HomeMy WebLinkAbout012406 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans \!\lith 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 v.ill enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JANUARY 24, 2006 - 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can
be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code
Sections:
1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation
involving the City. The following case will be discussed: 1. In re Adelphia
Communications Corp., Inc., et al - Case No. 02-41729 (REG) United States
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York.
2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 regarding real property negotiations located at the following
location: APN 909-370-002 - northwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Lane.
The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula/Redevelopment Agency and
AGK Group. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of real
property interests. The City/Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, Jim
O'Grady, and John Meyer.
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various
parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City
Clerk.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: 2006-01
Resolution: 2006-03
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Ron Roberts
Prelude Music:
Jordan Koford
Invocation:
Pastor Gary Nelson of Calvary Chapel
Flag Salute:
Council Member Edwards
ROLL CALL:
Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts
PRESENTA TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS
Service Award to Communitv Services Commissioner Jack Henz
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak"
form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is
a five minute (5) time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate action.
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1 .1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 10, 2006.
2
3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Citv Council Meetinq Schedule for March 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Direct the City Clerk to re-schedule the City Council meeting of March 14, 2006 to
March 21, 2006, and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements
of the Government Code.
5 Procurement of Librarv Radio Frequencv Identification (RFID) Svstem
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Accelerate the funding of $603,407.12 to the Fiscal Year 2005-06 from the Fiscal
Year 2006-07 Library Project Furniture, Fixture & Equipment (FF&E) budget;
5.2 Approve the purchase of Apex RFID components in agreement with Integrated
Technology Group (ITG) for the total amount of $188,660.47.
6 Communitv Development Block Grant Application Proposals for FY 2006/07
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
recommendation from the Finance Committee and staff;
6.2 Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub-Recipient Agreements and to
reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the current budget resolution for general
administration of the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Community Development Block Grant
Funds.
7 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for
the Slurrv Seal Proiect FY2005-2006. Redhawk Area - Proiect No. PW06-01
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk Area,
Project No. PW06-01.
3
8 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for
the Citvwide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 - Project No. PW06-02
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2005-2006, Project
No. PW06-02.
9 Amendment NO.1 - Professional Services Aqreement for Bridqe Inspection Services -
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services. Inc. - Ynez Road Bridqe (Widen) over Santa
Gertrudis Creek - LD04-051 CO
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve Amendment NO.1 to the agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff
Construction Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $15,868.00 plus 10%
contingency for professional bridge inspection and construction engineering
services for the Ynez Road Bridge (Widen) over Santa Gertrudis Creek Road,
Project No. LD04-051 CO;
9.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
10 Award Construction Contract for Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II - Project No. PWOO-
09
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Award a construction contract for Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II, Project
No. PWOO-09 to Grade Pros Inc. DBA: McKenna in the amount of $1 ,367,663.15
and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $136,766.32, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
11 Maintenance Facilitv Expansion (Field Operations Center) - Sewer Connection Fees -
Project No. PW03-06
RECOMMENDATION:
11 .1 Approve the payment of sewer connection fees in the amount of $65,348.67 to
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to establish sewer service for the new
City Field Operations Center being constructed adjacent to City Hall.
4
12 Utilitv Easement Deed within Kent Hinterqardt Memorial Park
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Grant a Joint Utility Easement to Southern California Edison Company, Verizon
California Inc. and Century- TCI California for the perpetual easement and right-of-
way for construction, operation and maintenance of their facilities within Kent
Hintergardt Memorial Park;
12.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the Utility Easement Deed.
13 Old Town Police Department Storefront Lease Extension
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve a three year lease extension for the Police Department Old Town
Storefront property to include a rate of $1,875 a month and a total amount of
$67,500.
14 2006 Workers' Compensation Coveraqe Annual Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Select American Home Assurance Company (a member of the American
International Group Companies) as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation
Insurance Carrier for Plan Year 2006, which begins on February 1, 2006.
15 Comments on Cable Television Franchisinq to Federal Communications Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve comments regarding cable television franchise provisions;
15.2 Authorize the Mayor to sign the comments and direct staff to submit them to the
Federal Communications Commission.
16 Authorize Citv Manaqer to Approve or Modifv Leases and Rental Aqreements
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE OR MODIFY LEASES AND
RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 41943 MAIN
STREET
5
********************
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
********************
6
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2006-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2006-03
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington,
Comerchero
CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come
forward and state your name and address for the record.
CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
17 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Approve the minutes of January 10, 2006.
CSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
18 Communitv Services Department Monthlv Report
CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT
CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
7
CSD ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
8
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2006-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2006-01
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS: Edwards, Comerchero, Roberts, Washington,
Naggar
RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come
forward and state your name and address for the record.
RDA CONSENT CALENDAR
19 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Approve the minutes of January 10, 2006.
RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
20 Redevelopment Department Monthlv Report
RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT
RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS
RDA ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
9
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 Temecula Reqional Hospital (Planninq Applications 04-0462 (General Plan Amendment). 05-
0302 (Zone Chanqe). 04-0463 (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit). and 04-
0571 (Tentative Parcel Map)
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL
HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)
21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT
(8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY
DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
10
21.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 06-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
(PDO 8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING
SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302)
21.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED
HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HEll PAD, TWO
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS
REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 566,160
SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0463)
21.5 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT
LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0571)
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
22 Economic Development Department Monthlv Report
23 Public Works Department Monthlv Report
24 Police Department Monthlv Report
11
25 Buildinq and Safetv Department Monthlv Report
26 Planninq Department Monthlv Report
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed
Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
12
ITEM NO.1
ITEM NO.2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 10,2006
The City Council convened in its regular meeting, at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 10, 2006,
in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California, was convened.
Present:
5
Council Members:
Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, and
Roberts
Absent:
o
Council Members:
None
With honor, outgoing Mayor Comerchero passed the gavel to incoming Mayor Roberts and as
well presented Mr. Roberts with his 15-year Service Award pin.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Sienna Naggar and Helen Miller.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Shawn Nelson.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was presented by Council Member Comerchero.
PRESENTA TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS
Service Awards
At this time, Mayor Roberts presented the following Service Awards:
Ron Guerriero
Scott Lanier
Felicia Hogan
Fred Perkins
15-year Service Award Pin
5-year Service Award Pin
5-year Service Award Pin
5-year Service Award Pin
In closing, Mayor Roberts thanked the Commissioners for their continued dedication to the City.
Certificate of Appreciation for Rebecca Farnbach
Mayor Roberts presented the Certificate to Ms. Farnbach for her volunteer efforts with the Gift of
Sight Charity.
Ms. Farnbach thanked the City Council for its recognition.
R:\Minutes\011 006
Presentation to outqoinq Police Chief Domenoe and introduction of incominq Police Chief Aim
Reminiscing of time shared with Police Chief Domenoe, Mayor Roberts thanked him for his
years of service to the City and the contribution he has made to the City to ensure its
outstanding quality of life.
Touched by the proclamation presented to him by the Mayor, Police Chief Domenoe
commented on the relationships he has formed during his tenure with the City; thanked the City
Council for its law enforcement support; and commended the public on its involvement in
keeping the community safe.
Council Member Naggar thanked Police Chief Domenoe for his years of service.
At this time, Mayor Roberts introduced incoming Police Chief Aim.
Returning to the City after five years, Police Chief Aim thanked the City Council for its support
and expressed his willingness to accept the challenge of maintaining the City's outstanding
quality of lie.
Presentation to Mavor Roberts
Congratulating Mayor Roberts on his appointment as the first four-terrMayor to serve the City
of Temecula, Supervisor Stone commended Mr. Roberts on his receipt of the 15-year Service
Award pin. Working for him as Supervisor, Mr. Stone commented on Mr. Roberts' hardworking
ethics, the benefits of his employment and dedication to the County, referenced the passage of
the Citrus Vineyard Ordinance (protecting the wine country from urbanization); and presented to
Mr. Roberts a proclamation, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, commending him on his
many accomplishments for the City and the County.
Expressing his appreciation for the County's recognition, Mayor Roberts viewed the receipt of
the proclamation an honor and as well expressed appreciation to Supervisor Stone for his
attendance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Ms. Heather Johnson, Temecula, advised that in 1993, when the Planning Commission
had recommended closure of Calle Pina Colada, the traffic count was 1,800 cars per day; that
the most recent traffic count indicated 3,500 cars per day; that continual growth has
exacerbated the traffic concern as well as the continual cut-through traffic on Calle Pina Colada,
Del Rey, and Via Norte; that possible solutions to address this matter would be to close Calle
Pina Colada, close and open a less direct route over a utility road, no left-hand turn or medians
to allow turns from La Serena onto Calle Pina Colada, install a gate with only Meadowview and
EMT access, or open all public roads (Kahwea, Sanderling, North General Kearney). She noted
that Mayor Roberts voted to close Calle Pina Colada while serving on the Public Traffic Safety
Commission and made promises to residents on Calle Pina Colada and that Council Member
Naggar as well requested voter support from residents on Calle Pina Colada by promising to do
everything possible to close this road. With regard to the speed bumps that were previously
installed on Calle Pina Colada, Ms. Johnson noted that the residents on Calle Pina Colada were
not in favor of them but that the City advised the residents that no other measures were an
option. In closing, Ms. Johnson requested the City Council to address this problem.
R:\Minutes\011 006
2
B. Being of the opinion that the City Council has displayed no interest in addressing the
traffic concern issues, Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula, expressed his willingness, in an effort to
address the matter of increasing traffic volume, to debate this on-going issue in a public forum.
C. Mr. Reeves Mollman, Temecula, as well addressed the traffic volume on Calle Pina
Colada (3,500 cars per day); requested the City Council to consider public safety; and
encouraged the Council to debate Mr. Kuhn in an effort to address this matter.
D. As well addressing the traffic volume on Calle Pina Colada, Ms. Anne Mollman,
Temecula, commented on the safety issues associated with this traffic volume.
E. Expressing a different point of view, Ms. Diana Lovett-Webb, Temecula, stated that, in
her opinion, there is not a link between opening other streets and solving the noted problems on
Calle Pina Colada; noted that the streets of discussion were constructed prior to City
incorporation; advised that the City has demanded developers to not design streets such as
those being discussed; stated that the City Council should not ignore what it has learned from
the design of such streets and that by opening closed streets, the City would be ignoring its
history/lessons/knowledge; and encouraged drivers to change their personal behavior when
driving through residential neighborhoods.
G. Addressing the potential of future construction and its impacts on traffic volume, Ms.
Suzanne Zychowicz, Temecula, encouraged the City Council to assess the problem and
requested that the Council consider revisiting Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the General Plan (policy
statement regarding closing of streets which were removed from the General Plan Update).
H. Commending the Council and City staff on a wonderful job, Ms. Eve Craig, Temecula,
representing the Temecula Valley Historical Society, thanked the Council for its patience,
understanding, and its care. Ms. Craig expressed appreciation for the grant the City presented
to the Historical Society.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Mayor Roberts presented the 2005 gavel to outgoing Mayor Comerchero.
To all those high school students in attendance, Mr. Roberts expressed his appreciation
for their attendance and encouraged them to explore local government and to request City
Council guidance at any time.
B. Congratulating Mayor Roberts on his appointment as well as the recipients of the
Service Award Pins and appreciating Supervisor Stone's attendance, Mayor Pro Tem
Washington wished everyone a Happy New Year. Having seen several performances at the
Theater, Mr. Washington commended the Community Services Department on a wonderful job
on its management of presentations and invited the public to attend a theater performance.
Congratulating Commissioner Youmans on his appointment as Chairman of the Public
Traffic Safety Commission; Commissioner Edwards on his reappointment as Chairman of the
Community Services Commission, Mr. Washington, in light of Commissioner Mathewson's
resignation, thanked him for his years of service to the City.
R:\Minutes\011 006
3
Extending his gratitude to outgoing Police Chief Domenoe, Mr. Washington wished him
well in his future position and concurred with Police Chief Domenoe's comment that keeping the
community safe is a joint effort between law enforcement and the community; noted that the
City's crime statistics have depicted the effectiveness of the Police Department; referenced
Council Member Naggar and his involvement with the Drug/Gang Task Force Ad Hoc
Subcommittee; encouraged more participation from the Public Traffic Safety Commission in
engaging the community as it relates to drug/gang/crime issues; welcomed the high school
students to the City Council meeting; and encouraged their future participation in local
government; and apprised them of the City's Youth in Government Program.
C. Wishing the public a Happy New Year, Council Member Naggar expressed his dismay
with previously made public comments with regard to the City Council not having taken any
action to address the traffic volume issue. Mr. Naggar stated that no road in the City of
Temecula has been studied more than Calle Pina Colada over the past 10 years and noted that
to state that the City Council has taken no action would be inaccurate.
Apprising the public of a recent carjacking in Riverside County and its connection with
Sprint Nextel because of a cell phone having been left in the car which had global positioning
satellite (GPS) technology, Council Member Naggar expressed dismay with Sprint's refusal to
assist the family in determining the location of the car through the GPS technology in order to
find their 10-month old boy. He advised that a letter was written by him to the Sprint Nextel
CEO (letter read into the record), requesting Sprint to respond to this incident to insure such an
incident would not occur again.
D. Echoing Council Member Naggar's comments with regard to the recent Sprint Nextel
issue, Council Member Comerchero relayed his interest in receiving a response from Sprint;
expressed delight with Supervisor Stone's attendance; and commented on the Board of
Supervisors' passage of the Citrus Vineyard District amendments, appreciating the action. In
response to public comments, Mr. Comerchero encouraged individuals to not confuse
reasonable people disagreeing with the City Council as the City ignoring this issue; that Calle
Pina Colada has been studied year after year; that it has been the Council's decision that in
order to correct a problem on Calle Pina Colada, the City would be doing a disservice to the rest
of the City as whole; that the City Council must balance the needs of the entire community; that
staff will be providing information of all different classes of roadways within the City, reflecting
the particular designation for Calle Pina Colada and the appropriate traffic volume for this road;
that if it wasn't designed to handle 3,500 trips per day, maybe City Council should readdress it;
and if designed to handle that and more, then its functioning as designed.
Extending his gratitude to outgoing Police Chief Domenoe, Mr. Comerchero commended
Chief Domenoe on his proactive stance.
E. Echoing the comments made with regard to Police Chief Domenoe, Council Member
Edwards expressed her appreciation of having had the opportunity to have worked with him in
her capacity as a Public Traffic Safety Commissioner, as a School Board Member, and as a
Council Member. She welcomed incoming Police Chief Aim and wished her fellow Council
colleagues a Happy New Year.
R:\Minutes\011 006
4
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1 .1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of November 22, 2005;
2.2 Approve the minutes of December 13, 2005.
3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Citv Treasurer's Report as of November 30. 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2005.
5 Renew Eden Software Maintenance Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Authorize the purchase of annual Financials and Payroll Software Support from
Eden Systems Inc., for the total amount of $27,672.31.
6 Purchase of Police Motorcvcles
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the purchase of three 2006 Harley-Davidson FLHPI Road King Police
Motorcycles from Quaid Harley-Davidson for a total amount of $29,171.85.
R:\Minutes\011 006
5
7 Parcel Map 31023 located South of Rancho California Road. East of Moraqa Road
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve Parcel Map 31023 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval;
7.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as
security for the agreement.
8 Parkinq Restrictions - Via Las Colinas and Moraqa Road
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON VIA LAS COLlNAS FROM
MORAGA ROAD TO 690 FEET WEST OF MORAGA ROAD AND ON MORAGA
ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VIA LAS COLlNAS AS
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A"
9 Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the
Pavement Rehabilitation Proqram FY2005/06 - Diaz Road. Project No. PW05-06
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY 2005/06 -
Diaz Road, PW05-06.
10 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract - Pechanqa Parkwav Soundwall
Landscape Improvements. Project No. PW99-11 LS
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Accept the Pechanga Parkway Soundwall Landscape Improvements Project -
Project No. PW 99-11 LS as complete;
10.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount;
10.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of
Completion, if no liens have been filed.
R:\Minutes\011 006
6
11 Tract Map No. 31344
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 31344 in conformance with Conditions of Approval;
11.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement;
11.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as
security for the agreement.
12 Tract Map No. 32104 Located within the Harveston Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve Tract Map No. 32104 in conformance with Conditions of Approval;
12.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for the agreement;
12.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as
security for the agreement.
13 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 05-17
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Adopt an Ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 05-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDING CHAPTER 3.40 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-13. The
motion was seconded by Council Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous
approval.
At 8:13 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:23 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular
business.
R:\Minutes\011 006
7
COUNCIL BUSINESS
19 Selection of Citv Council Committee Assiqnments
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the City
Commissions and Committees:
Commission Liaison (One Member)
Community Services Commission - Comerchero
Old Town Local Review Board - Washington
Planning Commission - Naggar
PubliclTraffic Safety Commission - Edwards
19.2 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following
Standing Committees:
Standinq Committees
Cultural Arts Committee - Comerchero, Washington
Economic Development - Washington, Roberts
RDAlOld Town Steering Committee - Comerchero, Naggar
Finance Committee - Edwards, Naggar
Infrastructure Beautification Committee - Edwards, Naggar
Joint City CouncilITVUSD Committee - Edwards, Washington
Library Task Force Committee - Comerchero, Roberts
MurrietalTemecula Committee - Naggar, Washington
Public Works/Facilities Committee - Edwards, Roberts
Technology & Telecommunications Committee - Washington
Trails & Open Space Committee - Naggar, Washington
19.3 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following
Representative Assignments (External Organizations):
Representative Assiqnments (External Organizations)
Animal Shelter Liaison/JPA Representative - Edwards
League of Calif Congress - 2006 Voting Delegate - Roberts, (Alternate
Washington)
Murrieta Creek Advisory Board - Washington
National League of Cities Annual Congress - 2006 Voting Delegate - Roberts,
(Alternate Washington)
Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison - Roberts (Alternate Naggar)
Riverside County Habitat Conversation Agency (advisory only) - deleted
Riverside County Transportation Commission - Roberts (Alternate
Comerchero)
Riverside Transit Agency Representative - Comerchero (Alternate Edwards)
Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors - Edwards
WRCOG/RCA Representative - Washington (Alternate Edwards)
R:\Minutes\011 006
8
Zone Committee (relating to TUMF Program for WRCOG) - Washington
(Alternate Edwards)
19.4 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following Ad Hoc
Subcommittees:
Ad Hoc Subcommittees
Cable Franchise Renewal Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Washington
Temecula Education Center Project Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Naggar,
Washington
Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Edwards, Naggar
Drug/Gang Task Force Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Naggar, Washington
Electrical Needs Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Edwards
Heritage Tree Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Roberts
Homeless Shelter Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Washington
Old Town Civic Center Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Comerchero, Roberts
Ronald Reagan Sports Park Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Edwards, Naggar
Roripaugh Ranch Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Proposed Addition) - Comerchero,
Roberts
Temecula Hospital Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Comerchero, Naggar
Villages of Old Town Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Naggar, Roberts
Wall of Honor Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Comerchero, Edwards
MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve the appointments for 19.1 as
noted above. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Washington and electronic vote
reflected unanimous approval.
MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve the appointments for 19.2 as
noted above. The motion was seconded by Council Member Edwards and electronic vote
reflected unanimous approval.
MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve the appointments for 19.3 as
noted above. The motion was seconded by Mayor Roberts and electronic vote reflected
unanimous approval.
MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve the appointments for 19.4 as
noted above. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Washington and electronic vote
reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No additional comments.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no items to report from Closed Session.
R:\Minutes\011 006
9
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:41 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 14, 2006,
at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session with the regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\Minutes\011 006
10
ITEM NO.3
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
p;.f""
ell
9f}
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
List of Demands
PREPARED BY:
Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant
Reta Weston, Accounting Specialist
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and
approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims
represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized
resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures.
Attachments: Resolution and List of Demands
RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the
office of the City Clerk, have been reviewed by the City Manager's Office, and that the same are
hereby allowed in the amount of $4,299,255.65
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24'h day of January, 2006.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
Citry Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City ofTemecula
at a meeting thereof, held on the 24th day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
01/0512006 11 :40:09AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104736 01/05/2006 004594 2 HOT ACTIVEWEAR public safety promo items: Fire Prey 1,335.83 1,335.83
104737 01/05/2006 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT Citywide Slurry Seal Project PW04-16 333,954.45 333,954.45
104738 01/05/2006 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES theater piano tuning & mntc svcs 145.00 145.00
104739 01/05/2006 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING 4/1/06-3/31/07 mbrshp: J.T.lR.G.lS.H. 240.00
ASSOCIATION
4/1/06-3/31/07 mbrshp dues: D. Chiniaeff 150.00 390.00
104740 01/05/2006 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp Help PPE 12/17 G. Kasparian 655.20
Temp Help PPE 12/17 B. Shelton 546.00 1,201.20
104741 01/05/2006 001561 ARCH WIRELESS 12120-3/19/06 paginglrental svcs 404.53 404.53
104742 01/05/2006 009612 BJ'S RESTAURANTS, INC. Refund: PA05-0392 Overpayment 272.82 272.82
104743 01/05/2006 009067 CALIF BANK & TRUST Rei Retention Esrw Edge Devel:T.Library 105,577.90 105,577.90
104744 01/05/2006 005660 CALIF EMS AUTHORITY State Paramedic License: R. Glenn 130.00 130.00
104745 01/05/2006 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL Electrical supplies: TCSD 30.17 30.17
DIST
104746 01/05/2006 003986 COZAD & FOX INC 11/13-11/20/05 Drafting svcs:Pech. Pkwy 12,370.00 12,370.00
104747 01/05/2006 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK Nov '05 special events premiums 1,030.10 1,030.10
104748 01/05/2006 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION Supplies for graffiti removal 27.96 27.96
104749 01/05/2006 005880 EDGE DEVELOPMENT INC. Nov library construction prgss pmt 950,200.96 950,200.96
104750 01/05/2006 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE PW large equip repair svcs 661.00 661.00
104751 01/05/2006 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Dec Idscp impr: Solana Way Medians 280.00
Dec Idscp impr: Vail Ranch Park 97.80
Dec Idscp impr: Old Town 95.00 472.80
104752 01/05/2006 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 61.84 61.84
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
01/0512006 11 :40:09AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104753 01/05/2006 004000 FENCING BY ACREY INC Res Impr Prgm: Kudalis, Stephen 3,330.00 3,330.00
104754 01/05/2006 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Lot Book Report: Vitanza 75.00
COMPANY
Lot Book Report: O'Neil 75.00 150.00
104755 01/05/2006 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY INC Day timer supplies - Planning 267.75 267.75
104756 01/05/2006 004178 FREEDOM SIGNS bal.due/fac impr prgm: Enchanted Shire 1,858.69 1,858.69
104757 01/05/2006 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT Express Mail Service: Fire 48.85 48.85
104758 01/05/2006 009614 GUMBERT, JASON reimb: class A driver license 65.00 65.00
104759 01/05/2006 001135 HEALTH POINTE MEDICAL Nov Pre-employment physical 25.00 25.00
GROUP INC
104760 01/05/2006 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD Desktop/Printer Roripaugh Fire Station 1,862.38 1,862.38
104761 01/05/2006 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE (2) certificates/ee's of the year 200.00 200.00
104762 01/05/2006 001123 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION PW mntc supplies 592.78 592.78
GROUP
104763 01/05/2006 008798 INT'L FEDERATION FOR Membership: Annual Fee 2006 139.00 139.00
HOUSING &
104764 01/05/2006 003296 INTL CODE COUNCIL Code Books: Bldg & Safety 256.80 256.80
104765 01/05/2006 007241 JAEGER CORPORATION Res Imp Prgm: Jacobson, Kent & Melissa 1,862.00 1,862.00
104766 01/05/2006 009611 JEFFERSON CAPITAL, LLC Refund: B05-3918 Overpayment of fees 10.51 10.51
104767 01/05/2006 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES Nov engineering plan check svcs 3,185.00 3,185.00
104768 01/05/2006 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC Hot Air Balloon Banners: Eco Dev 351.04 351.04
104769 01/05/2006 009615 KILLARNEYS PUB & GRILL ee of the year certificate 100.00 100.00
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
01/0512006 11 :40:09AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104770 01/05/2006 002789 KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES INC Temp help PPE 12/18 v. Pen sader 255.20
Temp Help PPE 12/18 J. Hussar 108.75
Temp Help PPE 12/18 L. Shinkle 103.68
Temp help PPE 12/18 P. Trower 87.00
Temp Help PPE 12/18 J. Hussar 87.00
Temp help PPE 12/18 W. Wedeking 69.60
Temp Help PPE 12/18 J. Hussar 69.60
Temp Help PPE 12/18 L. Albalos 65.25 846.08
104771 01/05/2006 004051 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP 10/31-12/4/05 geotech tstg:Pech. Pkwy 540.00 540.00
INC
104772 01/05/2006 007630 MACYS (2) certificates/ee's of the year 200.00 200.00
104773 01/05/2006 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC printing of TCSD '06 recycling calendars 9,456.14 9,456.14
104774 01/05/2006 004894 MICHAEL BRANDMAN Oct eng Svcs: Pechanga Pkwy Ph II 2,812.50 2,812.50
ASSOCIATES
104775 01/05/2006 008091 MILLMORE'S WAX CREW City vehicles detailing services: B&S 145.00
City vehicles detailing svcs: PW Depts 125.00 270.00
104776 01/05/2006 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS business cards: B. Beers 115.55
business cards: B. Barnett 43.37 158.92
104777 01/05/2006 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES Dec EOC Stn Satellite Phone SVcs 71.89 71.89
LP
104778 01/05/2006 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS Oct consult svcs: F.V. Pkwy/I-15Intrchg 154,840.48 154,840.48
104779 01/05/2006 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY repair fence: Harveston Comm. Prk 1,433.00 1,433.00
104780 01/05/2006 002257 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS drinking fountains parts:various park 230.00 230.00
104781 01/05/2006 004238 MURRIETA, CITY OF Calif. League mtg: R.R.lC.W.lM.E. 01/09 105.00 105.00
104782 01/05/2006 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Jan "on-hold" phone music:City Hall 124.41 124.41
104783 01/05/2006 008528 NICHOLS, MELBURG & ROSETTO Nov Consulting SVcs: Civic Center Complex 19,055.00 19,055.00
104784 01/05/2006 004512 NINYO & MOORE Oct geotech srvcs:barrier rail replace 1,686.00 1,686.00
104785 01/05/2006 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Oct recruitment ads: Planning 551.90 551.90
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
01/0512006 11 :40:09AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104786 01/05/2006 006140 NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS Jan-Mar bus.prk assn dues:F.V.l115 xx20 447.00
Jan-Mar bus.prk assn dues:F.V.l115 xx17 329.00 776.00
104787 01/05/2006 009570 o C B REPROGRAPHICS dup blueprints:Pauba Road Imprv Ph II 93.10
dup blueprints: Temecula public library 51.46 144.56
104788 01/05/2006 006721 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY Furniture: Community Theater 9,641.48 9,641.48
104789 01/05/2006 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle RepairlMaint Svcs 135.09 135.09
104790 01/05/2006 006939 PAINT CONNECTION, THE, DBA Res Imprv Prgm: Westbrook, Donelle 2,275.00 2,275.00
\ION MF(;A FNTFRP INr.
104791 01/05/2006 000580 PHOTO WORKS OF TEMECULA Dec photo developing/film: CIP 12.39 12.39
104792 01/05/2006 000252 POL YCRAFT INC City seal stickers for reserve in Purchasing 683.67 683.67
104793 01/05/2006 006084 POWER DISTRIBUTORS INC electrical svcs: R.R. Sports Park 607.50 607.50
104794 01/05/2006 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PRKASSN Jan-Mar business park assn dues:Diaz Rd 1,948.77
Jan-Mar business park assn dues:C.H. 1,417.29
Jan-Mar business park assn dues:Adj 1,169.26 4,535.32
104795 01/05/2006 002110 RENTAL SERVICE equipment rental for PW Maint 86.09 86.09
CORPORATION
104796 01/05/2006 007402 RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES Oct dsgn svcs: Maint Fac Expansion 56,908.50 56,908.50
104797 01/05/2006 003698 RIVERSIDE CO ECONOMIC 3rd Dist. Economic Forum: CM/Council 350.00 350.00
104798 01/05/2006 005785 RIVERSIDE CO EMS County paramedic license cert: R.Glenn 50.00 50.00
104799 01/05/2006 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT Traf. Collision Invest.: CG/CN 1/9-13/06 264.00 264.00
104800 01/05/2006 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT Vice Operations: M.Boydd/M. Griggs 01/19 55.00 55.00
104801 01/05/2006 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF Jul-Sep '05 vector control services 562.75 562.75
104802 01/05/2006 000271 ROBERT BEIN WM FROST & Oct prof svcs: 1-15179S Ult. Interchange 21,202.19
ASSOC
credit: reimb exp.mileagelparking chrgs -66.00 21,136.19
104803 01/05/2006 009613 ROMINE, LARRY reimb: class A driver license 65.00 65.00
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
01/0512006 11 :40:09AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104804 01/05/2006 004598 S T KARCHITECTURE INC Nov dsgn svcs: Roripaugh Fire Stn 1,415.70 1,415.70
104805 01/05/2006 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Nov 2-19-999-9442 various mtrs 1,276.10
Dec 2-27-615-1750 Fire Stn 73 560.97
Dec 2-23-365-5992 Fire Stn 92 396.54
Dec 2-11-007-0455 6th Street 240.89
Dec 2-21-911-7892 O.T. So.Side Prk Lot 134.00
Dec 2-27-560-0625 P.B. Sports Complex 109.15
Dec 2-21-981-4720 Hwy 79 65.38
Dec 2-27-371-8494 offsite records 19.51 2,802.54
104806 01/05/2006 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Dec 091-085-1632-0 T.E.S. Pool 614.35
Dec 101-525-1560-6 Fire Stn 73 548.93 1,163.28
104807 01/05/2006 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. fax cartridges: Copy Center 256.45 256.45
104808 VOID 0.00 0.00
104809 01/05/2006 009609 TEMECULA UNITED SOCCER refund: Sec. DepositlCRC 150.00 150.00
CLUB
104810 01/05/2006 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith svcs for Paloma del Sol Park 135.00 135.00
CENTR
104811 01/05/2006 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC DJ svcs for Teen Prgm Dance 10/21 450.00 450.00
104812 01/05/2006 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION release stop ntc: Robertson's/Comm .Thtr 4,440.65 4,440.65
104813 01/05/2006 009460 VAN VECHTEN, WILLIAM Reimb. backstage supplies 425.56 425.56
104814 01/05/2006 006807 VANIR CONSTRUCTION Oct constr mgmt svcs: Roripaugh Fire Stn 22,931.78 22,931.78
104815 01/05/2006 004261 VERIZON Dec xxx-2016 reverse 911 109.61
Dec xxx-3526 fire alarm 84.97
Dec xxx-5275 PD DSL 29.28
Dec xxx-2676 general usage 28.32 252.18
104816 01/05/2006 009512 WURMS JANITORIAL SERVICES, Dec janitorial svcs: MPSC 790.27 790.27
INC
Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 1,748,454.63
PageS
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
621 01/12/2006 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 18,559.72 18,559.72
622 01/12/2006 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 73,239.74 73,239.74
623 01/12/2006 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 21,153.93 21,153.93
SOLUTION
624 01/12/2006 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 114,981.75 114,981.75
RETIREMENT)
625 01/12/2006 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA), OBRA - Project Retirement Payment 2,044.68 2,044.68
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT
626 01/12/2006 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Child Care Reimbursement Payment 8,924.03
Child Care Reimbursement Payment 0.00 8,924.03
627 01/12/2006 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM PERS Health Admin Cost Payment 70,950.81
Blue Shield HMO Payment 0.00 70,950.81
104817 01/05/2006 004238 MURRIETA, CITY OF Calif. League Mtg: Naggar 1/9/06 35.00 35.00
104818 01/06/2006 009617 LOTUS MUSIC PRODUCTIONS, Community Theater: Peter White 5,000.00 5,000.00
INC.
104819 01/12/2006 003552 AFLAC AFLAC Cancer Payment 2,135.00 2,135.00
104820 01/12/2006 001700 A PLUS TEACHING MATERIALS Misc crafts supplies: CRC 53.56 53.56
104821 01/12/2006 006253 A SAP SOFTWARE Computer Software License renewal 8,211.51 8,211.51
104822 01/12/2006 004973 ABACHERLI, L1NDI TCSD instructor earnings 680.00 680.00
104823 01/12/2006 004064 ADELPHIA Jan high speed internet svcs: CW 55.95
Jan high speed internet svcs: TT 46.95 102.90
104824 01/12/2006 008698 ADVANCED APPLIED Dec Citywide EngfTraffic Surveys 12,375.00 12,375.00
ENGINEERING
104825 01/12/2006 009628 ALLBERT, MARCELLA Refund: Brkfast w/Santa-CRC 7.00 7.00
104826 01/12/2006 002877 AL TA LOMA CHARTER LINES Holiday Home Tour Excursion bus 802.00
Holiday Home Tour Excursion bus 802.00
Holiday Home Tour Excursion bus 401.00 2,005.00
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104827 01/12/2006 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE Dec 05 Animal control services 12,500.00 12,500.00
VALLEYS
104828 01/12/2006 000101 APPLE ON E INC Temp help PPE 12/24 Kasparian 655.20
Temp help PPE 12124 Shelton 498.23 1,153.43
104829 01/12/2006 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled wtr svcs @ City Hall 549.67
Bottled vvtr svcs @ Mntc Fac 255.59
Bottled vvtr svcs @ CRC 51.23
Bottled vvtr svcs @ City Hall 39.86
Bottled vvtr svcs @ C.Museum 39.84
Bottled vvtr svcs@T.Museum 17.23
Bottled wtr svcs @ Skate Park 17.23 970.65
104830 01/12/2006 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE Community cultural arts grant 10,000.00 10,000.00
104831 01/12/2006 002381 BEAUDOIN, LINDA Retirement Medical Reimbursement 650.74 650.74
104832 01/12/2006 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS Excavate Jedediah Smith Rd channel 1,958.00 1,958.00
INC
104833 01/12/2006 009627 BELlAN, LUCY Refund: Holiday Light Bus Tour 24.00 24.00
104834 01/12/2006 009626 BOTTORFF, KATHLEEN Refund: Holiday Lights Bus Tour 8.00 8.00
104835 01/12/2006 004380 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA FY 05/06 Comm. Svc Funding Prgm 1,500.00 1,500.00
104836 01/12/2006 003222 BROCKMEIER, CAROL Retirement Medical Reimbursement 650.74 650.74
104837 01/12/2006 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials 3,588.74 3,588.74
104838 01/12/2006 005384 CALIF BAGEL BAKERY & DELI Refreshments: IETC Mtg 12/7/05 109.14 109.14
104839 01/12/2006 000486 CALIF MUNI REVENUE & TAX Membership: Z.Smith/G.Papagolos 50.00 50.00
ASSOC
104840 01/12/2006 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks rental:TCSD 31.11 31.11
104841 01/12/2006 008644 CANTRELL, ROGER, AlA, AICP Nov Architect review consulting:Planning 5,338.00 5,338.00
104842 01/12/2006 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS Regist:Difficult People Sem:2/22:DC/JM 198.00 198.00
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104843 01/12/2006 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC Nov 05 Claim adjuster services 1,368.92
Nov 05 Claim adjuster services 348.44 1,717.36
104844 01/12/2006 002058 CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY FY 05/06 Comm. Svc Funding Prgm 2,000.00 2,000.00
THEATER
104845 01/12/2006 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 245.00 245.00
104846 01/12/2006 009625 CONNERS, ROBERTS Refund:Paid K-rat fee twice 250.00 250.00
104847 01/12/2006 006954 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC Repair wtr line@Tem Pool House 695.00
Repair Sports Park bathroom pipes 180.00 875.00
104848 01/12/2006 009516 D A HOGAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Synthetic Turf inspect:Birdsall Sprts 750.00 750.00
104849 01/12/2006 001009 D B X INC Traffic sig install:79s & County Glen 132,237.24 132,237.24
104850 01/12/2006 001393 DATA TICKET INC Nov 05 parking citation processing svcs 334.75 334.75
104851 01/12/2006 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Portable Restrooms:Lng Cnyn Prk 57.16
SRVCS
Portable Restrooms:Veterans Prk 57.16
Portable Restrooms:Vail Ranch Prk 57.16
Portable Restrooms:Riverton Prk 57.16
Portable Restrooms:Redhwk Prk 57.16 285.80
104852 01/12/2006 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK Dec 05 special events premiums 150.31 150.31
104853 01/12/2006 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 823.05
INC
Fuel for City vehicles: Bldg & Safety 753.69
Fuel for City vehicles: PW Mntc 716.97
Fuel for City vehicles:Code Enf.lPolice 436.69
Fuel for City vehicles: Land/CIP 274.10
Fuel for City vehicles: CIP 119.94
Fuel for City vehicles: Traffic 76.90
Fuel for City vehicles:Code Enforce 68.90 3,270.24
104854 01/12/2006 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION Supplies for graffiti removal 17.41 17.41
104855 01/12/2006 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE PW Mntc Mobile Equip Repair Svcs 798.53 798.53
104856 01/12/2006 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 84.82 84.82
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104857 01/12/2006 007568 FINE ARTS NETWORK FY 05/06 Comm. Svc Funding Prgm 5,000.00 5,000.00
104858 01/12/2006 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER
001158 HOLIDAY INN JC Htl:Natl League Cf:12/6-10/05 485.09
001158 HOLIDAY INN RR Htl:Natl League Cf:12/6-10105 436.27
000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES RR RegistNLC Cong.Cf:3/11-15/06 400.00
000854 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE GT RegistReinventing Retail:2/16-17 375.00
008604 VALLEE D' BRUME DU Refreshments:Planning Comm Mtg 240.00
007028 AMERICAN AIRLINES RR Airiare:NLC Cong.Cf:3/11-15/06 229.80
006714 SHERATON HOTEL RR Htl:SCAG RC Mtg:01/05/06 181.26
006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES RR Airiare:Depart 1/12/06 174.90
006714 SHERATON HOTEL RR Htl:SCAG RC Mtg:11/30/05 172.92
000206 FEDEX KINKOS INC GT Stationery paper/misc supplies 87.01
000645 SMART & FINAL INC GY Citizen Corp Misc Supplies 73.40
006942 ONTARIO AIRPORT JC PrkgNatl League Cf:12/6-10 60.00
006942 ONTARIO AIRPORT RR Prkg:Natl League Cf:12/6-1 0/05 60.00
009548 I DC CONFERENCE CALL SVCS DU Conference call support svcs 44.96
007029 BLACK ANGUS GY Refreshments:Trffc/Safety Mtg 42.33
009630 SOHO BISTRO RR Meal:Natl League Cf:12/6-10/05 32.77
001060 HYATT GY Refreshm ents: Ex. Retreat Tour 31.33 3,127.04
104859 01/12/2006 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Support Pmt Case # 56043297 565.57 565.57
104860 01/12/2006 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY INC Regist: 7 Habits Wrkshp:2/14:Harold 373.06 373.06
104861 01/12/2006 007279 GAIL MATERIALS INC Hilltopper pckg c1ay:Marg/Hvstn Prk 7,608.80
Infield Mix: Margarita/Hvstn Prk 6,872.23 14,481.03
104862 01/12/2006 007795 GONZALEZ, MARIA Refund: Kidz Love Soccer 10.00 10.00
104863 01/12/2006 000711 GRAPHICS UNLlMrTED Library vinyl labels 2,382.35 2,382.35
LITHOGRAPHY
104864 01/12/2006 009629 HENDERSON, STANLEY Refund: 11th Annl Welk Musical (2) 100.00 100.00
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104865 01/12/2006 003106 HERITAGE SECURITY SERVICES Light Parade Security Officer 92.00 92.00
104866 01/12/2006 002107 HIGHMARK INC Voluntary Supp Life Insurance Payment 760.50 760.50
104867 01/12/2006 001013 HINDERUTER DE LLAMAS & 4th Qtr Sales Tax Consulting svcs 8,658.69 8,658.69
ASSOC
104868 01/12/2006 008155 HOGAN, FELICIA Reimb:Comm Svcs League Cf:7/27-29 547.98 547.98
104869 01/12/2006 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 10,443.14 10,443.14
303355
104870 01/12/2006 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY Dec 05 Pool sanitizing chemicals 112.33 112.33
INC
104871 01/12/2006 003571 INTL ASSN OF PLUMBING AND Membership: Anthony Elmo 91674 250.00 250.00
104872 01/12/2006 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD instructor earnings 1,638.00 1,638.00
104873 01/12/2006 002789 KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES INC Temp help PPE 12/18 Barrera 60.90 60.90
104874 01/12/2006 003631 KLEINFELDER INC Geotechnical Material tstg: Mntc Fac 4,933.50 4,933.50
104875 01/12/2006 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Paramedic Medical Supplies 3,201.06 3,201.06
104876 01/12/2006 009617 LOTUS MUSIC PRODUCTIONS, Peter White Performance Ticket Sell 9,183.86 9,183.86
INC.
