis and placebo cigarettes were provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and were constructed of the same base material. Active strengths ranged from 1% to 8% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration by weight. Placebo cigarettes were made from whole plant material with cannabinoids removed and were identical in appearance to active cigarettes. Cannabis was placed in an airtight container and stored in a locked, alarmed freezer at the UCSD Medical Center Investigational Drug Service Pharmacy. Cannabis was humidified at room temperature within a dessicator using a saturated sodium chloride solution for 12 to 24 hours prior to use. Periodic assays for THC content were performed to confirm stability of material over time in storage. Nurses weighed material prior to and after smoking and returned all used and unused medication to the pharmacy Investigational Drug Service for appropriate disposal. Randomization was performed by a research pharmacist using a random number generator, and the key to study assignment was withheld from investigators until completion statistical analyses. Cannabis Administration On study days, participants smoked randomly assigned active or placebo cannabis under the observation of the study nurse who provided smoking cues ("inhale', "hold", "exhale") from an adjacent room. On Day 1 of each intervention week, a dose escalation / titration protocol was employed to accommodate individual differences in sensitivity to the analgesic and adverse effects of cannabis (Figure 2). Over 4 smoking sessions, each participant titrated to the dose ("Target Dose") affording ELLIS 9 the best achievable pain relief without unacceptable adverse effects. Titration was started at 4% THC or placebo and adjusted incrementally downwards (to 2% or 1%) if side effects were intolerable, or upwards (to 6% or 8%) if pain relief was incomplete. The Target Dose was that providing the best analgesia while maintaining side effects, if any, at a tolerable level. Treatment was discontinued if side effects were intolerable despite adjusting to the minimum study dose (1%) The target dose was administered for the remaining 4 days, except that downward titration or dose withholding was available if adverse effects became intolerable. To provide near -continuous drug effect for the duration of the 8-hour study day. treatments were administered in four daily smoking sessions separated by intervals of 90-120 minutes. This interval was chosen based on previous studies demonstrating that the subjective "high" after varying doses of cannabis declined to 50% of maximal effect after an average of 100 minutes (Harder and Rietbrock, 1997). Although the effect -time course for analgesia with cannabis may differ from the effect -time course for subjective "highness", no formal studies of cannabis -related analgesia were available on which to base estimates of effect duration. Outcome Measures Outcome measures selected for this study were standardized, validated measures of multiple pain -associated constructs, including analgesia, improvement in function, and relief of pain -associated emotional distress. Details of these measures are provided below and the schedule of their administration is provided in Table 1. ELLIS 10 Pain Quality and Impact Descriptor Differential Scale (DDS) (Gracely and Kwilosz, 1988). The principal evaluation of treatment efficacy was change in self -reported pain magnitude assessed by the DDS. The DDS is a ratio scale containing 24 words describing pain intensity and unpleasantness. Ratings are aggregated to provide a summary score on a 0 to 20 point scale. Participants rated their "current" pain magnitude (at the time of assessment) relative to these descriptors. Pain intensity changes were compared from baseline to the end of each treatment week as shown in Figure 1. The DDS demonstrates good internal consistency, reliability, objective correlation with experimentally -induced pain (Gracely, et al., 1978a; Gracely, et at, 1978b), and sensitivity to analgesic effects on clinical pain syndromes (Gracely and Kwilosz, 1988). Participants also rated the quality and intensity of their pain experience on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) (Chapman, et al., 1985. Melzack, 1975). This included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a 10-centimeter line anchored at one end by the descriptor "No Pain" and at the other by the words "Worst Pain Imaginable " Additional Clinical Assessments Table 1 specifies the schedule for additional clinical assessments. Disability, mood and quality of life in study subjects were assessed using Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) (Gilson, et al., 1975), the Profile of Mood States (POMS) (McNair, et al., 1992) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) (Derogates and Melisaratos, 1983). Treatment emergent effects of cannabis were assessed by clinician interview and self -report of physical and psychological symptoms as captured using a standardized inventory, the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale (Lingjaerde, et al., 1987b) (Lingjaerde, et al., 1987a). Also, a ELLIS 11 subjective Highness/Sedation Scale adapted from (Block, et al., 1998) was administered to assess the intensity of psychological effects commonly associated with the inhalation of cannabis. Subjects were asked to "guess" the treatment to which they had been assigned using established procedures (Moscucci, et al., 1987). Safety Assessements Participants were monitored carefully before, during and after study treatments to detect clinically significant changes in blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, temperature and HIV disease parameters including plasma VL and blood CD4+ lymphocyte counts. Additional evaluations included blood hematology and chemistry, urine dipstick toxicology for drugs of abuse, chest radiography and ECG. Participants were instructed not to drive while on study and were provided with taxi transportation if unable to make other arrangements. Adverse drug effects were graded according to the Division of AIDS Table for Grading Severity of Adult Adverse Experiences (AACTG, 1992). For events rated Grade 2 or 1. study treatment was temporarily suspended until the event resolved. For events rated Grade 3 or 4, study treatment was permanently discontinued, In the event that treatment suspension was required more than once, the next lower dosing level was used for the remaining smoking sessions. Concomitant Non -study Analgesics: Because intractable pain was a criterion for study inclusion, subjects were permitted to continue taking concomitant analgesics such as opioids, non -steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and adjunctive pain medications. They were asked to maintain regular dosing during the study. However, to monitor compliance with these instructions, we recorded the average daily dose of these agents ELLIS 12 at each visit. For analytic purposes, these data were expressed as aspirin or morphine equivalents using standard conversions (AHCRP, 1992). Statistical Analyses Primary Analyses. Baseline DDS values between the two arms were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test. Pre -study power analyses indicated that a sample size of 30 individuals would yield an 80% chance (alpha = 0.05) of detecting at least a 1.8 point difference between placebo- and active treatment -related changes in pain intensity as measured by the DDS. The principal evaluation of treatment efficacy/tolerability in this study was the change in DDS pain intensity scores from baseline to the end of each Treatment Week (Figure 1) used completers only, as randomized. A conservative ITT analysis was also performed, using multiple imputation (MI) for the 6 subjects with incomplete data. For the MI, the missing A values were imputed from the most unfavorable (highest) 50% of the observed (completers) values. These comparisons used the t-test with the MI adjustment (Little and Rubin, 2002) Secondary analyses were performed for study completers, except for the adverse events (AE) analysis, which included all randomized subjects. Change in average weekly VAS values between the placebo and active treatment weeks was analyzed using Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test (V+/SRT). The association between baseline pain and titrated dosing used the F-test of linear regression. The change in use of analgesics during the study was compared between placebo and active cannabis weeks using WSRT. The proportion of subjects guessing their treatment allocation was compared to a chance guess (50% correct guess) using the chi-square one -sample test for proportions. ELLIS 13 The proportions of subjects with moderate or severe UKU symptoms possibly or probably attributable to study treatment were compared for the placebo and active cannabis weeks using the McNemar test, for each UKU side effect. Similarly, the proportions of subjects with clinically significant changes in heart rate, blood pressure, VL, and CD4 counts, were compared between the two arms using the McNemar test. This test considers pairs of outcomes for the two treatment weeks and is appropriate for a crossover trial. The number of Alms (including the six dropouts) was compared between the two treatment weeks using WSRT. Results Recruitment, Screening and Completion of Assigned Treatments Screening and subject disposition are summarized in the CONSORT diagram (Figure 3) Between February, 2002 and November. 