104877 01/12/2006 008610 M C R STAMPS DJ svcs: High Hopes Prgm 1/6/05 25.00
DJ svcs: High Hopes Prgm 12/9/05 25.00 50.00
104878 01/12/2006 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY Temp help PPE 12/25 JD/JH/DH/KN 3,776.23
SERVICES
Temp Help PPE 12/18 JD/JH/DH/KN 3,750.92 7,527.15
104879 01/12/2006 004307 MARINE BIOCHEMISTS Dec wtr maint:Harveston/Duck Pnd 4,855.00 4,855.00
104880 01/12/2006 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MetLife Dental Insurance Payment 8,492.58 8,492.58
104881 01/12/2006 005690 MICHELLE'S PLACE WOMENS FY 05/06 Community Service Funding 2,000.00 2,000.00
BREAST
PageS
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104882 01/12/2006 007210 MIDORI GARDENS Dec Idscp maint. P-26 Park Site B 2,680.00
Nov Idscp maint: Loma Linda Park 215.15 2,895.15
104883 01/12/2006 007669 MILES, KATRINA TCSD Instructor Earnings 175.00 175.00
104884 01/12/2006 008091 MILLMORE'S WAX CREW City vehicles detailing svcs: PW Depts 125.00 125.00
104885 01/12/2006 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Business cards:Bales/Meadows/Gawne 202.29 202.29
104886 01/12/2006 007011 MORRIS MYERS MAINTENANCE Dec maint svcs:park r.r.lpicnic shelters 5,221.00 5,221.00
104887 01/12/2006 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Old Town Satellite Sound System 69.11 69.11
104888 01/12/2006 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION Automatic Sprinkler Sys: M. Pahls 1,195.00 1,195.00
ASSN
104889 01/12/2006 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3/1/06-2/28/07 City membership dues 4,169.00 4,169.00
104890 01/12/2006 004898 NEIGHBORHOOD HEAL THCARE FY 05/06 Community Service Funding 5,000.00 5,000.00
104891 01/12/2006 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Dec public notices: City Clerk/Pln/PW 956.34
Oct display ad: Community Theater 35.00 991.34
104892 01/12/2006 009570 o C B REPROGRAPHICS Pechanga Prkwy blueprint reproduction 353.80
Pechanga Prkwy blueprint reproduction 238.95
Pechanga Prkwy Blueprint Reproduction 184.60
Redhawk Blueprint Reproduction Svcs 18.30
T. Library Blueprint Reproduction Svcs 11.64
Mylar Blueprint Reproduction Svcs 3.10 810.39
104893 01/12/2006 006721 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY Office Supplies: Finance 47.24
Office Supplies: Finance 19.54 66.78
104894 01/12/2006 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle RepairlMaint Svcs: TCSD 284.82
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs: PW 241.22 526.04
104895 01/12/2006 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC Nov temp help svcs: Henderson 4,872.00 4,872.00
104896 01/12/2006 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' retirement system actuarial studies 200.00 200.00
RETIREMENT)
104897 01/12/2006 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 288.55 288.55
PROGRAM
Page:6
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104898 01/12/2006 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 584.51 584.51
104899 01/12/2006 002185 POSTMASTER-TEMECULA annual rental of PO Box 9033 824.00 824.00
104900 01/12/2006 005820 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC PrePaid Legal Services Payment 411.55 411.55
104901 01/12/2006 003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOORS Res Imprv Prgm: Cortez, Ralph & Maria 874.00 874.00
104902 01/12/2006 002880 PRO-CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY Res Imprv Prgm: Naron, Daniel & Denise 4,598.00 4,598.00
104903 01/12/2006 009623 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK PARMA Conf: G. Papagolos 217-10/06 275.00 275.00
MANAGERS
104904 01/12/2006 004627 PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES Radio Rentals: 'OS Holiday Light Parade 475.58 475.58
INC
104905 01/12/2006 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Oct Dsgn Svcs: P.B. Sports Complex 2,471.94 2,471.94
104906 01/12/2006 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Various Water Meters 17,050.17
Dec 01-04-47210-0 T.E.S. Pool 833.83
Dec 01-02-98010-0 Fire Stn 84 402.10
Dec 01-08-92010-0 P.B. Sports Complex 209.30
Dec 01-04-10033-2 Margarita Rd 98.62
Dec 01-08-38009-0 Fire Stn 73 55.47
Dec 01-02-98000-0 Fire Stn 84 12.95 18,662.44
104907 01/12/2006 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL weed abate svc:Citywide/owned properties 10,125.00
MANAGEMENT
Citywide R-O-Ws weed abate/clean up 2,800.00 12,925.00
104908 01/12/2006 002110 RENTAL SERVICE equipment rental for PW Maint 93.98 93.98
CORPORATION
104909 01/12/2006 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON Nov 2005 legal services 74,846.89 74,846.89
104910 01/12/2006 000352 RIVERSIDE CO ASSESSOR Dec assessors maps: B&S Dept 30.00 30.00
104911 01/12/2006 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO Nov radio rental & maint: Police 684.00 684.00
TECHNOLOGY
104912 01/12/2006 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 10/13/05-11/09/05 law enforcement 1,019,207.99 1,019,207.99
Page:?
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104913 01/12/2006 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT Bicycle Patrol 3/7-10/06 DM/JKlJF/JK 640.00 640.00
104914 01/12/2006 005756 RIVERSIDE CO TREASURER refund: Children's Museum ovrpmt 63.00 63.00
104915 01/12/2006 009631 RIVIERA HOTEL AND CASINO htl: NFPA Sem 2/13-16/06 M. Pahls 429.44 429.44
104916 01/12/2006 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. reimb: Nat'1 League Conf 12/6-9/05 75.90 75.90
104917 01/12/2006 000815 ROWLEY, CATHY TCSD Instructor Earnings 622.12
TCSD Instructor Earnings 448.88
TCSD Instructor Earnings 441.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 189.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 63.00 1,764.00
104918 01/12/2006 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment 1,031.78 1,031.78
104919 01/12/2006 008693 SALAZAR, DONALD (SWD 000053) Support Payment 283.50 283.50
104920 01/12/2006 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment Case # DF099118 25.00 25.00
104921 01/12/2006 001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN Proofreading Sem: Bottoroff/Bradley 1/17 270.00 270.00
CTR
104922 01/12/2006 001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN Proofreading Sem: D.Ball 01/17/06 135.00 135.00
CTR
104923 01/12/2006 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment Account # 581095025 12.50 12.50
104924 01/12/2006 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment LO File # 2005033893 150.00 150.00
104925 01/12/2006 000645 SMART & FINAL INC refreshm ents: Team Pace events 273.04
Supplies: High Hope Program 98.38
recreation supplies: Cultural Arts Prgm 64.59
Cultural Arts supplies 40.10
Cultural Arts supplies 20.58 496.69
104926 01/12/2006 002718 SO CALIF CITY CLERKS ASSN SCCCA Gen. Mtg: S.Jones 01/19/06 35.00 35.00
Page:8
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104927 01/12/2006 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Dec 2-05-791-8807 various meters 7,929.38
Dec 2-00-397-5042 City Hall 5,242.74
Dec 2-19-683-3263 various meters 1,329.92
Dec 2-02-502-8077 Maint Fac 1,285.28
Dec 2-00-397-5067 various meters 1,151.08
Jan 2-20-798-3248 C. Museum 864.21
Dec 2-20-817-9929 P.D. Storefront stn 201.Q3 18,003.64
104928 01/12/2006 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Dec 026-671-2909-8 Community Theater 190.16 190.16
104929 01/12/2006 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY replace steam table tubing @ TCC 100.00 100.00
104930 01/12/2006 009624 SO CALIF INVESTORS INC refund: ovrpmt of permitl43466 Bus.Pk Dr 147.00 147.00
104931 01/12/2006 000282 SO CALIF MUNICIPAL ATHLETIC Mbshp:McCarthyMlillcox/Parker 150.00 150.00
104932 01/12/2006 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL Pest control svcs: CRCNar.Fac. 256.00 256.00
INC
104933 01/12/2006 007851 SOUTH COAST HEATING & AIR HVAC repair: Community Theater 413.00 413.00
104934 01/12/2006 007762 STANDARD OF OREGON Mandatory Life Insurance Payment 2,695.00 2,695.00
104935 01/12/2006 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS office supplies:Children's Museum 30.63 30.63
ADVANTAGE
104936 01/12/2006 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS Dec transcription srvcs: Temecula Police 809.76 809.76
TRANSCRIPTION
104937 01/12/2006 004247 STERICYCLE INC Dec med. waste disposal svcs: Paramedics 114.14 114.14
104938 01/12/2006 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Office Supplies for PW Depts 636.34 636.34
104939 01/12/2006 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Union Dues Payment 4,570.00 4,570.00
104940 01/12/2006 006465 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR Paramedic vehicle repair/maint svcs 1,725.60 1,725.60
104941 01/12/2006 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. Nov copier maintlusage: City Facilities 4,119.21 4,119.21
Page:9
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10
01/1212006 11 :45:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
104942 01/12/2006 009150 TEMECULA GLASS & MIRROR Res Imprv Prgm: Westbrook, Danelle 222.86 222.86
INC
104943 01/12/2006 006305 TEMECULA SISTER CITY ASSN FY 05/06 Sponsorship 7,500.00 7,500.00
104944 01/12/2006 005722 TEMECULA VALLEY GARDEN FY 05/06 Comm. Svc Funding Awrd 500.00 500.00
CLUB
104945 01/12/2006 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & Dec irrigation supplies:var. City prks 206.49 206.49
SUPPLY
104946 01/12/2006 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY locksmith svcs: Harveston Lake 159.47
CENTR
Old Town Theater Locksmith svcs 80.00 239.47
104947 01/12/2006 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION Nov prgs pmt #8: Roripaugh Fire Stn 315,304.63
INC
stop ntc: M.W. Sausse/Roripaugh Fire -1,255.29 314,049.34
104948 01/12/2006 008681 TRUAX, PAMELA Refund:Kinder Kitchen/Amazing Chefs 4.00 4.00
104949 01/12/2006 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Jan undrgrnd svcs alert tickets:PW 91.45 91.45
104950 01/12/2006 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 217.15 217.15
104951 01/12/2006 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA LongTerm Disability Payment 7,966.95 7,966.95
104952 01/12/2006 005805 URISA Membership dues: J. DeGange 150.00 150.00
104953 01/12/2006 004261 VERIZON Dec xxx-9897 general usage 90.58 90.58
104954 01/12/2006 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Dec Internet svcs: xx9549 P.D. 42.70 42.70
104955 01/12/2006 004864 VINEYARD OF THE NEWWINE- FY 05/06 CDBG Reimb Grant 3,350.47 3,350.47
104956 01/12/2006 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC custodial supplies: City Hall 232.46
custodial supplies: City Hall 191.69
custodial supplies: Theater 125.84 549.99
104957 01/12/2006 000339 WEST PUBLISHING CORP CA Sessions Laws 05/06 Update 1,172.90 1,172.90
104958 01/12/2006 007949 WESTERN ARTS ALLIANCE WAA Membership: Bruce Beers 375.00 375.00
Page:10
apChkLst
01/1212006
11 :45:50AM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 11
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
104959 01/12/2006 009512 WURMS JANITORIAL SERVICES, Jan janitorial svcs: MPSC
INC
790.27
790.27
Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA:
2,151,715.82
Page:11
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
01105/2006 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$
1,748,454.63
01112/2006 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
2,151,715.82
01112/2006 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
399,085.20
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 01/24/06 COUNCIL MEETING:
$
4,299,255.65
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,806,520.85
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 3,350.47
165 RDA LOW/MOD - 20% SET ASIDE 20,236.72
190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 139,766.31
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 121.57
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 15,382.57
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 10,318.33
196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MA1NT. 5,290.79
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 1,834,898.50
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - C1P PROJECT 4,854.25
300 INSURANCE FUND 6981.7
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 27708.39
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 7798.75
340 F AC1LITlES 16941.25
$ 3,900,170.45
001 GENERAL FUND $ 283,157.19
165 RDA LOW/MOD - 20% SET ASIDE 4,938.79
190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 68,051.57
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 103.35
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 4,998.52
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 785.79
196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MA1NT. 562.88
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - C1P PROJECT 3,164.22
300 INSURANCE FUND 1,218.05
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 21,697.25
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 3,318.08
340 F AC1LITlES 7,089.51
399,085.20
TOTAL BY FUND: $ 4,299,255.65
ITEM NO.4
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
ell
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
City Council Meeting Schedule - March 2006
RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Clerk to re-schedule the City Council meeting of March
14,2006 to March 21,2006, and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of
the Government Code.
BACKGROUND: Due to three Council Members plans to attend the 2006 Annual
Congressional City Conference, March 11-16'h, in Washington D.C., it is suggested that the City
Council Meeting of March 14, 2006, be rescheduled to Tuesday, March 21, 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT: Changes of dates for City Council. TCSD and RDA meetings will result
in no additional cost to the City.
ITEM NO.5
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
/)IL
tf
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Tim Thorson, Director of Info Systems & Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works
DATE: January 10, 2006
SUBJECT: Procurement of Library Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) System
PREPARED BY:
Tim Thorson, Director of Information Systems
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
(1) Accelerate the funding of$603,407.12 to the Fiscal Year 2005-06 from the Fiscal Year
2006-07 Library Project Furniture, Fixture & Equipment (FF&E) budget.
(2) Approve the purchase of Apex RFID components in agreement with Integrated
Technology Group (ITG) for the total amount of $188,660.47.
BACKGROUND: On July 10'h 2005, the City conducted a competitive bid for a consultant to
complete a study of library operations and the most current technologies required to support
these operations. The result was a thorough analysis of key vendors, other libraries
implementing similar technologies, and a top down approach to determining the most
appropriate solution for given requirements. This study provides an essential foundation for
approaching the complex process involved in analyzing, selecting, purchasing, and integrating
technologies for the new library. An important consideration for the Library Technology Plan is
the focus on technology that the Library Plan of Service articulates. A focus on providing
patrons, namely students, with the latest technologies is a major driving force behind several key
points in the vision of the new Library.
DISCUSSION: The Council Library Task Force Committee met on January 4'h 2006 to
review the Library Technology Plan. Support was given for the Technology Plan and for
purchasing RFID equipment.
The core applications that will run the library are Comprise Software for Library Access
Management and lTG's RFID Security and Inventory Management Components. These are
budgeted for out of the FF&E line item of the Library Budget. The Council Library Task Force
recommended approval of the FF&E accelerated spending and timeline for implementation of
the library technology plan including the component equipment list totaling $603,407.12.
Library Technology Component List*
1.0 Public, OPAC, and Administrative Computers $124,764.13
2.0 Automated Desktop Management $23,124.50
3.0 Printing and Copying **
4.0 Access Management Software $44,757.00
5.0 Internet Access and Content Filtering $6,394.00
6.0 Wireless Access $23,846.18
7.0 RFID Self-Checkout and 5 Bin Sorter $188,660.47
8.0 Electronic Resources $17,392.60
9.0 Network Infrastructure $26,165.00
10.0 Server Infrastructure $75,647.73
11.0 Phone System $24,353.51
12.0 Video Conferencing $35,489.00
13.0 Technology Requirements of Auxiliary Organizations $12,813.00
$603,407.12
*
Pricing reflected is without tax, shipping or handling and some professional services
Printer/copier units are recommended in a monthly lease I per image maintenance
agreement \!\lith a cost recovery model supported by library access management software
**
The RFID application is first on the time line because of the need to develop logos for RFID book
tags and configure furniture for security gates and self sorting book drops. Once a contract is in
place critical planning can take place between the vendor and the County Librarian.
The Apex RFID system brings together the power of radio frequency and information storage to
automate library operations. This system ensures secure transactions for the check-out of all
circulating materials, including videos, audiocassettes, CDs, and DVDs. The advanced
inventory management module allows for a complete inventory in days instead of months.
Library staff can wave the ergonomically designed wand across the base of shelves to collect
inventory data, search for an item or group of items and instantaneously identify mis-shelved
materials.
The process for the purchase of Apex RFID from the Integrated Technology Group conforms to
the City's Purchasing Ordinance in Chapter 3.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code. The City's
library technology consultant identified the Library's technology needs and then contacted the six
vendors identified in Attachment (a) who sell the components for this complex and
specialized technology. The consultant was able to integrate specialized components in order to
develop an information system, which would satisfy the complex technology requirements to
support Library operations. The consultant was then able to solicit bids for the component items
and compare the bids on the basis of the systems ability to meet the needs of the Library, quality
of the component items and overall cost to the City as is required by Temecula Municipal Code
Section 3.28.245, which is specifically designed to accommodate the purchase
of sophisticated and complex equipment for the City. Thus, the consultant's work in the Library
Technology Study operated as the RFP/bid process for the proposed purchase of Apex RFID
and fully complies with the requirements of Temecula Municipal Code Section 3.28.245.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Library Project is being funded with an acceleration of the FY 2006-
07 FF&E budget, which is necessary to fund this request. Funds are available for this
acceleration.
ATTACHMENTS: (a) Software/Hardware Installation, Licensing and Maintenance
Agreement between Integrated Technology Group and the City of Temecula
SOFTWARE/HARDWARE INSTALLATION, LICENSING AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY GROUP AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of January 10, 2006, between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Integrated Technology Group (ITG), a
("Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. TERM. The effective date of this Agreement shall be January 10, 2006,
and, with respect to deliverables to be provided and software/hardware installation and training,
this Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until all deliverables have been received and
all installation and training services have been completed to City's satisfaction, but no later than
January 9, 2007, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The
term of any software/hardware licenses purchased hereunder by the City shall be perpetual so
long as City complies with all license terms and conditions. With respect to software/hardware
maintenance and support, the term of this Agreement shall be from January 10, 2006 until
January 9, 2007 with an option to renew yearly. After the initial term of the agreement,
software/hardware maintenance and support can be purchase according to the schedule listed
in Exhibit D. Furthermore, the City can terminate the software/hardware maintenance and
support agreement at any time for any reason with only a 30 day notification.
2. SERVICES. Vendor will purchase products under Exhibit C requested
and purchased by the City of Temecula, and perform tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Vendor shall complete the
tasks to be completed under vendor's actions according to the schedule of performance which
is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Vendor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Vendor
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons
engaged in providing similar services as are required of Vendor hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. PREVAILING WAGES. If work required to be performed by the Vendor
is subject to prevailing wage laws, then pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor
Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Vendor Agreement from the Director
of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies
may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. Consultant shall provide a copy
of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-Vendor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing
wage rates as a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8,
1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of
the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each
calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than
the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any
subVendor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Agreement.
5. PAYMENT.
a. Subject to the retention amount(s) specified herein, the City agrees to pay
Vendor in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set
forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any
terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This
amount shall not exceed One Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Ten Dollars
and Forty Seven Cents ($188,660.47) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional
payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
b. Vendor will submit invoices at the beginning of the agreement and after
all deliverables have been received in accordance with the payment schedule in Exhibit B.
Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month.
Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed
fees. If the City disputes any of Vendor's fees it shall give written notice to Vendor within 30
days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any undisputed
payment not paid to Vendor within the above-described 30-days period will accrue interest in an
amount equal to one-and-a-half percent (1.5%) per month, compounded monthly, on the
outstanding balance from the billing date.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT
CAUSE.
a. Subject to the requirements and limitations in this section, and elsewhere in this
agreement, Vendor hereby offers a money back guarantee for the cost of the software/hardware
licenses for a period of twelve (12) months from the first day of training provided by Vendor.
This money back guarantee shall cover any occurrence where the software/hardware product
has been delivered and provided to The City, but does not reasonably conform with Vendo~s
printed documentation as well as Vendor's proposal for the product. This guarantee shall be
subject to the following restrictions and requirements:
1) Should such a non-conformity be discovered by the City, The City agrees
to notify Vendor immediately and provide a detailed description of the
non-conformity in writing. Vendor shall not be held liable to provide any
money back guarantee if: a) The City does not notify Vendor in writing
immediately within twenty (20) business days of when it learns that a non-
conformity exists; or, b) if the software/hardware has been fully accepted
by The City.
2) After notifying Vendor of a non-conformity, The City shall then provide
Vendor with a cure and correction period of 60 days, so that Vendor may
achieve conformance.
3) During the cure and correction period, Vendor may deliver a
software/hardware update, or use other means as appropriate, to bring
the software/hardware into conformance with any non-conformities that
have been communicated in writing by The City.
4) If Vendor does not deliver a software/hardware update or provide other
remedies during the cure and correction period to ensure that the
software/hardware product is conforming to the printed documentation as
well as Vendor's proposal and the Software/hardware Description, The
City may request a refund of the total cost of the software/hardware
licenses of the non-conforming software/hardware product, excluding the
annual support an maintenance costs, which will be refunded on a pro-
rated basis. This pro-rated basis is considered to be 1/12 of the annual
2
support contract per calendar month. If a non-conformity exists, and if
Vendor has failed to cure or correct any non-conformity during the
designated cure and correction period, Vendor shall promptly provide
such a refund.
5) If The City requests such a refund, The City agrees to make such a
request in writing, and include a detailed explanation of the non-
conformity. Upon providing such a notice to Vendor, The City agrees to
immediately cease and discontinue use of all the software/hardware
products and to immediately return all copies of the software/hardware,
hardware documentation, and other materials to Vendor. The city should
get a refund of all license fees and unused prepaid maintenance/support
fees if any "non-conformity" prevents the City from using any portion of
the system.
6) Vendor shall not be held liable in any way, including these provisions of
this money back guarantee, if The City fails to uphold its obligations as
documented in this Agreement.
7. DEFAULT OF VENDOR.
a. The Vendor's failure to comply with the material provIsions of this
Agreement shall constitute a default. If such material failure by the Vendor to make progress in
the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Vendor's control, and
without fault or negligence of the Vendor, it shall not be considered a default. The Vendor
cannot be considered in default for unexpected hardware failure. The Vendor will provide a
warranty for hardware as specified in Exhibit A.
b. The Vendor cannot be considered to be in default if one or more of the
following situations occur:
1. Improper use or configuration, outside of the recommendations made by
the Vendor, by city employees of the hardware or software/hardware that
significantly delays the implementation of the deliverables listed in Exhibit
A.
2. Requests for additional features and components for the
software/hardware from City Employees that significantly delays the
implementation of the deliverables listed in Exhibit A.
3. Significant changes to network architecture, software/hardware, and
hardware implementations in use at the City which require
reprogramming software/hardware.
4. Catastrophic events such as fire and water damage, destruction of
software/hardware or hardware due to malicious intent, or theft that cause
significant delays.
c. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Vendor is in
default in the performance of any of the material terms or material conditions of this Agreement,
it shall serve the Vendor with written notice of the default. The Vendor shall have thirty (90)
days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory
performance. In the event that the Vendor 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.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
3
a. Vendor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Vendor shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall
be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly
identified and readily accessible. Vendor shall provide free access to the representatives of City
or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to
examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as
necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities
related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Except as otherwise provided herein, upon completion of, or in the event
of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings,
maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other
documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this
Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City without the permission of the Vendor. With respect to computer files
containing data generated for the work, Vendor shall make available to the City, upon
reasonable written request by the City, said computer files in a mutually-agreed-upon format
and medium.
d. Nothing in this Section is intended by the parties or will be construed to
convey ownership of copyrighted or copyrightable works, including proprietary
software/hardware, owned or controlled by Vendor prior to the effective date of this Agreement
("Pre-Existing Works"), works created after the effective date of this Agreement for customers
other than the City, or works created for the City which are derivative of Vendor's Pre-Existing
Works.
9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and
expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and
employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of
any person, or damage to property arising out of Vendor's acts or omissions connected or in
any way related to Vendor's performance or non-performance of this Agreement, including
without limitations patent and copyright infringement claims, excepting only claims and liabilities
arising out of the active negligence of the City.
10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Vendor shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the Agreement 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 Vendor, its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form
No. CG 0001 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
Vendor 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 Vendor has no
4
employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Vendor shall execute
a declaration that it has no employees.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Vendor shall maintain limits no less than:
(1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to
this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
the required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident
for bodily injury or disease.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Vendor 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 Vendor; products and completed
operations of the Vendor; premises owned, occupied or used by
the Vendor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
the Vendor. 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 Vendor'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 Vendor'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 Vendor'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
(5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City.
e. Acceptabilitv of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current AM. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Vendor 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 Vendor's insurer may
provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Vendor 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 Vendor
shall at all times be under Vendor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Vendor or any
of Vendor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Vendor 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. Vendor 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 Vendor in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Vendor as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Vendor for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Vendor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Vendor 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 Vendor 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 Vendor to comply with this section.
13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Vendor in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Vendor without City's prior written
authorization. Vendor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors , shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project
or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be
considered "voluntary" provided Vendor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
6
b. Vendor shall promptly notify City should Vendor, its officers, employees,
agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City
retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Vendor and/or be present at any deposition,
hearing or similar proceeding. Vendor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City
with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Vendor.
However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to
control, direct, or rewrite said response.
14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service,
(ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal
Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United
States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address
of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by
Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third
business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as
provided above.
To City:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Vendor:
Integrated Technology Group
2851 Cole Court
Atlanta, GA 30071
Attn: Ron Birchard
15. ASSIGNMENT. The Vendor shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of
the City, such consent not to be unreasonably denied by the City based upon the assignees
ability to perform the tasks required by this agreement. Unless specifically amended, modified,
or supplemented by this document, all terms and conditions of prior written agreements
between the parties shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Notwithstanding,
Vendor may assign its interests in this Agreement for purposes of financing or to a successor
entity upon transfer of all or a controlling portion of the ownership equity of Vendor.
16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Vendor shall
have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services
described in this Agreement.
17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Vendor 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
7
determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation
expenses for the relief granted.
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 Vendor, or Vendor's subcontractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one
year thereafter. The Vendor 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 Vendor or Vendor's
subcontractors on this project. Vendor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such
interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this
Agreement. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations
set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such
party deems material.
20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Vendor warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Vendor and has the authority to bind
Vendor to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
8
Integrated Technology Group
2851 Cole Court
Atlanta, GA 30071
EXHIBIT A
Apex RFID Implementation Timeline
Scope
This document outlines the various phases and their approximate timeframes for implementing
Apex RFID solution(s) into a library or library system. It is not intended as a "how-to" installation
guide for these systems. Detailed installation instructions are available by contacting the ITG
technical support department.
This documentation covers only systems listed in Exhibit C, which are designed by Integrated
Technology Group (ITG) using RFID components developed by Tagsys, Inc.
Contacting Us
For all questions and comments, please contact lTG's technical support department. We also
welcome your feedback in order to help us improve this document.
(877) 207-3127 (x112)
(800) 466-1165
support@inteqratedtek.com
Overview
lTG's Apex RFID solution is implemented in three (3) phases:
1. Tagging/Pre-Installation Phase
2. Installation Phase
3. Post-Installation Phase
The Tagging/Pre-Installation Phase begins once an approved purchase order is submitted to
ITG and is processed into our system. This phase continues throughout the collection tagging
process. The actual tagging start date is determined by you, the customer (see later section on
Tagging Timeframe). Tagging may begin in as little as three (3) weeks from order entry. The
actual timeframe will be determined by the amount of time required to tag your entire collection
(or any applicable deadlines).
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
The Installation Phase may begin at any time prior to the actual finish date of your tagging
operations, but no less than three weeks prior to the desired installation date. Some of the early
activities included in the Installation Phase actually occur during the final weeks of your tag-
programming operations.
The Post-Installation Phase begins once all RFID equipment is installed and the library staff is
trained. In this phase, ITG performs ongoing post-implementation activities as required, so
there is no direct end-date timeframe for this phase.
Tagging/Pre-/nstallation Phase
During the Tagging/Pre-Installation Phase, tagging requirements are determined and the tag-
programming software is configured to your library specifications. Then, all tags and tag-
programming equipment are shipped to the library to begin converting the library collection to
RFID. The library staff is given instructions and/or training on how to program RFID tags and
add them to the various items in the collection. Subsequent tasks (building self-check systems,
etc.) continue during the time that the library staff is tagging their collection.
The length of time of the Tagging/Pre-Installation Phase varies according to the number of items
in the collection to be tagged, the number of programming stations used to program tags and
9
the number of persons assigned to perform and assist with the tagging operation.
Timetable
The following matrix provides a genera/ outline of activities that occur during the Tagging/Pre-
Installation Phase of your RFID implementation. The timeline given outlines the preferable or
"most likely" week of occurrence, but should be considered as an approximation only.
ITG Actions Customer Actions
~
1) Signed purchase order received and
entered into system.
2) Check inventory for requested items;
order any needed components.
3) Send Tag-Programming Questionnaire
to customer to determine item
identification (mandatory) and sorting
(optional) requirements.
4) Send copies of all materials/documents
needed for planning and installation to
customer.
1) Review Tag-Programming Questionnaire
with customer and verify that all needed
info has been obtained.
2) Review tag-programming configuration
requirements with ITG development
team.
3) Receive artwork for overlays and submit
to production for proof creation
1) ITG development team customizes tag-
programming software.
2) Begin production of overlays.
3) Follow-up with customer, give progress
report and address any outstanding
issues (if needed).
4) Review training requirements with
customer.
1) Verify software readiness.
2) Verify overlay readiness.
3) Verify shipping info with customer and
ship tag-programming stations, training
materials, tags and overlays to customer.
4) Review training materials with customer
1) Send SIP2 Questionnaire to customer to
determine software configuration
requirements and customer preferences
(tag sorting, etc.).
2) Review any
planninglinstallation
customer.
3) Request list of patron and item numbers
(and test materials, if required) from
customer.
-"
Q)
~
N
-"
Q)
~
C')
-"
Q)
~
'<t
-"
Q)
~
L{)
-"
Q)
~
outstanding
questions with
10
1) Review the Tag-Programming
Questionnaire and begin determining
item identifier requirements and tag
sorting preferences (if requested).
2) Create and finalize artwork for vinyl tag
overlays.
1) Return completed Tag-Programming
Questionnaire to ITG (via fax or e-mail)
and review with ITG support team.
2) Submit artwork for label overlays (send
image file to ITG).
1) Address any outstanding technical
issues with ITG technical support (if
needed) .
1) Receive equipment
2) Review training materials and review
with ITG
3) Train staff
4) Begin tagging collection
1) Review the SIP2 Questionnaire and
begin determining software configuration
requirements and customer preferences.
2) Compile list of sample patron and item
numbers for use during testing.
3) If custom color option for Self-check or
EAS Security systems was ordered,
customer needs to send a wood/laminate
color sample(s) to ITG for color-matching.
ITG Actions Customer Actions
<0
-"
Q)
~
1) Review the SIP2 Questionnaire and
sample/test patronlitem numbers with
customer and verify that all needed info
has been obtained.
2) Review SIP2 configuration requirements
with ITG RFID development team.
3) Submit order for VECO cabinet (include
custom color sample, if purchased).
1) Return completed SIP2 Questionnaire to
ITG (via fax or e-mail) and review with
ITG support team.
2) Arrange to allow ITG access to your
SIP2 server (needed for system testing).
3) Send list of sample patron and item
numbers to ITG (for testing).
4) IF REQUESTED by lTG, gather sample
items from active collection for testing
and ship to ITG.
1) Address any outstanding technical
issues with ITG technical support (if
needed) .
1) Address any outstanding technical
issues with ITG technical support (if
needed) .
1) Address any outstanding technical
issues with ITG technical support (if
needed) .
2) Schedule installation of EAS security
system with library's preferred
co ntra cto r/i nsta lie r.
Rate of Tagging Operation
The general assumption is that your library should be able to program and tag items at the rate
of 25,000 items per month (approx. 5,000 items per week) per tag-programming station. This is
only a rough estimate, and assumes one person per tag-programming station, working a full 8
hour day dedicated strictly to tag-programming. Of course, by assigning additional personnel to
assist, the overall rate of tag-programming can be increased considerably. Conversely, by
reducing the hours per day/week dedicated to tag-programming, the rate of completion will
decrease.
t--
-"
Q)
~
1) ITG development team begins
customization of software.
2) Verify remote accessibility (Telnet) to
customer's SIP2 vendor/server.
3) Receive sample items from library
collection (if requested).
4) Follow-up with customer, give progress
report, address any outstanding issues (if
needed) .
1) Software completed and ready for
testing.
2) Begin testing of VECO application
functionality and remote SIP2
connectivity.
3) Review test results with customer,
address technical issues (if any) and
work to resolve.
4) Follow-up with customer, give progress
report and address any outstanding
issues (if needed).
1) Target date for final resolution of any
outstanding connectivity/functionality
issues.
2) Follow-up with customer, give progress
report and address any outstanding
issues (if needed).
Given a deadline, when should you begin tagging your collection?
11
In order to estimate the time required in order to complete tagging operations within a given
deadline, use the table below to determine how many tag-programming stations will be needed.
Note that the following table follows the assumptions of 5,000 items per week (20,000 items per
month) per tag-programming station, as noted in the previous section:
0()
-"
Q)
~
(J)
-"
Q)
~
# of Items in collection 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
Using 1 station 10 weeks 20 weeks 30 weeks 40 weeks 50 weeks
Usin 2 Stations 5 weeks 10 weeks 15 weeks 20 weeks 25 weeks
Using 3 Stations 3.5 weeks 7 weeks 10 weeks 13.5 weeks 17 weeks
Usin 4 Stations 2.5 weeks 5 weeks 7.5 weeks 10 weeks 12.5 weeks
Usin 5 Stations 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks
Example: The Main Library has a collection of 150,000 items in their collection, and is given a
deadline of 4 months (16 weeks) to have all items in the collection tagged. According to the
table above, the library will need to use at least two (2) tag-programming stations (with at least
one person per station) in order to meet the deadline.
Given the table above, you should be able to determine when to begin your tagging operation.
Keep in mind that by dedicating additional staff to the tagging process you can increase the rate
of items tagged in a given time period.
/nstallation Phase
During the Installation Phase of your RFID implementation, all RFID Staff Stations, Return
Stations, Self-check Stations and Security Systems are installed and configured. The following
matrix provides a genera/ outline of activities that occur during the Installation Phase. The
time line given is outlines the weeks preceding the final installation date:
Timetable
ITG actions Customer actions
1) Discuss date/time of installation with 1) Develop training schedule for staff
(/) customer and make travel training on all RFID equipment.
-'< ~ arrangements accordingly. 2) Coordinate with ITG regarding date/time
Q) 0
Q) .-
;: a. 2) Coordinate training schedule with of installation and training schedule.
C') customer.
3) Final equipment shipped to customer.
(/) 1) Verify receipt of equipment. 1) Have EAS Security Systems installed by
-'< ~ 2) Address any outstanding questions preferred contractorlinstaller.
Q) 0 regarding installation of EAS Security
Q) .-
;: a. System with library's preferred installer
N
(if needed).
1) Install and test remaining RFID 1) Assist in staff training (to address
equipment (Self-check systems, staff operations or procedural questions, etc.).
--'< stations, etc.).
'" Q) 2) Configure and test EAS Security
.~ Q)
LL ;: System.
3) Conduct training in use and support of
all RFID systems installed.
Post-/nstallation Phase
During the post-installation phase, your ITG Technical Support representative will work with you
to address any outstanding questions or issues. Once your RFID systems are fully
implemented, we will be able to advise you on how best to customize your RFID solution to
better suit specific operational needs as they are addressed by your staff.
A special note reqardinq the RFID-410 EAS Securitv Svstem:
12
If your library will be purchasing lTG's RFI D-41 0 security system, there is one important
consideration to make relating to the Post-Installation Phase of your RFID implementation.
Assuming that your tag-programming phase has been ongoing for up to several months, and
that you have followed lTG's recommendation that all items are tagged with the security bit
"ON", many (if not all) library items that are still checked out at the time that your RFID
equipment is installed will be capable of triggering the security gates as the items are returned.
Of course, if your library has a return chute or return desk outside where the security gates are
installed, this is not an issue. However, if customers have to pass through the security gates in
order to return items, we recommend following one of the two methods in order to prevent
unnecessary triggering of the security system:
Method 1 - Assuming that the library staff starts using the RFID staff stations to check items out
(which turns the security off) at the same time that the security gates are installed, we suggest
leaving the security gates turned "OFF" for the first two to three weeks after RFID check-outs
begin. Items that were previously checked out (with the security still "ON") can then be returned
without setting off the gates while, at the same time, outgoing items are turned "OFF". The
usual rate of circulation should allow you to turn the gates on after two or three weeks and still
keep the number of unnecessary alerts to a minimum.
Method 2 - Once approximately 75% of your library collection is tagged, the library staff could
begin using the RFID Staff Stations for "Security OFF Only" mode (for check-outs) and "Security
ON Only" mode (for check-ins) prior to full implementation. Of course, these additional steps of
turning the security on or off on each transaction would slow down all transactions at the
circulation desk. But this method would allow you to activate your EAS Security System at the
same time as your staff begins using RFID Staff Stations and Return Stations.
13
EX HI BIT B
RFIO
Quotation
# TPL121505
Name of
Library: City of Temecula
Contact
Person: Tim Thorson
Address: 43200 Business Park Dr
Temecula, CA 92590
A division of Vernon Library Supplies, Inc.
2851 Cole Court
Norcross, Georgia 30071
Toll Free Phone: 1-877-207-3127 Fax: 1-877-207-3129
sales@intearatedtek.com
www.intearatedtek.com
Telephone: 951 308-6300
Fax:
Email: tim.thorson@citvoftemecula.ora
Items below are as described in document entitled "Apex RFIO Components."
Unit Your Your
Extended
Item # Descriotion List Price Quantitv Unit Price Unit Price
RFID320ST Standard Book Tag $ 0.60 40000 $0.50 Each $20,000.00
RFID320ST
CUS1 Custom Printing on Standard Tag - 1 Color $ 0.10 Each
RFID320ST
CUS4 Custom Printing on Standard Tag - 4 Color $ 0.13 Each
Preprinted tags delivered and invoiced may be +/- 2000 of quantity ordered.
RFID225 Custom Printed Book Tag Overlay Label $ 25.00 Thou
RFID225BC Custom Printed Book Tag Overlay Label $ 65.00 Thou
w/Bar Code
RFID320CD CD/DVD Tag $ 1.25 Each
RFID226 Custom Printed CD/DVD Overlay Label $ 45.00 Thou
Printed overlay labels delivered and invoiced may be +/- 10% of quantity ordered
RFIDCDAP CD/DVD Tag Applicator $ 30.00 Each
RFID320VH
S Videocassette Spine Tag $ 1.25 Each
RFIDLEA OneCheck Tag Programming Mobile System $ 325.00 3 Months Month
3 Month Minimum
RFID111 LE
A Tag Prog/Dispensing System Lease $ 300.00 Month
3 Month Minimum
RFID111 LE
AK Tag Prog/Dispensing Mobile System Lease $ 450.00 3 months $450.00 3 Mo $1,350.00
3 Month Minimum
VERWA38P
C Linear Imager Bar Code Scanner $ 249.00 9 $224.10 Each $2,016.90
RFID111 Tag Programming/Dispensing System $ 3,200.00 Each
RFID111K Tag Prog/Dispensing Mobile System $ 3,200.00 Each
RFID100 OneCheckHoI staff Station $ 2,200.00 2 $1,980.00 Each $3,960.00
RFID210 FlexCheckH1 staff Station $ 3,000.00 3 $2,700.00 Each $8,100.00
EPTM883 Eltron Thermal Receipt Printer $ 375.00 Each
RFID300 Apex XpressCheckTl\o' Self Service System $ 15,000.00 3 $13,500.00 Each $40,500.00
XCBASE Apex XpressCheckn' Base Cabinet $ 1,500.00 Each
14
CUSTOMX
P Custom XpressCheck Finish $ 500.00 Included Each $0.00
(One price for unlimited number of identical units)
XCMC Management Console for Remote Admin. $ 1,200.00 Included Each $0.00
VERCORE
MG Remote Monitoring Guest Software $ 250.00 Each
VERCORE
MH Remote Monitoring Host Software $ 400.00 Each
XCPAYENV Fees and Fines Payment Integrator $ 1,530.00 Each
Includes XpressCheck Integration module and Envisionware client (#ENV0385102)
ENV609501
1 Coin and Bill Acceptor $ 2,695.00 Each
Credit/Debit card functionality to be quoted separately.
ENV038510
0 eCommerce Server $ 2,195.00 Each
One branch or building supporting one merchant account. For unlimited # of branches- $4995.00
XCLC AV Locking Case Integration $ 1,350.00 Each
(includes detacher)
XCLCREL AV Locking Case Release station $ 9,450.00 Each
(counter top unit with detacher)
XCLCRELB
ASE Release Station Base Cabinet wl2 Carts Each
RFID410 Security Pedestal $ 5,400.00 4 $4,860.00 Each $19,440.00
RFID410lD Exit Watch Item Identification Software $ 950.00 Each
RFID400B Security Pedestal Base Plate $ 500.00 Each
RFID400BA Security Pedestal Base Plate Adder $ 500.00 Each
RFID410CS Custom Wood Sides for Security Pedestal $ 500.00 Set
RFID500W
C Power Reader HI Shelf Reading System $ 5,500.00 $5,500.00 Each $5,500.00
RFID610 Apex RFIO Auto Return $ 9,750.00 Each
RFID610FP
S Built-in Wall Return Face Plate and Chute $ 1,650.00 1 $1,650.00 Each $1,650.00
RFID700-5 Book Drop 5-Bin Sorter 1 $73,000.00 Each $73,000.00
EZ14CART Book Cart 7 $566.96 Each $3,968.72
RFID650 Library Mate@ Internal Return $ 90,000.00 Each
RFID750-X Built-in Wall Library Mate@ Internal Return Each
with Bin Sorter
RFID660 Library Mate@ External Return w/Printer $ 95,000.00 Each
RFID760-X Built-in Wall Library Mate@ External Return Each
with Bin Sorter
EPTM883 Eltron Thermal Receipt Printer $ 375.00 Each
IDBLOCK EM Block Desensitizer for non-magnetic media $189.95 Each $189.95
IDMMHAN
D EM Desensitizer/Resensitizer for magnetic media $89.95 Each $89.95
DDHHRE Em Block Resensitizer for non-magnetic media $119.95 Each $119.95
INSTALL
TRAINING
SHIP
Installation Included Each
Training Included Each
Shipping - FOB Norcross, GA Each $8,775.00
Shipping cost quoted above includes items for which extended prices are shown plus #RFID61 0 if ordered
Grand Total
$188,660.47
Payment Schedule:
Down Payment Due at Contract Signing
Payment Due Upon Shipment of Software
50%
25%
$94,330.25
$47,165.11
15
Payment Due 30 Days after Application Go-Live date
Prices quoted above include:
A)lnstallation except where noted in the "Customer Provides" sections of
the document entitled "Apex RFID Components"
B) First year's support and maintenance
Prices do not include California sales taxes. Add requisite taxes to prices quoted above.
Support and maintenance following first year:
12 % per year of the unit list prices shown above with the exception of tags and overlays for which
support contract does not apply
Quotation good through: March 15, 2006
Today's Date: 12/15/2005
16
25%
$47,165.11
EXHIBIT C
Apex RFID Components
Each installation requires an individualized quotation based on the quantity and
configuration of the equipment desired. Quantity discounts may be available on some
products. Library is free to purchase only those products that it requires, picking
and choosing from those listed below and on the following pages. Installation and
staff training will vary based upon the total size of the project.
TAGS AND o VERLA YS
#RFID320ST
#RFID320STCUS1
#RFID320STCUS4
#RFID225
#RFID225BC
Standard Square Tag for use on a book, video, audio book or CD/DVD case
Custom Printed Standard Tag with text and/or logo in one color
Custom Printed Standard Tag with text and/or logo in four colors
Custom Printed Standard Tag Protective label
Custom Printed Standard Tag Protective label
With Sequentially Printed Bar Code Number
#RFID320CD
#RFID226
#RFIDCDAP
CD/DVD "Donut" Tag
Custom Printed CD/DVD Tag Protective label
CD/DVD Tag Applicator
Applicator is designed to facilitate the application of the CD/DVD tags directly
onto the disks.
#RFID320VHS
Videocassette Spine Tag
17
STAFF STATIONS
#RFID111 Apex RFID Programming/Dispensing System
This motorized system programs and automatically dispenses standard tags, obviating the need to
manually pull them off of the paper release liner. The hardware provided for this station consists of the
FastFOLlO programming/dispensing unit. The RFID unit is connected into a 9-pin serial port of a library
supplied Windows98 or higher computer or laptop (need not be dedicated). The dispenser is powered by
standard electrical power delivered from a standard outlet or battery). Programming can be done in
library stacks; no connection to the library's database is required.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
FastFOLlO Programmer/ *Window98 or higher computer/laptop
Dispenser *Bar code scanner
Apex Tag Fast Software *Mobile cart (if programming in stacks)
*Battery (if AC powered not available)
*Items above may be purchased separately from ITG
#RFID111 LEA Apex RFID Programming/Dispensing System Lease
System described above is also available for lease. Minimum lease period is three months.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
FastFOLlO Programmer/ *Window98 or higher computer/laptop
Dispenser *Bar code scanner
Apex Tag Fast Software *Mobile cart (if programming in stacks)
*Battery (if AC powered not available)
*Items above may be purchased separately from ITG
#RFID111 K Apex RFID Programming/Dispensing Mobile System
The Apex RFID Programming/Dispensing System comes with bar code scanner, mobile cart, and heavy
duty battery for used with library supplied computer.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
FastFOLlO Programmer/ *Window98 or higher computer/laptop
Dispenser *May be purchased separately from ITG
Apex Tag Fast Software
Bar Code Scanner
Mobile Cart
Heavy Duty Battery
#RFID111 LEAK Apex RFID Programming/Dispensing Complete Mobile System Lease
System above is available for lease complete with laptop computer. Minimum lease period is 3 months.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
FastFOLlO Programmer/
Dispenser
Apex Tag Fast Software
Laptop Computer
Bar Code Scanner
Mobile Cart
Heavy Duty Battery
STAFF STATIONS
#RFID100 OneCheck™ Staff Station
This station is designed primarily for the programming of RFID tags. It can also be used with a single
item at a time to charge/discharge items and deactivate/reactivate security bits using the DirectReader™
software application and to facilitate the reshelving of returned materials using the Manual Assist™
sorting software application. The hardware provided for this station consists of the L-PS1 RFID pad with
built-in antenna and coupler designed to read and/or write one tag at a time. The reading detection area
is narrower and the reading time slightly slower than that of the FlexCheck™ Staff Station described
below The OneCheck™ RFID pad is connected into a 9-pin serial port of a library supplied Windows98
or higher computer or laptop (need not be dedicated). Like a bar code scanner, the RFID pad is powered
18
by the computer. This means that RFIO conversion can be done in the stacks without connection to an
external power supply. Library must also supply a bar code scanner (also available separately from IT G)
for tag programming. Software licenses may be transferred between computers. For example, the
tagging software module may be initially used on a laptop when first converting the collection, then
transferred to a standard workstation for the programming of tags for new materials as they arrive in the
library.
ITG Provides
L-PS1 Single Tag RFIO Pad
Reader
Apex Tag Fast Software
Apex CircControl Software
(OirectReader Single Item
Configuration)
Customer Provides
*Window98 or higher computer/laptop
*Bar code scanner
*May be purchase separately from ITG
#RFIDLEA OneCheck™ Tag Programming Mobile System Lease
System above is available for lease together with mobile cart, laptop computer and bar code scanner.
Minimum lease period is three months.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
L-PS1 Single Tag RFIO Pad
Reader
Apex Tag Fast Software
Laptop Computer
Bar Code Scanner
Mobile Cart
19
STAFF STATIONS
#RFID210 FlexCheck™ Staff Station
This station is designed primarily to be used by staff for the checking out/in of multiple items in a stack
using the multiple item OirectReader™ or the SIP based InterfaceReader™ software application. It can
also be used to facilitate sorting using the Manual Assist™ software and to program tags using the Apex
TagFast tag programming software. The hardware provided for this station consists of a pad antenna
and the RFIO reader (also referred to as a coupler) designed to read/write multiple tags at a time. The
antenna is powered by the coupler. The coupler requires external electrical power and is connected into
a USB port of a library supplied Windows98 or higher computer. Computer is connected to the library's
circulation database when used for circulation transactions. (Just like the OneCheck™ Station, tag
programming does not require a connection to the library's database.) For the purpose of scanning
patron cards at the circulation desk or bar codes during tag programming, the library must also supply a
bar code scanner (available separately from ITG). Software licenses may be transferred between
computers. For example, the tagging software module may be initially used on a laptop when first
converting the collection, then transferred to a standard workstation for the programming of tags for new
materials as they arrive in the library.
ITG Provides
RFIO Pad Antenna
RFIO Reader (Coupler)
Apex Tag Fast Software
Apes CircControl Software
(fUlly configured with both
OirectReader™ and
InterfaceReader for multiple
item reading)
ITG.
Customer Provides
SIP2.0 (for Interface Reader if used)
Windows98 or higher computer connected
to database network (in most cases, this will
be the library's existing staff station, so no
additional equipment is needed)
*Bar code scanner
*Receipt printer (optional)
*May be purchased separately from
20
SELF CHECK-OUT STATION and OPTIONS
#RFID300 Apex RFID XpressCheck™ Self Service System
This station is designed to allow patrons to check out library materials without staff assistance. A stack of
items may be processed simultaneously or, if the library prefers, patrons may be instructed to check out
one item at a time. The system is designed to handle both RFIO tagged items as well as items that have
a bar code only. If desired, the library may place the RFIO pad antenna, touch screen monitor, bar code
scanner and receipt printer on a circulation desk or design a desk to include them. When that is done,
the bar code scanner is supplied with scanner stand. The station may be purchased as a table-top kiosk,
onto which is mounted the touch screen monitor, bar code scanner, RFIO pad antenna and receipt
printer. The kiosk may be placed on the library's circulation desk or other space that is of the appropriate
height. Computer, keyboard, mouse and RFIO coupler are kept under the desk. It may also be
integrated into the specially designed cabinet described below to create a free standing self check-out
station. Bar code scanner that is provided for the scanning of patron cards may also be used check out
materials that do not have RFIO tags. Magnetic stripe readers, smart card readers, wireless connectivity
and payment acceptance capability (cash, credit card, account debit, etc.) are optional. Library may
choose from a variety of standard wood finishes and laminates or, for a nominal extra charge, the kiosk
can be manufactured to match the library's decor. Library must purchase SIP2.0 from its automation
vendor.
ITG Provides
All Hardware
Table-top Kiosk or Scanner Stand
Apex XpressCheck™ Software
Customer Provides
Electrical and Network Connection
SIP2 (from automation vendor)
#XCBASE Apex XpressCheck™ Free-Standing Cabinet
The Apex XpressCheck™ described above becomes a free-standing unit when mounted onto this
attractive wood cabinet designed specifically to hold the computer, keyboard, mouse and RFIO coupler.
Space is also available for the storage of extra receipt paper rolls. Cabinet has collapsible convenience
shelves on each side for patrons to place their personal effects and materials before they are checked
out. Library may choose from a variety of standard wood finishes and laminates or, for a nominal extra
charge, the kiosk can be manufactured to match the library's decor.
#XCMC Management Console for Remote Administration
The Apex XpressCheck Management Console allows system administrators to configure multiple Apex
XpressCheck systems quickly and simply. Changes can be made to all machines simultaneously, or
groups of machines selected by easily readable "friendly" machine names. Utilizing folder shares, over
the customer's network, the Apex XpressCheck Management Console can update configuration settings,
image files, sound files, and distribute product patches or updates. Integration into the existing
configuration interface is virtually seamless. The purchase price also includes one Apex XpressCheck
license for the system administrator's computer to enhance remote configuration capabilities.
#VECOREMG Remote Monitoring Guest Software
This software, installed on a staff workstation, allows for the connection to and monitoring of up to 6
Patron Self Service Kiosks simultaneously.
#VECOREMH Remote Monitoring Host Software
This software allows for Patron Self Service Kiosk to be monitored by a staff person at a remote location.
One software license must be purchased for each kiosk.
SELF CHECK-OUT STATION and OPTIONS
#XCPAY Fees and Fines Payment Integrator
This software interfaces with various payment options (credit card, debit card, cash, and account) to allow
patrons to pay for fines and fees within the self checkout transaction process. A variety of hardware
options are available including cash machines, credit card acceptors and smart card readers.
#XCLC AV Xpress Locking Case Integration
Use any audio visual locking case system. Price includes software and hardware for providing access
21
only when an item has been properly checked out.
#XCLCREL AV Xpress Locking Case Release Station
This separate self service station allows patrons to remove CDs and DVDs from their locked cases only
when they have been properly checked out. No connection to the library's database is required. CPU,
keyboard, mouse and RFID hardware are housed within the table top kiosk. Locking case release
mechanism is mounted into the kiosk; computer monitor is mounted to the top of the kiosk. Library may
choose from a variety of standard wood finishes and laminates or, for a nominal extra charge, the kiosk
can be manufactured to match the library's decor. Station is designed to be placed on a table of
appropriate height of it becomes a free-standing system with the cabinet and carts described below
ITG Provides Customer Provides
All Hardware Electrical Connection
Table-top Kiosk
Apex AV Xpress Software
#XCLCRELBASE A V Xpress Free Standing Cabinet with Mobile Depressible Carts
The A V Xpress Locking Case Release Station described above becomes a free-standing unit when
mounted onto this attractive locking wood cabinet designed specifically to hold a depressible mobile cart
to accept the empty locking cases that are inserted by patrons through the slot in the cabinet's front.
Cabinet has collapsible convenience shelves on each side for patrons to place their personal effects and
cases that have not yet been unlocked. Library may choose from a variety of standard wood finishes and
laminates or, for a nominal extra charge, the kiosk can be manufactured to match the library's decor.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
Cabinet
2 Mobile Carts
22
SECURITY SYSTEM
#RFID410 Apex RFID Exit Watch Security Pedestal
Any item passing between two security pedestals (or to the outside of the pedestal up to approximately
18") will set off both visual and audible alarms unless the RFIO tag's security bit has been turned off.
Pedestals have a built-in patron counter and have the capability of recording the bar code numbers of
those items that have alarmed the gates (purchase #RFID410ID separately). Pedestals may be
connected to external devices, such as CCTV. Pedestals are hard wired at their base into electrical
power. A minimum of two pedestals is required to create a single 3' aisle through which library patrons
must exit. Up to eight pedestals may be utilized to create contiguous aisles covering up to 21 feet across
in total. The standard plastic pedestal cover may be replaced with a custom designed wood pedestal
cover for an extra charge.
ITG Provides
Security Pedestal
Customer Provides
Pedestal in-floor mounting
Electrical power points for each pedestal
#RFID410 Apex RFID Exit Watch Item Identification Software
Software resides on library supplied computer (need not be dedicated) and records the identification
numbers of items that have set off security alarms. This information is stored for later retrieval and is also
available in a real time display with accompanying titles delivered from the library's database through SIP.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
Apex RFIO Exit Watch Software Computer (need not be dedicated)
Network connection each pedestal
SIP2 (from automation vendor)
#RFID410CS Custom Designed Wood Security Pedestal Cover
Sold as a set of two, one for each side of a security pedestal to replace standard plastic cover.
#RFID400B Portable Steel Base Plate Initial
Security pedestals may be mounted into each side of this 40"W steel base plate, thereby eliminating the
need to mount pedestals into the floor.
#RFID400BA Portable Steel Base Plate Adder
Use this base plate, designed to hold a single pedestal on one edge, to create an additional contiguous
aisle(s).
23
PORTABLE SHELF READING SYSTEM
#RFID500WC PowerReader™ Shelf Reading System
The PowerReader™ shelf wand is designed to read RFIO tags by waving the wand along the spines of
books. As it collects inventory data, it also turns on any security bits that may be in the off position. The
reader may also be used to search for specific items and to find items that have been mis-shelved,
sounding an alarm when a specific item is identified. Wand is connected to the provided RFIO coupler.
The coupler is powered by the supplied heavy duty battery for continuous operation for approximately 8
hours (may also be powered from a wall outlet). It is connected into a USB port of a library supplied
Windows98 or higher computer or laptop. Supplied mobile cart holds laptop, RFIO coupler and battery
and has room to store items pUlled from shelves. Ergonomically designed, the wand weighs only 1-1/4
Ibs. and is over 27" long to facilitate access to upper and lower shelves. Software is provided for data
collection, item searching and shelf order maintenance. There may be additional costs if customization
for the library's automated circulation system is required.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
PowerReader™ Wand and RFIO Coupler Circulation database inventory module
Apex Shelf Master Software *Laptop per ITG specifications
Mobile Cart *May be purchased separately from ITG
2-0utlet Heavy Outy Battery
24
BOOK RETURNS AND SORTERS
#RFID610 Apex RFID Auto Return
This return utilizes a standard return chute that has been retrofitted to hold an RFIO pad antenna. Library
materials are automatically checked in and security bits reactivated as they pass through the returns
chute. If desired, an audible alarm is sounded to alert staff whenever an item on hold is returned.
Software and all computer hardware are provided (receipt printer that automatically prints a ticket when
an item on hold is returned is available as an option). Price does not include installation of chute or
retrofitting to hold RFIO antenna. Library must purchase SIP2.0 from its automation vendor.
ITG Provides Customer Provides
RFIO Pad Antenna Electrical and network connections
RFIO Reader (Coupler) SIP2.0 (from automation vendor)
PC Workstation *Receipt printer (optional holds tickets)
Computer Monitor *May be purchased separately from ITG
Vista Returns Software
#RFID610FPS Built-in Internal or External Wall Book Drop Return
Use this face plate and RFIO designed chute with the #RFI0610 described above. Price does not include
installation.
#RFID700-X Vista Book Drop Sorting System
System is configured to interface with any standard in wall book drop. In addition to checking in materials
and reactivating security bits, the sorter separates items into different bins according to library defined
criteria. Number of sort locations is determined by budget, space, and sorting parameters (sorting may
be done based on information in the library's database and/or information programmed into the RFIO
tag). Modular design allows for additional sort locations in the future. Bins may be supplied by the
library or purchased separately. Software and all computer hardware are provided (receipt printer that
automatically prints a ticket when an item on reserve is returned to the holds bin may be purchased
separately). Indicator lights are located at each bin to indicate when the bin is full. Library must purchase
SIP2.0 from its automation vendor.
ITG Provides
Transitional Induction Conveyor
Sorting System and Accessory Hardware
RFIO Readers and Couplers
Vista Returns Software
Customer Provides
Electrical and network connections
SIP2.0 (from automation vendor)
*Computer workstation furniture
*Receipt printer (optional holds tickets)
*Bins
*May be purchased separately from ITG
25
BOOK RETURNS AND SORTERS
#RFID650 Library Mate@) Internal Return
Like the Book Orop return, the Library Mate@ checks materials in and reactivates security bits. Library
Mate@ can process bar code labeled items in addition to those with RFIO tags. Any item without an
appropriate RFIO tag or bar code label is rejected by the system and returned to the user. Patron must
place items on the return conveyor belt one by one according to the instructions provided on screen.
Patrons are issued receipts for items returned. Patron may, in addition, retrieve information about his/her
account upon presentation of a patron card. Library must purchase SIP2.0 from its automation vendor
and have wall prepared for installation according to specifications provided. Please see separate
document entitled "Library Mate@ Automatic" for a detailed list of components.
#RFID750-X Built-in Wall Library Mate@) Internal Return Sorter
The Internal Library Mate@ described above delivers materials to a sorter that separates items into
different bins according to library defined criteria. Software and all computer hardware are provided,
including a receipt printer that automatically prints a ticket when an item on hold is returned to the holds
bin. Please see separate document entitled "Library Mate@Automatic" for a detailed list of components.
#RFID660 Library Mate@) External Return
External Library Mate@ provides all of the features of the internal model described above but has been
specifically designed to mounted into an exterior wall. Library must purchase SIP2.0 from its automation
vendor and have wall prepared for installation according to specifications provided. Please see separate
document entitled "Library Mate@ Automatic" for a detailed list of components.
#RFID760-X Built-in Wall Library Mate@) External Return Sorter
The External Library Mate@ described above delivers materials to a sorter that separates items into
different bins according to library defined criteria. Software and all computer hardware are provided,
including a receipt printer that automatically prints a ticket when an item on hold is returned to the holds
bin. Please see separate document entitled "Library Mate@Automatic" for a detailed list of components.
26
EXHIBITD
DESCRIPTION OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
(a) Support. Integrated Techn%gy Group (/TG) will provide Customer
maintenance and support services on an annual basis subject to payment of the annual
Product Support Fee. The following maintenance services will be provided during the
Period as described be/ow.
(i) All Hardware Product components, with the exception of consumable parts
(e.g., print heads, ribbons, etc.), which fail, shall be replaced free of charge
unless such failure is caused by Customer, as determined by ITG in
consultation with the Customer. All replacement parts, be they new or
parts of equal quality, will be provided on an exchange basis.
(ii) In the event that Customer reports any material bugs or defects in the
Software, ITG shall use commercially reasonable efforts to correct or
replace the Software or provide the services necessary to remedy any
programming error attributable to ITG and that significantly affects the
functionality of the Software.
(iii) ITG shall provide points of contact for Customer to report all Product
problems, failures and defects. Customer shall designate specific
employees who will be directly trained directly by ITG in all aspects of the
products, including trouble shooting. These, and only these employees,
may contact ITG for matters related to this Agreement. For the purpose of
product ITG is not obligated to respond to any other employees except
those specifically designated.
(iv) ITG support shall be available during all regular operating hours of the
library. ITG shall respond within 24 hours to determine the nature of the
error or defect in the product. ITG shall provide the maintenance and
support services during the service period by telephone, facsimile, email,
modem, on site visit or any other means which its deems appropriate, at
its sole discretion, to adequately provide those services.
(v) ITG shall supply Customer without charge any and all updates,
improvements, modifications and releases to the Licensed Programs that
ITG makes available to its licensees generally without charge, provided
that ITG reserves the right to charge separately for new options or new
applications that, in the discretion of lTG, constitute a new software
product.
(vi) Maintenance services to be provided by ITG under this Agreement do not
include:
(a) Correction of errors arising from changes, alterations, additions or
modification by persons other than the employees or agents of ITG or
caused by the operation of the Product other than in accordance with
the operating specifications;
27
(b) Correction of errors arising from the fault, neglect, misuse or omission
of the Customer or its servants, agents, contractors, or invitees, or
any other person whether or not that person is under the control or
direction of the Customer;
(c) Rectification of errors or defects caused by the incorrect or
unauthorized use, modification, revision, variation or translation of the
software by the Customer or its servants, agents, contractors or
invitees;
(d) Repair of damage arising from the failure or surge of electrical power,
fusion, fire, air conditioning malfunction, damage caused in
transportation or any other environmental factor or cause other than a
cause arising from normal use of the Product.
(e) Correction of errors caused by the use of computer programs not
licensed by ITG for use by the Customer.
(b) Assiqnment of Warranties on Hardware Products. In addition to lTG's obligations
under the Maintenance Agreement, ITG hereby assigns to Customer all rights of ITG under any
manufacturer's warranties applicable to Hardware Products purchased under this Agreement to
the extent such assignment is permitted under such warranties. Such assignment will be effective
upon payment of the Total Purchase Price and all other charges invoiced for the shipment of the
Products. Except as provided hereunder or pursuant to an executed Maintenance Agreement,
ITG shall have no obligation to provide maintenance support or other services for Hardware
Products purchased under this Agreement.
(c) Limitation on Services. Notwithstanding the above, in the event that
Customer or any third party enhances, modifies, alters or otherwise makes any change to
the Products without the prior express written consent of /TG, /TG shall have no obligation
whatsoever to provide maintenance or support of such Products at any time after such
enhancement, modification, alteration or change. Notwithstanding anything herein to the
contrary, /TG's obligation to provide maintenance and support for the Licensed Programs
shall extend only to the most recent version and the next most recent version of the
Licensed Programs provided to Customer.
(d) Upqrades. The information technology industry is very dynamic and marked by
frequent product replacement and upgrades. With respect to hardware and third party software,
Customer retains the responsibility for the costs of purchase and installation of upgrades
necessary to maintain the functionality of system.
(e)
following:
Customer Obliqations. During the term of this Agreement, Customer shall do the
(i) Customer shall provide ITG with sufficient documentation, information,
assistance, support and test time on Customer's computer system, to duplicate any reported
problems, certify that the problem is with the Products, and certify that the problem has been
corrected.
(ii) Customer shall perform problem definition activities, and any
remedial or corrective actions, as described in the Licensed Programs customer manuals
and other system documentation provided to Customer by lTG, prior to seeking assistance
from ITG.
(iii) Customer shall provide lTG's Maintenance personnel with proper and
28
safe access to the equipment and software at all requisite times for the purpose of providing the
maintenance services.
(iv) Customer will provide ITG with at least 30 days written notice of the
Customer's intention to move the equipment to a location other than the premises.
29
ITEM NO.6
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
CIl
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for FY 2006/07
PREPARED BY:
Gus Papagolos, Fiscal Services Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendation
from the Finance Committee and staff.
2. Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub-Recipient Agreements and to
reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the current budget resolution for general
administration of the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Community Development Block Grant
Funds.
BACKGROUND: The CDBG program is a federal grant program administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in which funding is allocated to the City
annually through the Economic Development Agency (EDA) of Riverside County.
The application requests were reviewed for eligibility for CDBG funding by our program representative
at the EDA and all of the applications are eligible for funding. In order for a project to be considered
for funding, it must meet one of the following national goals:
1. The activity benefits 51 percent low/moderate income persons; or,
2. The activity aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or,
3. The activity meets an emergent community development need.
A total of ten (10) applications were submitted to the City for consideration and all were determined to
be eligible for CDBG funding. The City's allocation for FY 06/07 is anticipated to be $492,252. CDBG
regulations impose a 15 percent cap from the total allocation for Public Services. The Finance
Committee is recommending a total expenditure of $73,837 for Public Services, which is within the
15% cap and the balance of $418,415 is for public facilities and capital improvement projects (refer to
the table on the following page).
FY 06/07 CDBG ALLOCATION
FUNDING CATEGORY FUNDING
ALLOCATION
2006-07 CDBG Allocation - estimate $492,252
Less Public Services (15% CAP) -73,837
Project Funding available for Public Facilities/I nfrastructure $418,415
Due to the possibility that the City's allocation may be reduced, it is recommended that all projects
be reduced equally, according to the percentage in allocation reduction. All projects are subject to
final approval at a future Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting. The EDA will submit a
supplemental agreement to the City identifying the projects approved for funding in July 2006. Also,
for general information this FY 2006/2007 CDBG funding cycle begins the first year of a three-year
cooperation agreement with the County EDA. At the term of this agreement the City will review the
benefits for application of entitlement status with HUD.
The Finance Committee composed of Council member's Mike Naggar, and Maryann Edwards, met
on December 13, 2005 and after thorough review, are proposing CDBG funding for ten (10) public
service organizations and two (2) City capital projects as described in the attachment. It is further
noted that CDBG funding for the Volunteer Center of Riverside County, 211 program, is not
recommended by the Finance Committee and thatfunding forthis program will be considered during
the City annual operating budget review.
FISCAL IMPACT: The CDBG funds allocated to outside agencies have no impact on the
City, other than staff time needed to administer program requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Finance Committee Recommendations
2. FY 06/07 CDBG Applications Funding Summary (Available Upon
Request)
FINANCE COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Prior Year
Public Services Award
Funding
Requested
Finance Committee
Funding
Recommendation
Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) $10,000 $69,222 $5,000
Operation School Bell 11,000 15,000 11 ,000
Boys & Girls Club of Temecula 11,000 30,000 11 ,000
Court Appointed Special Advocates 2,000 12,000 2,000
Rape Crisis Center 4,000 5,000 5,000
Safe Alternative For Everyone 8,000 15,000 13,000
Emergency Food Aid 10,000 10,000 10,000
Circle of Care 7,500 22,380 7,500
YMCA 4,773 10,000 5,000
American Red Cross 4,000 10,000 4,337
Volunteer Center of Riverside County 0 15,123 0
Total Public Services Proiects (15% Cap = 73,837) $72.273 $213.734 $73.837
Non-Public Service Projects Prior Year
City Facility Award
Funding
Requested
Finance Committee
Funding
Recommendation
Old Town Gym $209,990 0
Temecula Community Center Expansion $209,989 $268,415 $268,415
Sam Hicks Monument Park 0 $150,000 $150,000
$419979 $418415 $418415
Total Non-Public Service
Grand Total $492.252 $632.149 $492.252
(Total projected CDBG Allocation = $492,252)
ITEM NO.7
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
;)12.
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit
Construction Bids for the Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk Area
Project No. PW06-01
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Principal Engineer
Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and
authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Slurry Seal Project FY
2005-2006, Redhawk Area, Project No. PW06-01.
BACKGROUND: As in previous years, the Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk
Area, Project No. PW06-01, will utilize a Rubberized Emulsion - Aggregate Slurry (REAS) to seal
the project roadways against water intrusion. This is a preventative maintenance measure used
periodically (i.e., five to seven years) or as needed, to prolong pavement life. It involves cleaning and
crack sealing the existing roadway surface, applying the REAS and performing pavement
delineation.
Staff has defined the street locations based on current pavement conditions, time elapsed since the
last preventative maintenance measure and geographical proximity. Type II slurry seal will be used
on the selected roadways.
The plans and specifications have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for
construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The
Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $571,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Public Works Department
Maintenance Division FY2005-2006 Budget for Routine Street Maintenance, Account NO.001-164-
601-5402.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . List of Streets
2. Map of Streets
LIST OF STREETS
FOR
PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA
LENGTH VVIUIH
LOCATION (FT) (FT) (SF)
CHANNEL STREET BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD TO NIGHTHAWK PASS 2,970 37 109,890
DORCHESTER DRIVE CHANNEL STREET TO MANCHESTER ROAD 585 37 21,645
MANCHESTER ROAD - CHANNEL STREET TO DORCHESTER DRIVE 800 36 28,800
SCARBOROUGH LANE - DORCHESTER DRIVE TO MANCHESTER ROAD 520 37 19,240
PENBROOK LANE CHANNEL STREET TO KINGSTON DRIVE 825 37 30 525
KINGSTON DRIVE - PEN BROOK LANE TO END OF STREET 1,580 37 58,460
CHOATE STREET - CHANNEL STREET TO NIGHTHAWK PASS 580 40 23,200
NOTTINGHAM LANE - KINGSTON DRIVE TO CHOATE STREET 230 36 8,280
KATIE COURT - CHANNEL STREET TO END OF STREET 400 37 14,800
SHORT COURT CHANNEL STREET TO END OF STREET 240 37 8,880
CHOATE STREET - NIGHTHAWK PASS TO ABBEY ROAD 140 36 5,040
~
ABBEY ROAD - CHOATE STREET TO END OF STREET SOUTH 1,160 36 41,760
ABBEY ROAD - CHOATE STREET TO END OF STREET NORTH 1,632 36 58,752
LOVE COURT - ABBEY ROAD TO END OF STREET 305 36 10980
LEONA COURT - ABBEY ROAD TO END OF STREET 350 37 12,950
LYDIA COURT ABBEY ROAD TO END OF STREET 865 37 32,005
CHANNEL STREET - NIGHTHAWK PASS TO ABBEY ROAD 150 36 5,400
CALLE BANUELOS - NIGHTHAWK PASS TO LONGFELLOW AVENUE 155 36 5,580
LONGFELLOW AVENUE - CALLE BANUELOS TO END OF STREET SOUTH 370 36 13,320
LONGFELLOW AVENUE - CALLE BANUELOS TO END OF STREET NORTH 1080 36 38 880
SUBTOTAL SF:
548,387
Exhibit "C"
C-2 of C-7
List of Areas
LIST OF STREETS'
FOR
PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA
.......... TH WIDTH AREA
LOCATION (FT) (FT) (SF)
EL CHIMISAL ROAD - REDHAWK PARKWAY TO CRESTVIEW DRIVE 655 61 39,955
CRESTVIEW DRIVE - EL CHIMISAL ROAD TO QUAIL CREST DRIVE 570 37 21,090
QUAIL CREST DRIVE - CRESTVIEW DRIVE TO EASTRIDGE PLACE 425 36 15,300
EAGLE CREST LANE - EASTRIDGE PLACE TO END OF STREET 845 36 30,420
MORNING VIEW DRIVE - EAGLE CREST LANE TO EASTRIDGE PLACE 1,125 36 40,500
EASTRIDGE PLACE - MORNING VIEW DRIVE TO REDHAWK PARKWAY 935 37 34,595
VIA PUEBLA - REDHAWK PKWY. TO MONTE VERDE ROAD (Golf courts main!.) 1,436 36 51,696
ANASAZI DRIVE - VIA PUEBLA TO END OF STREET 1,440 37 53,280
MERONA COURT ANASAZI DRIVE TO END OF STREET 170 46 7820
CORTE BARELA - PEPPERCORN DRIVE TO END OF STREET 450 38 17,100
--:-
CORTE RICARDO - CORTE BARELA TO END OF STREET 670 36 24,120
CORTE ROYAL - CAMINO RUBI TO END OF STREET 460 37 17,020
CAMINO RUBI- PEPPERCORN DRIVE TO END OF STREET 710 36 25,560
CAMINITO ROSADO - CAMINO RUBI TO CORTE CARMELLO 435 37 16,095
CORTE CARMELLO CAMINITO ROSADO TO END OF STREET 1,475 36 53,100
VIA PLATA- CORTE CARMELLO TO PEPPERCORN DRIVE 160 40 6,400
CORTE ZARAGOZA - PEPPERCORN DRIVE TO END OF STREET 675 37 24,975
PASEO GALLANTE - CORTE ZARAGOZAZA TO CORTE SABRINAS 1770 36 63 720
SUBTOTAL SF:
542,746
Exhibit "e"
C-3 of C-7
List of Areas
LIST OF STREETS
FOR
PW06.01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA
LENuTH WIDTH AREA
LOCATION (FT) (FT) (SF)
CORTE SABRINAS - PASEO GAlLANTE TO END OF STREET 1,225 36 44,100
VIA LA COlORADA - CORTE SABRINAS TO DEER HOllOW WAY 2,670 41 109,470
CORTE ORIZABA - VIA lA COlORADA TO END OF STREET 780 37 28,860
CORTE MATARO - CORTE ORIZABA TO END OF STREET 170 37 6,290
AVENIDA BElLEZA - CORTE ORIZABA TO CORTE TO BARRA 200 37 7,400
CORTE TOBARRA- PASEO GAllANTE TO END OF STREET 645 37 23,865
CAMINO SAN DIMAS - PASEO GAlLANTE TO VIA LA COlORADA 990 41 40,590
CORTE OAXACA - VIA PERALES TO END OF STREET 260 37 9,620
VIA PERALES - VIA lA COlORADA TO DEER HOllOW WAY 870 37 32190
FRANCISCO PLACE - CAMINO SAN DIMAS TO CORTE FRANCISCO 200 36 7,200
CORTE FRANCISCO - FRANCISCO PLACE TO VIA LA TRANQUllA 410 36 14,760
VIA lA TRANQUILA - CAMINO SAN DIMAS TO END OF STREET 980 36 35,280
BIJAN COURT - JON WilLIAMS TO END OF STREET 245 37 9,065
RUTH COURT - JON WilLIAMS TO END OF STREET 215 37 7,955
DRYMEN AVENUE - SHARON STREET TO END OF STREET 1000 37 37 000
KOHNOOR WAY - PEACH TREE STREET TO END OF STREET 1,120 37 41,440
JON WilLIAMS WAY - DEER HOllOW WAY TO KOHNOOR WAY 1,500 37 55,500
VINE STREET - PEACH TREE STREET TO END OF STREET 1,810 36 65,160
SHARON STREET - VINE STREET TO ANZA ROAD 3,265 37 120,805
LIANNE COURT - SHARON STREET TO END OF STREET 220 38 8360
SUBTOTAL SF:
704,910
Exhibit "c"
C-4 of C-7
List of Areas
LIST OF STREETS
FOR
PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA
LENGTH WIDTH AREA
LOCATION (FT) (FT) (SF)
VIANNE COURT - SHARON STREET TO END OF STREET 700 38 26,600
.