2006, 127 subjects were screened, 34 met inclusion/ exclusion criteria and 28 completed treatment with both active and placebo cannabis. Six randomized subjects failed to complete the study. As demonstrated in Table 2, completers did not differ significantly from the ITT population on demographics, medical variables and cannabis experience. Two subjects were withdrawn for safety reasons: One cannabis -naive subject had an acute, cannabis - induced psychosis at the start of the second smoking week: unblinding revealed that he had received placebo during the first week and active cannabis during the second. A second subject developed an intractable, smoking -related cough during cannabis treatment: symptoms resolved spontaneously after smoking cessation. A third subject experienced intractable diarrhea deemed unlikely to be related to study treatments. A fourth elected to discontinue the protocol in order to fulfill an unanticipated personal ELLIS 14 commitment, and a fifth was lost to follow-up. The sixth was dropped because of a protocol -defined exclusion when urine toxicology was positive for methamphetamine. Baseline Characteristics Study participants were typically white (75%), high-school educated (mean 13.6, SD ± 2.0 years) men (100%) in their late 40s (48.8 ± 6.8 years), who had been HIV infected for more than 5 years, and who were prescribed combination ARV therapy (93%) for advanced HIV disease. Most (72%) had been exposed to potentially neurotoxic dideoxynucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (d-drugs). Almost all (96%) had prior exposure to cannabis, generally remote (>1 year, 63%). The mean baseline Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), reflecting symptoms, disability, neurological exam findings and quantitative measures of peripheral nerve function was 16 points (range, 9-34), corresponding to mild -to -moderately severe neuropathy as described previously (Cornblath, et al., 1999). Of the 28 participants, 18 (64%) took opioid pain medications, 10 (36%) used concurrent NSAIDS, 8 (29%) used tricyclic antidepressants, and 18 (64%) used anticonvulsants. All participants continued to take concomitant analgesics and adjunctive pain -modifying medications throughout the trial. Treatment Effects The median (range) baseline pain as measured by the DDS Pain Intensity scale was 11.1 (9.1, 13.7) points. During the placebo treatment week, 26 subjects (93%) titrated to a maximum nominal dose of 8% THC, the remaining two chose 6%. In comparison, during the cannabis treatment week, most subjects titrated to the 2% (N = 9) or 4% (N = 10) dose, the remainder titrated to 1 % (N =1), 6% (N =4). and 8% (N =4). Subjects with greater pain at baseline as measured by the DDS chose higher nominal ELLIS 15 doses, although this association was statistically modest (linear regression p=0.052, R- square = 0.14). Primary Analysis. Pain reduction was significantly greater with cannabis compared to placebo (median difference in pain reduction = 3.3 DDS points; effect size=0.60: p = 0.016, all completers included) (Figure 4). The results were consistent for the ITT analysis (p=0.020), and for the comparison based on the first week of treatment alone (median change in DDS pain = -4.1 and 0.1 for the cannabis and placebo arms, p=0.029). There were no evident sequence effects: the degree of pain relief achieved with active cannabis did not differ significantly according to whether it was administered during the first or the second treatment week (mean reduction in DDS points 4.1 vs. 0.96, p = 0.13). Additional Analyses. The proportion of subjects achieving pain reduction of 30% or more was greater for the active cannabis than for the placebo cannabis week (0.46 [95%CI 0.28, 0.65] vs. 0.18 [0.03, 0,32], p = 0.043). The number needed to treat to achieve 30% pain reduction (active vs. placebo cannabis) was 3.5 (95% CI 1.9, 20.8). In a secondary analysis of changes in reported pain as measured by the VAS, the median (range) change in pain scores from baseline was -17 (-58, 52) for cannabis as compared to -4 (-56, 28) for placebo (p<.001). As measured by the POMS. SIP and BSI, there were similar improvements in total mood disturbance, physical disability and quality of life for the cannabis and placebo treatments (data not shown). Concomitant Analgesic Use Because intractable pain was a criterion for study inclusion, subjects were permitted to continue taking concomitant analgesics such as opioids, non -steroidal anti- ELLIS 16 inflammatories and adjunctive pain medications. They were asked to maintain regular dosing during the study; however, to monitor compliance with these instructions, average daily doses of these agents were collected according to the schedule in Table 1. Concomitant opioids were used by 18/28 (64%) of subjects. Changes from baseline in morphine equivalent doses were minimal and did not differ significantly for placebo (+5.8%) as compared to cannabis (+0.1%). Changes in DDS pain severity did not differ for those who did and did not use opioids (mean difference 0.21, 95%CI (-3.7. 4.1). Ten of 28 subjects (36%) used non-opioid analgesics such as acetaminophen and NSAIDS. Changes in aspirin equivalents were minimal: 7.4% for placebo and 0.7% for active cannabis. Preservation of Blinding To assess preservation of the blind, subjects were asked to guess the treatment to which they were assigned at the end of dose titration (Day 1) and at the end of each treatment week. After dose titration, subjects receiving placebo guessed no better than chance (5/13 [38%] incorrect vs 50% chance guessing), while those receiving cannabis rarely guessed incorrectly (1/15 [93%]). At the end of the first treatment week, subjects receiving placebo still guessed no better than chance (4/13 [31%] incorrect guesses). At the end of the first treatment week, DDS pain reduction was larger for the cannabis than placebo (median change = -4.08 vs. 0.08 respectively). Most subjects crossing over to active cannabis during their second treatment week correctly guessed their treatment assignment (12/13, 92%). ELLIS 17 Treatment Safety and Adverse Events (AEs) Dose- and treatment -limiting AEs occurred in 2 subjects as described above. As assessed by the UKU and AE reports, the frequency of some non -treatment -limiting side effects was greater for cannabis than placebo These included concentration difficulties, fatigue, sleepiness or sedation, increased duration of sleep, reduced salivation and thirst. The combined UKU and DAIDS side effects frequency was greater with cannabis than placebo and there was a trend for moderate or severe AEs to be more frequent during active than during placebo administration. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure were asymptomatic and resolved spontaneously, none resulted in unblinding of the investigators. Increases in heart rate of 30 points or more within 30 minutes of a smoking session were more frequent with cannabis (13/28, 46%) than placebo (1/28, 4%). Blood pressure alterations and changes in viral load and CD4 counts did not differ for cannabis and placebo. Discussion In this randomized clinical trial, smoked cannabis at maximum tolerable dose (1% to 8% THC), significantly reduced neuropathic pain intensity in HIV -associated DSPN compared to placebo, when added to stable concomitant analgesics. Using verbal descriptors of pain magnitude from the DDS, cannabis was associated with an average reduction of pain intensity from "strong" to "mild to moderate". Also, cannabis was associated with a sizeable (46%) and significantly greater (vs. 18% for placebo) proportion of patients who achieved what is generally considered clinically meaningful pain relief (e.g., >30% reduction in pain) (Farrar, et al., 2001). Mood disturbance, ELLIS 18 physical disability, and quality of life all improved significantly for subjects during study treatments, regardless of treatment order. A recently -published, influential review concluded that the potential medicinal benefits of cannabis, including analgesia for neuropathic pain, warranted further high quality research (Watson. et al., 2000). We employed methodological criteria generally regarded as essential for establishing the validity of treatment outcome research in chronic pain syndromes, including rigorous specification of neurologic diagnosis, randomization and placebo control, assessment of study blinding, tracking of co - interventions, and an individualized dosing strategy designed to optimize outcomes (Deyo, 1983). The study sample is arguably representative of clinic populations of painful HIV DSPN, given the duration and stage of HIV disease, use of concurrent analgesics, as well as history of exposure to ARV agents known to be associated with painful DSPN. This study's findings are consistent with and extend other recent research supporting the short-term efficacy of cannabis for neuropathic pain. Thus one recent. inpatient randomized clinical trial of painful DSPN noted that inhaled cannabis, in doses comparable to those in the present report, significantly reduced pain intensity (34%) compared to placebo (17%) (Abrams, et al., 2007). Our findings extend the efficacy of cannabis to individuals with intractable pain, as our cohort had substantially greater numbers of subjects taking concomitant analgesics (100%) than did Abrams et al (22%). Most of our subjects took concomitant opioid therapy and almost all took at least one other concurrent pain -modifying medication. This afforded us the opportunity to evaluate potential pharmacodynamic interactions, such as synergy with opioids, as ELLIS 19 suggested by previous investigators. We observed no interaction (positive or negative synergism) between opioids and cannabis. Two other placebo -controlled studies of neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis indicated that both sublingual delta- 9-THC alone or with cannabidiol (Rog, et al., 2005), and oral synthetic delta-9-THC (Svendsen. et al., 2004) significantly outperformed placebo. As regards the pain benefits of cannabis compared to other available therapies for painful DSPN, as assessed by number needed -to -treat (NNT): our results (NNT = 3.5) are equivalent to those achieved by Abrams and colleagues (NNT = 3.6) (Abrams, et al., 2007), are in the range of the leading anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, NNT = 5.4, gabapentin, NNT = 3.8) (Simpson, et al., 2003; Backonja, 2002) and are superior to null results obtained for amitriptyline (Kieburtz, et al., 1998; Shlay, et al., 1998) and mexiletine (Kieburtz, et al., 1998). Blinding in this study was performed using conventional measures, which included randomization of subjects to treatment assignments known only to the study pharmacist. We expected that because the prominent psychoactive effects of cannabis would distinguish it from placebo — as is true for other potent analgesic agents such as opioids — some subjects would correctly "guess" their treatment assignment. To evaluate preservation of the blind, we asked each subject to report his or her impression of what treatment they received at several time points during the study as previously described. Blinding was considered to be preserved when the accuracy of treatment guesses was no different from random guessing (50%). Correct guessing was related to 2 factors: first, whether the subject received placebo or cannabis first, and second, when during the study they were asked to make their guess. Thus among subjects ELLIS 20 randomized to receive placebo first, guessing was no better than chance through the end of the first treatment week, whereas among subjects randomized to receive cannabis first, the majority correctly guessed their treatment assignment at all time points. Furthermore, by the second treatment week, when all subjects had been given the opportunity to compare the cannabis placebo and treatments, even those randomized to receive placebo first correctly guessed their treatment assignment. These findings raise the possibility that some of the DDS pain reduction was placebo - driven. To assess whether correct treatment guessing influenced treatment responses, we performed secondary analyses showing that in the placebo group during the first treatment week, when guessing was no better than chance, cannabis still provided pain relief superior to that of placebo. This finding suggests that although placebo effects were present, treatment effects were independent. Several other potential limitations were addressed. Attrition, approximately 18%, was somewhat higher than projected, but was within the range of other trials of HIV - associated and other painful neuropathic syndromes (Kieburtz, et al., 1998, Max, et al., 1992; Shlay, et al., 1998, Simpson, et al., 2003). However, an ITT sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the superiority of cannabis was robust to reasonable assumptions about the treatment responses of the dropouts. We included subjects with DSPN related either to HIV itself or to nucleoside antiretroviral drug exposure, a more homogeneous sample may have had different outcomes. Finally, durability of analgesia, which is of paramount concern in chronic pain syndromes, could not be assessed in this short-term study. Because the DDS is a relatively complex instrument for capturing pain reports, its validity and reliability might be limited by confusion and sedation during ELLIS 21 cannabis treatment. We therefore considered a simpler pain assessment tool, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), which is less susceptible to confounding by neurocognitive side effects. Similarly to the DDS, the VAS also showed superior analgesia with cannabis. The therapeutic application of cannabis depends on palatability and safety concerns as well as efficacy. Smoking is not an optimal delivery system. Long-term use of smoked cannabis is associated with symptoms suggestive of obstructive lung disease, and although short-term use is not (Tetrault, et al., 2007), many individuals cannot tolerate smoking. Alternative administration routes for cannabinoids, including vaporization and mucosal sprays, are currently approved for clinical use in Great Britain and Canada and are under evaluation in the United States. Cannabis has potent psychotropic effects including "paradoxical' effects (e.g., depersonalization, hallucination, suspiciousness) in an important minority of individuals (Hall and Solowij. 1998). A recent meta -analysis suggested an increased risk of psychotic illness in individuals who had ever used cannabis (Moore, et al., 2007), although it was acknowledged that vulnerability to psychotic disorder and use of cannabis may be confounded. Our findings suggest that cannabinoid therapy may be an effective option for pain relief in patients with medically intractable pain due to HIV -associated DSPN. As with all analgesics, dose limiting side effects should be carefully monitored, particularly during initial trials of therapy. ELLIS 22 Disclosure Heather Bentley and Ben Gouaux are employees of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego, the study sponsor. Ms. Bentley is Project Manager for the CMCR and assisted the investigator with regulatory issues, oversight/monitoring, and preparation of the manuscript. Mr. Gouaux is a Research Associate with the CMCR and assisted the investigator with regulatory issues, oversight/monitoring, data preparation and analysis, and preparation and submission of the manuscript The authors declare that over the past three years Dr. Atkinson has received compensation from Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals. The authors declare that they have not received other financial support or compensation in the past three years or have any personal financial holdings that could be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest. Acknowledgements This project was supported by grant COO-SD-1 4 from the University of California, Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. The authors would like to thank Dr. Geoffrey Sheean and the staff of the General Clinical Research Center at the University of California, San Diego Medical Center for supporting this project. ELLIS 23 References AACTG (1992): Table for Grading Severity of Adult Adverse Experiences. Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Rockville, Maryland. AAN (1991). Nomenclature and research case definitions for neurologic manifestations of human immunodeficiency virus -type 1 (HIV-1) infection. Report of a Working Group of the American Academy of Neurology AIDS Task Force. Neurology 41: 778-785. Abrams, DI, Jay, CA, Shade, SB, Vizoso, H. Reda, H, Press, S, et al. (2007). Cannabis in painful HIV -associated sensory neuropathy: a randomized placebo -controlled trial. Neurology 68: 515-521. AHCRP (1992). Acute Pain Management in Adults Operative Procedures: Quick reference guide for clinicians. DHHS 92-0019: Backonja, MM (2002). Use of anticonvulsants for treatment of neuropathic pain. Neurology 59: S14-17. Bergner. M, Bobbitt, RA, Carter, WB and Gilson, BS (1981). The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19: 787-805. Block, RI, Erwin, WJ, Farinpour, R and Braverman, K (1998). Sedative, stimulant, and other subjective effects of marijuana: relationships to smoking techniques. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 59: 405-412. Calignano, A. La Rana, G. Giuffrida, A and Piomelli, D (1998). Control of pain initiation by endogenous cannabinoids. Nature 394: 277-281. Chapman, CR, Syrjala, K and Sargur, M (1985). Pain as a manifestation of cancer treatment. Semin Oncol Nurs 1: 100-108. Cornblath, DR, Chaudhry, V, Carter, K, Lee, D. Seysedadr, M, Miernicki, M, et al. (1999). Total neuropathy score: validation and reliability study. Neurology 53: 1660-1664. ELLIS 24 Deeks, SG, Coleman, RL, White, R, Pachl, C, Schambelan, M, Chernoff, DN, et al. (1997). Variance of plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA levels measured by branched DNA within and between days. J Infect Dis 176: 514-517. Derogatis, LR and Melisaratos, N (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med 13: 595-605. Deyo, RA (1983). Conservative therapy for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy. Jama 250: 1057-1062. Farrar, JT, Young, JP, Jr., LaMoreaux, L, Werth, JL and Poole, RM (2001). Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94: 149-158. Foltin, RW, Fischman, MW and Byrne, MF (1988). Effects of smoked marijuana on food intake and body weight of humans living in a residential laboratory. Appetite 11: 1-14. Gilson, BS, Gilson, JS, Bergner, M, Bobbit, RA, Kressel, S, Pollard, WE, et al. (1975). The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health 65: 1304-1310. Gracely, RH and Kwilosz, DM (1988). The Descriptor Differential Scale: applying psychophysical principles to clinical pain assessment. Pain 35: 279-288. Gracely, RH, McGrath, F and Dubner, R (1978a). Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors. Pain 5: 5-18. Gracely, RH, McGrath, P and Dubner, R (1978b). Validity and sensitivity of ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors: manipulation of affect by diazepam. Pain 5: 19-29. Grant, I, Gonzalez, R, Carey, CL, Natarajan, L and Wolfson, T (2003). Non -acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: a meta -analytic study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 9: ELLIS 25 Gronwall, DM (1977). Paced auditory serial -addition task: a measure of recovery from concussion. Percept Mot Skills 44: 367-373. Hall, W and Solowij, N (1998). Adverse effects of cannabis. Lancet 352: 1611-1616. Harder, S and Rietbrock, S (1997). Concentration -effect relationship of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabiol and prediction of psychotropic effects after smoking marijuana. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 35: 155-159, Heaton, RK, Grant, I, Anthony, WZ and Lehman, RA (1981). A comparison of clinical and automated interpretation of the Halstead-Reitan Battery. J Clin Neuropsychol 3: 121- 141. Jensen. MP, Strom, SE, Turner. JA and Romano, JM (1992). Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland scale as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patients. Pain 50: 157- 162, Joy, J, Watson, S and Bensen, J (1999): Cannabis and medicine: assessing the science base. National Academy Press: Washington DC. Kieburtz, K, Simpson, D, Yiannoutsos, C, Max, MB, Hall, CD, Ellis, RJ, et at (1998). A randomized trial of amitriptyline and mexiletine for painful neuropathy in HIV infection. AIDS Clinical Trial Group 242 Protocol Team. Neurology 51: 1682-1688. Lingjaerde, O, Ahlfors, U, Bech, P, Dencker, S and Elgen, K (1987a). The UKU side effects rating scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 76. 11-79. Lingjaerde, O, Ahlfors, UG, Bech, P, Dencker, SJ and Elgen, K (1987b). The UKU side effect rating scale. A new comprehensive rating scale for psychotropic drugs and a cross - sectional study of side effects in neuroleptic-treated patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand Supp1334:1-100. Little, R and Rubin, D (2002): Statistical Analysis with Missing data. Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, New Jersey. ELLIS 26 Mao, J, Price, DID, Lu, J, Keniston, L and Mayer, DJ (2000). Two distinctive antinociceptive systems in rats with pathological pain. Neurosci Lett 280: 13-16. Martin, BR and Lichtman, AH (1998). Cannabinoid transmission and pain perception. Neurohiol Dis 5: 447-461. Max, MB, Lynch, SA, Muir, J, Shoaf, SE, Smoller, B and Dubner, R (1992). Effects of desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine on pain in diabetic neuropathy. N Engl J Med 326: 1250-1256. McNair, D, Lorr, M and Droppleman, L (1992): Profile of Mood States (POMS) Manual. Educational and Industrial Testing Services: San Diego. Melzack, R (1975). The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1: 277-299. Moore, TH, Zammit, S, Lingford-Hughes, A, Barnes, TR, Jones, PB, Burke, M, et at. (2007). Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet 370: 319-328. Moscucci, M, Byrne, L, Weintraub, M and Cox, C (1987). Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: an analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther41: 259-265. Raboud, JM, Montaner, JS, Conway, B, Haley, L, Sherlock, C, O'Shaughnessy, MV, et al. (1996). Variation in plasma RNA levels, CD4 cell counts, and p24 antigen levels in clinically stable men with human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Infect Dis 174: 191- 194. Reitan, R (1974). Clinical neuropsychology: Current status and applications. Rog, DJ, Nurmikko, TJ, Friede, T and Young, CA (2005). Randomized, controlled trial of cannabis -based medicine in central pain in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 65: 812-819. Shapiro, AM, Benedict, RH, Schretlen, D and Brandt, J (1999). Construct and concurrent validity of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test -revised. Clin Neuropsychol 13: 348-358. ELLIS 27 Shlay, JC, Chaloner, K, Max, MB, Flaws, B, Reichelderfer, P, Wentworth, D, et al. (1998). Acupuncture and amitriptyline for pain due to HIV -related peripheral neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS. Jama 280: 1590-1595. Simpson, DM, McArthur, JC, Olney, R, Clifford, D, So, Y, Ross, D, et al. (2003), Lamotrigine for HIV -associated painful sensory neuropathies: a placebo -controlled trial. Neurology 60: 1508-1514. Svendsen, KB, Jensen, TS and Bach, FW (2004). Does the cannabinoid dronabinol reduce central pain in multiple sclerosis? Randomised double blind placebo controlled crossover trial. Bmj 329: 253. Tetrault, JM, Crothers, K, Moore, BA, Mehra, R, Concato, J and Fiellin, DA (2007). Effects of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 167: 221-228. Watson, SJ, Benson, JA, Jr. and Joy, JE (2000). Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base: a summary of the 1999 Institute of Medicine report. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57:547-552. Wechsler, D (1997): Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition, Administration and Scoring Manual. Hartcourt Brace & Co.: San Antonio. ELLIS 28 TITLES AND LEGENDS TO FIGURES. Figure 1. Study Schema After screening, eligible subjects were randomized to receive cannabis or placebo first (Treatment Week 1, Rx 1), followed by the alternative treatment (Treatment Week 2; Rx 2). The principal measure of pain, the Descriptor Differential Scale (DDS), was measured at five time points (DDS1-5, arrowheads). The primary outcome was the difference in DDS change from baseline (DDS1) to the end of each treatment (active or placebo) week (DDS2/4). Remaining DDS assessments (3, 5) were used in secondary analyses. During each day of the 5-day treatment week, subjects smoked cannabis or placebo cigarettes four times daily. On Day 1 of each week, cannabis dose was titrated to efficacy and tolerability as described in the text. On the remaining Days (2-4), subjects smoked the maximum tolerated dose achieved on Day 1. Figure 2. Dose escalation schedule for Day 1 of the Study Treatment Weeks. See text for details. The objective of the dose escalation was to find, for each study subject, a dose of smoked cannabis that optimized pain relief. while minimizing unwanted adverse effects. ELLIS 29 Figure 3. CONSORT Flow Diagram Disposition of subjects screened, randomized, and completing both treatment periods. Placebo 1, subjects randomized to receive placebo cannabis during the first treatment week, Active 1, subjects randomized to receive active cannabis during the first treatment week. DSPN, distal sensory polyneuropathy. +Utox, positive urine toxicology for substances of abuse, including cannabis. Figure 4: Plot of treatment effect. DDS pain severity scores (mean, 95% Cl) for participants in the cannabis (CNB) and placebo (PCB) arms prior to study treatment (W/I).. during each of the 2 Treatment Weeks (1,2) and during the Washout (W/O) between Treatment Weeks. Cannabis was superior to placebo in this cross -over trial whether subjects were treated with cannabis during the first or second treatment week. The median difference in DDS pain severity change was 3.3 points (p = 0.016, WRT). :11IRMI] Table 1. Schedule of Clinical Assessments According to Study Phase. Screen Baseline Rx 1 Washout Rx 2 Washout Descriptor Differential Scale (DDS) pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain J J JJJJJ J JJJJJ J Daily pain medication record NP testing, Disability, Mood and Quality of Life measures Treatment Safety Measures Chest radiograph J J Blood chemistry, hematology, plasma HIV RNA J J J CD4lymphocytes J J Urine toxicology J J Blood THC quantitation' JJJJJ JJJJJ Treatment Guessing (Preservation of blind) JJJ JJJ Rx, Treatment Week. ' Evaluations used in calculating the measure of primary outcome. JJJJJ, indicates daily evaluations during each treatment week. 7 Male Sex — N (%) Age in years - Mean (SD) Education in years - Mean (SD) White Race — N (%) Hispanic Ethnicity — N (%) On combination ART — N (%) Prior d-drug exposure — N (%) Previous cannabis experience — N (%) Concomitant pain -modifying agents* All Randomized Completed treatment 34 28 33 (97%) 28 (100%) 49.1 (6.9) 48.8 (6.8) 13.9 (2.3) 13.6 (2.0) 24 (71%) 21 (75%) 4 (12%) 2 (7%) 32 (94%) 26 (93%) 21 (72%) 18 (72%) 31 (91 %) 27 (96%) Non -narcotic analgesics — N (%) 12 (35%) 10 (36%) Antidepressants — N (%) 8 (24%) 8 (29%) Anticonvulsants — N (%) 21 (62%) 18 (64%) Opioids — N (%) 22 (65%) 18 (64%) Any pain -modifier 31 (91%) 25 (89%) PHASE PHASE2 PHASE PHASE4 PHASE5 Screen Wash -in Baseline Rx 1 Washout 1 Rx 2 Washout 2 Days 1-5 Days 1-5 Day 1 Titrate Day 1 Titrate Dose Level 1 Dose tolerated? YES Complete relief of pain? YES IV NO' NO' dose to next lower dosing level NO Minimum study dose reached?. Maximum study dose reached?. YES IV Target Dose reached -Use Target Dose for remainder of study YES ' NO' Unable to tolerate minimum study dose dose to next higher dosing level N=127 20 Lost to follow-up 13 Unwilling (time commitment, distance) 5 Unwilling to smoke cannabis 6 Unwilling to stop own cannabis 9 Not meeting DSPN clinical criteria 14 Pain controlled on current regimen 11 Exclusionary disease (asthma, COPD, etc.) 7 Current/recent drug use, +Utox 8 Other N=34 N=16 1 1 N=18 1 Psychosis 2 Other N=13 1 Intractable cough 2 Other N=15 16 14 12 0 !7 T W/O W/I W/o PCB ' PCB: W/I '••., ' . ' *'=CNB CNB ' Study Phase N 4. 0 0 ca a C m t Ll, m U G 4) ; O N 0 00 Q0 cn w U 4ti 0 y tr N Aa Z W b �i W z Ir 4�4 V J 11 W z g F2 C C d Y c G a qEj ar y' Oyz us_ C) o m n u 4-. tO m Y u �c �ccm mC �' Y< m•«' OF mGA� � ami c p C S vum o �. T�E u j 00 Y O >caa O h h qau m=Octo m umQY U 0 'm o e V c U 0 C Co E `Y p L c C C>•> o�=_Y-d r z� Uc=o mac c��voio s€mac u -00 off r`oa 3 z p p O E EcU � L"a a Y K as Y t0 m 2 G>> c p L' Q m U t m m vON E 'u o c o .• �aa u E m m c— c .... Y L m L 0-,,0c� .. C n ,o ii 'c U y m L V C S > H 2 E c Y U_ > C 3 i•U LD d v 2 m C4P1 C V O Q•V O C O O O OD _ u u E o daa u H > O m G > Y Q O L m 0.2 C C OU a a =_ �u.y' oZxuE 3caY m a La u 2> o„ eo .- ._ E E m Y a u o u N L u7 a: oz °3 �.: O 5mz m E C.Ezi G N 'y� c o•mc 3 E o : `ao `o12 j v U�y . oQ aE R.m o e1 >, �c EcvUR c Uo o nooy o uaU u bbRcv ?�W�j 2 .2C L C y C C U N 1 C '3 C y-? B C Q: 0. d 0 y/ t«'J u N C :O CA N y V t f.i by v 0 Vl = .L-• `" yJ E a—,d v 0. �p «� G E c W-0 Q— u v v EU La w -0 .U... � V y .L-. « N y R � 4-. �. y .0 � •�•- � a 0. N � v z v�"v EQ—F *Rb Via,¢ o ff_ bne��•cc v.�o -RC oV `JCL C v.p � •> ° o `• ¢ o•« ace u1 v o 0 u •c vW)vz �`S y z � c9.° v.E •y'o _ .y .= U a .> .E Y v E u iO a 3 U a v u �,'r>_••� G v c N�tb > v c u >3>`= � p� `� o o� v p 3 y o c ._ N u a v Q v o .� cocSh cEon 0ai0 zU LLm 0Zd y'mo� yac ry L�•v ���yza'bcn F'o�i, :o�°v°;° ova° ms� rz Qaoi:.'•3- pbF- emu>aiioa gc,c � u o.a G 0S r o� R� a`c � 0iL F c ro a�L°acio aaiE¢aRm Ejo Ucc> �Qa> .c� 20. A�o>O uNcEo En LLn O R > o 7 y y c o N V ej p 4.. V EJ ttl >T t 0 c V G! L u L ..u., C V U o -0o Op'-0 S m o te � R�� ¢m � n4o e 3U C c$ aE c Aa_>,y� >� u i c v p o• �• v >--_ o v bn ° u o U CL$�E O; u.oSu]h U$U_ yUE� zS�� sc" c O > v c o °'� c•E_ ❑ v o o c R v v 9 M•Fa„ cv� 4 .c�L vcL.. ::�..,z> v> >v O Q,.0 >�-,o' v>>�w w._n• n. U'�n.�? aciU.c" my'� u.0 N •cz �� o r�—v�yQ�2 o G> v n, 12' r c C U Q Z N n «O a w !n > 7 G. 0 C V y v, OQ W_ p• L F p ,c L" •� C C G v R O I L W R 8 0 S �U '>•-r °J O E " E u.0 oVvi� a> yc� u v C V W y Ci N F O ad. U y N u R •p m E Y c V u y U Q' A y w C y •°' L v c— ,�? 3 �,.., .- R R U c y v F 0 i0 v v v o co« v o dR n p __ v c „_ o W E— u ctl c o f y C 0. C L vi ^ 7 T' a .L.. m 0._ 3 0 W W •- R w S 0. .y ay E v`m'oo- .uo =>R .QE "to no �`0 mU¢3dE S apod .? n�O _TC U E.6 � v j bo v o eG y3y v>�_ C C T a c C _d V c U _ y a y oC L Of O V �u w `� =� c o9 O E v�� « u _ O� N u p •• ?. O Cou o 0 FL- c.Y.� •� y E 2�a E >iU� aZ_3 u>wc c2 mi z z , Medical Marijuana: Iowa Pharmacy Board Recommends State Legalize It for ... Page 1 of 2 Drug War Chronicle - world's leading drug polic newsletter Medical Marijuana: Iowa Pharmacy Board Recommends State Legalize It for Therapeutic Use from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #621, 2/19/10 The Iowa Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend that state lawmakers reclassify marijuana a Schedule II controlled substance and set up a task force to study how to create a medical marijuana program. Medical marij bills have previously failed to move in the state legislature, but the board's action could help spur forward momentum. Similarly to the federal Controlled Substances Act, Iowa law currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug with no pror medical use and a high potential for abuse. By recommending 1 marijuana be rescheduled to Schedule II -- a potential for abus but with accepted medical use -- the board acknowledged the h medical efficacy. Given the board's initial reluctance to take up the issue, the unanimous vote comes as something as a pleasant surprise to advocates. In May 2008, Iowans for Medical. Marijuana founder Carl Olsen petitioned the board to reschedule marijuai arguing that the evidence did not support its classification as Schedule I. Can Olsen The board rejected that request, and Olsen, three plaintiffs, am ACLU of Iowa sued to force it to reconsider (See the filings in 1 case here). Last year, a Polk County judge ordered the board t, take another look at the matter. The board again declined to reclassify marijuana, but did agree to a series of four public hearings. It was after those hearings, which were packed with medical marijuana