GRACE COURT - SHARON STREET TO END OF STREET 600 37 22,200
DRYMEN AVENUE - SHARON STREET TO ANZA STREET 1,200 37 44,400
CARPET COURT - DRYMEN AVENUE TO END OF STREET 560 37 20,720
ROMANCE PLACE - SHARON STREET TO DRYMEN AVENUE , 2,760 37 102,120
TOY COURT - ROMANCE PLACE TO END OF STREET 620 36 22,320
LINDA COURT - ROMANCE PLACE TO END OF STREET 285 36 10,260
JANE PLACE - ROMANCE PLACE TO END OF STREET 315 36 11,340
PUFFIN STREET - ROMANCE PLACE TO DRYMENN AVENUE 1000 . 37 37 000
KENNEDY COURT - ROMANCE PLACE TO END OF STREET 560 37 20,720
MONTE DRIVE - DRYMEN AVENUE TO END OF STREET 1,125 37 41,625
GALAXY COURT - MONTE DRIVE TO END OF STREET 236 37 8,732
CALLESITO VALLARTA - CORTE SABRINAS TO RED HAWK PARKWAY 350 37 12,950
CORTE LERMA - CALLESITO V ALLART A TO END OF STREET 800 36 28,800
CALLESITO FADRIQUE - CORTE LERMA TO END OF STREET 980 37 36,260
CALLE AYORA- CALLESITO FADRIQUE TO CAMINITO OSUNA 1,980 36 71,280
CORTE GABAL VA - CALLE A YORA TO END OF STREET 160 46 7,360
VIA ALMAZAN - CALLE AYORA TO REDHAWK PARKWAY 250 36 9000
SUBTOTAL SF:
533,687
Exhibit "C"
C-5 of C-7
List of Areas
LIST OF STREETS
FOR
PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA
LI:N""" WIDTH ~
LOCATION (FT) (FT) (SF)
CORTE TOMATLAN - CALLE AYORA TO END OF STREET 235 37 8,69t
CAMINITO OSUNA- CALLE AYORA TO CAMINITO OLlTE 1,295 36 46,620
CAMINITO OLlTE WOLF VALLEY ROAD TO PASEO SAN ESTEBAN 1,480 37 54,760
PASEO SAN ESTEBAN - CORTE LOBOS TO CORTE RODRIGO 660 36 23,760
CORTE RODRIGO - PASEO SAN ESTEBAN TO END OF STREET 525 36 18,900
CORTE LOBOS - CALLESITO FADRIQUE TO END OF STREET 1,000 36 36,000
CORTR DAROCA - CORTE LOBOS TO END OF STREET 380 36 13,680
CORTE MONTRILO - CAMINITO OLlTE TO END OF STREET 1900 37 70 300
PASEO PARALLON - REDHAWK PARKWAY TO VIA SERON 2,075 37 76,775
CORTE HIDALGO PASEO PARALLON TO END OF STREET 180 47 8,460
VIA SERON - PASEO PARALLON TO END OF STREET 2,090 37 77,330
CORTE NAUTIA - VIA SERON TO END OF STREET 230 32 7,360
CORTE MOREllA - VIA SERON TO END OF STREET 250 32 8,000
CORTE VALENCIA - VIA SERON TO END OF STREET 225 32 7,200
CAMINO PALENCIA- PASEO PARALLON TO TO CAMINO GUARDA 215 36 7,740
CAMINO GUARDA CAMINO VESTE TO VIA BENABARRE 1,265 37 46,805
CAMINO VESTE CAMINO GUARDAATO VIA CORDOBA 1170 37 43 290
SUBTOTAL SF:
555,675
Exhibit "C"
C-6 of C-7
List of Areas
. LIST OF STREETS
FOR
PW06-01, SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006, REDHAWK AREA
.......... j H VVIUIH
LOCATION (FT) (FT) (SF)
CORTE FRAGA - CAMINO VESTE TO END OF STREET 185 46 8,510
CORTE ZORITA - VIA BENABARRE TO END OF STREET 235 36 8,460
VIA BENABARRE - CAMINO VESTE TO CAMINO GUARDA 1,280 36 46,080
CORTE ZORITA - VIA BENABARRA TO VIA CORDOBA 430 36 15,480
VIA SAL TIO - REDHAWK PARKWAY TO VIA CORDOBA 3,500 36 126,000
CALLESITA ORDENES - VIA SAL TIO TO CAMINO ROSALES 1,010 37 37,370
CAMINO ROSALES - CALLESITA ORDENES TO WOLF VALLEY 1,760 37 65,120
CALLE TIARA CAMINO ROSALES TO END OF STREET 380 37 14,060
CORTE MONTOYA CAMINO ROSALES TO END OF STREET 1,040 37 38 480
CORTE PALMITO - CALLESITO ORDENES TO END OF STREET 650 37 24,050
CORTE PROGRESSO - CALLESITO ORDENES TO END OF STREET 1,125 36 40,500
CAMINO SAN JOSE - VIA SAL TIO TO WOLF VALLEY 1,560 43 67,080
CORTE BONILlO - CAMINO SAN JOSE TO END OF STREET 520 37 19,240
CORTE BURGOS CAMINO SAN JOSE TO VIA SAL TIO 850 36 30,600
CORTE ELDORADO - VIA SAL TIO TO END OF STREET 1,205 32 38,560
VIA CORDOBA - REDHAWK PARKWAY TO CAMINO VESTE 155 40 6,200
PASEO DURANGO - CORTE MONTOYA TO CAMINO SAN JOSE 845 37 31265
AGUILA COURT - CAMINO CARMARGO TO END OF STREET 540 36 19,440
VISTA VERDE - AGUILA COURT TO END OF STREET 860 37 31,820
CAMINO CARMARGO REDHAWK PARKWAY TO END OF STREET 490 37 18130
" SUBTOTAL SF: , 686,445
TOTAL SF: 3,571,850
Exhibit "C"
C-7 of C-7
List of Areas
EXHIBIT D
AREA MAP
PROJECT NO. PW06-01
SLURRY SEAL PROJECT FY 2005-2006
REDHAWKAREA
LOW-LINDA
<
g
~
<
5
:&F
""
DCity
===. Streets to be Slurry Sealed
- Streets
A
!\'JE-l'Il'OI\OELl'/'.ISN'<O
o 365 730
--
1,460
2,190
2,920
Feet
r:'(Jlslkellilarcmap.Jl<<IjlsluITLredhawk_mayra.mxrl
ITEM NO.8
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit
Construction Bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006
Project No. PW06-02
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Principal Engineer
William Becerra, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and
authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete
Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006, Project No. PW06-02.
BACKGROUND: This annual Concrete Repair project will repair various damaged
concrete facilities maintained by the City. The Public Works Maintenance Division surveyed,
addressed and compiled a list of damaged sidewalks, curb & gutter, cross gutters, spandrels,
driveway approaches, access ramps, and under sidewalk drains. Those needing immediate repair
are includes in this project.
The specifications have been compiled and the project is ready to be advertised for construction
bids. The contract documents are available for review in the City Engineer's office.
The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $ 112,000.00.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Public Works Department
Maintenance Division FY 2005-2006 Budget for Routine Street Maintenance, Account No. 001-164-
601-5402.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Concrete Repair List - FY 2005-2006
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CONCRETE REPAIR LIST
2006
.... .. < .
...
... QUANTITY
LOCATlON.AREA#1 ",,,,v, -.:OF', EF SF
>
45250 JERONIMO '18X61 R & R SIDEWALK 108
SIZZLER RESTAURANT JEFFERSON 1501 NIO VIA MONTEZUMA R & R CURB & GUTTER 93
SIZZLER RESTAURANT JEFFERSON 1501 N!.O VIA MONTEZUMA R & R COMMERCIAL DRIVE APPROACH {948 X 131 624
30628 E. LOMA LINDA 115X61,{13X6\ R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 168
ACROSS FROM 41593 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO. R & R SIDEWALK {32 X 6\ 192
27230 MADISON AVENUE AT BUECKING R & R SIDEWALK {10 X 6\ 60
27230 MAOISON AVENUE AT BUECKING R & R CURB & GUTTER 10
E1S JEFFERSON A VENUE AT CHERRY STREET R & R CURB & GUTTER 11
27230 MADISON A VENUE AT BUECKING R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
EIS ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO. 150' NIO WINCHESTER R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
BETWEEN 41581 & 41593 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO. R & R UNOERSIDEWALK DRAIN
41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO. R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
BAY HILL AT CLUBHOUSE /14X6\ R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 84
41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO, R & R CURB & GUTTER {In, {221 . 33
41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO. {10X61 R & R SIDEWALK 60
R:\MAINTAIN\CQNCRETE REPAIRS LISTI2006
LOCATION... ..AREA#2 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY
... LF SF
E/B RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1150' E/O MEADOWS PARKWAY R & R SIOEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 110 x 61 60
E/B RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. APPROX. 200' W/O BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. R & R CURB & GUTTER 29
29601 MIRA LOMA DRIVE 110X5' R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 50
32230 CALA TORRENTE R & R CURB & GUTTER 11
32238 CALA TORRENTE R & R CURB & GUTTER 25
32235 CALA TORRENTE R & R CURB & GUTTER 25
30011 VIA VELEZ PLACE R & R CURB & GUTTER 22
S/E CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AT CALLE VENTURA R & R SIDEWALK /6 X 5' 30
N/E CORNER OF PASEO GOLETA AT RANCHO VISTA ROAD R & R SPANDRAL 112 X 10\ 120
N/E CORNER OF PASEO GOLETA AT RANCHO VISTA ROAD R& RCROSSGUTTERI13X 13\, 112 X6\ 241
NIW CORNER OF PASEO GOLETA AT RANCHO VISTA ROAO R & R SIDEWALK /12 X 10\ 120
N/S OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD 1,000' E/O SOUTHERN CROSS R & R UNOERSIDEWALK DRAIN
NtS OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD 800' E/O SOUTHERN CROSS R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
N/S OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD 200' E/O MIRA LOMA ISIGNAU R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
42182 ROANOAKE STREET 110X61 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 60
42182 ROANOAKE STREET 111 X6\ R & R DRIVE APPROACH 66
WtB SANTIAGO ROAD 20' EtO QUIET MEAOOWS ROAD R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 17X6\, 114 X 6' 122 X 2\ 170
42182 ROANOAKE STREET R & R CURB & GUTTER 23
2
R:\MAINTAlN\CONCRETE REPAIRS USTI1006
LOCATION- AREA#3 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY
. LF SF
41437 CHENIN BLANC COURT /23X6\ R & R SIOEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 138
42153 SOUTHERN HILLS DRIVE 115X41 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 60
41760 BARGIL COURT R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
.
3
R:\MAINT AIN\CONCRETE REPAIRS LISTI2006
LOCATION- AREA#4 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY
.. LF SF
SIB WINCHESTER BY HIGH SCHOOL R&RSIDEWALK (50X6\ 300
NIW CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AT COUNTY CENTER ORIVE R & R SIDEWALK (13 X 6\ 78
EIS OF YNEZ ROAD 50' NIO PROMENADE MALL DRIVE R& RSIDEWALKAT AT&T AT MANHOLE LID (21 X 6\ 126
SIE CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD ATYNEZ COURT (41 X 15\ R & R HANDICAP RAMP AND SIDEWALK 615
40925 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN
.
,
.
4
R:\MAINTAIN\CONCRETE REPAIRS LISTI2006
lOCATION - AREA #5 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY
IF SF
CORTE MONTOYA AT CAMINO ROSALES R & R CROSS GUTTER 134 X 10l 340
NIE CORNER OF OVERLAND TRAIL AT REDHAWK PARKWAY R & R SIDEWALK (10 X 6\ 60
SIE CORNER OF PRIS LANE AT SAWYER RUN DRIVE R & R SIDEWALK 18 X 6\ 48
WIS OF SAWYER LANE 100' NIO PRIS LANE R& RSIDEWALK {21 X61 126
45959 & 45951 CORTE CARMELLO . R&R SIDEWALK (20X6\ 120
45959 & 45951 CORTE CARMELLO . R & R DRIVE APPROACHES 153X61 318
45959 & 45951 CORTE CARMELLO . R & R CURB & GUTTER 67
SHARON STREET AT GRACE COURT 16X6\ R & R SIDEWALK 36
. AT THESE LOCATIONS, CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND DRIVE APPROACHES HAVE SUNK. POSSIBLE WET SUBGRADE. EXCAVATE
OUT WET SUBGRADE AND BRING BACK UP WITH CLASS II BASE (NEED THIS AREA TO DRAIN\.
TOTAl CROSS GUTTER 581 SQ. FT. 8" TOTAl CURB AND GUTTER 349 LN. FT.
TOTAl SPANDRAL 120 SQ. FT. TOTAl SIDEWALK 2,254 SQ. FT.
TOTAl UNDERSIDEWALK DRAINS 9 TOTAL COMMERCIAL DRIVE APPROACH 624SQ. FT.
TOTAL HANDICAP RAMP 615 SQ. FT. TOTAl DRIVE APPROACH 384SQ. FT.
.
5
R:\MAINTAIN\CONCRETE REPAIRS LIST\2006
ITEM NO.9
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
V
CIZ
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Amendment NO.1 - Professional Services Agreement for Bridge Inspection
Services - Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services Inc.
Ynez Road Bridge (Widen) over Santa Gertrudis Creek - LD04-051 CO
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Principal Engineer - CIP
RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe City Council approve amendment number 1 to the agreement
with Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $15,868.00 plus
10% contingency for professional bridge inspection and construction engineering services for the
Ynez Road Bridge (Widen) over Santa Gertrudis Creek Road, Project No. LD04-051 CO, and
authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
BACKGROUND: On December 14, 2004 City Council approved an agreement with
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services Inc (PB) to provide bridge inspection services for the
widening of the Ynez Road Bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek, which is one of several conditioned
improvements. Lennar Communities, the developer of the Harveston Development, will be
completing to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Harveston Development. The bridge construction
work has taken longer than originally planned and thus the amount of time spent performing the
necessary inspections has also taken longer than originally budgeted. In preparing the amendment,
PB has considered the amount of work remaining and determined the requisite number of
inspections necessary to assure the work is completed per the approved plans and specifications.
FISCAL IMPACT: The professional services for the Ynez Road Bridge (Widen) over
Santa Gertrudis Creek are funded with inspection fees collected from the Developer, which will
ultimately be reimbursed from Harveston CFD bond proceeds. The original authorization for this
professional services agreement was $53,434.00, which included the agreement in the amount of
$48,577.00 plus a 10% contingency of $4,857.00. The current request for $15,868.00 plus a 10%
contingency amount of $1,586.80 which will increase the total authorization to $70,888.80.
Adequate funds will be available in Account No. 001-2618.
ATTACHMENTS:
Amendment NO.1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
YNEZ ROAD BRIDGE (WIDEN) OVER SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK
LD04-051 CO
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of January 24, 2006 by and
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Parsons Brinckerhoff
Construction Services, Inc. ("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 December 14, 2004, the City and Consultant entered into that certain
agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for professional bridge inspection and
construction engineering services ("Agreement") in the amount of Forty Eight
Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars and No Cents ($48,577.00) plus a
10% contingency.
B. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this
Amendment.
2. Section 1.of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on December 14, 2004 and shail
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event
later than January 24, 2007, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
3. The parties now desire to increase the payment amount for additional bridge
inspection and construction engineering services in t he a mount 0 f Fifteen Thousand
Eight Hundred Sixty Eight Dollars and No Cents ($15,868.00) plus a 10%
contingency and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
Section 5 a. PAYMENT
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the
payments rates and terms of payment set forth in Exhibit B for providing
additional bridge inspection and construction engineering services described in
Section B of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
as though set forth in full. The first amendment amount shall not exceed Fifteen
Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight Dollars and No Cents ($15,868.00) for
additional bridge inspection and construction engineering services for a total
contract amount, of Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five Dollars
and No Cents ($64,445.00).
4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
R:\Agreements\HarvestonCFD\Parsons Brinckerhoff Amend 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Parsons Brinckeroff Construction Services, Inc.
505 S. Main Street, Suite 900
Orange, CA 92868
Glen Suitor, Senior Vice President
Christopher E. Reseigh, President
(Two Signatures Required For Corporations)
2
R:\Agreements\HarvestonCFD\Parsons Brinckerhoff Amend 1
ATTACHMENT A
Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the additional scope of work and associated cost as
provided by the Consultant.
3
R:\Agreements\HarvestonCFD\Parsons Brinckerhoff Amend 1
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Amendment Number 1
to the agreement between
City of Temecula
and
ParsonsSrinckerhoff Construction Services, Inc.(Consultant)
for
Construction Inspection Services
1. Purpose. The City and Consultant wish to amend the agreement as follows:
2. Amended Services. The referenced Consultant Agreement ("Agreement") between
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services, Inc. ("Consultant") and City, dated December 14, 2004 is amended to
extend the duration of services and change the billable hourly wage rates as follows; See Attachment A, PBCS Bill
Rates.
3 Amended Compensation and Payment. The original compensation of Forty Eight thousand five
hundred seventy seven Dollars ($48,577.00) Is changed by this Amendment 1.
Summary of Amended Amount
Original Amount
Amendment 1
Total
$ 48,577.00
$ 15.868.00
$ 64,445.00
4. Amended Term. The Date of completion of the Agreement is unchanged. Upon execution by
PBCS and the City, this Amendment is effective as a notice to proceed with regard to the dates cited herein.
2006.
5. Additional or Amended Agreement Provisions. Extension of Contract Time to February 28,
6. Other Provisions. All other provisions, terms and conditions of the Agreement are unchanged
and remain in full force and effect.
7. This Amendment fully incorporates all of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the
parties hereto with reference to the Amended Services, Amended Compensation and Payment, Amended Term and
Additional or Amended Agreement Provisions. It Is expressly agreed that the Consultant has received full accord
and satisfaction for provision of the Amended Services and acceptance of the Additional or Amended Agreement
Provisions upon receipt of the Amended Compensation and Payment, Amended Term, and other valuable
considerations. This Amendment will become effective only upon the execution of this document by District and
PBCS.
Parsons Brinckerhotl Construction Services, Inc.
City of Temecula
~'ul\J\-
Glenn W. Suitor, Senior Vice-President
1'l-)J"Ilos
Date
Mr. Greg Butler, Principal Engineer
Date
----
----
--
AMENDMENT
--
--
100
YE,AFlSe
For
Ynez Road Street Improvements, Santa
Gertrudis Creek Bridge Widening
From:
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
Approved:
1M- 0 JJ:
Date: November 18, 2005
Glenn W. Suitor, Senior Vice President
To:
City of Temecula
November 18, 2005
ScoDe of Services
1- Review working drawings for deck forming, shoring, pier and abutment form work
2- Perform as-built survey of existing bridge, prepare deck contours (4-scale)
3- Prepare grades for abut/pier wall and deck construction
4- Prepare grades for barrier rail construction
5- Provide full-time inspection for
a pile driving
b concrete pours for footings, abutment/pier walls, diaphragms, bridge deck
c deck grinding
d barrier rail
6- Provide part-time inspection, as needed, for all other bridge activities listed on staffing schedule.
Prepared by PBCS, Inc. 12/20/2005
Page 1
PBCSCOSTPROPOSALSUMMARY
Ynez Road Street Improvements, Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge Widening
City of Temecula
Project Start:
Project End:
Duration (months):
18-Nov-05
28-Feb-06
3.4
1) BURDENED LABOR COSTS
REGULAR TIME
$14,562
TOTAL BURDENED LABOR COST
2) DIRECT EXPENSES:
$1,268
Fee @ 3%
$38
TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES
TOTAL
$15,868
Attachment "A"
Prepared by PBCS, Inc. 12/20/2005
Page 1
~
.S
~
~
::It
&
.~
~
t
o
.!/l
l
~
(g
.s
lij
Vi
.tl'
fii
~ Ii
Q S
~ ~
~ !i
~ t ~
z g) ~
~,5\J
LL. \I) Q)
~ " ~
In l!!;:;
In ~ "'"
u cs
Ul ~ ~
A. 1:::.....
~Q
.""
00
~A..
z~t'i
=~
.;;-
:Ii
"
.. "
t:"E
J9i.....
"'w"
n~
1'''~
.../La
~;~:\~~~
I:! I!! "
.
.
s
s
"
11
g
~
~
l;
~
t
s
s
~
.1:
~
~
~
&
~
~
t
o
.!Q
l
t!
&
.l9
~
Ii;
~
ii
m
~
~
Ii; .si
Ou ....
lQ~
IX e:::i
oc:l~
~ ~ ~
..J :!!.;;:
1Il~ "'"
U a
a:l ~~
Do. ~\j
!x~
z~Cl'i
~~
.;;;-
;;
.
.. 0
t:"e
""l!~
'liw ~
n~
0.0."
I
~
g
1i
~
~.
..
~
.
~
PBCS BILL RATES
Ynez Road Street rmprovements( Santa
Gertrudis Creek Bridge Widening
City of Temecula
Project Start:
Project End:
Duration (months):
18-Nov-OS
28-Feb-06
3.4
REGULAR TIME
BILL RATES
11/18/2005
POSTTION NAME FIRM 2/28/2006
Bill Rate
1 Project Manager/Engineer Greg Brown . PB 165.000
2 Bridge Inspector Rob Cowan PB 96.000
3 Project Administrator Janice Viado PB 61.000
Prepared by PBCS, Inc. 12/20/2005
Page 1
PBCS HOURLY RATE I COST SCHEDULE
Ynez Road Street Improvements, Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge Widening
City of Temecula
Project Start:
Project End:
Duration (months):
18-Noy-05
28-Feb-06
3.4
[[ RRM[ 18-Noy-05 through 28-Feb 06
BURDENED
POSrrrON NAME BILUNG DIRECT TOTAL WAGE
HRS RATE WAGES HOURS COST *
1 Project Manager/Engineer Greg Brown PB 14 165.00 $2,310.00 14 $2,310
2 Image Inspector Rob Cowan PB 120 96.00 $11,52D.OD 12D $11,520
3 ~roJea AOmlnlsrraror Janice Viado PB 12 61.00 $732.00 12 $732
I 146 $14,562 II 146 $14,562 I
$14,562
Prepared by PBCS, Inc. 12/20/2005
Page 1
PBCS ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES
Ynez Road Street Improvements, Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge Widening
City of Temecula
Project start:
Project End:
Duration (months):
IS-Nov-OS
2S-Feb-06
3.4
UNIT
UNIT QTY COST ($) SUBTOTAL ($) TOTAL ($1
Hours 14 7.00 $98
Hours 120 7.00 $840
$938
Months 3 60 $180
$180
A) LEASED VEHICLES/O&M
Project Manager/Engineer
Bridge Inspector
B) FIELD EQUIPMENT
Monthly Nextel Service
C) MISCELLANEOUS TOOL I EQUIPMENT I SUPPLIES
Tools/EquipmentlSupplles Actual
3
50
$150
$150
TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES
$1.268
Prepared by PBCS, Inc. 12/20/2005
Page 1
ITEM NO.1 0
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
V
CIZ
Lf
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
William G. Hughes, Director of public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Award the Construction Contract for Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II -
Project No. PWOO-09
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Principal Engineer
Laura Bragg, Project Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Award a construction contract for Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II, Project No.
PWOO-09 to Grade Pros Inc. DBA: McKenna in the amount of $1,367,663.15 and authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract;
2. Authorize the City Managerto approve change orders notto exceed the contingency
amount of $136,766.32, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
BACKGROUND: On January 11, 2005 the City Council approved the Construction
Plans and Specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids
for the subject project. On December 8, 2005 revised Waterline Plans were signed by Rancho
California Water District for inclusion in the subject project.
The project will widen Pauba Road to its ultimate width from Margarita Road to east of Showalter
Road. This project will include asphalt pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, asphalt/concrete berm,
drainage facilities and striping for access to the new library site, and construction of the new water
line that will service the new Temecula Library.
Five (5) bids were received and publicly opened on January 9,2006. The results were as follows:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
1. Grade Pros Inc. DBA: McKenna $1,367,663.15
2. Riverside Construction Company, Inc. $ 1,462,281.00
3. Vance Corporation $ 1,597,611.75
4. Road Builders, Inc. $ 1,645,675.00
5. R. J. Noble Company $ 2,125,516.05
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office.
Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found Grade Pros Inc. DBA: McKenna, of Corona,
California, to be the lowest responsible bidder. Grade Pros Inc. DBA: McKenna has extensive
experience grading for private developments and has successfully completed similar projects.
The Engineer's estimate for this project was $1 ,550,000.00. The specifications allow one hundred
and twenty (120) working days for the completion of this project
FISCAL IMPACT: The Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II is a Capital Improvement
Program project funded through Development Impact Fees -Street Improvements and Measure A..
Adequate funds are available in the project construction account no. 210-165-606-5804 to cover the
total construction cost of $1,504,429.47, which includes the contract amount of $1,367,663.15 plus a
10% contingency amount of $136,766.32.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Description
2. Location Map
3. Contract
~
.~
....
~
u
~
~
t;
f:l
c
~
0;
'=
P
'tJ
<II
.-
f
ll-<
:=
~.s2
E-< "' ..
<> ~
. .-
'"d .~ Q)
~:S.;3
~cS~
~ <D U'J
~ bD ::J
"iil .. 0
~ .g 'f!
ll.a E
'" "'
"-<"Cl::J
o a 8
~
~ gp]
~.- '"
B 'E'.@>
"Cl "' "'
ttf ....g
&@<>
s]il
'g <> B
~e g
co 0 .....
::sg:a
SO"Cl
~..
o ~ d
<./::..::J ."
'"d 0.. Q)~
ttf ~.t::
o "'
p::~, ?->
,ttf 53 a
1lsJ3
ttf lU~
P-. ~ ~
Olo 0. <>
~ ol
~ca]
5.~~
S rn B
<> '" "'
> <> ~
o '"0 ~
.... ::J ~
E-(j S .
.-.S &: ~
ctI_ 0 $-0
.- '"a S ~
~..::J bD:':::
~ ~.~~
E! <> .a .g
tnS-Si:.
5 ~ ~ ~
(,) 8 cT::::::
5"0 o...g'~
.~ ~.~ ~ tii
0;:: bi)~:-E-5
[) "(ij 'P' ;>
.~ iD a 2 ~
U Q 0. 0.:':::
;;.;
E-<
~
o
~
~
.....
.....
r.l
lZl
~
~
I
'"
E-<
Z
r.l
~
~
o
..:
~
~
~
~
~
~
=
o
E-<;:l
~.~
.4; U
e ~
ll-<~
0\~5
o ::::s.-
octlta
o~oo
~ol<>
P-. o.~
~~
5B
~"g
>..9
8>-<<
0.",
.~ .~
Be!>
.. ..
.~::s
"3 [1
~E
Cl <>
0.0
".;j '"d
~ g
~~
g.g
"Cl ..
dP-.
"'~
g;.J5
.- .......
"' "'
.J5,€
bBg
.S <>
~>:S
<>
o bD
8 ol
'" 0. 0
O_ctt
~ttf'"d
V) E Q)
'" <>"Cl
~ ~ ~
-8]
~ ">;=:
z iJ'~
"Ei <II bD
g il .@
().g !:l
~::J~
IO~
"' .S ....
t1-+->
~~~
~
o 0 .
;.::: (l)-'"d
,.D''='"l cd
::J 8..9 oof
.c..tP-l~oo
fj
<II
.. os
1$ ~
~~
~~
~ e
~lZl
"j
-
.-
"'
<>
-B
o
-
"'
"'
<>
o
g
<>
"Cl
.;:
8
"Cl
a
ol
.8
tii
'3
l:l
'1]
o
S
~
-
<>
>
8
.~
:=10
.~ N
1:) '0'"
Q) f2
E ("\)'"
P-.
~
o
U
.....
'"'
<II
.-
o
...
,;.;~
-t;l _
~ =
~ b
=E-<
o ~
E-<_
..... ...
'" l3
o 0
Uu
o
.....
,
""
o
o
N
""
o
,
00
o
o
N
00
o
t!-
o
o
N
t-
o
,
'"
o
o
N
0000
OOlrlN
oo~r-
o 1.0"' 00 0\'"
O\OO\-.:::t
- -
"f
o 0
o t-
V) '"
c--.......-(...
- C'"l
'"
'"
EA-EA-fA-EA-EA-EA-
0000
OOV)("l
\Ooo"'>:tC--
c:r 0'" \0'" 00" 0\"'
l(}O\OQ\'<;f"
0__
~ N'"
00
Ot-
V) '"
t"---"............
-C'"l
'"
(".f
EA-EA-EA-EA-EA-€/3-
o
0\
~~t';.
~ ~ ~
.....~
'"'
<$
""
""
<:l
o Cl
'p 0
~ 013
J E
<~
00
V) 0
lrlf'!.
- -
C'"l
-
"" ""
bD
'5
<>
.~
~ <iI
<:l "Ei
.S: v
t ~
~ .@> .E~ ~
E rG Eo
U Q ~E-<
"'
"Ei
<>
~
8
j
-
<>
<>
....
-
'"
,
;>, "'
- <>
"iil <>
::J ~
~
o
'"
V)
",'
o
N
o
..
j
o "Ei
g <> <
V)" s <>
g. ....
_ ::J
~ ~
<> <>
""Q::S
""
j!l
s
u~
~ ~
olJ...
o'S
<> <II
2 ~
= 0
...'"
000
"'t't-_
tr) \0.. N
.q-"' - v5
00 V) C'"l
-"''''
C'f N
"" "" ""
N
'"
bh
~
~
"iil
-
o
E-<
I:l ~
'D
J;I;l 3T'Y.)
CIl
~ CAU.E VENTURA
=-
,
CIl
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ oru.\saY RC
~ w
0
~ Yl11t\3.L~O
~
~ /
~
'"4 ;;
b ;:l z~
E:
~ ....
'"
Q)
.-
~ CO
..
=-
/'
\;'
u
~\~~
!f
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PWOO-09
PAUBA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE /I
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 24th day of January, 2006, by and between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Grade Pros,
Inc. (DBA: McKenna), hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree
as follows:
1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PWOO-
09, PAUBA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all
modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and
Specifications for Construction of Local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the
California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans,
Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and
promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as
amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications
for PROJECT NO. PWOO-09, PAUBA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II. Copies of
these Standard Specifications are available from. the publisher:
BNi Building News
Division of BNi Publications, Inc.
1612 South Clementine St.
Anaheim, California 92802
(714) 517-0970
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials,
and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General
Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO.
PWOO-09, PAUBA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract
Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in
lieu of, such conflicting portions.
Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in
complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed
and in place and that oniy the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise
specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and
incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract.
CONTRACT
C-1
CipJProjects\PWOO-09\Agreements\Construction Contract
The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as
binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract
Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract.
2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed,
shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment,
and all utility and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PWOO-09, PAUBA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance
with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents
hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY.
3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished
and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to
the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives.
4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR
agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ONE
MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY THREE
DOLLARS and FIFTEEN CENTS ($ 1,367,663.15), the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed one hundred and
twenty (120) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY.
Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that
the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order,
changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as
established by the City Council.
6. PAYMENTS
A. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE:
Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to
the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the
work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its
accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the
City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's
payment requests.
B. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE:
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days
after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be
paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed
according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or
about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses.
The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be
CONTRACT
C-2
Cip/Projects\PWOO-09\Agreements\Construction Contract
made six1y (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR
filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms
provided by the CITY.
C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law,
accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for
which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of
the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of
the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an
acceptance of any part of the work.
D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30)
days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code
Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference.
E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the
retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the
Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project
is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce
the retention to the Engineer.
7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government
Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one
thousand dollars ($1,500.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond
the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted
from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will.be
granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for
unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the
CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. Within ten (10) calendar days of the
occurrence of such delay, CONTRACTOR shall give written notice to CITY. Within thirty
(30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, CONTRACTOR shall provide written
documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to CITY. CONTRACTOR'S failure to
provide such notice and documentation shall constitute CONTRACTOR'S waiver,
discharge, and release of such delay claims against CITY.
8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6
above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to
work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the
payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of
all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to
execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment.
9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of
the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract; from the Director
of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California
Department of Industrial Relation's Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov.
CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the
CONTRACT C-3
Cip/ProjeGts\PWOO-09\Agreements\ConstnJction Contract
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the
CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each
laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for
. any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation
of the provisions of the Contract.
10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or
in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone.
CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers,
employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY.
The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any
and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The
CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CITY.
12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or
representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or
any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this
project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed
by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contract, CONTRACTOR shaH file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, aH firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors
upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against
the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an
affidavit covering disputed claims 0 r items in connection with a Stop Notice which has
been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge
that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely
performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof,
including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY.
16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part
thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable
times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
CONTRACT
C-4
CipfProjects\PWOO-09\Ag reements\Construction Contract
17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspectipn and testing by CITY and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner
as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and
acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final
inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
18. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not,
discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national
origin, color, sex age, or handicap.
19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the
State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to
this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning
this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with
geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the
parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be
entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation.
20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of
a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no
board member, officer or employee of t he City of Temecula has any interest, whether
contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business
of the contracting party other than t he City of T emecula, and that if any such interest
comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all
such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest
would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section
1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the
Government Code of the State of California.
21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor
is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
336, as amended.
22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents,
and to the CITY addressed as follows:
Mailing Address:
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Street Address:
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
CONTRACT
C-5
Cip/Projects\PWOQ..Q9\Agreements\Construction Contract
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the
date first above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
Grade Pros, Inc. (DBA McKenna)
1335 Corona Pointe Court
Corona, CA 92879
(951) 736-7707
Tim McKenna, President
Print or type NAME
Print or type TITLE
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
DATED:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk
CONTRACT
C-6
Cip/Projecls\PWOO.QglAgreements\Construction Contract
ITEM NO. 11
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Maintenance Facility Expansion (Field Operations Center)
Sewer Connection Fees, Project No. PW03-06
PREPARED BY:
Greg Butler, Principal Engineer - CIP
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the payment of sewer connection fees
in the amount of $65,348.67 to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to establish sewer service
for the new City Field Operations Center being constructed adjacent to City Hall.
BACKGROUND: On July 13, 2004 the City Council approved the master plan for the
expansion of the City's maintenance facility onto the 3-acre +/- parcel south of City Hall and also
approved an agreement to complete the design of the expansion now known as the Field
Operations Center (FOC). Phase 1 of the project, the parking lot which will serve the completed
facility and will also provide overflow parking for the existing City Hall, is under construction. Phase
2 of the project that will construct the secure corporate yard and the roughly 17,000 square foot
building is currently going through plan check and is slated to be bid in March of 2006. In addition to
providing much needed room for the City's maintenance operations, the new building will also allow
for some relief of the overcrowding within the existing City Hall & Maintenance Facility.
At this time it is necessary to finalize the various utilities that will serve the new facility. As EMWD is
the utility purveyor that provides sewer service is this area, application was made for a sewer
connection. EMWD calculated the connection fees based upon the planned uses of the new facility.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Maintenance Facility Expansion (Field Operations Center) is a
Capital Improvement Program Project funded with Development Impact Fees - Corporate Facilities,
Public Facilities and Capital Project Reserves. Adequate funds are available in the project account,
Account No. 210-165-742-5804.
ATTACHMENTS:
EMWD Service Order
DATE: 01/03/06
8.0.#'8: 211822,211832,211837
EASTERN MUNICIP AL WATER DISTRICT
r PROJECT SEiiNUMBER: 1283176
r LOT NUMBER(S): 9
I PROJECT NUMBER: 19580
TWATERCONo: .
I SEWER CO No:
I
I
CUSTOMER INFORMATION
CUSTOMER/COMPANY NAME: GREG BUTLER / CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF
MAILING ADDRESS: 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR TEMECULA CA 92590
D.L.#:
8.S.#:
LOT INFORMATION
LOT SUBLOT SERVICE
NO. NO. SERVICE ADDRESS CONNECTION LOCATION TENANT TYPE ORDER APN
9 0, OFFICE BUILDINGS 211822 921-020-079
9 9A 43230 BUSINESS PARK DR. W/S BUSINESS PARK DR OPEN STORAGE 211832 921-020-079
TEMECULA 92589 @RANCHOWAY (SMALL)
F ACILlTIESIW AREHOU
SES - LESS T
9 9B 43230 BUSINESS PARK DR. CAR WASH- WAND 211837 921-020-079
TEMECULA 92589 TYPE
WATER INFORMATION
SEWER INFORMATION
WATERLD./SA: 1
PIPE SIZE & LOCA TION:
n DOMESTIC RATE BOOK NO:
rllRRlGATION RATE TBG:
DRAWING NO: ZONE:
SEWER I.D./SA: U8/32
PIPE SIZE & LOCATION:8"VCP
NO.OF UNITS:I5.69 EDU'S I RATE:S401
TBG:958 G6 I WATER COMPANY:RCWD
DRA WINGNO:9883
FEE INFORMATION
FEE DESCRIPTION ASSESSED TOTAL'
AMOUNT
ROUGH PLUMBING INSPECTION 135.00 $135.00
SEWER FPC - BASED ON 6,430 SO FT OF STORAGE 1,303.68
SEWER FPC - BASED ON 1.400 Sf) FT CAR WASH -WAND TYPE 9,870.72
SEWER FPC BASED ON 11,317 SO FT OF OFFICE SPACE 13,176.48 24,350.88
SEWER LATERAL INSPECTION - PROPERTY LINE 90.00 90.00
SEWER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 1,924.44
SEWER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 14,570.76
SEWER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 19,450.59 35,945.79
WASTE DISCHARGE APPLICATON 120.00 120.00
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL SEWER 252.00
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL SEWER 1,908.00
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL SEWER 2,547.00 4,707.00
Total $65,348.67
*This Application shall become null and void if it has not been executed on beb.alf of Applicant and District, and
Applicant-has not fulfIlled its fmancial arrangements as set forth herein above, concurrently with Applicant's
execution of this Application,on or before March 28. 2006. --
ALL NON-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE CONNECTIONS:
EMWD INTIALS
CUST. INTIALS
Page 1 of 2
DocumentlD: 2724715
ITEM NO. 12
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
p..r
/JIZ
9g
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Utility Easement Deed within Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park
PREPARED BY:
Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Grant a Joint Utility Easement to Southern California Edison Company, Verizon
California Inc. and Century-TCI California for the perpetual easement and right-of-way for
construction, operation and maintenance of their facilities within Kent Hintergardt Memorial
Park;
2. Authorize the City Clerk to record the Utility Easement Deed.
BACKGROUND: The City Council approved a Ground Lease Agreement for the Boys
and Girls Club of Southwest County on October 28, 2003. The first amendment to this agreement
was approved July 12, 2005. The Ground Lease Agreement and the First Amendment allows the
Boys and Girls Club to construct a facility within Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park.