supporters, and after a scientific review of the literat that the board acted this week. In doing so, it becomes the first state pharmacy board in the nation to take such a step befon voters or lawmakers have legalized medical marijuana. The board's action also puts it squarely in line with popular sentiment in the Hawkeye State. According to an Iowa Poll released Tuesday, 64% of Iowans want medical marijuana to be legal. Now, if only the legislature will act on the recommendation of the board and the will of the voters. Bookmark/Search this post with: digg I Gg reddit Drug War Issues Medical Marijuana Politics & Advocacy State Courts - State & Local Legislatures - State & Local Executive Branches Iowa Medical Marijuana http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/621/iowa_pharmacy_board_r... 2/22/2010 10:43:57 PM Board of Pharmacy recommends making Marijuana a Schedule II drug Page 1 of 7 0 ® RSS I Go mobile I Favorite Examiners I Meet the Examiners weather for Lc e)Caminer. Los Angeles Home Entertainment Photos Los Angeles Society and Culture Select your city Business Family & Home Life Cannabis Revolution Examiner Search articles from thousands o News & Politics Sports & Recreat Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommends making Marijuana a Schedule II drug IIUEEi rM[S February 17. 6-.34 PM Cannabis Revolution Examiner rev Meyers 3 comments m Print Email © RSS O Subscribe Previous Next State board votes 6-0 in favor of reclassifying marijuana for medical use and establishing a legislative task force to implement the change DES MOINES, IOWA — Today, the Iowa ""ll'4f :. Board of Pharmacy voted 6-0 to recommend * to state lawmakers that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule II drug and that a state task force be established to study how -240 a medical marijuana law could be ' implemented in Iowa. Marijuana is currently z „ classified on the federal level as a Schedule I drug, alongside much more harmful substances such as heroin and LSD, as having no proven medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule 11 drugs have accepted medical uses for treatment. The recommendation comes after the board held four hearings last year to receive public input on the issue. Dozens of doctors, patients, researchers, and advocates testified before the board, and nearly all comments were supportive of medical marijuana. The Iowa House and Senate are each considering bills that would protect from arrest chronically ill patients who use marijuana to alleviate their conditions, though the bills missed the funnel deadline and will not be enacted this year. "This vote sends a clear message to Iowa lawmakers that they should, as soon as possible, pass legislation that would give chronically ill patients who could benefit from medical marijuana safe and legal access to their medicine," said Noah Mamber, a legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project, who testified during the Board's hearings last year. "The recognition of marijuana as 0 Popular US Suprei jailers is v "Tell Ten' drilling al( Three faa Realtor Li New York help Haiti How woul as a gene: Recent 159 Hav Fresh cc Initiativc CTI Refc http://www.examiner.com/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examin... 2/22/2010 10:50:26 PM Jowa Board of Pharmacy recommends making Marijuana a Schedule II drug Page 2 of 7 medicine in Iowa is a huge step. But for patientslives to improve, the legislature must also provide protections from arrest, as 14 other states have already done." "This is a great step forward for seriously ill Iowans who can benefit from medical marijuana." said state Sen Tom Courtney (D-Burlington) "Several years ago, my wife passed away from cancer. ®_-- Marinol pills gave her some relief, but it would have been so much better if she had had legal access to marijuana." A Des Moines Register poll released yesterday found that 64% of Iowans support patients' use of Related medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. Fourteen other states, including most recently New Jersey and Michigan, have passed medical marijuana laws, and nearly a dozen others, LATEST: including Illinois. Minnesota, and Wisconsin, are considering such legislation. In Iowa, the legislature SLIDESHOIA is considering S.F. 293, sponsored by Sen. Joe Bolkcom, and H F 2179, sponsored by Rep. Mary Mascher With more than 29,000 members and 124,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policv Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol Related articles Ph AMA mainstreams medical marijuana in 2009 at House of Delegates interim meeting 20( American Medical Association House of Delegates - text of medical marijuana proposal 11/10/09 Breaking News: American Medical Association revises policy on medical marijuana Things AMA strikes out smoke free delivery system clause in medical marijuana recommendation Today The DEA position on marijuana Mariah C2 Photo at top courtesy Flickr Creative Commons Lic. ShA,R1 his Related Articles: Post -racial Hollywood? One huge 'Cop Out' 1 59 Have pie and testify 2309 18th St NW Fresh coffee is brewing 7:30 - 9:30 tonight Initiative 59 Ecoceleb Paris Hilton selling designer sunglasses Gen Y Dating Disasters. The unexpected disaster Beverly Hills'Surgeons to the Stars' tout Frankenstein -style body -parts list (video) J_ Report This lt,_ col e Me' See all Ev Medical ADHDI ADHD- AMA in Houses Austisn http://www.examiner.com/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examin... 2/22/2010 10:50:26 PM Medical Marijuana: Iowa Pharmacy Board Recommends State Legalize It for ... Page 1 of 2 Drug War Chronicle - world's leading drug polic newsletter Medical Marijuana: Iowa Pharmacy Board Recommends State Legalize It for Therapeutic Use from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #621, 2/tq/ro The Iowa Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend that state lawmakers reclassify marijuana a Schedule II controlled substance and set up a task force to study how to create a medical marijuana program. Medical marlj bills have previously failed to move in the state legislature, but the board's action could help spur forward momentum. Similarly to the federal Controlled Substances Act, Iowa law currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug with no pro, medical use and a high potential for abuse. By recommending t marijuana be rescheduled to Schedule II — a potential for abus but with accepted medical use -- the board acknowledged the h medical efficacy. Given the board's initial reluctance to take up the issue, the unanimous vote comes as something as a pleasant surprise to advocates. In May 2oo8, Iowans for Medical Marijuana founder Carl Olsen petitioned the board to reschedule marijuay arguing that the evidence did not support its classification as Schedule I. Cad Olsen The board rejected that request, and Olsen, three plaintiffs, am ACLU of Iowa sued to force it to reconsider. (See the filings in I case here). Last year, a Polk County judge ordered the board t- take another look at the matter. The board again declined to reclassify marijuana, but did agree to a series of four public hearings. It was after those hearings, which were packed with medical marijuana supporters, and after a scientific review of the literat that the board acted this week. In doing so, it becomes the first state pharmacy board in the nation to take such a step befon voters or lawmakers have legalized medical marijuana. The board's action also puts it squarely in line with popular sentiment in the Hawkeye State. According to an Iowa Poll released Tuesday, 64% of Iowans want medical marijuana to be legal. Now, if only the legislature will act on the recommendation of the board and the will of the voters. Bookmark/Search this post with: digg I d reddit Drug War Issues Medical Marijuana Politics & Advocacy State Courts - State & Local Legislatures - State & Local Executive Branches Iowa Medical Marijuana nup:Hstopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/621/iowa_pharmacy_board_r... 2/22/2010 10:43:57 PM Review Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 Arno Hazekamp, Franjo Grotenhermen Institute Biology Leiden, Leiden University, The Netherlands nova-Institut, Chemiepark Knapsack, IndustriestraBe, D-50354 Hurth, Germany Abstract To date, a large number of controlled clinical trials have been done evaluating the therapeutic applications of