The development plan for the Boys and Girls Club facility was approved by the Planning
Commission on May 18,2005. Construction of the facility began in August. This easement allows
Southern California Edison Company, Verizon California Inc. and Century-TCI California to provide
utility service to the Boys and Girls Club facility at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant of Easement
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9033
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTIONS 6103 AND 27383
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
Space above this line for Recorders Use
GRANT OF UTILITY EASEMENT
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF
TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as GRANTOR, does hereby grant to
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation; VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC., a
corporation and CENTURY-TCI CALIFORNIA, L.P., a limited Partnership d/b/a/ Adelphia Cable
Communications jointly, and their successors and assigns, hereinafter designated collectively as
GRANTEE, a perpetual non-exclusive easement upon, through, under, over and across the
hereinafter described real property for the installation, construction, maintenance, repair,
replacement, reconstruction, and inspection of utility facilities including any and all structures and
appurtenances incidental thereto in, on, over, under, upon, along, through and across the property
of the GRANTORS, together with the right to have and hold said easement unto itself and unto its
successors and assigns forever and to convey said easement, or any portion thereof, to other public
agencies.
The real property referred to hereinabove and made subject to said easement by this grant is
situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, and is more particularly described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(See Exhibits - "A" & "B" attached and incorporated herein by this reference as
set forth in full)
The GRANTOR shall not construct buildings or structures, install trees or bushes, or otherwise
obstruct in any fashion whatsoever the use of said easement by the GRANTEE, its successors or
assigns without the express written consent of the GRANTEE.
The GRANTEE shall have the right but not the obligation to remove any buildings, structures, trees
bushes or other obstruction that interfere with the right of the GRANTEE to use said easement.
C\WINDUWSlapsdocmettemp\4344\$ASQpdf79152S. doc
The GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, shall be jointly responsible for maintaining and keeping
in good repair the above described works and shall have a right-of-entry upon the property of the
GRANTORS for the purposes of inspecting, operating, maintaining, and keeping in good repair the
above described works of improvement, provided that the GRANTEE shall jointly restore the surface
or repair any damage following any underground work.
There is reserved to the GRANTORS, their successors and assigns, the right and privilege to use
the above described land of the GRANTORS at any time, in any manner and for any purpose not
inconsistent with the full use and enjoyment by the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, of the
rights and privileges herein granted.
WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has executed this instrument this
,20_.
day of
GRANTOR: CITY OF TEMECULA,
a Municipal Corporation
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
C\WINDUWSlapsdocmettemp\4344\$ASQpdf79152S. doc
DATE: 11/21/05
SHEET 1 or 1
EXHIBIT "A"
EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY PURPOSES WITHIN LOT 184 (PARK SITE) OF TR. 23267-2
FILED IN MAP BOOK 237 AT PAGES 63 THROUGH 69, INCLUSIVE, OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A STRIPS OF LAND, 6.00 FEET
WIDE, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(i) COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND, SAID CORNER
BEING A POINT ON THE CURVED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF VIA DEL CORONADO. AS SHOWN
ON TRACT NO. 29305-1, FILED IN BOOK 350 AT PAGE 71 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS
OF 76.00 FEET, A RADIAL TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 31" 19' 41" EAST;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVED RIGHT -OF -WAY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
35'50'09" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.53 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1153.90 FEET, A RADIAL TO SAID POINT
BEARS SOUTH 30'54'33" WEST;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
00'33'22" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 11.20 FEET TO POINT "A";
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
08"31'50" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 171.80 FEET;
THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT LINE SOUTH 52"09'29" EAST 120.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 79'59'31" EAST 26.80 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 53"01'10" EAST 14.64 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 36'58'50" WEST 1 0.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS,
(ii) BEGINNING AT SAID POINT "A" MENTIONED ABOVE;
THENCE NORTH 32'59'20" EAST 171.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS,
THE SIDELINES OF SAID EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROLONGED OR SHORTENED
SO AS TO FORM CONTINUOUS STRIPS OF LAND.
CONTAINS: 3,163 SQ. FT., 0.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
,
Cfj~. {( fe-rJo)
ANTHONY J. TERICH DATE
ReE 21914, EXP, 9/30/07
~
0>
CD 00
'.....
'" ,~
H'tOtOZ
l;:; z;g '-. CD 0
..... Wz ..... '-.w
J: ,..., ocr
(f) ~~ N to w
~Uf3Ulm ,., ~
zf5Q)~ ~ m a
~::!:lL.- cr ::!: 1.&J
O::!EO~ W a:: Vl
wO I.&J Q. W m<
mu~~ a a.
lL.lL.oll..O:: 00:
000.00 a::: 0
(Jo~
f-I-w...... W U
~~::J~a::: w
000::0 II a:::
a.a.f-Q. ~ II
, ;;:
0111 I I (():
",00
t3 aiua:i~ Co ,.,
@ ciooo? ~
...J a:cLa.;cL ~ f-..
I- ~ ~
....
o
.....
o .
g~~~
_fD~-
O<'l~
~
..........;;:
. . .
~oo
Zf'I')-&n
00.';-00
~U')Oll)
f;Jln"'lD
a::::""'U')t")
ocnzz
a::
.....
m
::e
~:;~~
~
.
"~
lS'"
i\lS'
~ ~.
~ <\)
&"
~
~
ti
4'J'
/.....
O'
<<.
~
~
,.....
0>
'D
1
0:: (D ..; I'")
I: fZ::>~~
m ..J "
I: ~Og~
t::~~ I gj
mW-W........
-~C)I-N
"T" -I
.... ~ Ul "
X :x::'D
W~(I)O::~
- >- 0.<( N
::!O
I-(D .
::> ~
~
ci
I-
(j if: --111
$ iw
t.J ~!
-.I
Q
9 z.
~ o~
>
];
l;
Z" .
....."'0
:JI/)<'I
o~;:
~
f>)
b
Ul _ 0>
::>0 .
-0'"
~ . Ul
CD~
.....~
No>
I'D
"I
'DI'")
'<tN'D
<Xl 1'")'-
N"
I'")
N
In
::;:
~
Cl
z' .
<0><'1
0<'1
~b;."
:.JUl'"
l.IJlnb
0"'0
a::
.....
m
::e
::>~<'I
zoo
~
g~
l'
,
i
/
W
>
. 0:: 0
000>
Z to
:x::N
- 0:: Ol
~<(
::;:0. .'D
W W ()~
0::<:> 'D
00 -I
lJ..._<l:
0::...l'D
~..., =>"
""I'")()'D
...,j......wl
-' to::;:O>
<(I'")WO
I'<tl-O>
ITEM NO. 13
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
J#.r-
CIZ
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mitch Aim, Chief of Police
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Old Town Police Department Storefront Lease Extension
PREPARED BY:
Heidi Schrader, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a three year lease extension for the
Police Department Old Town Storefront property to include a monthly rate of$1 ,875 a month and a
total amount of $67,500.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula Police Department has operated a storefront
facility at 28410 Front Street, Suite 105 since February 25, 2000. This storefront offers Police
services to the community, which include fingerprinting, filing copies of Police Reports, collecting
impound and repossession fees, and crime prevention assistance. The storefront also serves as
the current base of operations for the City's Temecula Citizen's Corps (TCC).
The City of Temecula leases the storefront property from The Gabriel Family Trust and Old Town
Plaza, LLC through their agent D.L. Phares & Associates, a property managementfirm. In February
2000, the initial lease was approved with a base monthly rental rate of $1 ,000 a month. The base
monthly rental rate is adjusted annually based on the 11'h District Cost of Funds with a minimum
increase of 4% and a maximum increase of 6%. In addition to the monthly rental rate, the City pays
a common area maintenance (CAM) charge on a monthly basis.
The original lease expired February 1, 2003, and was extended by D.L. Phares for an additional
three years. Atthattime, the base monthly rental rate was increased to $1 ,500 a month. Thatthree
year extension is due to expire on February 1, 2006. D.L. Phares has prepared a new lease
addendum, which will extend the lease for the Police Storefront another three years to February 1,
2009. The base monthly rental rate will be increased to $1,875 a month ($1.25 a square foot),
which is $.35 a square foot less than comparative property rates.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds exist within the 2005-06 Police Department budgetto
meet the increased base monthly rental rate. (001-170-999-5229)
ATTACHMENTS:
Lease Addendum A dated December 8, 2005
Jan 10 06 09:38a
D L PHARES ~ ASSOCIATES
951 695 7603
p.3
,
Lease Addendum A
This Lease Addendum A is made on December 8,2005 to that certain Lease dated February
25,2000, by and between The Gabriel Family Trust and Old Town Plaza, LLC, Lessor, and
the City of Temecula, Lessee.
It is agreed that the term of the lease will be extended for three years from February 1,2006
through January 31, 2009.
It is agreed that the new Base Monthly Rental Rate will be $1,875.00 ($1.25/SF) beginning
February 1, 2006 . The Base Monthly Rental Rate shall be adjusted each year on February
1. Adjustments shall be based upon the 11" District Cost of Funds. In no event shall the
annual rental adjustment be less than four percent (4%) nor more than six percent (6%). In
addition to the Base Monthly Rental Rate, Common Area Maintenance charges will be paid
by Tenant.
All other terms and conditions of the originai lease will remain in full force and effect.
Agreed to by:
eP
j -7 -D b
Date
avid L. Phares
Property Manager and Agent for
The Gabriel Family Trust and Old Town Plaza, LLC
Agreed to by:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Date
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
leaseAddendumA 12080S.wpd
ITEM NO. 14
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~(
IJIl
98
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Grant Yates, Director of Human Resources
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
2006 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal
PREPARED BY:
Denise Lanier, Senior Human Resources Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council select American Home Assurance Company (a
member of the American International Group Companies) as the City's Employee Workers'
Compensation Insurance Carrier for Plan Year 2006, which begins on February 1,2006.
BACKGROUND: Workers' Compensation Insurance continues to recover with rates
showing significant decreases. Because of legislation passed in 2004; carriers, who were severely
affected by past "open rating" market competition and increased claim costs are now experiencing
renewed profitability and are willing to offer reduced premiums for this line of coverage.
The City's insurance broker, Mike Bush of Brown & Brown, Inc./CaISurance, requested 11 market
quotes and looked into workers' compensation pools. In addition, he worked with five carriers
exploring the possibility of the City becoming self-insured. Mr. Bush was requested to explore all of
these 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 four providing quotations or indications. The quote from the
incumbent carrier, American Home Assurance Company (AIG), was the most economical of the
bids. Their proposal represents a 31 % decrease from 2005. It is reflective of a 6.6% payroll
increase and a 35.3% decrease in their combined rates and the City's estimated experience
modification. The City's actual experience modification has not yet been published for 2006. The
2005 expiring modification of 74% has been used as an estimate for this year's calculation. The
actual modification for 2006 is expected to be available shortly. The American Home Assurance
premium quote for the 2006 Workers' Compensation Plan Year (2/01/06 - 1/31/07) is $392,000.
This quote is $175,980 below the quote provided last year by American Home Assurance and is an
$187,062 savings under the premium developed using last year's rates and modification and this
year's estimated payroll. As a point of historical perspective, the City's 2005 Workers'
Compensation premium was $567,980.
Self-insurance proposals, were obtained offering self-insured retentions ranging from a low of
$500,000 to a high of $1 ,000,000. The risk of retaining liability at this level for each and every loss,
without availability of a stop loss feature, especially in view of a major catastrophe, does not appear
prudent at this time.
Based on the above listed quote, City staff recommends the City's workers' compensation coverage
remain with AIG for the 2006 Plan Year. The AIG 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 2006 contract year. Our Loss Prevention
Program will remain under the leadership of the City's Safety Committee, which as done an
outstanding job as evident by our expiring experience rating of 74%, which means that the City's
loss experience is 26% better than comparable municipal employers.
FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is requested, as adequate funds are available
within the current budget.
ATTACHMENT:
Workers' Compensation Renewal Proposal
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.l
'.-.---------.--1---
i.
'.
! ,~
: .
iINSURAN E
Brown at Brown, Inc'.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: January II, 2006
TIME:
Total No. of Pages Including Cover: 2.0
TO:
COMPANY:
FAX NO.:
Grant Yates
City of Temecula
951/694-6499
FROM: Mike Bush
FAX NO.: (714) 221-185:1
PHONE NO.: (714) 221-4196
EMAIL: mbush@bbsocal.com
.
RE: Workers' Compensation Renewal Proposal
Renewal Period: 2-1-06/07
Enclosed please find our renewal proposal for Workers' Compensation effective 2-1-06, As we
discussed, we approached 11 markets, including the incumbent carrier, American Home
Assurance Company.
The American Home Assurance Company proposal appears to be best. It includes an average
rate decrease of 35.3% under last year, incfusive of modification (which has not yet been
published and has been estimated at 74%. The same as last year).
The quote also, as you know, contemplates a 6.6% payroll increase over last year. This
increase, combined with the rate reduction, makes up a final premium decrease of 31.0% under
last year. $567,980 - 2005 vs. $392,000 - 2006. Premium using 2005 rates and modification
and 2006 estimated payroll would be $579,062 (savings of $187,062 from last year's rates),
Please note that American Home will require 15% down and 10 stipulated payments for the
balance of the premium (no monthly audits). AccountinCl should accrue for the final audit, which
will be done after expiration. Also. volunteer payroll will be pickedup on final audit at a rate
equal to the minimum waGe for that class of business. Let's discuss the need to keep accurate
records of volunteer payroll.
Please reviw the proposal and let me know if you have any questions.
Yours very truly,
Michael G. Bush
Senior Vice President
MB:dw
mbrol '(Iw.doc (01108)
Brown & Brown of California. Ino., Callfomla Insurance License OB02587
500 N, State College Blvd.. Suile 400, Olllng., CA 92558, P.O. Box 6989, Or.nw, CA 92863 ' 800'228-7975
JAN-11-2005 15:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.2
_- -----1"..-
.:;,
. .
RAN E
Brown 8l Brown, Inc..
PROPOSAL OF
WORI<ERS' COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
for
CITY OF TEMECULA
Coverage Inception Date:
02-01-06
Presented by:
Michael Bush
Sr. Vice President
January II, 2006
Cilurornla Insurance LIcense Oe025B7
500. N. Stale Collell" Blvd., Suite 400
Orange, CA 92668
1".0. Box 6989
Orangel CA 92863
714/221-1800
800/ 226-7975
714/221-4196 Fax
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.3
BROWN & BROWN OF CALIFORNIA, !INC.
VISION, VALUES AND COMMITMENT
INSURANCE IS OUR PRODUCT. SERVICE IS OUR BUSINESS.
.. 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.
.. To attract and retain talented people.
.. To recognize that people are important, and to encourage their
dedication and commitment through teamwork, education and
recognition.
.. 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.
. BrOWll III Brown, Inc::.
California Insurance License 0802$67
500 N. St~te College Blvd.. Suite 400
Or~nge, CA 92868
P.O. 80x 6989
Orange, CA 92863
714/221.1800
800/228.7975
7141.221-4198 Fax
rnb011dw- Tllmacul.. WCdQo; 2 (01106)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.4
BROWN 8l 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.
III Brown & Browo, loc.
California Insutanee Ucansl!J 0902587
500 N. SIaIO Collogo Blvd., Sulle 400
Orange. CA 92868
P.O. Box 8989
Orango, CA 92863
714/221-1800
800/228-7975
714/221-<1196 Fax
mb011dw a Te~ut.a We.doc 3 (01106)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.5
IMPORTANT NOTICE
DISCLAIMER
The attached forms are for illustration purposes only. Please read your policy for
specific details.
Disclaimer: This proposal 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.
Higher Limits may be available upon' request .... Premiums may be subject to audit
Premiums include/exclude Terrorism Coverage (delete include or exclude and this)
m00110W - TSmilculs \NO.doc "1 101/00)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.6
SERVICE TEAM
Account Executive;
Account Manager;
mI;lQ11dw_ T<:mecu];IWC.do~ 5 (01/06)
Mike Bush
Senior Vice President
Direct Line: (714) 221-1853
Cell Phone: (714) 342-2542
Home Phone: (714) 998-7479
Direct Fax: (714) 221-4196
Email: rnbush@bbsocal.com
Son Nguyen
Direct Line: (714) 221-1855
Direct Fax: (714) 221-4155
Email: snguyen@bbsocal.com
Call Our Toll Free "SOD" Number
1-800-228-7975
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.7/20
WORI<ERS' COMPENSATION.
EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION
Your experience modification for the current year 2006, February 1st is To
Be Determined. The modification was 74% in 2005 and is used as an
estimated modification in this proposal.
THIS MODIFICATION WAS DEVElOPED BY THE CALIFORNIA WORKERS'
COMPENSATION INSURANCE RATING BUREAU BASED UPON YOUR INDIVIDUAL
CLAIMS EXPERIENCE FOR THE FOLLOWING YEARS:
2004
2003
2002
mb011dw-TamocuIQWC,doc (1 (01/06)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.8/20
MARKETS APPROACHED BY
BROWN & BROWN, INC.
American International Group Companies
(AIG) American Home Assurance
Quotation Provided
Everest Insurance Company
$475,000 (Indication)
Republic Indemnity Company
Premium in excessbf $535,000
Argonaut Insurance Company
Declined
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Declined
Clarendon Insurance Company
$490,000 (Indicati9n)
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
Declined
Hartford Insurance Companies
Declined
Insurance Company of the West
Declined
Travelers Insurance Company
Declined
Zenith Insurance Company
Declined
mb011~-Teme(lulaWC.doc ., (01100)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.9/20
List of Carriers Approached providina Excess Workers' Compensation over Self-Insured
Retention:
. Ace American Insurance Company
. Insurance Corporation of Hanover
. Midwest Employers Casualty Company
. Continental - CNA Ihsurance Company
. 51. PaulfTravelers Insurance Company
mb011dw-1emeculaWC.doc B (01105)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.10/20
AREAS OF MAJOR CONCERN.
(ADDRESSED BY BROWN & BIlOWN, INC. AND COMPENSATION CARRIER)
1. Safety Committee
A. Carrier Loss Control Support
B. Film Library Available
C. Attendance by Brown & Brown, Inc.
2. Written Safety Program (Review and Update)
3. Reserve Reviews (Frequency Discuss)
4. Claims Recordkeeping
A. Ease of Reporting
B. Exchange of Information
5, Accident Investigation
MtlO11dw-TMI~.daWC.dClC 9 (01106)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.11/20
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
I. Best's Rating and Financial Size:
A++: XV; Admitted
(A Member of American Intemational Group, Inc.)
II. Location:
Costa Mesa, CA
III. . Strong Points:
. loss Prevention
. California Workers' Compensation Specialty Company
. Largest Insurance Company in the U,S.
IV. Review Services
Per Areas of Major Concern Section
mb011dW-'remeculsWCdDC ,0 (01/01$)
JAN-11-200p 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
CURRENT PROGRAM
P. 12/20
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P. 13/20
CURRENT PROGRAM AT 2005 PAYROLL ESTIMATE
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
Policy Period:
Estimated Annual Premium:
Type of Policy:
02-01-05 to 02-01-06
$567,980 plus State Mandated Fees ($14,915)
One Year
Classification Code 2005 Payroll Rate Premium
Municipal (non-manual) 9410 $6,990,653 9.21 $643,839
Municipal (all other) 9420 $870,849 17.24 150,134
Clerical 8810 $4,197,966 1.69 70,946
Total: $12,059,468 Subtotal: $864,919
. Modification: x ,74
Modified Premium: $640,040
Premium Modifier (including Estimated Premium Discount Factor): x .88716
Expense Constant: + 160
Estimated Total Premium: $567,980
California Admin. & Fraud Assessment: + 3,555
California CIGA Fee: + 11 ,360
2005 Rates
Code Without MOdincatlon With Modification 74%
9410 8.17 6.05
9420 15.29 11.32
8810 1.50 1.11
mIlO11dw-TemeClllti.WC.dDC 12 (01106)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P. 14/20
CURRENT PROGRAM AT 2006 PAYROLL ESTIMATE
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
Policy Period:
Estimated Annual Premium:
Type of Policy:
02-01-05 to 02-01-06
$579,062 plus State Mandated Fees ($15,205)
One Year
Classification Code 2006 Payroll Rate Premium
Municipal (non-manual) 9410 $6,518,720 9.21 $600,374
..
Municipal (all other) 9420 $1,122,156 17.24 193,460
Clerical 8810 $5,219,731 1.69 88,213
Total: $12,859,607 Subtotal: $882,047
Modification: x .74
Modified Premium: $652,715
Premium Modifier (including Estimated Premium Discount Factor): x .88716
Estimated Total Premium: $579,062
California Admin. & Fraud Assessment: + :3,624
California CIGA Fee: + 11 ,581
. 2005 Rates
Code Without Modification With Modification 74%
9410 8.17 6.05
9420 15.29 11.32
8810 1.50 1.11
m1J011d'oN-TemaculeWC.doc 13 (01106)
JAN-11-2006 16:58 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P. 15/20
PROPOSALS
JAN-11-2006 16:59 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.16/20
PROPOSAL
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
Policy Period:
Estimated Annual Premium:
Type of Policy:
02-01-06 to 02-01-07
$392,000 plus State Mandated Fees ($10,172)
One Year
Classification Code 2005 Payroll Rate Premium
Municipal (non-manual) 9410 $6,518,720 6,08 $396,338
Municipal (all other) 9420 $1,122,156 10.88 122,091
Clerical 8810 $5,219,731 1.35 70,466
. ,
Total: $12,859,607 Subtotal: $588,895
Estimated Modification: x .74
Modified Premium: $435,782
Premium Modifier (including Terrorism & Est. Premium Discount Factor): x .899165
. Expense Constant: -I- 160
Estimated Total Premium: $392,000
(Approx.) California Admin. & Fraud Assessment: + 2,332
California CIGA Fee: -I- 7,840
2005 Rates 2006 Rate,s
Code Without Modifioalion Wltl'l Modification Witl'lout Modification With Modification
74% 74% estImated
9410 8.17 6.05 5.47 4.05
9420 15.29 11.32 . 9.78 7.23
8810 1.50 1.11 1.21 .91
Note: 2006 Payroll up 6.6% over 2005
. 2006 Rates and Modification down 35.3% (average) from 2005
2006 Premium down 31.0% from 2005
Subject to Annual Aud/t
Higher Umits may be available upon request
mbQ1 1dw. Temcculil WC.doc 1fi {O1106}
JAN-11-2006 16:59 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.17/20
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PREMIUMS AND
RELATED INFORMATION
Premiums as Proposed:
$392,000 + $10,172 (California Surcharges)
Payment Plan:
Direct Bill
. This proposal is based upon the exposures to loss made known to the Agency. Any
changes in these exposures (i.e. new operations, new products, additiqnal states of
hire, etc,) need to be promptly reported to us in order that proper coverag:e(s) may be
put into place.
This proposal contains only a general description of the coverage(s) and does not
constitute a policy/contract. For complete policy information, including exclusions,
limitations and conditions, please refer to the policy document.
Subjectivities: None
Compensation - In addition to the commissions or fees received by us for a$sistance
with the placement, servicing, claims handling, or renewal of your insurance coverag'es,
other parties, such as excess and surplus lines brokers, wholesale brokers, reinsurance
intermediaries, underwriting managers and similar parties, some of whi<;:h may be
owned in whole or in part by Brown & Brown,lnc., 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. 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. 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.
Non-Admitted Carriers: (if applicable)
N/ A % Minimum earned premium
$
$
Taxes
Fees
Brown & Brown, Inc. does not have direct binding authority with this Excess and Surplus Lines
market.
n1fI011dW~Te"2!c:ub!WC_~ 16 (01106)
JAN-11-2006 16:59 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.18/20
I
CITY OF TEMECULA
Brown & Brown of California, Inc.
CLIENT SERVICE AGREEMENT CHECKLIST
January 11,2006
CURRENTLY
RECEIVING
I. Management Services
A. Organization of Insurance Files
B. Establishment of Insurance
Review Meetings
Monthly Q Quarterly Q Semi-Annual Q
C. Preparation of Bid Specification
for Bidding of Insurance Program
D. Preparation of Insurance
Summary for Auditors
E. Self-Insurance Analysis
F. Summary of Insurance
G. Profit Center Cost Breakdowns
II. Workers' Compensation Services
A. Review of Rating Classifications
B. Review of Previous losses
C. Analyze Causes of Losses
D. Audit of Experience Modification
Worksheet .
rnb011dw-TemllCLllaWC:.doe 17 (011OG1
I
DESIRED
JAN-11-2006 16:59 FROM:
7149391654
E. Computation of Experience
Modification Three Months in
Advance of Renewal
. F. Major Review of All losses Prior
to Dividend Computation
G. Major Review of All Losses Prior
to Submission to California
Inspection Rating Bureau Rate
Modification
H. Review of Insurance Company
Audit Procedures and Client
Payroll Records
III. Loss Prevention Services
A. Operation Survey
1. Unsafe Conditions
2. Unsafe Practices
3. Accident Investigation
4. On-Site Inspections
B. Special Hazard Surveys
1. Machine Guarding
2. Noise Control
3. Industrial Hygiene
4. Fire & Explosion Analysis
5. Product Control
mb011dw_T~ur,;;tWCdQl; is (01/00)
TO:951 694 6499
CURRENTLY
RECEIVING
P.19/20
DESIRED
JAN-11-2006 16:59 FROM:
7149391654
TO:951 694 6499
P.20/20
CURRENTLY _
RECEIVING DESIRED
C. loss Control Program
1. Establishment of Program
2. Regular Meeting Attendance
3. Establishment of Safety
Award Program (Including
Maintenance)
4. Maintenance of Program
D. Safety Training
1. Employee level
2. Supervisory level
3, Management level
E. Auto Fleet Service
1. Pre-Employment Forms
2. Driver Safety Meetings
3. Safety Awards
4. Preventative Maintenance
5. Term of Inspection
6. Accident Investigation and
Analysis
7. Control Reports to
Management
8. Riding with Drivers
9. Following Drivers
10. Motor Vehicle Records
11. Di'iver Packets
F. OSHA Compliance Programs
Mb01tdwwT~ItIWC.de.c 19 ~01/OO'
ITEM NO. 15
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
v
/JJL
L/
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Comments on Cable Television Franchising to Federal Communications
Commission
PREPARED BY:
Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve comments regarding cable television franchise provisions.
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the comments and direct staff to submit them to the Federal
Communications Commission.
BACKGROUND: Local governments are empowered by Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulations to negotiate and enter into franchise agreements with cable
television providers. Franchise agreements ensure local governments' control over their rights-of-
way, safe and reasonable construction and traffic control practices, minimum customer service
standards, and equitable access to services by the entire population. FCC regulations also provide
forthe imposition of franchise fees notto exceed 5% of the provider's gross revenue forthe covered
services. Franchise fees are typically used to help maintain the rights-of-ways that are impacted by
the provider's use and to provide other services to the community.
Recently, large providers of telephone and high speed Internet access services have begun entering
the cable television market and are bidding to provide these services over fiber optic systems as
part of a "bundled" services package. Verizon has recently approached the CityofTemecula and is
currently negotiating with the City for a cable franchise agreement.
The FCC is being lobbied by several potential cable services providers to relieve them of the burden
of negotiating franchise agreements with local authorities. Their claim is that such agreements
constitute a "barrier to entry" into the cable market for those other than incumbent providers.
The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) MB Docket 05-311 that makes a
number of assumptions and asserts that franchising of cable services by local governments may be
an unreasonable barrier to entry for new telco video providers. The FCC is seeking comments from
local governments and others on what can be done to ensure that local franchising authorities do
not unreasonably refuse to award cable franchises to competitive entrants.
This NPRM strikes at the heart of local governments' authority over those using the public property
in their community to deliver video services and could result in the preemption of local governments'
ability to control their rights-of-way. Staff has discussed this issue with the Council's Technology
and Telecommunications sub-committee representative, Chuck Washington and he is in support of
this item. As such, staff recommends that the City file comments outlining our concerns with the
proposed ruling.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the submission of comments
to the Federal Communications Commission. However, should the FCC find that local cable
franchising is a barrier to new entrants and ultimately abolish local governments' authority to control
such franchising, the City of Temecula may be unable to collect the franchise fees from those
providers exempt from franchising requirements. While those fees cannot be quantified at this time
since potential revenues are unknown, the City currently receives approximately $500,000 annually
in cable franchise fees from the incumbent provider.
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
)
)
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 )
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer)
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 )
In the Matter of
Implementation of Section 621 (a)(1) of
MB Docket No. 05-311
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
These comments are filed by the City of Temecula, California in support of the
comments filed by the National League of Cities and the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ("NATOA"). Like NLC and NATOA, the City
of Temecula believes that local governments can issue an appropriate local franchise for
new entrants into the video services field on a timely basis, just as they have for
established cable services providers. In support of this belief, we wish to inform the
Commission about the facts of video franchising in our community.
Cable FranchisinQ in Our Community
Temecula is a city with a growing population of approximately 92,000 people.
Our franchised cable provider is currently Adelphia, with an anticipated transfer to Time
Warner. Our City operates under a franchise agreement that was originally negotiated
by the County of Riverside prior to our city's incorporation in 1989. Since that time, the
City has reviewed and approved several transfers and/or changes in ownership of the
original franchise agreement and done so in a timely manner.
Our franchise agreement, approved by the County, expired in 2004 and is currently
extended by Resolution. The City was in active negotiations for a renewal agreement
when Time Warner applied for a transfer of franchise, pending approvals by the Federal
Communications Commission, Bankruptcy Court and other regulatory agencies. The
City fully anticipates entering into a robust franchise negotiation with the new cable
provider, Time Warner, once the transfer of ownership is completed, and it is our intent
to conduct these negotiations in a timely manner.
Competitive Cable Systems
Several months ago, the City of Temecula was approached by Verizon to provide
cable television services within the City as part of their nationwide Fios project. City staff
has met several times with Verizon representatives as the issues and language of a
cable franchise agreement are being discussed and finalized. It is the City's intent and
expectation to successfully reach consensus and approve a franchise agreement with
Verizon. Throughout these discussions to date the City has met with Verizon and
provided information or comments in a timely manner.
1
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in the City of Temecula. As
the above information indicates, we are experienced at working with cable providers to
both see that the needs of the local community are met and to ensure that the practical
business needs of cable providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that local cable operators are allowed access to
the rights of way in a fair and evenhanded manner, that other users of the rights of way
are not unduly inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way, including
maintenance and upgrade of facilities, are undertaken in a manner which is in
accordance with local requirements. Local cable franchising also ensures that our local
community's specific needs are met and that local customers are protected.
Local franchises thus provide a means for local government to appropriately
oversee the operations of cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure
compliance with applicable laws. There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy
in Washington to handle matters of specifically local interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including ours, to have a voice in
how local cable systems will be implemented and what features (such as PEG access,
institutional networks or local emergency alerts, etc.) will be available to meet local
needs. These factors are equally present for new entrants as for existing users.
The City of Temecula therefore respectfully requests that the Commission do
nothing to interfere with local government authority over franchising or to otherwise
impair the operation of the local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal
law with regard to either existing cable service providers or new entrants.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92590-9033
By:
Ron Roberts
Mayor
cc: National League of Cities, leanza@nlc.orq
NATOA, info@natoa.orq
John Norton, John.Norton@fcc.qov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Lonq@fcc.qov
Genevieve Morelos, League of California Cities, qmorelos@cacities.orq
2
ITEM NO. 16
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
/J1l
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
John Meyer, Director of Redevelopment
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Authorize City Manager to Approve or Modify Leases and Rental Agreements
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE
OR MODIFY LEASES AND RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 41943 MAIN STREET.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula owns an office building located at 41934 Main
Street in Old Town. The building contains several offices which are currently leased and rented.
Prior to the building being vacated, some of the leases may need to convert to month to month
rents. As a result, staff is requesting the City Council to authorize the City Manager to approve or
modify the current leases and rental agreements. This will allow a more efficient handling of the
leases and rents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will not result in any fiscal impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO APPROVE OR MODIFY LEASES
AND RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY AT 41934 MAIN STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Temecula owns the property at 41934 Main Street,
Temecula {"Property"). The Property contains several offices which are being leased to
various businesses on a lease and month-to-month basis. The City Council hereby
delagates to the City Manager the authority to enter into, terminate, modify, enforce and
otherwise implement rental agreements and leases for the Property on behalf ofthe City.
Section 2.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption ofthis Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of January, 2006.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
869851.1 1/13/06
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do
hereby certify that Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of
January, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
869851.1 1/13/06
ITEM NO. 17
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
JANUARY 10,2006
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at
8:13 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
5
DIRECTORS:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington
and Comerchero
ABSENT:
o
DIRECTORS:
None
Also present were City Attorney Thorson and City Clerk Jones.
At this time, outgoing President Washington presented the Community Services District gavel to
incoming President Comerchero.
With pleasure, President Comerchero presented to outgoing President Washington, in commemoration
of his two-year service as President of the District, a gavel mounted on a plaque.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
14 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve the minutes of December 13, 2005.
15 Acceptance of Landscape Bonds and Aqreement for Tract Map No. 31344
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Accept the surety bonds and agreement from Gallery Portraits Partners, LLC to
improve perimeter slopes and parkways along Ynez and Rancho Vista Roads along
with Open Space Lots 11 and 12.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion
was seconded by Director Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval.
R:\Minutes\011 006
CSD PUBLIC HEARING
16 Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11 - Service Level C. Perimeter Landscapinq and Slope
Maintenance and Service Level D. Refuse and Recvclinq Collection Services Rates and
Charqes
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 06-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING,
CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7,
2006 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO.11 AREA IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH
SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2006-
2007
16.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot and Procedures for the Completion, Return, and
Tabulation of the Ballots.
16.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the
aforementioned process.
Community Services Director Parker presented the staff report (as per agenda material).
The public hearing was opened; there being no public input, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Director Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval.
17 Tract Map No. 31344 - Service Level B. Proposed Residential Street Liqhtinq: Service Level
C. Perimeter Landscapinq and Slope Maintenance and Service Level D. Refuse and
Recvclinq Collection Services Rates and Charqes
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 06-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING,
CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7,
2006 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND
CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 31344 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE
LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL
YEAR 2006-2007
R:\Minutes\011 006
2
17.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot and Procedures for the Completion, Return, and
Tabulation of the Ballots.
17.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the
aforementioned process.
Community Services Director Parker presented the staff report (as per agenda material).
The public hearing was opened; there being no public input, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Director Edwards moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Director Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval.
CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Community Services Director Parker advised that the new Recreation Brochure has been
mailed to the residents.
CSD GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
No additional comment.
CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
President Comerchero commended Community Services Director Parker and the Community
Services Department on its receipt of four awards from the California Parks and Recreation
Society.
CSD ADJOURNMENT
At 8:20 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, January 24, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session
commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Jeff Comerchero, President
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\011 006
3
R:\Minutes\011 006
4
ITEM NO. 18
APPROVAL n,~
CITY ATTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE_t.l.tt =
CITY MANAGER '?~ .
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Departmental Report
PREPARED BY:
Gail L. Zigler, Administrative Assistant
Construction of the Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park (Wolf Creek Sports Complex) continues.
Installation of the field lighting, installation of artificial turf fields and parking lot are nearing
completion. Construction of the buildings and irrigation systems continue.
A construction contract has been awarded to Edge Development for the construction of the new
Temecula Public Library project. A ground breaking ceremony was held on Thursday, May 12,
2005. This project is currently under construction.
Construction of the Boys and Girls Club project at Kent Hintergardt Park is currently underway.
The Community Services Department released an RFQ to landscape architect firms for Redhawk
Park Improvements forthe four Redhawk park sites acquired on June 30, 2005 with the annexation
of Redhawk into the City of Temecula. Staff, Community Services Commissioners and Council
Member Chuck Washington conducted interviews of the three top ranked firms. Staff is currently
discussing the scope of service with the top ranked firm. A scope of service should be presented to
the City Council in February. This project will develop a variety of park improvements at four
Redhawk park sites. These improvements include picnic tables, picnic shelters, park benches,
sidewalks, tot lots, etc.
The Cultural Arts Division is busy preparing for the winter-spring sessions of classes and activities
as outlined in the Guide To Leisure Activities. In addition, the Cultural Arts Division is responsible
for the day-to-day operations at the Old Town Temecula Community Theater, the History Museum
and the Imagination Workshop, Temecula Children's Museum.
The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects
within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh and Harveston, as well as overseeing the
development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable
television services and assessment administration.
The TCSD Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of all City parks and
facilities, and assist in all aspects of Citywide special events.
c: I WINDOWSlapsdocmettempl83 721$ASQpdf79 I 649. doc
The Recreation Division staff is currently programming for the winter spring classes and activities
and special events.
c: I WINDOWSlapsdocmettempl83 721$ASQpdf79 I 64 9. doc
ITEM NO. 19
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JANUARY 10,2006
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:20
PM., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
5
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts,
Washington, and Naggar
ABSENT:
o
AGENCY MEMBERS:
None
Also present were City Attorney Thorson and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
18 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Approve the minutes of December 13, 2005.
MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve the Consent Calendar Item. The
motion was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous
approval.
RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comment.
RDA AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
In appreciation of his year as Chairman to the Agency, Chairman Naggar presented to previous
Chairman Roberts the mounted gavel plaque.
R:\Minutes\011 006
RDA ADJOURNMENT
At 8:23 PM., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Michael S. Naggar, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\011 006
2
ITEM NO. 20
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
f,#r-
/J1l
9fi
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Executive Director/Agency Members
FROM:
John Meyer, Redevelopment Director
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Monthly Departmental Report
Attached for your information is the monthly report as of January 24, 2006 for the Redevelopment
Department.
First Time Homebuvers ProQram
Funding in the amount of $100,000 is available for FY 05 -06.
Residential Improvement Proqrams
The program budget for FY 05-06 is $250,000, with $187,500 funded on 33 units. The amount
available to each participant increased from $5,000 to $7500.
Habitat for Humanitv
Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Habitat for Humanity to
develop a home-ownership project within the Pujol Neighborhood. The project located on the
northwest corner of Pujol and First Streets, will consist of 5 new single-family detached homes. The
houses are arranged along Pujol Street and a private lane. Habitat has resubmitted final grading
plans, street improvements and final map to Public Works for review.
On September 13, 2005, the Council amended the DDA to increase funding for the offsite
improvements and contribute an additional lot that will yield two additional home sites.
Dalton Mixed-Use
On May 28, the Council approved an Owner Participation Agreement with D'Alto Partners to build a
mixed-use affordable housing project. The project will consist of 24 units over 5,000 sq. ft. of
retail/commercial. The project is located on the north side of Fifth Street, west of Mercedes.
Facade Improvement/Non-ConforminQ SiQn ProQram
The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been completed:
. The Banquet Room
Design and install two wood signs
D The Wine Sellars
Design and Install 2 wood sandblasted signs,
Fayade exterior enhancements.
D European Cafe
Design and Install Five Wood Sandblasted Signs
D Truffles and Lace Tea Parlor
- Design and Install Three Wood Signs.
Old Town Promotions/MarketinQ
Dickens Christmas in Old Town
Another Dickens Christmas in Old Town kicked off on November 19 with Santa Claus being pulled
by a horse drawn carriage followed by strolling carolers. Santa was at his workshop every Saturday
and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. atthe Country Porch located at Third and Front Streets. Santa
Photos were available for both children and pets alike. Musicians Workshop performed every
Saturday from 12:00 p.m. to 1 :00 p.m. at the Wild Cactus. And every weekend included that Giant
Elf Dynamite Dave.
It was a Dickens Christmas every weekend through December 18, 2005 where dozens of carolers
greeted with song and filled Old Town with holiday cheer. The event included performers such as
the Vintage Singers, dressed in Victorian era holiday clothing strolling and caroling along Main
Street; the Full Measure Hand Bell Choir, the Mt. San Jacinto Jazz Band, the Valley Winds,
Community Music Day featured local schools and community performance groups in a full day of
musical celebration. Jazz and symphonic bands from Vail Ranch Middles School, followed by
Temecula Middle School, Temecula Valley High School and Murrieta Valley High School Jazz
Bands. Calvary Chapel of Murrieta presented their performance bands and choirs in a two-hour
performance.
UpcominQ Events
Other upcoming events will include the Bluegrass Festival on March 18 & 19,2006, the Painted
Parasol Music Festival, April 22, Western Days, May 20 & 22 and the Street Painting Festival, June
24 & 25.
ITEM NO. 21
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~("
~Il
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE:
January 24, 2006
Temecula Regional Hospital (Planning Applications 04-0462 (General Plan
Amendment), 05-0302 (Zone Change), 04-0463 (Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit), and 04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map))
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULACERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL
HOSPITAL AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959'{)80-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM
THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION
AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959'{)80-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462)
3. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 06-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR A SITE GENERALL Y LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302)
4. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD;
AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160
SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT
FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES,
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0463)
5. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULAAPPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468,
TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1
PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-
080-010 (PA04-0571)
BACKGROUND: On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan. On November 4,2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
to consolidate eight lots, including a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way (south of DePortola Road)
into one lot. Staff originally prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH
2005031017) and Mitigation Monitoring Program forthe proposed project. The original Initial Study
was circulated for a 30-day public review period from March 4, 2005 to April 6, 2005.
A City Council Subcommittee (Council Member Comerchero and Council Member Naggar) was
formed to meet with neighborhood groups to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee
formally met with the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met
with the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association on December 6,2004, and held a community
meeting on December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding
homeowners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners
were in attendance.
The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the
public include the following:
D Traffic and circulation (access points)
D Building height and views
D Compatibility with residences
D Noise
D Helipad (location and number of flights)
On April 4, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this project. Staff
received comment letters (Attachment 16) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration. In addition, citizens attending the Planning Commission hearing provided additional
oral comments. The following is a summary of the written and oral comments provided to the
Planning Commission:
California Environmental Qualitv Act (CEQA) Issues
D A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project
D There are analytical gaps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
D A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared
D Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain
D Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico
D Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area
D Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed
D Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts
D Mitigation is required for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction
(Phase II Dartolo Road access)
D Additional Burrowing Owl studies will be required
Traffic/Circulation Issues
D Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
D DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide
D Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be gated
for emergency access only
D Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project
D All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated
D Emergency room should be relocated
Noise Issues
D Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels
D Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
D Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise
Aesthetics
D The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area; views will be lost
D Windows will reflect too much light and create glare
Hvdroloqv and Groundwater
D Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be prepared
D Contamination from existing underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if
the contamination plume moves. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track.
The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these comments and recommended that an
Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was
held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the EIR
for the hospital project. It was determined that the EIR should evaluate impacts related to Traffic
and Circulation Issues, Noise, Aesthetics, and Hydrology and Groundwater. Staff met with the
Applicant's consultant to confirm the scope of the EI R, and the City oversaw the preparation of the
document. The Draft EIR (SCH # 2005031017 - the same number as originally given to the MND)
was circulated for public agency review and comment from September 28, 2005 to October 28,
2005. The State Clearinghouse granted a shortened review period of 30 days instead of 45 days,
because the City had previously circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and the
project scope had not changed.
November 16,2005 Planning Commission Meeting
On November 16, 2005, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Commission to present the
comprehensive Temecula Regional Hospital Project, the associated applications that will require
City Council approval, the Environmental I mpact Report (EIR) that was prepared for this project, and
to take public testimony concerning the proposal and the EIR. The Planning Commission was
informed by the EIR consultant and staffthatthe responses to written comments on the EIR had not
yet been completed, and the Planning Commission determined that a continuance would be in order
to review the entire record prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. It was determined
that the public hearing would be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission
on December 7, 2005. It was also recommended that the City Council meeting, originally scheduled
for November 22,2005, be continued to December 13, 2005. Chairman Mathewson then opened
the hearing for public comment.
A total of 46 people submitted Request to Speakforms. Of these, 39 people spoke, 29 in favor and
10 against the proposed project. During the public testimony portion of the public hearing, new
evidence was presented with regard to potential leaking underground storage tanks and the
potential for these to contaminate groundwater and an existing Rancho California Water District well
site adjacent to the project site. The California Environmental Quality Act requires jurisdictions to
evaluate the impacts of a project on the environment, and not the impacts of the environment on the
project. This pre-existing condition has been monitored by the State of California and it is the sole
responsibility of the owners of the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks to remediate the conditions.
However, because this issue was raised in a public forum, staff evaluated the potential threat of
groundwater contamination beneath the site. Staff contacted the Rancho California Water District
and verified that a domestic water well adjacent to the proposed hospital site is currently in
production and has never tested positive for contaminants commonly found in groundwater that has
been contaminated by gasoline. As a result, staff does not consider this to be an environmental
impact that should be addressed in the EI R.
Staff and the EIR consultant have prepared responses to Agency comments and general public
comments. CEQA requires local jurisdictions to respond in writing to Agencies that provided
comments on the Draft EIR no less than 10 days prior to the City Council's certification of the EIR.
The City sent written responses to the Public Agency comments on November 12, 2005. Under
CEQA, the City is not required to provide written responses to general public comments, or
comments that were received after the Public Review period has closed. The City, however, has
chosen to respond to all comments received up to and at the public hearing held on November 16,
2005. The responses to comments are included as an attachment to this staff report.
The responses to comments clearly demonstrate that the EIR and the Technical Appendices have
satisfactorily addressed all of the concerns raised by Agencies and the general public through the
public review process. While some of the commenting public may disagree with the analyses
contained in the EIR, staff believes that with the responses to comments, the EIR is sound and
meets the State CEQA Guidelines requirements for disclosure of public information.
The EIR states that there will be Unavoidable Significant I mpacts created by this project that cannot
be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. State Law, in particular the California
Environmental Quality Act, permits a local jurisdiction to approve a project having Unavoidable
Significant I mpacts, provided the local jurisdiction discloses this information in the EI R and can
make the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration. These Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Consideration are contained in the Staff Report of record for the November 16, 2005
Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit A of Attachment 2 which allows the City Council to render
a decision to approve the applications put forth by Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
and to certify the EIR.
Issues Raised at the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing
Phasinq
There was some confusion regarding the phasing of this project because phasing has been
identified in three different ways: for the Project, for construction, and for traffic related mitigation.
To clarify these issues, the project is broken down into five project Phases. The construction
schedule, however, is broken out into three phases. The first construction phase will include the
project's Phase 1A and will consist of grading, clearing, and constructing Medical Office Building
(MOB) NO.2 and surface parking. This phase is expected to last 10 months.
The second construction phase will include Phase 1 B and will include the one-story hospital, six-
story bed tower, and additional surface parking. This phase is expected to last 14 months.
The third and final construction phase will consist of project Phases, II, III, IV and V and will include
the second hospital bed tower, MOB No.1, Cancer center, Fitness center, and additional surface
parking. This final construction phase is expected to last 12 months.
Traffic mitigation has been put into two general phases that are defined in the conditions of approval
for this project. For traffic mitigation purposes Phase 1 is defined as the construction of a 170-bed
hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space. For traffic mitigation purposes Phase 2 is
defined as the expansion to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office
space.
Traffic
Residents that live on DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road expressed concerns that the project as
proposed, with an access off of DePortola Road, will significantly impact the carrying capacity and
Level of Service on these roads with the additional vehicle trips generated by this project. The
findings from the traffic study that was prepared for this project were restated by the Public Works
Director which indicate that Level of Service on both roads will remain below LOS "D."
Gas Plume
An expert witness testified that a gas plume has been migrating from three gas stations in proximity
of the hospital project site, and this has been known for years. This issue was not included in the
EIR. In the opinion of the expert witness, this potential environmental impact must be evaluated in
the EIR.
Alternative Sites
Public speakers inquired as to what other sites the applicant had investigated prior to purchasing the
subject property. The applicant responded that they had investigated two other sites, but the subject
property had best met their needs. Public speakers also inquired why sites other than the Corona
Family properties had not been considered in the Alternatives section of the EIR. Specifically, two
City-owned sites were mentioned, the Diaz Road/Dendy Parkway (Campus) site, and a site
generally located at the south west corner of Highway 79 South and Interstate 15.
December 7,2005 Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission meeting which was originally continued to December 7, 2005 was
convened and once again continued to allow the EI R consultant and staff to have additional time to
complete the responses to the extensive comments presented at the November 16, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission approved a motion to continue this
item to January 5, 2006.
January 5, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission was presented with the responses to general public comments and
information to respond to questions and issues raised at the November 16, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting. The issues discussed and clarified at the January 5, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting include the following:
Traffic
Staff re-evaluated some of the traffic impacts associated with the approval of this project. Originally
the City felt that providing a "second phase" connection to Margarita Road via Dartolo Road would
be a good alternative that may lessen concerns regarding the project's driveway access on to De
Portola Road.
The EIR analyzed the Dartolo Road access alternative and found that the connection actually
creates a significant traffic impact. The traffic impact is an operational problem created by adding
additional turning movements to the Dartolo Road/ Margarita Road intersection. The Dartolo Road /
Margarita Road intersection is too close to the Margarita Road / Route 79S intersection and there is
not enough vehicle stacking distance in the Margarita Road left-turn pockets to accommodate the
additional project turning movements. The Dartolo Road connection to Margarita Road would result
in the intersection's break down and forces the signal's removal at an earlier date. The EIR has
clearly shown that the De Portola Road driveway access has no significant traffic impacts.
For these reasons staff recommended that the condition of approval for the Dartolo Road access to
Margarita Road be removed. By removing this condition of approval, further biological studies will
not be required to facilitate this connection because the area will be avoided. Furthermore, staff
concurs that there is no need for traffic mitigation on Pio Pico. Staff believes that the traffic
consultant's observation that Pio Pico would not serve as a route for Hospital access is correct. To
mitigate the concern that traffic may be encouraged to use Pio Pico, the City required that the
DePortola Road access does not align with Pio Pico and has been moved to approximately 700 feet
to the east of Pio Pico. The estimated traffic volumes that would be added to local roads as a result
of this project would not cause the Level of Service for Pio Pico to exceed the City's goal of Level of
Service "0".
Gas Plume
An investigation was completed on the subject property that included testing soil conditions at ten
locations on the subject property. These locations were selected because they are within the
proposed footprints of the hospital and medical office buildings. The tests checked the soil vapor at
approximate depths of five feet at each location. The results of this test show that there was no
evidence of soil contamination due to gases escaping from the plume and making their way into the
soil. The soil tests did not confirm whether or not the groundwater at this location is contaminated
with constituents found in gasoline and other petroleum products. However, the Rancho California
Water District, who owns and operates a domestic well adjacent to the site, prepared a Water
Supply Assessment for this project, was asked to comment on the original Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and again was asked to comment on the EIR, and has not indicated that the domestic
well adjacent to the subject site is in danger of contamination. Rancho California Water District has
verified that the most recent test samples from this well have not detected constituents commonly
found in groundwater that has been contaminated by gasoline.
Alternative Sites
Two additional sites were discussed by public speakers at the November 16, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting as potential locations for the proposed hospital. The first is a 32-acre property
west of Diaz Road and north of Dendy Parkway which is owned by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Temecula. The Agency has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement for
the sale of this property to the AGK Group, LLC for the development of a mixed-use project that
includes a higher education center, approximately 280 apartment units, of which 50 are reserved for
affordable housing, retail, a conference facility, and a child care facility. The City also has a
development agreement in place with the developer of this project and also has approved plans for
the project. The project is in the building plan check phase at the present. This site is, therefore,
not available for the hospital.
A second site is a property west of 1-15 at 79S, which was purchased for the sole purpose of
upgrading the 1-15/79S interchange. The property is approximately 30 acres, but less than 20 acres
is out of the flood zone. The property will have limited access after the interchange work is done.
The property was purchased with regional transportation funds and the City has a contractual
obligation to use the property for the interchange improvements. This site is, therefore, not available
for the hospital.
The applicant also presented information to support the height of the proposed five- and six-story
hospital bed towers. The applicant asserted that based on the number of proposed beds needed in
the City, the proposed design is the most efficient to protect the life and safety of patients. The
Planning Commission struggled with the height issue of the proposed bed towers, but ultimately
passed a motion to recommend the City Council support the project as proposed. The applicant
contends that the bed towers cannot be redesigned to a lower height without sacrificing patient care
and without jeopardizing its compliance with State regulatory requirements and that any
reconsideration of the design would result in additional delays of up to two years in providing
necessary hospital services for the community. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
move forward with the current proposal, noting that the height is an issue and should be discussed
further by the City Council.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
A complete analysis of the project impacts and the Planning Applications is contained in the
Planning Commission Staff Report of record for November 16, 2005, which is included in this
Agenda Packet. The EIR states that this project will have Unavoidable Significant Impacts and,
therefore, appropriate findings and a statement of Overriding Considerations must be made. The
Statement of Overriding Consideration and the findings to support this statement are found in the
Findings section of this Agenda Report.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In addition,
an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, which has identified potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff has included Conditions of Approval and has prepared a Mitigation
Monitoring Program that addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of short-term, long-term,
and cumulative air quality impacts; noise impacts related to helicopter flights; and cumulative traffic
and circulation impacts for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared.
On January 5, 2006 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR
and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, PA05-0302,
PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the attached Conditions of Approval.
The Planning Commission has further recommended that the City Council review and accept the
responses to comments as adequately addressing the concerns raised by reviewing agencies and
the general public, and recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula certify the EIR for
this project and approve the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULACERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL
HOSPITAL AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959'{)80-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM
THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION
AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959'{)80-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462)
ORDINANCE NO. 06-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SITE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462)
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-
0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED
HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A
HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING
140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER
CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS
REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING 566,160 SQUARE
FEET ON 35.31 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULAAPPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468,
TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1
PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-
080-010 (PA04-0571)
FINDINGS
1. Statement of Overriding Consideration
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in the EI R but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant: short-term and long-term project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise
impacts associated with the potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and
cumulative traffic and circulation impacts.
a. All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital's
construction and operation have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation
of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant, except for those impacts cited above.
b. Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital that could feasibly
achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula Regional Hospital have been
considered and rejected in favor of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
c. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from
the development of the Temecula Regional Hospital override and make infeasible
any alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation measures
beyond those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital.
2. General Plan Amendment
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General
Plan Land Use Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and
integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open
space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8 under the Land Use Element Goal 1
encourages "future development of a community hospital and related services, as
well as a community college, major college or university."
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area due to site design and extensive landscape screening.
3. Zone Change
a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan
of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map.
The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment,
the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the
proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development
goals.
b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the
General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the
diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced community
with additional public services available to the community.
4. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a
helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and
land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City
of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected
and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "a City which is
compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)." The proposed
project provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding
region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community
capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The
proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the
current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a State highway. The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant impacts via an EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Conditions of
Approval in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological impacts and air quality
has been reviewed and conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding
rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid-rise
structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is
consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping,
lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned
and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as
conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and
conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures. An Initial Study and an EIR was prepared, which identified
potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program
was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality,
noise, light and glare, and biology to a less than significant level. For example,
access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project
site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the
primary access points along the State highway. Additional landscaping and berming
are included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the height and reduce noise.
The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the State highway, away from the
residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the
noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial
grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are
conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize
commercial and the State highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency
vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than Y. mile from the project site. The
project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned
(including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to
respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code
and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the
use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-
bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31-acre site. The project has been reviewed and it
is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the
Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9),
including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The
project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and
the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed
in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading,
landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a
320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the
proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region
and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety
and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will
actually contribute to the long-term viability and longevity of the community by
providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any
building permits, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning
Development (OSHPOD) and/or the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire
Department will review the construction plans for compliance with applicable building
and fire codes.
e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of
Section 17.1 0.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad
facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.1 0.020.P of the
City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 OF)
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula
and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the
City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General
Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable
requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the
project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined
that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State law and the
General Plan.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been
designed forthe protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because
the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the
surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to
comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
6. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400)
a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and
the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code,
Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment.
b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract.
c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant.
d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate Conditions of Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect
any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, an EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program has been prepared and is recommended for certification by the City Council
prior to action on the Application.
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.
g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision, orthe design of the alternate easements which are
substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
h. The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Plan Reductions
City Council Resolution 06-_ (EIR)
City Council Resolution 06-_ (General Plan Amendment)
City Council Ordinance No. 06-_ (Zone Change)
City Council Resolution 06-_ (Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit)
City Council Resolution 06-_ (Tentative Parcel Map)
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letters received on Draft EIR
Authorization of Shortened Public Review of Draft EIR
Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
I nitial Study for Draft EI R
Planning Commission Minutes, January 5,2006 (Available Under Separate
Cover)
Planning Commission Memo of Continuation, December 7, 2005
Planning Commission Minutes, December 7, 2005
Planning Commission Minutes, November 16, 2005
Planning Commission Agenda Packet November 16, 2005
Planning Commission Minutes, April 20, 2005
Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 20, 2005
Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 6, 2005
ocn
PROJECT DATA
----,-----------------------~-------------:---------
GEN~~TION
~="',"""'I
-----
~
_....&7_1.
THEvro"""ffiRECTO_ISSlTLJATED.."",
OOYOl'~COUNTYOI''''''''",,'''''Sl"ATEOI'
~"""IS"""""_J.SF(Ul>o\'lC
'"""","'.'&'OFPAAm._IKI,'"",,,M
SHO\YH""~OO",-"..o<:>;X"'P"""S"""O>2Of
PARCEI-w.I'SMll.AACEl.OFPAACELIJJ.1>N<10111.
"'_"""""''''fllE'''''''''"Zl~ZI''''''ZI
OFPAACeLIoW'SANDPAACEE.S'.2,>,N<O<OFP"",,,,'
_NO.tm<....SHOWIIrN"""'ONFlLE..!lOOK'"
_".O'OFf"",,"ll&OPS.ALl"ECCflC6Ol'
""""""""o:l<JIfI"r.OAlJ"""",,
f'IIOf'ESSI(:tWOFAC<;<;O
~!'::::-';:~PIOWICC<<[lU""""""
.."..t...",.O~"""'-"""""",
DE PORTOLA ROAD
~
106' 6"
'\------<0
;.
-
UItMRSOI.lIEAl.lli!.i'IMCl'S,J"C.
361S01J7HGlIU'HIlOAD
KlNGOfPlll.lS5lA.PAI9106
~l(l.7Ql-3JOO
~
~-~
1919Mo:l<iJ'e<EYAVE.
PAlJ.AS,1X7521l1
2H.96!l5S99
tEE]
~
bb
- - -
"M
cu"",,,,r2Ct.,,,,,
I'!lCf'C<;EDlON<H<t
"""''''''-''''''''''........TION
C""""NTlANDlI!lEo
~~=
SrrElNFORMATION
-~
NET........
~-
~~
I
I~
~
iJ'h
/"
I.~~
'"'" ,<11'>,-"
<:;:,- ""'-<%'01:""""
:<.J1 ""'..>,-"~-_
I~"'#~~;.$-<>"""'"
,""" "'"
.~ ..,..,,ft--
I"<'j@
<'j@
. I <'j@
~~
I'
I
r!--
I :::.,=",,-)
.--
"''''''''''"''''<
!-_-J {"""""-JOOOOAJj
~
~~j
5Ol11CTl1RAI~
".~
1919Md\!NIfE'l'AVE.
OAllAS,TX1S2l)l
MEI'l'UGINFFlt
<;OlOpAAfflERS
3a2SN.IW.tSf.,SUrrElOOOL!lIl9
D.OI.lAS,lX75>19
~~
HlRfI'ERAQ'<;l(tAT!5"IE"AS,lTD.
Sl<lGWAlMlTIIIIl.~SlJUCS!l\I
lW.J.AS,1X15Dl
ImcRIORDESlGI<Ell
DESlGIlSTWIO.1NC.
I~I LE'I6UllGTotIAVE.
f'lillADW'Hll\.PAI9127
~"""""--
-
3916NOR1W.5rREEr
Sll/fDIEGO,CA92W'
f9OOSElVlCECOIt9JLTmr
""~
S2OOOTCPMKWAY,=~
GRl'BILWOOOVllJ..O<;E.C090111
~-
,"""'"..
,==
~-
~
~
~-
"""",
:;;:=
E~i
o....'"""'_^
o PM"""''''''''
"1ANseR'"""""
'^R(AUGW'''''-'"
p"""'.~..'::e~,,=<JI..AT1CNS
I""",,_==_L;;';;;"" i.::;'':;'J-f.,,~;:j
lib~;;;~.;.,.~_...I_~_~.._a:,:"-j-------!~ ~""_';:-j
.~4~
05 ~~l~NICAL YARD
04 ~~EN TANK
!i I~.j
II \ : "'-_'
I.fi", '. ~. ///"'-y
!I '.', ""..--- r' I
i" '. ! /_L.:1.. :f'
dO; 1:"--- -~....... __" '~
~! / '\, ""....r" .~.!
II (.J \~
_ \"*"!>.
03 VICINITY MA!'_
".T.S
HI<S
"~"",-",_."",,,
_OQ'OOV_<>=-",".>,,,,",~
'_""-'''''-""""<><~.",,,,,,,~,,~
Ill,IllD'''''''f'ORUA,11ON
'.'iOSf'lTn:
OOC<.<P""'",^"",,,,^"OOI<
="",,><<><.,,0.""
~:~~~"""';"""""""""'"
~s """
.r,..O-I~";"~P
~.iJ.~iv>'
Temecula
Hospital
"'(fro"":r>:'''''''''''''"$'''''''',"",~
...,..,.."....'''''''""''"T. '=''''_-c'_P,""""V-STRUCJO""
"!,lOB'
",,'1!0
~-~
-""'~--------- 1
~ '
"
J
J
~
I;
I'
=~~"'"
roo'''''''''''''''''''.
(
..""...,....~lWf'1Wf~''''''''.
='"""'<><~=~''''''''
Temecula, CA.
(
_""lMlD""",""", ."'".,.,.;.".-"_.F!J.......s"'~
,
/-CIW<""->'(H<:[
ro=",,-~
-1.10.8.2.
~"'-""-""'"
"",,,.,,.,...,,,,,,,.
PflOP<!$OC~1T>'E'1Wf~l""""
""n",,,,<><~,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,...
#~-'- -......0::'
"1.......~~,~"""
~.,;-"""'
"
"""""''''''''''''''''"EIGKT, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,--tr_PIOlWIY,,,,,",,,,,"
'CM<:"RC"NTliR.
""""""lO'YCl.AOS<""^",,,,-
",,,,,.,,.,,,-,.=~.
.,
---------~---~-
,
"""'''.':Oo:><$T''''''''''''''''''.TYI'EV.
"'-"""''-OO"","""",,=>ruo'MAIlI.!
"""""""''''''''''''''""""", '''''''''<'''''''_PIOlWIY"''''-''='<E
! I
j J
! I
j J
"
,
'FlTtESSCENT$.
i;
~
"
"
~- -"'~
~,.,.,.t~'-'-~,~
':--I"~~~
& "'" L DARTOLO RD
- lP<<-P.M.l1.RV'''''''.)
:=.......610.32. RJ
""'~~llOf<
""'''''''''''''''''''''
Kl\SJOOHO.
8693.000
"""""""~rn>Ol,"",,""
"""""'rc_"'Wl""",,,"'''''''''
"""""'EO_t<ElGKT,'$'!OI\Y'7>'-<T_PA........STJ<"""".
(
---,~
,
,
i mi1r?ffiill-li-vlTn'
1 E~ ,
: 1:.= (~H+%t+ii+J-rl
~~! f.::-. '-': I! i , ",' I Y
hi ~ ~~:- :
II: ~ j;':iJmwurl~--~ :
1 r,----" ~/j I r
o~l 1>~~/r-1 r I I :
~1 ...JG~-~~-II l! I :
-01 ......a.'-"":-dl",,- I '
~;I "~_~-~l/_" r
: ~~~I:
1 /" .",., ~ _--::1j
: I( /"---. f
4e) ,,=-._ . _ .f. ~ftI '-~_",=-:::,:=-.L___
______~~- ~=_________=:===..::===:==:=::=-=::::::=_:::::::======:=::::=:=::::=::=-=::::=:::::_____=:=::::::::::::.-:_=-_=-N~~~~~:~~ljI~!_! !!OU~ L' ~~~. L';;:_ --,,"--.------
.. .:.:.::::.:.:m,,'.. . ~c ~---j~ - ;~--.".-;:~:-::n::::~::::=.:~:=_~:~n~:.~.::::~'.~::m.."
-~~~=~ ~---===r-----=:~~--~=~~-~~-C~'] ~i r~'.=".~,~~-- ~!-:::~:;~_~= .~nnm
LIGHTING fiXTURE SCHEDULE
-- ...-.......,.--.,,.,.,..-...-
......""~~......_---
....~--""""..._--
.--..........-..
---
....._.._""'..u.'"'''''"'
---
.......- ~=E~,,*-':::=
.--................
......- """"'"''
--...,."..,-".......',,,'"'
---
m~
er;~
~. ~
(
I~:--
. -
(
C.U.PSUBIJITTAl. JUNE:lO.20(>ol
~
~~rr:!.Al.NOV.<l1.2E<:J~.
"
I
~
,
,
,
,
,
-=
--
"-""-.-
SITE
PLAN
,
,
02 ~~L SECTION CII SIDEWALK
-~
~
A.01
,=
"",to'.
;'.'
i
,~~ \\~\\~~ ------------------~-------
~,\ \ \----------------- t' ----------------------------
" \ =------=___ ' ___n---n---
__N'/' , . ' ;:-, :;;;.' .,-...../ .ck -'- -. ,
/--/ ___-----"; ~/---- ....---~ii!l il@ ~- ,------~~Jf"';,~--,""Lf~~~~~~--;.
__/::::-:::_____~~----~, - 0 ~~ ~;: '6!b~ -----~~~~:~~~~~
,-P' -----------iJ'lf!j ~ "" I '
./ '" \ it;:' I.. ~ j
~\ " mr,O ~ :
~ -"\ \'\ '" ..~.. "" I~ i
~ ~,~ .'\ \\',:=1l' "",~ .~~~ t ,I
\ \ i ~~~~~,~
..-n ....1Of.....v'
.\ ~~'.'.!M"-": :"" I ~:~>" :
~'v:5t\\ ~ :~ '-M:~"-" ~"" '-~'!;J#"" i"'" i
~~~. '\ II ~ I: 11," i
,~=-,,_.: , I~ '
'\ \ ro:ro-If"':":o..":"REr..: r ~ :
"\ ' ,"'" '
";, \ 1,W::g;,"- "'" '
~ ..~" i I\';,,~ <;) -~:o.-\-i!i IT : Io!w.. :
~ ~~~ ~~ \~;' ~ iilJ?r,'k1"::r ~ ~_______n;n___ln___
~ _"" _ "".e' " "~-. - --" .... 1.Jk ..-1J"'il< '
_ __ .""," ' "-4"'-3~"' -. .=:;' """ ..-.."" ,
~ r,-.>-~.
- . . ,,'''--'' -,- . - . ,
___~- .Akc '" ~--- -~-~ '. - - .'.-.,
" ,- ;, , \ -"""~"- - ."".:
, ' ' ,N - lfr--_.,-. - '
I V. .- . ... . ~ - ,...---" '
. . == .. " , ..w cJ,--~'"""
.~" _;' \,' '\ >-______-----:-::::.~::::.:--::::3:S::3:-:::) ~;.;' "
I "'-,~-,,.. __~l-,"--~cC----" ' rn-- _nn___
L ___------~----.:::-/---'>-:'0--<--------- ~ ~
IM11'---- .1i7'~"'!~~-::::-:=l~:----------\ \ '\\ ~ ~ ~ -i;\'\Jr,~-' ~ I
" l I !~__ ",'j',,/ "".... ," \, \, '\'" /, \:'11"'=" -
. i ""." W ^ &..
,--------.,--+1. ~_ /// ........ .. "'" \ ^.. .... W
" -"L~- /II .. ..; ":","- 'V',,- .. ..
, I' ---I '/ l \'Jlj H' "'" ' ","'-
n_nn_,,: ~ ,If /I .. ~".. ',{ " " ..
, . -I' -., ~,,_J' , '"
i' / !i/..it! .. -.. ..', '- "'--,
:, i /;/'~ ~""". l>. .,../\--.
, . , NJ "" "' ~ ~ ",...
,. ! //1" .. ~ y .. /
, ' -,./ ' ~ - -' '-I '.. ~
.i I /'1 ; w .... .. & /,li,...;"'" .. w
:~,' " ....; .. W /' '{' ~
..//-' .. /'.. .,."...,-
,., , "-' ,~.. ,~ ~
, ' ,'II ,~w /' \ W -
.' '.. _.. ~/ .. _,t-' "
, "*-. ~.... /1 ,../' '., -',,",'"
" ~,~~~~_' .. 1/'" .. ~ .. "" " --
" ,~..--..:____-- W .. 7 -"""" ."
i ,w"'.... w -/"~~--- ' ' -- '~.
~.. ...~... ~L~k~-:~~ ~:~==7/~/6~~.=~::~'(~;;-:~ :'~.=T
_______________ __________ ___ ______ ,~~, m~ "I
____________ ______________ .."""-.. \ -=1.
w.lL N73'lp'~EI
__-;.__ _ "3,="---;"~
(
~"
.. ,"
or~.~'~
~,;c~
(
(
(
t-----------------
k;
~t~~~ --"
J~~ .~-'~?"
_'1~ -&t'~i-.J>'
-~--
""'@l>7Rr99.lm=7.,
1S73'2r4nf~RJJ
(
(
,
!
(
c
-----:::::;-;;,~j'~~--:;~:~:::::-..
,
.___u_____
,
-v---
,
.
.
~
.
,
__ __:__::::_~----:-t:::::::::--:n
--- <>------- ~
-----} -
r--n
r
II
,'I l'
f---
,
-T--
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-j---..,Lfi
, '
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
----~
""""""....,
........1"'--"
i-------......
"
,
,
,
J
(,,;----
,
,
,
,
,
~. It."" >l8>DB
P.......'.../71_lll
/........."':""'n;"~
,
.
~
01 EXISTING SITE PLAN
MSI._1_.,00'-'I'
..Jl...J'
-
W;~
-
==~INC.
~":~PA_
~
~-~
mll_A\IE.
~752lIl
p~--
1919M<1aM1f:rAVf'..
DAlJ.AS,ll(ml)1
~~
=~J1sSlllTE13OOUl139
CMl""""""'"
=~
=~~LNE,SUITEm
:OO~~ER
'6l~~
F'liIIADEl.I'IIPA19U7
=_AAr'HITR'T
J!l161fJRKN..5fl<EfT
SNlOlEl;O,co.mw
~:",,",,0ll'tIlll11\NT
~~sug;=1I
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA_
8693.000
ep~
*,
2 '-5
1 4
~
C.ll.f'Sllll~fTT~
~
JONt30.2004
CIJ.Pm"<;I'BloIfTT....
"'W01 '004
-~
EXlUlNG
SITE PLAN
-~
A.02
0200'
~". 'on
----------
n~_.__._______~___n___.____
-----
---1----------------------------------------------
DE PORTOLA ROAD
......................
PHASING DESCRIPTION
-...
'\
.~~
L:2,'if
') .\-:f-=-::.-=-::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.~::.::.::.::.::.
j .1 I
,~:I: !
. 8. [~ I
I :,'~ ~-~.:.-, :
! 8.W 1
I .. I
, :IJh~ :
I 8. I
i .. I
- "' '
i :.~ r
! .,'~ t2:l. r
I. <.." W I
! ::~. :
" "I'"~ ,
- " ,
" ~ ,
.:~ I
:I~~ :
.,~ ,
I~ :
~ j
- ,
~_________;_____1_____
~- !
'~~ :
I I :
~- ,
10' '8'J2'5rf r
--:c.-=-=- :~:::::, I,
""-
, --------------
/
i
r
PHASE IA
o SITE GRADING
oMOB1
oMOB1I'AlIK1NG(AI'1'R0X.300SPACE5)
-MAlNEHTRYORIVE
PHASE IB
o HOSl'rTA!J6STORYIIl::OTOWER
-HOSPlTALPARKING
PHASE /I
- HOSPITAL 5 STORY 1Il::0 TOWER
PHASE 11/
t;;;:J
(
o MOB2
o,.OB/HOSPlTALCONNECTOIl
PHASE IV
oCAHCf:RCE~
_CAHCf:RCE~PAlUllNG
PHASE V
_FlTNESSCEm"I;:/1
oJOGCi'NGTRAlL
(
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
N78"40'OO"f
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
;
'-
'-
"-
"-
'-
---------~-----
'-
"-
'-
!
!
f /
! I
! ,
! ,
!/
;,
Iii
N
N
,"'
~
",'
~
L DARTOLO RD
(,...PJlB.f9,I'S-fO)
~J~on~
,
,,/ / I
! I
! / I
'1/1
i 1 if
! II
,
1"H-ttttitH-tm' , , , , I' , I ,.-I,
!1', '1 i ! l
J i!. !!! i i! lJ
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.~=~" .1.___
njlti'rfi'fITmJIIII
~
f;
r:"
;:-
~-
f---
~-
-~lJJllr------'
.. 0 - r.. /( !
~(,
~-lili
_:;...--- _,v.~,
;/',/- "~-.:-.:::~":..""::J
"
I'
u
!
I '
"
l
'< "
.
.
<
J
.
.
.
i
n_L--"~
mmnnnnm1V1.Y2 'JOf:- II: ..
::::::::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::__::::!T~1E:]!!~~!:~OUTE
_~_"_ __.n_+__
.__ __n_nnnn_. __nn.~_ __n__~nnnnnnnn ~____n______ : ~
___+nnn___n_______"_.....n_____________~___~+__+_++___:::=::::::::::::::::::::__=:::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::__~::::::::m_:h~:
,- .:-
,
,
,
,
,
!
::::::::::=::::::._:::::::::::::-::--::::::-----_n--------~--:;it:--:::::::::-----:---:::::::::::
~ '-~17 ---------------
( , ,
, '
, '
: ! 01 :~~:~.~ol~~~GIWle
~u ~
IE
rn:~
.
~
UlISOf'DBAWAAE
J67SOUTHGlJIJ'ttI'ltWl
KlIIGOfI'RlJSS!A,AAI!H06
61o.1S&-3J(I(l
~~
HI>5N1OilJK1'S,1NC.
1'Il9_EYAVE.
PAtlAS,llC:r.um
2Ii.!I6'J.I5!I'J
~.-
""-
1'll9Ilcl<1NNEYAVE.
PAtlAS,llC7l2Ol
""'FJ;/;lNFHl
=,~
362Slt.liAU.liT.~lJOOllll39
PAtlAS,llC1S2j9
CMlENGJNWI
HUN1EIlASSOaATESTf.XAS,lTD-
&lolOlWAmUTlllUlNlE,SUlTEi500
DAUAS,llC7SZlI
DESlGl/ffiIoNlITANT
Pf5IGIlsruolCl,1NC.
161~A\E.
I'flII.ADElPHIA,AAl9J27
'Af<flOCAPFAllrnITFIT
~M
J'l16~OIlHN.SJlIfU
SNlIllEGO,0\9ZI03
FOOD<FWJi'FmN<tITNff
'"'~
S2OOon::PAAKYIAY,stmESllll
GPfB1\\OOOVIlIAGl',C0801l1
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
INTERrMREVIEWONLY
"--"-""
.......,,--.....
:::.:':'.==
--......-
-...."'" """"'
__:u;;,;;;--
~~~
8693,000
lI.soH....O'I'RQl.~);XlOO(I(lO[
~~
~ ~
...... OJ. 211O~
-~
Ra;PlINSETlI'NlTlAt.srullY
WIl.l11.200<;
~~
SITE
PHASING PLAN
~~
A.01 PH
C"X'"
HICS'"e.
~
"-J t-:-l
( .. ... v..;; .~.;I~ .1... ..l.... ............~......J..... ..I.... . .. ..1 , .~
T ._ IBJ "i' I .~ c:=:::re .~ r.~ r : r .~ r-fP .~ 'if- f-- .~ r
(i Iii i tf i 1 f-- '~ _ I ---0
i G, D$ I df i i tp1;) .. rY ~~_- -_ - - -~.:-o, - , ;
i ! , i _ ~i ~ i . i _ t:1 ,~,,' ~ ,;", ~ '-------J.---------! ----'--0
-,
Ii c::JE i '-' . >- I - R .. I -T-" 1 1 ','
" .------ , , - "-'-' -1-'-. "', II ,PIJ.! ~I< ,,, I< r-:1 -,Loo r.;-'- __
I 1-1Jd --.J"[] -I' I I ~ 484sf 1""1 4845f --II\." IT
, .. "I)!:;;,' "<f'j,.; , " J'l ~ _ H" _ ,-
-- - i =- -- -I":; ~:"" -- - ".'<S'o w. .. - i---~- '~- fl---=--- -~~~- - .....i~:rJ -'l-- "~i - f--0
," . I----:-'":h-= - -:-1:'-:") --, - - ~-r,L--+ "'-:.l!-::"-l -..- --- - -:- 't'. '-t--- ~
-- ~m- i~ ~~" '-- '1t!'1il i....... "'''j. ";:,, ____~ Il~ - " = "","'II .::.::::
--- i;j-- -~ ,-~~ ~, -- 1-- --=-il][f....-..~ '" Ii - "'..:~ I ( I '_.iP' 1 -.!- -.!-I=>! .-
iii.I-f$~ .f,;!:I:J!!l',:J .;t ..If,l..-L ... ". ,= -, ,-, ~ I,
'Ia ..If., .." '--- "= ... ._,_,_," . 'I............. r- _ -- LItJ
s- - _ _ __ ' -.,~. ---f--~ _1" /1I1~ l'~~d--L. _ "'_ L'''I_'''I ""r.."" _~_~ ___
--- Eo! - ... 1--. - " -. -'--.:1 "'.: '= 1J T'/lL I' <:; _ -j-- ! I~
~ ~ -.ll-;l ~-~ 1"'1 -;-;- <ijj I - E.~iJ ::iiT'lOi:::1" --:. ~...':'...~.. I::" ~- -. !r/J"""l
~~ -<' - ' ..,. I "', ~ 'i'W i 1- I """ -I ' ';.' no, ..., J..IE58 ' tl-=
;;;:;-'"- ~ --~ ,1--1 fl'. i' . I!" , t::-:'iF' --tcl:d-.fdd'd--- ~-m:;,: r-~ _F!, - - ~ ~ ------ - i
I j ~~o' ,~" - ..". ~ " ! '"" ~l".L "'m ~, ~ i I
::--fft~~-;~ ..-".,.;;"/,J~J=.r--- I :; _t-c c -< -" ::"i__~:_.