cannabis and cannabis -based preparations. In 2006, an excellent review was published, discussing the clinical trials performed in the period 1975 to June 2005 [Ben Amar 2006]. The current review reports on the more recent clinical data available. A systematic search was performed in the scientific database of PubMed, focused on clinical studies that were randomized, (double) blinded, and placebo -controlled. The period screened was from July 1, 2005 up to August 1, 2009. The key words used were: cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hashish, cannabinoid(s), tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, CBD, dronabinol, Marinol, nabilone, Cannador and Sativex. For the final selection, only properly controlled clinical trials were retained. Open -label studies were excluded, except if they were a direct continuation of a study discussed here. Thirty-seven controlled studies evaluating the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids were identified. For each clinical trial, the country where the project was held, the number of patients assessed, the type of study and comparisons done, the products and the dosages used, their efficacy and their adverse effects are described. Based on the clinical results, cannabinoids present an interesting therapeutic potential mainly as analgesics in chronic neuropathic pain, appetite stimulants in debilitating diseases (cancer and AIDS), as well as in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Keywords: cannabinoids, cannabis, therapeutic potential, controlled clinical trial, efficacy, safety This article can be downloaded, printed and distributed freely for any non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is property cited (see copyright info below). Available online at www.cannabis-med.org Author's address: Arno Hazekamp, ahazekamp®rocketmail.com Introduction and Method formed with cannabis and cannabinoids over the period 1975 to June 20057he review presented here reports There is a growing number of clinical studies that inch -on the period following this, discussing the clinical cafe that cannabis or single cannabinoids may have trials published since then. Together, these two reviews medicinal value for certain diseases and under certain can provide a convenient overview of clinical studies conditions. In the period from 1975 to current, at least over the last 34 years. 110 controlled clinical studies have been published, The methodology of this review has been adopted from assessing well over 6100 patients suffering from a wide Ben Amar [2006]. In order to assess the current know -range of illnesses. Also the mechanisms of action are ledge on the therapeutic potential of Cannabis, phytobecoming increasingly clear since the discovery of the cannabinoids, and medicinal preparations directly endocannabinoid system and its physiological func-based on phyto-cannabinoids, a systematic search was tions. performed in the scientific database of PubMed. In 2006, the Canadian researcher Ben Amar published Hosted by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, this a review discussing the results of clinical trials per -database contains about 20 million scientific publications from the field of life sciences and biomedical information. The period screened was from July 1, 2005 up to August 1, 2009. Clinical data from the period up to July 2005 has been previously reviewed by Ben Amar [2006]. The search focused on clinical studies that were randomized, (double) blinded, and placebo -controlled. The key words used were: cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hashish, cannabinoid(s), tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, CBD, dronabinol, Marmol, nabilone, Cannador and Sativex. After initial sorting, all articles and reviews including clinical protocols or a summary of the literature evaluating the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in humans were read. For the final selection, only properly controlled clinical trials were retained, thus open -label studies were excluded, except when they were a direct continuation of a clinical trial discussed in this paper. The research included the works and data available in English, but also other languages (2x German, Ix Danish). A range of different cannabis -based products are described in the studies presented in this review. For the ease of the less experienced reader, these preparations are briefly discussed below: Cannabis refers to the dried flowertops of the female plant of Cannabis. This herbal product is also commonly known as marijuana or marihuana. The main way to administer cannabis is by smoking, which is also the way most medicinal users consume it. For clinical trials, most often these materials are standardized for their content (in % of dry weight) of THC. THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinot, is the pharmacologically and toxicologically most relevant constituent found in the Cannabis plant, producing a myriad of effects in animals and humans. The most well -established palliative effect of THC is the inhibition of chemotherapy -induced nausea and vomiting, mainly in cancer patients. Pure THC can be derived from natural sources (extraction from cannabis plants) or produced synthetically. Chemically, THC belongs to a group of closely related compounds known as cannabinoids, and they are commonly considered the main bioactive components of Cannabis. Up to date, more than 100 different cannabinoids have been described, but only a few of the major ones have been characterized for biological activities, including cannabidiol (CBD, see below) and cannabinol (CBN). Dronabinol is the INN (international non-proprietary name) of the isomer of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol that is present in the cannabis plant, the (-)-trans-isomer. This is the only naturally occurring of the four isomers. Oral capsules containing synthetically manufactured dronabinol are available under the name Marinol (see below). CBD, or cannabidiol, is the major non-psychotropic cannabinoid found in Cannabis. It has shown anti -epileptic, anti-inflammatory, anti -emetic, muscle relaxing, anxiolytic, neuroprotective and anti -psychotic activity and reduces the psychoactive effects of THC [Russo 2006). The mode of action of cannabidiol is not fully understood and several mechanisms have been proposed: (1) CBD acts as antagonist at the central CB 1 receptor and was able to inhibit several CBi mediated THC effects [Zuardi et al. 19821. In a study by Petitet et al. (1998), CBD considerably reduced the receptor activation by the potent classical CBi receptor agonist CP55940. (2) CBD stimulates the vanilloid receptor type 1 (VRi) with a maximum effect similar in efficacy to that of capsaicin [Bisogno et al. 20011. (3) CBD inhibits the uptake and hydrolysis of the endocannabinoid anandamide, thus increasing its concentration [Bisogno et al. 2001, Mechoulam & Hanus 20021. (4) Finally, CBD may also increase the plasma THC level [Bornheim et al. 19951 by inhibiting hepatic microsomal THC metabolism through inactivation of the cytochrome P450 oxidative system [Bornheim et al. 1998, Jaeger et al. 19961. However, there was no or minimal effect of CBD on plasma levels of THC in man [Agurell et al. 1981, Hunt et al. 1981 ]. Further mechanisms have been described. Marinol® (Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Belgium) is a synthetic version of dronabinol. It is formulated as a capsule containing synthetic dronabinol in sesame oil. In the US it is indicated for the treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic treatments. The patent on Marinol will expire in 2011, opening the way for the development of generic preparations of synthetic, as well as naturally -derived, THC. Nabilone (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, USA) is a synthetic analogue of THC which binds to the cannabinoid CB I receptor. In Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Mexico, nabilone is marketed as Cesamet®. It is registered for treatment of chemotherapy -induced nausea and vomiting that has not responded to conventional antiemetics. It is also used for other medical conditions. Sativex® (GW Pharmaceuticals, UK) is a cannabis -based pharmaceutical product containing delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in a 1:1 ratio, delivered in an oromucosal (into the mouth) spray. Because of the use