601 ~- I'-'.\! IIiO' """ - ~:= 1- 'AI - ,.-i- _1--', -:r-;; -'1.:: ...-'drv-l!
Do ' -;:" 1IiO':-.......::-'=! ~ 00' , _ _ __ 0 , '.. ., . " , _' " ." _ m _ _ ' ~ "'; ,.,:_ :j'"
,""'-" '. -, ~ -~-r~ ~H - ~(- ~:-~ i (',
. !~ _ j _: T' ~~ - ~ ~~~ . I :' _ ~ ~:::: ~ ______ :,.. ____c:. -J---------- ----"--0
...f& !fl _19l 1"'i\'ill' 1= - -11' ~ I r-lt"'1iljr-;;;fjj'~--.RQHtli"'li-, h.-Ilo '=' -.a!1f ! \
~ '~ml IfrI ')Iii ,rW,~' i ""'R"id"~" "",,,b Q' p.::>o t; .... '-',' I '
---- !~ ~ 0 - ....-- -' -"-0"" "" '-~:"""':::"':'l'---:~"":'--~ -:-Nv . - - - - ' ______n_+_________ --- f--0
I I /~, t' ,------!::'----, t::-----, t,--- _ __-----, ,___ , _ , __------, ,__:CL_, , ,
~.~ " , " " ',' " ',' , ,nr, ! I \
i ,1-1 ~I-l:- J J J 'i r---rl i i i : i i i i i I ii-I i Iii i ! i ,
-+ JJ --EJ' ~ 4-- -8---+LL... j j : '-:---" '-____J L_____J 'L:-_! L_____J: '-____J L.--r1 _ _ _ i .' '__ f--0
---- ,--- . r=---1'1 r=--=l r---=-l 'I r-==i r----! i j i..j. i kl _ q- ~~, +' !;-L~ ~ i ifll9 ~ (l!) ~!Hl !;
- ! " ,I " I, I -, ' I, ii' if' - . - ~~, ... [;lI'..1i -'" ~ ~ ~I I
L--Jl'-------J '-____J L__~ L---.Jl i i 1 i i I .. ~ -- I ~ (l!) ffij , _ f-0
----', --, - - - T - - - - -~- - -L -irrtt ~'u:-- :,.Q '_. r~jj [) . , ,,-------- I ----- --T--ll~
- -~-, . _1_ - - -,,-. - - -JI~; .- :~~~- :~_-:J !!: - -:: - - _:'-.
- -,' - -, =+ - --, -- - -, - i - m:-'-II~~ -' --~ r-w-----1t-------------i- -___---1=--110--- r ----- - ' '"
-+- Ia.... L ,....." " .....
0--- - , - /< -: - -,-- -- .;: - ,- - ~ '1;" I - i I II -
L~ i, _~ ," b ,-.... '_ ' , I ," _ ... ;"
::=:=W-:=:=:H----------r----+--. . -'~ ' ~ - ~~ --0-----f------------1 --~ If - - , f;-; ~
::=:-i~-=:~r)~=i@~~~,r\~ l~~~, . ii. . i ~-i_-+.. ~I~!
o =.'~ 0 fYllo~ -- . -' 0---- .-+- -_____ - 0-- -+ 0------1-- ______ - _}'
.'.'.1.'.,,,,, __IJ)....._~
"'.," \.~
1......f...'...I.I.. ' ---- IJ
'"',,,,,,,,,
"''',,,'.f.. ~
~ f.I",,,
'''1.,,,,,,,,
__ ,""",.,.1.,.,
, ---- .,.,-
-- -- ..,.'_.
--;..,.'
-;:.,..'
....-.;.,..'
t\.\.'
oc_
-
\fiMJlSAI.__lItSf.Jl'\llO:S.K.
iI61SOlmlQUH~
KlNGOI'I'IlU5S!A,PIl_
~~
~
--~
1II19lolO1QMta"AVE.
-~-
.~
~
~--
-~-
lfiFHGIIfiJI
=~
3025N.IWJ.ST.,SlJ!TE13OO1.6139
-~-
=~
1I\lHTEII./61;OCIA15Tell1lS,.L1ll.
li1<40WAtMffH1U.IAII:.!ilIlTESOO
-~=
IJmllIOIl-...
DE9l;NSll,IDID,IIlC.
161~/I'ol:..
PIllI.AOEIJ'HIIPA191V
lNIIlSrAPEAROfI1ll:T
-
m6NOR/o101lSTllfn
SNlIllEGO,CA!lZI03
fOODSBMCECDNSULTIWT
....~
S2OOOTl:PNUWMY,SUIlE500
GItiIt\IIOIXIVII.Ua,Gl80U'
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
r
'(
H>SJOOHO.
8693,000
05./U'.D.PIN1llllOOOlXlOlX
m~
e!:l~
~ ~
,
<
\.
-
C.U.PSUBI.I!l"TAl J1JNE:ro.2004
_m
C.u.PRESUBMrTTAl NOV01;oo..
rW.
:rz~.~'~~..~IJ:....~..~x.~.~~..~~".. .......~
r---------
-~
g
"'"
FIRST
FLOOR
PLAN
~
~,
01 ~~~ FLOOR PJ.AN
-~
A.11
.,O_'2?O'
* I'~ II
'rt;.. <; ~ 11
'''C_W
If1J~t
m~r::;J_!~
~
; -. !
:JR9t
}'=,: /M~ ,\)
ltl*'> .~... I..
--- ..-..... '.
M
I _',,_~r =i:,'-
/:1',:"" ;
"Ji:' ~ -. ~ ! -. ~
"'~,~~~ <' *,\
~~~
, -. I
]i~-IF;~;~-
, , ! ./ '>l I ": '; ': ~ J';~'" "',"''''' "r '\'" ,<>...
1...~fci~:1J:l~'~:et~] }-gM'l~
, ,: '\ :,/:1-: "_D__~_~__ -... - -&~~--
_____.:"---T---T ; I 1.-1 I ~~ '
:r:t ~
,-
,
(
,
I
(
;'
\.
~
",
'",-\-]'
-
1/
(
't,
~
G:>-
~
r"J
,~J
i
n
~J
;,-
~,,--",
-1
,'-',-
,'~
'W
q--
(~------
1--~-
~_____L
, '
,
!
!
d
.
~
i~
-,
j-
.
j
~,
t,;)
8 (:j
81 is,
'! ,,-.' 'i'
i, 20'-;>";!
",,"....,"
~'-O.
!
.'~
.~
n
',xi
-c
!
\.~)
,-"
\1--
I))
I
r.)
'r
~
'?
(;)
"
r
;'7)
'y
,
C'-i
{
(~
."'-:',
u
-<:::J
-{~
Dum
~
UIIMItSAlHEAl.Tll:;at\llU5,.JNC.
3/ilSOlJlHGUlS'fl1lOAD
KlNGCl"PIIlJSSlA,.PA~
61~76a.;300
~
I<<SARCHlTECfS,1NC.
1919HcK1N1lS'A~
OJllM,lX1~
21'.%9.5$9
---
=~~
1919Mcl<'1:NNEYA\E
llIW'S,lX15<'Gl
MI'PENGINE6l.
=-~
3625'l........sr"SUlTEll001fl13'l
DIIUAS, 1JC 7>21~
a~~
_MSOClIl15TEXAS,LTO.
~11OV\IAU'IIJTHRLlNlE,SlJITESOll
OAUA>.TX/52l1
lmElIlaRnF<r~61
OESIGNmJOIO,lHC.
161tEVERlNGRlNAI'E.
PHIIMElJ'HIA,PAl9.1<l
~ARgj!TECT-~-
=.,
3916N01\MAL!iJ'REU
SOJiOlWO,CIln>W
~(,!!NSlU_
"'~
Q(ilJOTCPAAKW.<r,SlJlTESOO
GRW'lWOOOVIUJ.GE.C080111
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA_
8693.000
m~
~~
~ ~
~,
C.U.P sua~rrrAL JiJ~r 30 ~OO4
~
'<J'~]!,!~),ll!l""~OVOI2Q9~
-~
SECOND
fLOOR PLAN
SCHEME- A
01 ~E:~NO FLOOR PLAN
_m
A.12A
""0-'14
''''''''''
,
i
(
(~~.J
-~
,
',", -j-
, ,
,
,
(~)
j
i'~~' -
,
,'-'..
,~.. --.-..
~,
,
i,,'1
\ /]
"
'I
- I
i~'~
. 'I
i
~i
I::~
;1
()~u
(:~
i?i
.
c::
"
~
r:\
'~.'
n
\~j
,".-\ (~.) -- (;"; (~) G) -- 0~) ('-I 0
V,l i " r ,
",....' y ~ T T , i
I , i i I ,
i
I
("1-~ ,
(,.}, - - ~
~ '?I l
~ ~ ----I
\-.:'.J -- -------
i
,
,
.-
~
~~
c ~
.'
.,
~-
"'
j
.
,
L
-----(~)
n_{-j
.-{'0
m:w
~
~HEALlf!~VIO!S,JNC.
367SOOJHGl.UtiROAl.l
KINGOFPIlllS5lA,PA1MOO
.~~
~
~"""""'~
1919McK1lf1E'rA"!:.
lIAlVIl,11(~1
2H.m.55!19
--
,.-
1919MoiQmFiAYf.
!lM.lAS,1X75201
,.-
=,-
lG25I1.IIAl.I.ST.,SU1TElJOOlEllJ9
DAllAS,'lX75219
~-
lilJi'Iml.AS9:XlATEs"TEXAS,LOD.
8110WArnUTHD..llANE,~~
DAllAS,Tx15n!
IPfTBUOROfSIGIlER
mstGIlSJ1!Dro,/NC.
'61lE\16l1i'1GTONAVE.
~P"19127
~~
~~-----~--
3ll1GNOflM.!l.STlU'Ff
SAKOlEGO,o\921OJ
FOoo!;SlVICECDNSUlTAI'!f
""~
~DTCP_Y,SUrTES(JO
GllEENWOODVlllAGE,roaoUl
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA,
~~m
8693,000
~~
e!'l~
.::::. .;I.
Mn
C.\I,PSUBJ.!!ITAl. JUN[.lQ2C>:,l4
~
~~_oo.V_(lJ,_2,'-0-1
-=
UPPER
FLOOR PLAN
SCHEME- A
01 ~:~R FLOOR PLAN
3F\O..ffi!.5l>t&OlHFlOOR,
A.13A
OlOn'
"'~ .,.,.
\
{
,
~
,
,
,
,
::..
:(
,
\., '
i
i
.
.
.'
..
~.
.
j
~
!.
~
~
,
1----
lD8'-(l"
r-
~ 1/
...~.
~ "'-/
,\('"
L~,C~_.' /1
- ~.
- ~
~
b
iH
I)
\ /
- ..
I \
",. ~ f
~ - ~I!
"'Z~ -
~~' D-" ~ /y
L
~p=1I
=
IIUlf......ffOOF
26'_10"
,54'-0"
31'-0"
46'-0"
~
~
I~ ~
~
<l-J ,,'-a"
180'-,.
I
I m
-,- -
I\-!,~. II
n It!'-a'' ~
,---
]":'.;:::0'
\~~'--~
f--l......"",.,
~~
~
~
~
Lr<:'"
~~
~H~
~~
~
'"
00
~-- !
/
"==
#
".-...1 "'-'''' 1"'-<1' ,.c",.
.
_'_S"
r--
;,
_ 00.
/I~
-~
a. TlT-1l"
F1'.'0"~
-127-0"
~-~
lW-,l"
:z~w_r
'1
.
- -1 00 -
//
\'li
- ...oo -
~~ ~ /
\'"
- . . -
~/
//....-
-~
~
~
.-
~
.
~
01 ROO' ......
''''''''''0"
111."-'0'
m:_
Oll'Wr
__THIaMCES.l1tC;.
3675OUlllG.UH_
~Cf'I'llI.lSSM.M19'Il6
.~-
~
~-~
1919Ma\!ME'rAVE.
DllUAS,.1lC?S:llI1
--
~
W19l'1dlH1EYAVE.
CIIU.AS,'IlC15201
-
=~
=;U~9surreUOOr.al3'l
CML_
=~
8l4C1'f1WJU(HW.~SJll2m
Do'I.lAlX1S2:Jl
1m'llInIO~
-"""'~
161~1llIE
~""19127
='~AIlDIm'r.f
!!Il8f1CHl1oW.~
$NfDEQ),o.nm
::'~CDISJI.TAH1'
5ZJI)lJI"C~Y.sumSOll
GRmfMQl';lUN;lE,COIlOIl1
HI<S
.
~
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
l~n"I.RlVlIi1ll'8I1LT
--..-...
-..--....
.....-...--
--..--
~7i=-
869'3.000
nC".nPl101.
e~
~0
& a
~6
2 5
1 4
~
=lAlIITTAlJoIIN'302004
~~
ROOF
PLAN
~~
A.14
"1(>)<
~.
~
~KSAAC1llreClS,lNC.
1919~AYE.
M.lAS,1X7S2ll1
2U_.sm
5TJUJtJUMtENGlHElR
HKSSlJUJCJ1.I'IES
1919~A",,"
0AIlAS,n:7>2lIl
-
=-~
l625N.I!AU.ST.,SUITl'l300lRll9
ONlM,1l<7i219
CIVllmGINEER
HUNTBlAS5OClA.15TfXOS,lID
U,,"WIU./fUTHlU.lNfE,sunE5lIG
lJAiUS.110SZlI
~_.
ElSIGNSfWlO,lNG.
lG1WlElUNGlONAVI:.
~PAI9127
~{.; ~~~Q~-+ lAAOSCAPE
! I<IUt~ . AJlOlIlKl"
~~~i'i~-+ ~aD="=
i FoooS6\VlCECONSIUANT
~ ~t;:~!Ii""" ~~P_Y,SUm;SOO
...RooF .... l'RfElMOOOVlllJlGE,0080111
f=: HI<S
J12'!~f!,~B..i.
~I n~ 4.>_0 -.,.-
- ~~Ro-#.:'i10:""
\
,
"
(
""""',,""""
O<1E.I\JOll'''''''''_"^""",,"T
"""GOIJ>I'l'
='~,,-6..~""---
~~...,,'~~""""~.....,' I
02 ~~.~H~~EVATIO~_._
,
I
1
,
.
I,
=00
~-
~ ~ ~::rt
~~~o",""
; ~';~lrt
~1iJ':.ijr-+ laf'Vll
~
~"!'7.i~~-+
,
,
;
,
~~~-+
~~~~~
;
,
~~~2f~"'"
,
~l
~~
01 ~~~H ELevATIO!!..~
~ ~
~-
I'
j
~
~,
Qum
-
I.INM'll.W.HEIll-TIl1D.YlCE5.IIfC.
367swm<.lllPHROAD
KlI;GOfPlWSSIA,PA194QO,;
~lo.763-3300
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA,
~~~
8693.000
e1HL~
~ ~
M'
C,U.PSUBMITTAl JUNEJOZQ04
~
",lLP...ll~W~~.!f1g_l!OY_ III 2004
~~~
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SCHEME w A
~~
A.15A
,
\
-PAl"""
=-
02 ~~=~~ ELEVATIO~_---,------.__
"
,
,
I
,
,
,
" I
"
~-
,
,.
"
~ ~
.-
"
j
,
,
,
.,
01 EAST ELEVATlO,!___
1116'~1'''''
ocn
;:-r{(.;' ~~O"-+
1;1~~:ij'"
",LP.ROOf'
1 fi~~;rt
~ d?B'=-5~-+
,
,
"SIXTHflOO/!.1.
1~ ,t''W-ij'~
-FlFrnflOOll
~~[::~:
fEL';~O"'--Y-
"
-"'1Il0"OOR..A..
,:>;EI';W-5"--"-
,
-
UNlVl'R!"JiLH~.:m5EfW1CES,1NC.
~scumGW'HROM
rm<<>OfI'iUlSSlA,PAJ'l'lOli
610-76&-3300
~
~"""""'=
1919Md(!NHE'lAVE.
D.OWIS,.Tl(75l(I1
21'1_.5>99
~~
HlISSlRUCTUIlI5
1lI19Mo:l<lMtEYAI'<.
!lMU\S,lX75all
--
~~
3QSN.IW.l.ST..stJITE13O(IUlI39
O..u.s.Tl(75219
~~
IfJI<IERAS&lO!\TESTEXAS,llD.
BI40WAl'IIITI!Il1lANE,stJITE500
l>I\U.A5,TX15211
mrEIUORDE.SlGI<61
t)ESlGNsruDlO,ll'IC
161UNERlNGl<JNAI'E-
I'HIlADaPH!A,PA19U7
~AAOtrrrcr____
='^
J'l16~mtIH
SNlOJEGQ,CJ\!!lI03
I'OOOSEllVlCElXl"SUI-T.oNT
5Dl,lHC.---
52OOon:IWOCIIAY,SUITESlXl
G<Wl\YOODYIll.AGE,roaol11
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
~~~j~J>+.
Temecula, CA,
~~~
8693.000
~~~O'.....
u~ ;~--'o"-+
;
"'~';~'irt
,
~ ~'? ~-".......
,
~~
~(2)
M. .:=.
S1tlH7~~t-+
,
FL~s~~l!"'"
,
~~tr-~~B+-
,
~~~~~f~"'"
,
,
ti:?:~-~~
,
,
M.
C.UPSUEltlIITAJ JUHEJ020ll4
--
C.UP_Flg;!Jj!!~!I!1!!:_...JiQY.,.2.1..-...o~
~~
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SCHEME _ A
A.16A
_0):0("
,
\
,
\
(
.
~
~
.
!l
.
.,
I
,
.
~;i
~t
~;-:.
~
--!., ~;=1 I:-i: J~ ~
~r.' ~ EHCI.OS\OlE, ,0000000AE, , ,"
I:Jn_ ~ .. Ii i" "~
~~ i'-----::..::..-:--.. ~
.. ,.....,.. ,'-0. T-o-
""..."
~
07 ~H ENCLOSURE PLAN
I
,
([/I"~lj~=.
06 TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION
11S'_1<<),
,liJjf::::-
,:. =.~
05 ~~ ENCLOSURE ELEVATION
~--
~-
f. !!Kif
04 TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION
1Ill'o.'<J'
{bJ:b:f~
.. =~~
03 ~~H ENCl.OSURE ELEVATION
I
.....(1. .'..... ......-
i I-j-r---
-+---+---1--- '
, i i
I ..,
, I I .
J___j-+_I__~___
I "I
, I I ' ~-I
I "I
, I I
---1---___-__
i I! I
. I I
I "
;
,
--I_
I
I
I
I i
i i
--TT-
I I
I ~-
I
I
I
~
j
------j--
----1-------1-
i i
i i
6.
Go
Go Go Go Go
02 MOB 2 - FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1M8'>1'41"
I
I I
-r-.-
I I
I
-
_.
~.
i
! I
--1-- -
i i
,
m
i
!
I
+.~
i
=
=
=
=
=
=
0l- ~ " I .<!J
0l- ~ " I .<!J
0l- I" I .<!J
O 1 MOB 1 . FIRST FLOOR PLAN
l/'1a-.,'./I"
au.
-
IKVBlSlil.llf,OI.111SEl\'/lttS,lNC.
367SOlm1QlJ'H1IQOD
llll4GOFI'RlISS1'\PAl_
61007ti&-:lJOD
~
~-=
1919K<laNNEY1lVE.
""-",rr_
--
!;IRllCruwENGtlfill.
~-
1919~AVf.
DIlllA'i,lXi'52ll1
HEPENGtIIEER
~,~
362S!l.tw.l.sr~SJlTEl30011I139
lWUS,1X1li219
=~
=~
61~WM1lUTIl!l..l.lANE,su:rn;!125
o.ou.os,1X75231
IH1'ERlORnP.'ilr.NRI
IlIl>IGNsruom,l!lC.
161~AVF.-
1'IllIADBPHlA,1'A19\Z1
'''''''''OOOARCHrTECl"
='^
3'lJ6KlRMALS\I\lU
SNlDlEiOO,OIw'W
fOOOSElMCECOl&IlT.....-
,,=
S2lXIDTCIWWIIItr.SliII'E500
G<EElfWOQp~C080111
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
rUERIlI REVIEW ORLr
......---...
..-..--...,...
......-..--
--..--
--.....--
::~~
8693.000
O.~".D.PIlrl:L.~
~-
efj~
& &
~.6
2 5
1 4
M'
C.U.PSlImlrrTAl JUME302004
,....
- _~U.P REsu~"mAt:. -HOV 01 2000
-=
M.O.B
FLOOR
PLAN
-~
A.21
~~~~
(
(
I I j r
--+----1----1---'
· ii'
I "I
I Ii:
, , I
----c-----r--r-
I "I
, I I i
I ..,
, I I '
----1--____-_-
, I I '
I "I
, I I '
I , I
-+----1---
, I
I ,
. i
I .
I
I
I
I
--~f--
~-i
I
----p--
I
!
I
I I
--IT
i i
(
,
l
!
.
8.
.
I'
."
=
~i
I
02 MOB 2 - UPPER FLOOR PLAN
lfI6'kt'<l"
2NO.&mmFl-OOR:
~
~,
I
i i
! !
r-I--
I i
iJ_
-j-,----
I I
-~-f--
I I
i !
i
!
r-j----
i i
;
,
~
i
I
i
!
I I
-r-,
,
I
I
i
I
--,--
i
I
i
=-1<<
I
I
I
,
+-
-~-
I
I
-+--
-
-L--J
_L_
I
I
rn:~
I I
I ~I.= I
'----t----r----i----.
'----t---t-:- '
I
~- i
---1----1'--- I
I _ -1--
I I
I ----1-, ----'11-.
---'1---'1----'---'11- ,)
i -- i i i i
, '--~----i----
i i i
i i I
-
UNlVfRSN..HEAl.lIiSBMCES,1l'lC.
WSWTIlGUlf'H1l(W>
Ial'IGOFI'Ill.ISS1I,.AAJ9oIOi>
".~
~
_'""""""'oc
1919~AVE.
DA!l.OS,lX752Ol.
u._
S11WCJIJMLFMGtIim>
-~
1919I>1o:l1lNNEYAYS.
""""~-
1oIEPENGINEBI.
=~
362S~lW..Lsr.,SlJIl'E13OOlBlJi_
""""~-
~~
=~
~1~W.oLNlITHli<AlE,SlJIl'E92S
""""~=
~JORDESIG!tSI
OESlGIlSTUlllO,l!lC.
161~A'IE.
P!lll.OlJa.I'l1PA191l7
~~
=~
3lI161OO1l1W.SIIlIET
SOoNOlEGO,CA921DJ
rooDss:t\tlO'aJNSlA.T.oHT
~,oc
~DrcPNOONAY,SUlll;SOO
GREENWooD'IIlJJ\GE,CllllOlll
\
,
z
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
fHTER'i1 Rn'EW OHLY
--..--
..-...--...""
.....-...--
--..-....-
_h_""'_
-...."" ~""'"
_ """""""n_
-~~
8693.000
o..s.lLP.o.PROl.lIl1XlOOOO();
~~
~~
~ ~
*36
2 5
1 4
~.
CU_PSUBMrITAl JUNEJ02004
~
C.U.PflESUSUITTAl NOVOI,QO.
01 MOB 1 - UPPER FLOOR PLAN
mf".aJ,"{4nlROOR
I
--------'----~---l---
, i
I
-----+-
--1------ ' - . ----1--------1----
, i' i i
1,6,...... ' '0'_" J, ,
cb I cb I I
~=
M.O.B
FLOOR
PLAN
-~
A.22
"~~~.
W;~
-
lftMllS.OI.llEALlIl&R\lll:ES,lIlC
:l67SOUlllGll.!'HROAIl
KlNGOfPllmSVl,PA1!M<l6
.--
~
~"'""""'~
m9~^'>E.
!),IJ..lJlS,lX752(ll
1110969.5500
\
SlR/r.nIMlHtr.lNffil
~-
1~19 Md<IMfI1iAI1'.
-~~
-~
=-
~i2Stl.lWl.sr.,.\\IITEl3OOlBll
OAUAS,lX;s.ll9
~~
=~
814Gw.\lJIJrHlU.LANE,SUXlE92!
OAUAS,lX1m1
INTERlOR~'"
Ilf5!GNsnmlO,INC.
161I.E\lBllNGJ'lJNAYe.
>'lIIl.OmPHIA,PA19W
lANI>'lCAPFAAOlm:cr
-
m6~Sl'>l9:r
SIIltllBSO,CllmuJ
I
Rlnn<6MC!'toNSUlTNlT
mc=
S2OIlIDt::P_Y,SI!J1"ESOl'l
GRE9M'OOOVll.~COaoUI
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
{
'.H~II' uvrEW o.~ y
--...-....
...-...--...""
...............--
--"--
-............-
-......., ...I:!lII'!L..-
-"""""""'.."'"
(
8693,000
o.s.H.P.D.i'IlOl ~...............
m~
~~
~ &
~6
2 5
1 4
f
i
-
C.UF SUR~m/oL ~NE;W 2004
~
C.",p~u9..rrrAl NOV01200<
,
.
.
~~
!.
.
.
02 MOB 2 ~ ROOF PLAN
111","".(1"
01 MOB 1 - ROOF PLAN
'1f18"Rl<<1"
-~
.
.
~~
M.O.B
ROOF
PLAN
_m
A.23
,~_20""
(
('
I
(
02 ~~TH ELEVATION-M.O,S 1
]
!
,
.
,I
I!
.
,
,
.
~i
01 ~~J" ELEVATION- M.O.B 1
" !jJ~.:_J~.QQ[_;,_+
EL'" 173'-0'
, _l.P.~~OOf_--;;-__+
EL= 169-0
in
,
;.,
-~~2F.:.155'.:.r-+
'"
I
;.,
- FOUI'iTJ:i....f~OOR_-t
EL= 14-2'-0"
"
, '"
;., ,
~ ;.,
_THIRg..i!:9gfL_",
EL= 128'-6"
'"
,
;.,
-~C:~r~5 ~g?R_+
"
,
in
-t~:If~2~n---+
l,,!.f.:..!\OOF__.,.._..A.
o EL= 173'-0 T
,I .!-.P.)3~_.,..-nA..
EL= 169 -0 T
'"
I
;.,
~90F __~_._ ..
El= 155 -6 ...."
'"
,
;.,
EQURT_f-:!~9r.!L+
El= 142-0
"
'",
;., ,
~ ;.,
~~D1-I~?_06~--+
'"
,
;.,
~~COl':!Q..fl..92B-+
EL= 115'-0
o
,
in
_f!~?L~Q~n_A.
EL= 100-0 V
W:~
0_
~__1IlsaMCl'S.1IlC.
361sournGllPHRI:WI
IIJNl:IllFI'RlISSIA,Mm06
&lll-76ll-DOo
~
1IK5~,JNC.
1~19Mi:!1J1ft'(AVf.
DAUAS,1X1S:!lIl
~
S1IllICruRALINGIIeR
~-
1919fo!clUtRYAv<'
DAUAS,lX7S2G1
--
=~
:l62SIt.IW.I.Sf.=13OOLBl39
DN.lAS,TX752l!I
~-
~~
8HOWAlllUTHlLLI.Nt;.SUlTEm
DAUAS,1X7Sl::J!
IHTERl[)R~
-"""'=
I61LEVElUNGTCflNIE.
I'ImADElJItII/lPA191V
-~
~,
-~-
SNiPlBf(l,OI9ll03
!'0005BMCECONSIJlTNff
SOI,JNC.
S1(Il)UTI';PAAJ<:NAV,Slfm500
~\IIlI.AGI;.OJOO1ll
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
i
,
,
i
-~~
8693,000
~~
~~
~ ~
~36.
2 5
1 4
-
c.u.p SUBl.UlTl>J.. 111",,:.0 ?<10~
~
C U.P R1':S\JB/.l,rr.<L t;()y 01 ~OO-
-~
M.o.B.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
-~
A.24
., ~OQ'
~~s '''''
;"
GLAZED WINDOW
1YPICAL
02 ~ ELEVA110N- M.O.B 1
"
~
,
.
,
.
EXTERJOR PLASTER
PAINT COLOR 2
.'
'.
I,
.
01 EAST ELEVATION- M.O.B 1
',","1'<1"
.
~
f.
w:.
~
lJtMRSALllE.'J-1lt~lNC.
:J67lO.1Tf1autlROllD
KlHG.a'F'R:iISSIA.AAl9406
~-=
~
~-~
19111_A~
DAl.lAS,lX'IS2ll1
m_
_'i.f__ROOr~_~
El= 173 _On --,,-
1 -1f'~..B.Q.qE-__+
El= 169'-0"
Slfl1lr.T11RJ1lENI>INEIR
~-
19l!l_"~
-~-
MEP~
=~
mltl.I!AU.Sf"SlJUE13OOUlm
~lXl'$;!19
~~
~~
9'4l)w.>uw1"KIU.WlE,surrE9;1:;
lWJ.AS,1Xr.i211
~
,
n
..B9Pf__c-=_+
EL= 155-6
'"
,
n
;, ~~~_R-f!12~~g?_R+
, '"
n ,
, n
~~~D1 Jk~_O;--+-
'"
,
n
S~~ON9_ FlQ.q~
El= 115'-0"
0
,
'"
FIRST FLOOR -+-
BASE E[';.160'-0"-
1NTFlln>"""""""
OEsIGNsnJDlO,lNC.
1611BlEllltGlQ'llJiE.
I'IIIl.OOBPIlIAPAllI127
,...."...~"""""""
-.
3916N01<WlLSIlllEr
9INDm;:o,a\92lO3
FOOOSElMCECONI1UNlT
...~
52IXlDTCl\NIl<JI'I,<lY,.9JlffSOO
GPaJlWOOO~OJOOll1
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
GLAZED WINDOW
TYPICAL .tLr:'.:...!<pOF uA
'T EL= 17.3'-0"""'-
~ L.P, ROOF _A_
E1;'169'=-0""""--
I
,
I
.~JC8IlO.
8693,000
~
,
n
~~~f155':'O"
'"
,
n
_ FOI,!BTH JJ.o9'
;, El= 142'-0
, :"
n ,
, n
:rHIR9_IhQ.q~
EL= 128'-6
'"
,
n
~ECqtlQ...!.."-~
EL= 115'-0'
"
,
'"
m~
~0
~ m
~3.6.
2 5
1 4
M'
~-'F.P ""llMIlTAL .rum: 30 200~
-
C.U.PRrSUFllAITTAl NOV012004
TILE BASE
_f!.B?!_~_Q.RA
EL= 100 -0""""--
-=
M.O.&.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
-~.
A.25
" ~oo.
~'"
(
,
,
.::
.
j
,1
"
~.
,
,
3
.
I.
GLAZED WINDOW
1YPICAL
EXTERIOR PLASTER
PAINT COLOR 2
TILE BASE
02 ~ ELEVATIO.... M.O.B 2
CEMENT
TILE ROOF
GLAZED WINDOW
TYPICAL
EXTERIOR PLASTER
PAINT COLOR 2
01 ~~ELEVATJO....M.O.B2
'"
,
_in
D~
,
---~-
!j:~~gQE..;,-+
~ EL= 160'-0
.LP.__ROOf_-:-;,-__~
EL= 155 -6 -y-
'"
,
in
-~~2F.:f42'.:r--+-
o
,
--fii
w
,
in
-~~~Q,w:?6R. --+
w
,
in
~?ECQ~~'!-P~_---""--
EL= 115 -0 ----,-
o
,
in
_E~IJl_O.9_~._ A..
EL'" 100'-0 ---,r
.. _~~_~OOFu___A
<.0 El= 160'-0" -.,.-
.1 __LP._~QQ~_~u.A..
EL= 155'-6" ""V
'"
,
in
~.9..QE__=-_____,l...
El= 142 -0' .......,.....
!tl!!~~Uwq1,t__A
El= 128 -6 ----,-
'"
,
in
~~CO~~-B-_~_~
El= 115'-0 T
-0
,
in
_f~I_t:WQIL___A._
EL= 100 -0" T
Q[am~
-
UfI\IBlSAl.llEALlll~1NC.
3iil9;llJl1lQ.lflJROAD
KlNGOf~f'Al~
611)-7l5II-33OIl
~
$-~
U1!I~A\E,
lW-lAS,lX15201
21i.969.5599
!:IRtlCl1lAAI~
$-
1919~AVE.
_n~
IIB'FHGlNI'I'll
--
362SN.IlAU.ST.,SUIlI:llOOUlll9
twlAS,1X1S2l9
avn._
~~
B14l1WNJ11JrIlllllNlE.~9;25
~1l(1Sll1
IIfTe\IOllDE5lGNl'll
l.lISIGNSlI.IDJO,lIC
IU~A\E,
l'HII..ODaPHIA,l'A19127
lANDSCIOS'E.<RO<f1FCf
~.
-~-
SAH=,CA921(13
F/nt]<FIMrFmN<I'TPm
...~
52OOtrTCPNOONA'f,g,rrn:SOO
GREEl'IWOCtl\1llAGE,ooaOlll
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
~~m
8693.000
m~
~~
~ ~
*"
2 5
1 4
c.UP SUBMrrrAl .JI.l~ j{J 2004
~
c.UPRtSUB1'(1'f/ll "0\/012004
-=
MoO.B.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
-~.
A.26
0[.
~
UM\6tS,I,I.HfAlTHS8MI:ES,lN<:.
WSOUTHG!U'I<IlOo'll
taIlGOFPiU.ISSIJ\PA19'106
GllH6B-3JOO
GlAZED WINDOW
TYPICAL
Ji,~~.B9P!=-_~
El'" 60 -0 ----,r
..I _~~_ROQ~____d.
EL= 55'-6" Y
-=-
H~MOun:crs.JIlC.
191914<K1NNFiAVf..
DAUAS,1X7S2G1
".~
!iTROCT1.IlW.ENGINmI
=-
1919MdnNNEVAVf..
lJ.!llJ.S,lX;>S2(1l
R9_~_r-=__ A.
El= 42 -0 ....."...
MFpmmr<""
OllDPMmEllS
J62SN.HAlLSf.,SUlTE1:lOOLIll39
oAllJS,1X7S219
~-~
HlimER"=,,.re;nxos,LTD.
al~OWM.NliTI!IU-~sum;500
o.ol.lAS,lJ(~1
lNTERlOlllJESlGllER
DE5IGNSI1JDW,mc:.
161UMRIr<<mlllA'IE.
f'HU1D!'lPHIA,PA19121
!<!!L~._~!OUT=
~..
:!jl16NOPHAlSlllEET
S/lHDlEGO,CA'l.Z103
FOOOS6lVICEOONSlIlT/IHT
m,=
;200DTCPAAXWJ<I,5lJITI'500
GREHI'MIOOVlUI!(lf,WOOlll
'"
,
n
J"'
,
_ n
_u~~
Ttl!~[,!-.gg,I3__A..
EL'" 28 -6 ----,r
---l~~!'!;O"~'-"WQ~A..
EL= 15 -0 ....."...
"
--j~L!~'-'-[~QQfl--'"
EL'" 00'-0" ....."...
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
02 ~~H ELEVATION- M.O.S 2
Temecula, CA,
,
I
i
GlAZED WINDOW
TYPICAL .I:!.E.:...B.OOF__+
------._- ill El= 60'-0"
, L~E'~9gf___+
'" El= 55'-6"
'"
,
n
~fEF42~0"+
ill
,
"
"
,
ill ~~~D2~i~.R ~
ill
,
n
~[~O~~~!cfr?2f
"
,
;,-,
-KR;I6~~~t~~
8693,000
~~
eI:l\1\i
:.:. i!l\
-
,l
~~
c-,fpSlJA~m", JUNE:\Il 2004
-~
,",\!'!~_--'!~'!I1J.'J:r!~_~~....1
,
.'i~
."
01 ~~~':H ELEVATION- M.O.S 2
J~
.1
.~~
M.O.B.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
,
,
~,
A.27
.,,,"".
,,'" ',~
m:.
~.
"
~
\IIMll:'lol.lt!EIII:rnSBlVlCES,1NC.
367SWTHGlU'lillQOC
1GHl>(I'I'R!J5Sl.I.,PA~
61<1-]68.33Oll
~
HllSAACHrTEaS,l!C.
1919Nc:K1R'E1'''VE.
D.OIlAS,lX~l
"--
-~
~-
l!l19~"'VE.
o.ou.os.-n:=l
MM>FftGINfRl
=-
362S"HAU.sr.&lIlE1J01lUl139
Jl.ItL\5,n:J52lg
--
~~
a"'OWIUNIJTHW.LANE.~!l25
Oo'UAS,lX15231
1HTBlIllIl"""''''''''
~"""~
161l.f\lERlNGl'OrlI'.VE.
I'IWAIlElP!IIA,PAlSLV
''''''''''AWAACHllID"
~.
~161KlRM11lStllfn
SNlDlEG(l,<:A.9>l1O
froDSBMCEaJGJlTN<r
""~
SZOO!lTCP/OUl.WA.V,SUITESOO
~~ro80111
!
I
~ 7 ------ ------- ---- -- - -- T~
\
; t 1[\
, ..
T.O. ROOF ,
I EL 128' "
, ..
- ~ "
,,- - H
" - "
SLOPE-
"
I / ~OOFTOP
.. A.H.U ,
,
, ROOF SLAB ,
, EL 117' 6"
.. FF 101 ' 6"
.-- __ n___... .-------- -- -.
BUILT UP ,
ROOF
.
r ROOFTOP ~.
AH.U ..
--
, "
~'::.=== ~,
" - ~
'"no(
-
" e--.. "
"
,
,
IW ~I ,
~ ;
fJTI\ , nm
: - U"____\ I --- ----
"
"
I:b:-SL OPE SLOPE+-!