of whole extracts, non -standardized amounts of ballast components are also present, such as minor cannabinoids and terpenoids. Sauvex has been approved in Canada as adjunctive treatment for neuropathic pain in adults with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in cancer pain. Registration is pending in several European countries. Cannador@ (Society for Clinical Research, Germany) is an oral capsule containing a whole plant extract, with standardized THC content and a CBD amount controlled to lie within a fixed narrow range with a THC:CBD ratio of about 2:1. Il has been used in several clinical trials. It has been clinically tested for reduction of muscle stiffness, spasms and associated pain in Multiple Sclerosis, for cachexia in cancer patients and for post -operative pain management. Table 1: Number of studies and patients reviewed Pathology # of studies found 1. Neuropathic or chronic pain: 11 2. Experimental pain: 4 3. Multiple sclerosis and spasticity: 9 4. HIV/AIDS: 4 5. Glaucoma: 1 6. Intestinal dysfunction: 2 7. Nausea/vomiting/appetite: 2 8. Schizophrenia: 2 Other indications: 2 Total # of patients included 631 63 1300 118 6 82 228 55 80 2563 Skrabek et al. Canada Fibromyalgia Randomized, Nabilone (oral) 40 ftbromyalgia patients having contin (2008) double-blind, pain despite the use of other oral media placebo -controlled trial tions. Wilsev et al. United Neurooathic pain Double-blind. Cannabis 38 patients with complex regional pair Results The review identified 8 main pathologies in which controlled studies on cannabinoids have been published: they are listed below. A number of other illnesses have been grouped under'other indications'. Although experimentally induced pain is obviously not a pathological condition, it has been included in this review because it may add to our understanding of the use of cannabis for pain control. In total, 37 controlled studies evaluating the therapeutic effects of cannabis or cannabinoids were identified. For each clinical trial, the country where the project was held, the number of patients assessed the type of study and comparisons done, the products and the dosages used, and their efficacy are described. Noteworthy adverse and side effects for each study are discussed in the text. Summary of the clinical trials Neuropathic, chronic and acute pain A range of studies has been done to determine the effect of nabilone on different types of pain. Based on the analgesic effects of cannabinoids in animal studies, it was hypothesized that nabilone would decrease mor- phine consumption, pain scores, nausea and vomiting following major surgery. [Beaulieu 20061 tested this hypothesis in a double-blind, randomized, placebo -controlled, parallel -group pilot trial with three doses of 1 or 2 mg of nabilone in the 24 hours after different types of major surgery. Surprisingly, and contrary to the main hypothesis, pain scores at rest and on movement were actually significantly higher in the 2 mg nabilone group compared to the other groups. Also, nabilone administration was not associated with a de- crease in morphine consumption in patients. The most common adverse effects of nabilone were dry mouth, nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression, sedation and pruritus. No serious adverse events were observed. It is concluded from animal experiments that cannabinoid receptor and mu-opioid receptor agonists act syn- ergistically with respect to anlinociception. In order to demonstrate this effect under clinical conditions, a study was performed with oral THC on patients after radical prostatectomy [Seeling 20061. It was expected that patients receiving THC required significantly less of the synthetic opioid analgesic piritramide to control their pain compared to patients on placebo. From the evening before the operation until the morning of the second postoperative day, patients received eight oral doses of either placebo or 5 mg THC, which is a significant amount of THC for any clinical trial. However, neither synergistic effect nor even an additive antinociceptive interaction with the combination of THC and piritramide was found, even though plasma concentrations of THC were measurable in all patients in the verum group. In another study on postoperative pain, Holdcroft et al. [2006] aimed to investigate whether a single oral dose of Cannador could provide pain relief with minimal side effects. Sixty-five patients received a single dose of 5, 10, or 15 mg Cannador when they had at least moderate pain after stopping patient -controlled analgesia. Pain relief, pain intensity, and side effects were recorded over 6h after administration. Rescue analgesia was requested by all I l patients (100%) receiving 5 mg, 15 of 30 patients (50%) receiving 10 mg, and 6 of 24 patients (25%) receiving 15 mg Cannador. There was a significant dose -response effect for decreasing pain intensity at rest, and increasing sedation. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one rescue analgesia request for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses, relative to 5 mg, were 2.0 and 1.3, respectively, which is equivalent to many routinely used analgesics. The majority of adverse events affected the central nervous (14 of 26) or cardiovascular (6 of 26) systems, but none persisted after the study. The study was terminated because of a serious vasovagal adverse event in one patient receiving 15 mg. In a study with nabilone, focusing on chronic pain, re- sults were more promising. [Pinsger 20061 investigated the effect of an add -on treatment with nabilone on pa- tients with chronic therapy -resistant pain in causal rela- tionship with a pathologic status of the skeletal and locomotor system. From the results, it was obvious that the nabilone treatment (up to 1 mg per day) was supe- rior, resulting in a decrease in several different Table 2: Studies on neuropathic or chronic pain Pathology # of studies found Total # of patients included 1. Neuropathic or chronic pain: 11 631 2. Experimental pain: 4 63 3. Multiple sclerosis and spasticity: 9 1300 4. HIV/AIDS: 4 118 5. Glaucoma: 1 6 6. Intestinal dysfunction: 2 82 7. Nausea/vomiting/appetite: 2 228 8. Schizophrenia: 2 55 Other indications: 2 80 Total 37 2563 Study Country Indication Type of study Product Patients assessed Skmbek et al. Canada Fibromyalgia Randomized, Nabilone (oral) 40 fibromyalgia patients having cot (2008) double-blind, pain despite the use of other oral m placebo -controlled trial lions. Wilsey et al. United Neuropathic pain Double-blind, Cannabis 38 patients with complex regional f (2008) States placebo -controlled, (smoked) syndrome (CAPS type 1), spinal cot crossover study peripheral neuroath , or nerve in r Narang et al. United Chronic pain Phase I: randomized, Dronabinol 30 patients with severe chronic non (2008) States single -dose, double-blind, (oral) pain, taking stable doses of opioid t placebo -controlled, sics for longer than 6 months. crossover trial; Phase H: extended open -label titrated trial. Frank et al. Great Chronic neuro- Randomised, double Nabilone (oral) 96 patients with chronic neuropathi 2008 Britain pathic pain blind crossover trial Nurmikko et Great Neuropathic Randomised, Sativex 125 patients with a current history r al. (2007) Britain pain, allodynia double-blind, (sublingual) unilateral peripheral neuropathic pa placebo -controlled, allodynia. parallel -group trial Holdcroft et Great Postoperative Multicenter Cannador (oral) 65 Postoperative patients experienc al. (2006) Britain pain dose -escalation study least moderate pain, after stopping) controlled analgesia. Pinsger et al. Austria Chronic pain Placebo -controlled, Nabilone (oral) 30 patients with chronic therapy -re: (2006) double-blind pilot study pain in causal relationship with a pi status of the skeletal and locomotor Blake et al. Great Pain in Placebo -controlled, Sativex 58 patients with active arthritis not (2006) Britain rheumatoid randomized, (sublingual) adequately controlled by standard arthritis double-blind, parallel medication. groupstud Ware et al. Canada Chronic pain Randomized, controlled, Cannabis 8 experienced and authorized (Cant 2006) crossover trial smoked cannabis users with chronic pain. Seeling et al. Germany Postoperative Randomized, double THC (oral) 100 patients after radical prostatect- (20n61 nain blind trial Cannabinoids ® Vol 5, Special Issue $V February 13, 2010 Hazekamp & Grotenhermen