.. ,
- n__ "
W
"-
0 IJI
~ ~
Vl , "
---- - - ---- '"
STOR_
(
L....-" ,
MOLD ~__J
ROOM
HI<S
DOC.'S
OmCE
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
~ "
0,.
MEDS/
lAB
m
m
(
[j]
[j]
[j]
[j]
INFUSION
DOC.'S
OFFICE
HI'S:JOeNO.
8693.000
WAITING
~~
~~
Z &
~6
2 5
1 4
I@]
'_n__________
n_____~.i
~"
CUPSURIJrrrAl JUNE:\02004
-
C.U.PRE'S\lSIJITTAl NlN012004
i
~;
~~
!,
.
.,
I
CANCER CENTER
02 CONCEPTUAL ROOF PLAN
-,~
CANCER CENTER
01 CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN
-,~
-=
I
i,
CANCER CENTER
FLOORl ROOF
PlAN
-~
A.31
(
(
I
......~'Y,._
"
~
ORE
....." ]
FITNESS
AREA
1- -_= ','~--
I~~~-~~~
il"'i~-'
I)'-! ---
j:: I'!j "_"
ii I I ;-
~ ~~1~)-
FEMALE
[S5
;
,
OFF
OFF
; "
.
'.
-~
,
I
RO F SLAB
EL ~ 15'-0"
ODD _._--,-
BUILT UP
OOF
/
t
EXIT
STOR.
.......JAN.
LOBBY
-<',
"-L"-
------j .
'E~!T!
i
RESTING
AREA
iil
'II
Iii
:.1
'1'1
, i
III
'I'
I~II
E::L
M'I
iii
FITNESS CENTER
02 ~~:EPTUAL ROOF PLAN__
FITNESS
AREA
T::l
:;a ~~ IO~~ /; => o_~ ::'~ ~-_O
r~~ ; / I i;//-:_j
~5ICs~~<5'~~~~Gc
"
"
!
,.l~ ~ G
~l\, -;\
,
,
~5
1~
.
l
!
~~
fITNESS CENTER
01 CONCEPTUALFLOOR.!.~
,.....,.-v
ocn
a_
~lIEAl.lllSER:VICES,lI<<
3675Oll1l!GUlPHM<\D
l([Nli(lFIJIllSSlA,PA1!l<06
61o.76!l-3JOO
~
~"""""'~
19I1lM:f(lIlllEYAVf..
lJj\lW,lJ[15;/lJl
21'1._=
STROCruRAl~_
".~
1919~AVf.
DAU.AS,lX?5201
~~
~,~
3QSN.lWJ.ST.,SUIll'l300lIll
-~~
=~
IIUlfTER.ossoctATESmu.s,lTU.
814GWAI1IUTHllllANE,9JmSC
OAIlAS,Tx7S2l1
INT<RIOllDESlGIlER
llE5I~STWro,1NC.
1~I~ONAVE.
f'HIl.A!laPH\.\PA19U7
LRiOSCAPEAAOtllECf
=M
3916NOllHAl.SJREEr
SNlDlEGJ,O\92.l0l.
Foo!I~lIm'r.ow:<;i'TAIfr
~,~
52OO0Tt;PNlJWiAY,SIlITESOO
GRffNWOOIlVIUAGE,COIlllU'
HI<~
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA
~~~
8693.000
m~
~~
M"
C.U.P$USIoli'llAl. JUN:E30200
-~
<;;,,~,~RE5~IT1AL~_\!"_,.'!Q
-=
FITNESS CENTER
FLOORl ROOF
PLAN
-~
A.32
~f..,'~
(
I
,
06 EASTI WEAST ELEVATION- FITNESS CENTER
'10"-141"
05 NORTH ELEVATION- CANCER CENTER
jJ!l"o'''''
i
i
~
.'
04 SOUTH ELEVATION- CANCER CENTER
""""""
~!
.
"
~
L
---El~TI..fkQQ.~
[L= 127'-0'T
-{t~1f~~~"
--.f).f_S..!...x~~R~
EL'" 100-0"V-
03 :'~~HI SOUTH ELEVATION- FITNESS CENTER
CEMENT
TILE ROOF
---E!f3.TI..fkOOR A.
EL= 127'-0""-
o
,
--.f1.R.S..L~~QQ..R_A_
EL'" 116.-0.....".-
T!lE BASE
~C~-;-6~O~~~
02 ~ ELEVATION. CANCER CENTER
J'3~T_!.bQQ~_A.
El= 127'-O""f'
"
,
--.f~R..~_X~OOR---LIo.._
El= 116'-0"""--
"
,
;"
F1_R_S.L~~~~
El= 100-0"'--
TILE BASE
01 WEST ELEVAll0N- CANCER CENTER
'/!I'o1'-V
oca
-
UNI'IBl:SoOI..IIEAlTHsaMre;.lNC.
WSQU'tllW\ffiRQID
KmGQfPllllSSIll,PA1'MOS
610-76&-3300
~
H~NlOIrn.'CIS,I!C.
llI~l'I<KlI.MYA'Ifi..
PlUAS,TX=l
114.969.5599
STIlIlCO.lRAIENGINffil
."-
1919~1.'Ifi..
twJ.AS,TX752Ql
-~
~~
362SN.HAUsr~SWTEl300UlI:3!l
PlUAS,TXml9
=-
=~
81<<lWAll/UTHIl.LlJIltE,5lJII<92S
DN.lAS,TX75Zll
1NTBIJDR~8l.
V5IGNsrumo,1HC
1M La'EIIINl1It'JI(AVf.
PlW.ADEU'HlA,PA191X1
-~
-
3916N01lW1.SIREEf
SMIlllalO,Ol921Ol
RlOOS6MCEOlNSl.U:>/Ir
~,~
52OOmc_"Y,SUlTESOO
GRHNYl<:IOOI'ILI.A(E,OJ00111
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA,
i
8693.000
-~
~~
& ~
~3 6
2 5
1 4
-
c.u.~ "fAul'lT.... JUNE ro. 2004
~
C-UpRI.'S\IB:l.lm.... ftO'/O' 2004
--
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
-~
A.33
(
,,-~/
O~ -
\, ~"-O'6 ______ _ - -- T
C', .. 0 - ..- .
", , \ ---"t- ,."\-~'-
,...,,;;,~;../<~~i::-;'''' -~~-_' -/ ~~'P~~-
_______ ,,'0,-,,"0 /-~ _ ,,,~_5'-",61: PM - \ ~~---.
_____ oePO __---~_w- ~_\!f...-/:;':;'::' \ \ v:;; ~
// '-:~/~_~!"~ /z ~~~~ I'~ PARCEI(,,;:;1 \ \>\.. "',.- _F -5
.' /~<_:~ '\ /~*'~~~~\':\ 75\+ Aery:: ',(, r,
~__ '-- ,__/ ~\\\~\\ ./ ~lrl,l\,
\ ' /'~\ 0 v' - ~!~I'\.I'f'IJ1llJ\J'll8T .. '
'\ \ ~ ~~\ 'f' 'O'/"~' ~';I~~'mJ~~ -~~-'
1 <ie" , '- 1~ t? 'I' ,T'.-n
." \ ..--~ \\ = I - I" ,I', .-i-<>-u "
1 \ " " --"'--- ~-\~~ " "'V- Io'P
\ ,\' 'Q!, 'l?:'"'~\ \ !'~: 'Gj' ,~.,.,!~ ' 1('1, !r/i.:iW.,-:- lTil' - '"
\ ~B \9 !_"~ -'._ //' - -~.', \ :1',' ;~'~~;:;~i~J,~ ~~~~~,~ '~l~~ ~,. ,I i ~.
, \ _, ',<, 1 IN,,, ,,' "r IT(Il1..U,M':I~ : i f'<
'I 57') \, , \ ,\ ~('~ - (-"::L '- LI E ' r "\ ~
""'\" ,,", - /1:- /' ~ ,Ifi.;"", we -:, mr / 1 ,,-, -
\ -770,ofi- \ _~~_~~ I hlt ,~\\ - 1~~1*1,-., .,'~;",W:"N, 11 'Sj,,: ,) I -r
_, \ 55'34'49" E ~'1~~ ~---r\1\ f----\~ '_:;-E-="'~U.!ETii,,!,I"r:=I~:'> 'r)1 J !
__" N 78'40'00' E \ N ~_,/</"i-;~ ___~_' ' - ~ ~ \" ' -- , ., " ;1 ,~!,"'5r r
__ _ ,"''''' ___ ./'c'-- " ' 'C?", "."21,,,
~ ' ' ' ei ~J ~ , ,," ---. ,
,,:~~{r.;~rfs~'~?! Ii . ///"..'). i,~;)2l) :,,~~\-i~4iiO 'j ~ i .....,..,0& :',! ~~1t/11 ~.rn T, / j',.;:: ~:~_-=_'- .---------,.,',-.."~,~~ :~r-E~~_,_" =::- -=Jl:'1 ~\, 'f\. " ! ~,
, "6 LM ~ i /< t~ft~ ~'7-;~.r:.~~im:^:t-!: n ~ ~;..i'lI.I! _ !;/" - ,,-.' ". ',C;;,..;:~O '~,\~ \'\ " Ii
,...... !_ r BtL'f-.;- --, i U!i!i:;....n1ilTTi,ifT:, \1 ~ Df('P : .<:.Ii'L ~ \
RANCHOTR/R ~. /~, Yi~".C.V .~. .j~~Li;1.,'.' l,k i~~-= I ::,.~ .;:; ..'-1 )';\~~~'Br'ABROA9..co /' I ~ ",it ~
="f'y ~~I~'~!j!l/, " ". >&,! "'Jt~'
". ::1' F~!~ - 7/ /, ~ .'~" w. "A rt ;71
'B'l -1- ~~ ~ t::s '1 ll~ '!'i is''''', ,"- .. ' ' . ,.. ,c?/' ' '---;Y-T"
, ,m ~= ~1: ~ l-o~'1 ' :: 1,(c21'1~~ ,<;2' ~~ ~ ~ : ~ i ~,~/ 1P. f>--/ . ~ '3'"/" >
! _'__ 5';~ .. ~ I I i'5"~ .., ~. -"C' ','" ' ' ''U-'-';' Tct '''-' "'," " , ~
: ~~_ -~il:: \~ 1:E2 _- ~-'=j' = r-~' 1if'~,1 '7!V, I j\i' : '<:'. ~T::i= ~ ;,v~ I! , I
g c-- ~;~i';.:OI.~".~.:U J,:.~.-~'t'~::ll~i: ~~/f\fd ~\/ I c:'~\;, II' :-~:: 'j ~111 ;
I n:I!i!v(ni"{i':!, ~~ ,)(;,,,=,= ~f..S?ii.'~' -J' "I_.T- -9- -1-, I ""
c L " _, ' ' . ~'"'' "'" ,"~"",, c'i,K;c~ 'iIi'f: c " ~ ,~ ~ -2;;: ~.;; ". ·
":~: ". """"':'" ,/ _ _,_ ! ~, ....w<~:,..." ~',' ~"" '" ",. "*,' " "H"".""; fI/i <
_n_ "," ----. -- . -------- --"-"= ~
.. _,,-..__ __ "7:- - -r, _ -~; [_-:'m-~:'Fc-,~-~;;~"1o,m'-;,,.m f"S~HIGH>VA!7~_:,_ - - --::--- -- "rL'- ----
, ___________.:~'---~--~--,--~ L__ 'lEm' =,_, __ 7, ' u__
--=-~~~R':: __n_ -- f~' -~~~ -ii~::( ~=~~-,~~~;:~:~:~~~~~~~~~'~~~:;-:--= ~~,,-, .,..,
I ,r;t--iTl -
I I .I .' I
r-------
I
I
['
I
I
I
I
I
De PORTOLA ROAD
_R/W
. =; ;::-J..;.. :r:. :.
I
G's---
..~--.rnW-
-7ll'26'
Wn
oe hwcy Route 79
Vicinity Mgp
~.-
~PI.-PL--
<>S>___--- _
--
---- uc____n vC-
----,,,
-
--0-0-
i
!
,
I
,
:i
ii
ii
"
!I
I'
,I
I'
~
~lll
eN
:~
Rfl>'
"='-,--=-,-,1,
I~
___u . j
-=.---:::-:J.
LEGEND
I
,
_w_
PROPERlYtlNf
EXlsrI/lGCOI{l'O{)"
_w~
EX/STING WArm
=~-
UOGEl.ECrRlC
~~~
I
i
~
~
N,
~:
I
I
,
!
,
--,
--- :::J
EXlS1/NGsrORM
'8'
o
'"
roc
m
'"
PROPOSf.OCONTOUR
-=-
PIIOf'OSE!)l'M/F1<
P~DSEWER
:fr~R=%
~CTOI?CHECK
i
. i
p~ -----.-PL -~---
SfWfR/JANI/OLE
ClJRBINt.rr
FlRf.De'T.CCNN.
FIR</l>'DRAJff .
--
----Pc
Inn
f
R/W
R,/W
n.~ T
i~
t~~------~- -,- ~-
r
/
Rj'.v
I
I
lYJOO~
,
I ==;::;""',,0-
I ~::'=lO,PA'9406
~
H~~~'---
1919l<cKIN~OY"'1IE- .
DAUAS,1X7S201
214.969.5599
~~~-.
1919McKl1<NEYAVE.
OAlllS,TX7.'i201
..~
ccm~EP.S----
=,~7~',Ji't'mUOOLBIJ9
ClVlcENGINEER
~AiES-ro:os.-----
=~~~J~lA1iO'St!~~500
~~~J;~-~--
l61lfliEJUN<iTQNAVE.
PHllADRPHlA,.PI\19127
~~_ARC!l_!LW_
1916NORMAl.STRUT
SANlllWO,CA~10l
~~..."t....,._
~DTCPAAYNIAY,SlJl'I'ESOO
EIIWOCIOVILlAGe,008011l
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA,
North
~J '20
&0""'''''''' ,'_0"
8693,000
et:I~
,;,.. ""'~
~"
~"!>!.l_~_________,__
5Itffim;- --
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING PLAN
~OO.
CGP.1
"",00_1
..."",.
,
\
.
,
'I
I
~ I
~II
1::11
H
:~ -
I , , _1-__.1___
'''''t , ., -l----t I
, ,- , i I I
: ; I ! . I
,
~ ~w ~ ~" - , -
SECTION 'A-A'
, , . i i j i : ! .~-'!
n-j;:::;;H-iHi-;t: ~I~, m
~ -'~j' --~--1-=-~*-~- ; .j5i~r~-'---'
i+-- ',1.'. T_'",~;,',',.
-j- .f .___j___L.--L i-l
i I f I )
OfXJ OHO
"
loo_.L
I
___l
, i i I
j ~ I ;
-r---;--+----j----
I i I
- ~
~
0+10
SECTION 'C-C'
I I ! I I 1 i ! I I
.~. 'Iill;t::-'i-;,tfi
=+.! ,"-i--I ....I~!'-~.'~f~. ~-- ~-~-t-:i'.~".
'" [r:-'jl--~ -r1+++--!-+iH+-1i '1-
1~_) l---: ~~ I-n 1--.+.----1- -f----c-J--H--.,-~--..,.-.-L--L-l.---i -r--+
fOW_, -7--1 ,- - _L__~-,_~-~--I- n+_ ' ! ---~-.L -~--:--~ ~~-l-"-~-f!j_.~:-
: Iii, i, ! I':
OHa 1'>>2/) O+4<h M~ C+ Of IJH!V IHfI() /+<<1
SECTION 'E-E'
! L --j-- -LH+ "- 1-- - t--- ,--L-:-, -I +-+-+~-
I! '+-, 'L'Ji11,'I'---"-.<t,
i-i -t-, 1 :T-In-il-:-Ti I I I I I ! : T ,--r-~-
;f~ =~im-~ i. rII-I-r-1--J-~l-~D=LL~[J;-I]'nJ j'i.
--: - I l . 1-.ar -+--+-J--i~-lT~++~- :-
--i- -I--,~ n_~ + --==-l.....d-:.~..~-_.~--f-- --1 - --j-----+
I 1 I : I I ! I I I ;, I ! I I
+w IJHi(} 0+ 9Q!+OO +I H2Q Ifl If
SECTION 'G-G'
I I I Iii I Ii] j
"'-, -I' -8-!' ~ -+---,--;---:-~<, :--
(QAl1 f-----L ' I 1 I ._~-+__ L ~~ _J___~_--.l
~I '-I -r-- I i I
In' _ j
IOSL___;-_,--,--_+_
; ! ~
-']'---'-[
_ ~.~E~r
, I
------1 -..j--
I
(JUO fH.8O 0+
~
,
._._---_._--~
,
,
.1__
I ; I
, ,
-,-r--I--
I , , .
,--+---,+-.1
I I I "
, -j"'-'-,'---"
"
, --1
;
Hm H~ ,- H~
,
~~
~w
~m
~
,-
SECTION 'B-B'
, I j : +i i J ! ! I I ~! ! i i i i :
~-i ---f- ..'r1'----j- ! ~7ri"T-.-.r.-nr-.fi---lrl-Ti--'-i.-.'-
::j"i~+-=c-~c~f. -ftr;,'"+T", ~t~ :1 :,'TT
'=+h,' -'-,' --i,-- .,-o--"-+-T-j--r+-+ .-I-'+-----j-~
1 . I ' ' I I ! I : , j I ! I I ! I I
_ +W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I~
SECTION '0-0'
--1----;- I ,J ~_ .__l_J_J__ _L__.L. -l -1.. ..1_ I~ I
I I I ! ~Prop.i~ ! ! ! I I 1 f' i -r--P-i- I
__no' ., -'---"! ...-+-'~i----~/~j/~1fi~~OM--bF~'.+'. +Prop.~i-- J - ~ --+. ! .-~.- -j----
'F L~HI-1IH*ftr~fl:.i=t t-t
---r-- i : I -"I 1 i
0+20 (H-JO 'fO (JI~O O+W rHlI! (jffQ /+00 1+10
,
10~ j__
fON__f-~_
! I
l~tn_._ln--nj
l1W..t.
;
I.Q.~~-+.
(QSO-+
. :---
i
OHO
SECTION 'F-F'
,
I
-_._--_.~
rn:~
Ul8'fT _.-'_
UNlVER.'W.HI'AlTHS8\I'ICES,mc.
l101SOU1HGUlPHRClAD
K1NGOfPRU551A,Pftl9406
610)-7611-3300
l<R01lT~
HKS~lPfC.
.919 MOONNEVAVE.
DM1J\5,lX752<l'
2l4.!lfi9.SS99
STIlUClllAALENGIMWl..
HKSSrnUOUog;---'
1~'914<KlN"""AvE.
(lAllA$,1X75<Ol
~------
CCRoPAArnERS
J6<!5M.flAUSf..SUJTEt300la'39
0A.U\S,lX751'9
Q-'i!l~______..~_._
HllmElASSOClATESTEXAS,UO.
8110WAi1llJTHllllANE,SU1TE5(JC
l>AllJ>S,TX7S231
Jh'TaUOR=GM6\
OESlGMSIlJOIQ,iNC-
IGll.EVSU'lUTOMAVE-
PH1lAOEU'Il!A.PA191.7
lANOSCAPEAAOUTECT
jffij:;:/i---
,916MOllWl-SJREl'T
Sl>NOlEGO,CA92l03
~SEIlV1CE~\I.J\I:!!_,__
SOl..lOC
5100OTCf>AAAWAY,SUlTEOOO
Gl<EENW(OJVlUAGE,COSllJl.
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA,
8693.000
=~
~~
0'.;;. .m.
SCALE;
HortiCintal_1010
Vertlcal,1;lO
~'1!1-'2....~_
~
-=
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING PLAN
CGP-2
..
.
.
i1
II
"
Ii
I'
I
I
I
I
,
1
I
Ii
~I i
~j-~
"'I
:1,
J~ij
~!
I
~
TITlE REPORT:
FIRST MlER/CAN TITLE-ORDER NO, rJ625.-966082
~mJASOF.ll4r f.J; 2OIJJArl:.J()~II.
lEG4lllFSa<JPmH,
IIO.lPl/fJffJm'ljllCaJfOFI<l/tl'.'tI!A,CQ(ll(fI'Of'IINUiSIIJ{.SWfOFGIIJfO//I//A.fJI;S(;1I!88)A$
==
fWICa~AS5IKJW//flfPMm.WJ'IJOfJ,Cllfl'fJNiKJOK70~111Wf)22.crl'Ali'a1J.W'S,
~OFI1MlIS<<C(J/J#f)'.CAllFVfIN/A. '
~~-
~TIICOOT_fXCEPlIOHST(JCQlVO\GfiNNICflIONroJlt[PI/INIEl}EJIl)(FII(X(SNI1)EXCIJ)SI()#SINSW
FWCrFlli/JjJlW)ilfASm.wJlS,
I.WlERlJ.IHISPfCl'lID!:>JWf)AS'SESSkfMSfO//THEfrso.LlW/=_2O(U,ALEIi!/Wn7()1jf:1)//
~r~ .
IllElifIIQ(STII'FW.lEJ/WlAlB;"N!Y;JSSOSaiPlJllSf.WffWC/W'IfJ/J.5CVJ.t11E}1C1NClI1lIf,
Sl:COO<I15IJFIII<GNJR:II/IJAI/FXNUCMDWllOONCCOC
a:MlW/lS,.CfI1IO(fI(WS,fItS//IICIICWS.wr!fASEJI[J{lSINJIt[[KJCUJIO(TII!WI<<I!OClM'11II,l960
ASIIISTI/W[/ff";.'OO15JOF~RarifI!JS,IIf/ICHP!;tl~~TAlm'AIXWTI/EJIIl)fSIlAi.L#01
IJUW()f?RfJl/)ff/INVAiJ!}THEIENOFNffFIIIST~()f?{)fff}or~MWEINGIJO{)FNrH,woFIJI/
19W1:fMIJt1J:fWNffcrMW.Nr; ()(JNf}ff/("pI)//Tl!SlllfCTK!HHilCArtllrJAP!IElfJ/E}/C[.I1MiJA1IOJ(0I/
~fPSB)OH~Cl;aw'I,F!flN;/(l//,SDI.IW/DICN'.f.WAJI.LSL\I!."-'~ID'W.(JfIJCIN.=
00EJ(fAJ/(J/{,_SL!~ANCfSTfI1'.SOIJRC[OFi/lC(}/lfOl/~m1llff){lf}ff5l.lCH~
C!JNI}JfI(}t/S<rIl/fS1l/1CT/OI/S IWrrTI/l.f~l. =rIaIIJ&H(C), 1JFrHE:1/NfIfJJSL\I<$COOCS(Jf(SfC1II!N
I=OF11If~W8IJ/IIEIITGl::l'J<:LAIm/1F1ESl11K:T/()N$l.IIID!1IsrAlrAM)ff1SI)J.LAWOH1IIf
Mt:OFIJCC!.IW{f$I/ISlJ/I(}J?~&HOf.ISINGfrJ//OOJ!/?PflIS()NSSI>\lLN()I8EcotmRIIf1JAS
I/fS///I!;/I(Nj!llSWO!ImllUJl.SL!TUS
AOlf:/NWKJNOFmNfX,I,TIONIifI:a/!lWA(JGlJ$r~ I%8AS/1iSINUImffIt'O.WTl~OFDmCIAl
~
()(}(";;JjJf}ff(S) /JEClAiI/I/(; lI(1)IfICA1!OIIS fIIUIEOF fIm}fIfJ{JJ M>>/CH~. 191/ AS I!I>ITIUlifNf iii). :J1821
NIlJffl!II1lJ/rti1.J98/MI/lS7/IIJIIGfTIIO.8l-tJ2J0>OFomr:tIlliECOl/f1S; ,
OOVGWIJ:5;CONiXIIONS.!lfSmJCIJO/ISAMJOSEJ,/[}USINTI/f"l.!OCQJIO{1Rm\'iOOlOCCD4lUl2D,1966
ASIliSlPl.Jl/DffNlI211H80F1lffK:IlLRECOl/fJ$,Wl/lCi/PRfMlJ<I1<<IAI1V!AOOYTHfJ1EIJfSlWlNOI
(){ffArlJl/_INI'AwrIfEUENOFN<<~II(IIffl;I{;EORDm)()F/RtJS(I/AlJEJNClXXJFiWIIM'I)fO//
\IIWlSfMlElEN;AH'f!'!.llm4llr.OJfflfIIf}III)//RfS1/l/CI1OI/HJlCA1/N(;APIIEHI/ENCf,IJ//ff~OlI
OISC1IJ/mWIaIOOWONI!4CI;Cll.l)f/.fIfl1(,>(JII,SEX.IAA!IICAP.F!JiJUAlSrATlIS,NATK>>IAI.IJ//JCIN.=
ORJEN{Ar/OI{IINI1W.SWUS;N.mw; SOIJIICCOF/J/COMfCl/lJI!WJIlJlY, IV THEfXTfJ{TSIJCH~
G)IoI1)fII(N:,OI/!IfSm1CIIOIISIli\\WrTmEfl,sa:lIfWJ&H(C).OFT1IEIINff!1ISTAIfSCl:1!6011:srr:rrrJN
IJ955OFIiIf~(;(NfI/NJIf}/TCCOCW/1l.ltRESl/l/C//ONSUll{)(}fSlil'll:#IOIl!lOW(.<IfOllIltl:
~OFOCCIJIlWISWSfJo1lill/l()W/Hr;OI?HWSINGffi'/OiJJEl/PU/SJOtISSl<<u.lIOroc(;/)//srfl/JE)AS
fIfSl///C//OIISBoISEDOI/FJ.uAAr.SliIM
OOCIMIiI(S)M1AIiIIriI.l(X)JflCATIONSJ/IfIIfJJFfWQIfJf[){JtCfJ.IWIJ1,1WA,sI/iS1RlJl(f]{(I/O,
11lJ()(jOfcmctALlIfaJRDS.
S.Nlf/&1IEJIIRI11fD1ff5li111JiAN1JINCI[}(J{fAl..PUflPQ:StS,R!CVIIDfll~2!i,l9l6ASINSIIIWEJff/n
W!H!I(}fwm!/IfIXii/IJ$.
1Nfi41tW(}f:KN'>>IAo:m\ACAJ.JFGl/MAGfNfJW.IWlPifllSHIp
~SW/AMJ
6.lIIElHH;TOFA/1!C1TA1.OIISUl/lAi'SI1f>UIAI1HGWlfMAMUiI)E5l(RA1(J}ASI>>4I1m1:Wi!7OI.COI.1faS
lJU5f8EkIl'lTflffOFAU.fA/WJI;I;UMl$.0BSIRUCT/fJH$>>Il)~8'lWIOfllL
mfASiM)(fFrJl1I1f1/K:l.1VJ1INC1/fSSAMlECRE;SS,l(IG1JII1:JIlIWIlIIElI1CIfTlVaJNsmrx:F;f/EPAIl/MI
MAlNfNNIWfRPlPElJNE5.lWlfSNlDrmIfJII/WJ!()Nf<If{/f}{NI(;(IWDJ/tr:I1JfNTAl.PlJfII'05B.
~~6;19IJ5ASINSlH/JJ/F){f1lf117JZUOF(flICVl.IIBXiIIflS,
IIIFAotWOF:IINICJ{()GlUrJMi/AWAm/1JISTiIICl
urrn!:$\ltI1AIiIJ
T/lEfFffi:fOFARECml-OIISMJIW'(MIIGI/O(l(:fOF'CUCTlONIffWlOfJMtJEI<7DDfFEJlPAtliENTOF
~flF:S.AHlJmlf~msAIIE:R<Q/J/fIa) ro8tI'AlV~T7HE T/NEOfISSU'J/CF()fEHHfJ/A
G1INJJN(1a1AfJUlJ)(N(;P8IIIff.Mf!rn<fS<.'OfEfSJ/f.JSTfJEfI'ij)Arlllf~/[lNfHECTAfTIIF1IJJE0F
~OFflfEAC~Pfl!/Iff.
PfII()f/WrHE;ISSlWICE:OFAN'fPI!I.ICYarrmtlNS1.RWlr:E; /HfClJl/PN(fIlllLF/EQ//Jf/r:
TllrCfJlll'l)flA!ffW'UISF()JIe/WII)~RfCllJf.'Al!JEl"ir'.llCENllJ/.INC...ACJJJ1'OiI//IA()t')IiA1RIrlll)N
10. :m~7r~~~~=~;;~rx:hOFS/'A7r(Jfmt
o:>FIPrJfIAl1(IN~ srAlfarOOiltllL
8- AcumrraJCOf'rOFARfSCU/lICWOFIl/EIJOAROOFl!JPEC/'a/5ll!lII()IIfZ1M;lI/ErxwrtM'I.Io1(J}
l/lWS.4CII()NAHlJCfS>GN.lrw;Jf//Ii:I/COIIPOIl<lfom:ms!'JW..(I>4~TH[PQMllroVllWTtOllfJ(llAJ,f'()f
~~=
C CT}([fIfIrn.IIIiflImrsl'M;Hl/I[crJ/JPANI'~YINPOS[R.W1llI'IGIISI!\lOI'0F7If[Jl<IfIIIli.i
/Iff!l.<{IfJ)iI<l1flIINiDrmtElIR.'ffIIIMAllCNIm1GHIltI:COMPAN'fIl4YRmJII(. ;
TITLE REPORf-
FIRST AMERICAN Tm.E. ORDER NO. 0625-966094
!ltIElJASarMlYltl;2IIIJJAfl"J(JAII.
UIl<!D<SCI1IPTPI
FIfAlfflOPfHrl"1HECJTYOF~CJJJA(.'()I)NTY/Yl1i'IEf/S/tJt,srA/fOFCNJFrJmIJ4,lIESCJ/fBElJAS
=~
PAJiCfl2/YI'N/mIJN'IJ/UJ,AI"SI//lIINffYAW'OIIfllERlfJ()(JI(l'tl.f'A(;ES2IN11J22
OFPNICil.lW'5;MIUISIIJf'(;()/J/{/'f.CIUf'(ll'iIIl<l.=lW1IIlIfArPClillJl/fT
PN/CEL I (X'SIlIW'{)ESl:M8UJASFatfltlS:
lI8iIM8NGArIHEII01rIIIf.IoSTUY(;()f(1/[//OFs.II/IPARCaI,SNlJroINTfIfJN(IRlIII[
SilXl.I1If0FIXf'Of{l7)/.Al1OIO;88.00rcrrIllOCSIf)POIIff~BEJNI;OI/AI.45I;.
f()I)riWltCSO'-!IItCQ/.Ol~5(!(ff//[fIir.A_PWffIOS<mCl'!'/\{'_
111Y1T112J'28'WIIrn;
rHOa II!SIDI!YAWW SWClll'i'f IHf/()U(;H A CEJ{JKAl ANW:OF I' 20' 17: NlAIIC
IDmIIOFJ<fW;
IHEJl:ElGlWM::$\ltIWM".wJSIJ{J/JEPIJNlIJ/.A ~ SWlH24'I4'21'WT2lUH
FffrIOAPOINTIHTIIlFASlERtYIlNE(}f$\ltlP.AAJ::UI;
IHOICE. N.ONOSWfAS1fJ/!YUNf, _III 11'()5' l4'IlBT11J,lIrmlO 711!:PCtir
<<~
EllaJ'Tl/lCT/IEFIEFIIf!I/TI/lrPf)f/Tl(JHOFSlJ{JI'N1Clt2DES('.flJfJWASfC/.!iNfS;
BB!INHINGAI1IIf:~YCOfIH[R()fS<VI'N1CltZ
lIOo'CE.w!IIC1ItI:S()IjTHm.YUlfTlJfflfJ)f.NOHTIIJ8'J2'S;.f;<S(JlffE(;
MlIC(:IIOHlH~u."11'~r211-71fW"roAPOIIITl1ilHi'lI!:Smil:YUNfOFSNIJ
~,
1WIC{N.O#GS(!llltSmltr1H$()I/I/I IT(l5"WfASf26liJIfEETTOTHEfWlTCF
-
fIEff1I1J-ICt:/SIa/lrM!IXWtOfUNENWSTllfNTNO.2-m.
NW:S5!Hl/J(J-.O'JHJ
~JRJ='1J51OIIS:
GEM1I4lJRJSPU;IAl. rAX<5~ASSF:SSIifNTSFOI/ 11If.11SCAJ. rWI:2OrJ.J-2fXH,A/lEJIlIIJ(ruoi(CII
-,~
2- IHt:IJOI(X'SI.f'FlD<</flALrA>XS;IFAllY.I6SESSf1JP1JI/S1JANTlrJawwI~r;rJW,If1/CI/of'lt11ll!
SE:CT1OO15or1H[~fI!l9If)ENllJtw1lOl/CCIIE.
J.~IXI€fflOIIS.MSTRX:lX!IlSN/(}0SEIJl1nS1/j1lll:lX/CIJI/f}ITl/f/:XJflOCOOCTOIJ[fIII.I!Iis
AS_1IO.6/;-1(J()1~lGFomr;wtlf:C()llO$,III/lI;1!PROI'/!)fTWJAl1OW1l.WlI€1/EOFSHNi.1IIJ(
IJUF),r()//fI[}lJ[JIJ/JVNB1IIE1EN0F!HYflllsrI/()/(/OO;[I)fII!fW0F11IIJS(/JAOCWIXJO()FNlllAIIf!FOI/
lIIl~fJ/RrortINC-'I<<ClM1WIr;CCNfIITI()N()//fI!SllIIO/()I-/WlCAnN/JAf'IIEFffIEIIC[,UllTlAT/OrUJi/
OISaIMIIAIKJ/lIiI5B'IOI/IW7t;ClJI.CR.F1lJGI()N.SD::lWttM:AP.fMlN...mM;lWXiIIAl.rM6I1i.SI;:tmt
1JRIENI},1IO/I,MNlfTN.STAIt(';NICfSfIIY.=CFWC(}/,/f()//GlSNlilJlY.IOTHEWfNlSVCHCl'IImWI5;
cotIflfIIrJNSaiflESl1lml(JNSl1Gl(.IlrTflUn. strnOIIJ<j(Jf(C), OF7/lt1J}l{lEJ)S/'A/rSC()()t5Ol1S((.'11{J!1
r2955(}fM:~(;()VflINlI[J(1C<<iClAlIfM1IESII/fC1IONS1INWISWFAMJfllJOIAJ.IAW(JNl/IE
N;l;(X'I)Cf;I.I'II{TSINSE>>Cl/l/()(I$/l{(JaillO!.JSl/oKif(}l/WJEl/Pf1IS()NS~NI!JNCfJNS7f//JUJAS
fI1:57111COO/iStIISaIONFJN/tJ'J.S7AItG: ' ,
AOCCIAIATJCNOFNIiIfXI<mIII/UX/l/(){])IJJGIJST211I!168.(';I/SJ//WEJ(JIIf1I5i1-S0m()F!I'TlCI4l:
~
1XJCllllfNl(s)f'1Eiil.PJ/-li)NOiJlFIC4!1ONSTII&!1!FFlECCfIfJfl)lW1aIl,I9nAS/IISTRfMJ({NQ,l/-
211J22IJ/I)FEEll!WrYS.I911IASINSITIIJ/ifI{111rJ.8/-2J-/8100/H0F0flICl;,L1IEWRI15.
lIIElJ'iI//1IYWiJEJ/S<JI)CtIYVIANTS.CrJIIOO1)HSANO~IlIS/H}/A'JSWEJ)ffYLOS
fWl(;HJ(JSlIt1If/lW/U/$ASSI)(:(AmHASDfSa.OSE1}HrIHASSIGIIJ/fNrANOASSl!JIPOOII
AJ;lIW<[//TII!IP/()(/)FI:EI/f.W((S,/IJ8/,IS~MJ.8/-2.Uli5OF(}frIOALIiRXti1!S()f
f/MRS//JEcwm:~
4.WVCJWI1S,C1.1Im7CWS;RmII1I:T1(I/SAMJeASEllVf/S1N1IIf:[I()CIJJIOIT1/DXIIIfJS}0lCfM!(JI2!t
19t16/;S1NiIMIlIEJ{(1Kl66-121!WJ()f(l'liOll.Iia'01lOS;IJi)J(){lEIWJN(fCllliFJ/Nlr,rxJNJX/XJN0f/
IIIT1H1C1/(MIlUCAllNGAPfIlJVIf)ICE,IIIIIrAI1(IH()//fJISI:I/JJIJI/A'IION8'S8J()NIIN:E;C1XIifI,/Iflir;/()Ij.5a;
IWIQIGAI',I>IlilJ.lI.SllI~~/l:l!lIt~stx!.IItCfl/f}{fAIIOII._N.STIJIJS.NlCESIlI'Y.S()(ItICf,OF
M:fJ//EOlID!W:IIJfY.I01H[lXftNTSIICH~Cf;MK/IONS()//PEiI1//CWNSI\UAIfmu-42.
SS:TIffl~}.OFmrIMlf1}SrAJrsClX:6mSE(;Tl(JH/f!955OFTHF:('.4llf1JIIII/JfXJlfJI/lJ/O/Trooc
/AlI1URfS1IIK;OONS/JMJ(J/S/'A!FNllJFfIJEJW..W1(IHl/IEAoG[or~lIrSlJll(JilHrJfJSlNfi(Jfl
IICIJS/NIifOOr.wlRPEKhlSSiW.1NOf/iEIXJNS/T/UWASRfSJ/l/CTlWSIiI5B'IOI/f.wtlll.STA7lIS:
1XJCVMlJIT(Sj1XClAllJM;1I0/i/FlCliJl(J/{$(/IEiIiOf/lfCQR{)(J)OErolfJfRJI,I96801SlNSITItJ//f/ffllO.65--
/21JCfiOFWt:v.L1IEWRI15.
OR/JER NO. 0625-966082 (com.)
S.NlfASOIfNTIlWE/IIIUf()f{8(I1HPClJ:lMtS,ClJMlIJffSall.III/JEJ/CIIO/flaJl/ESANf)1IIC/iJf}{LlL
P!!IIf'aSFS.II8:UIfJf1)JWlIWY'x\I9WASINSn/IJNflffIlO.1i9-91410F(lfFlW,LfI8X)f//)S.
WFAKw()f:!<JIJMlIN~EJJ/SON1X!I.IPAKr'
~-~
1Hi'um:r()FAWJ'OI/FJl.flNtKJOI(2.l.PN;($25N1lJ26OfPAllCEl~I/Ea)fIf)S(}fm\f/IS//JE.
-~
1. N(fANDAatJ1ffRSOFIJBJ/CAJKJ//,C(///IJ////iNS,RE5TIIf(;J1!:WS.()S[JJO(fS,/K)/rSANO/Of/PtIOl1S/()/IS
_()JIOISI:i.OS(J)fffTl*:FUT!()IIIIf/XH}fOJW>fIEfUIf/a)lOlIITHt:la:ll.DExIIiPTIOII.
a. Ni.m.tYAUm/f}ffll\1nl(IIIJTSIIQI,I/)BYNIOfiETllWlJOIIN/LSWIIAR/l}{J1/.ANOR.WCJI(J
CItftl\M!II?I1III1JIS1IIICi_rrrslOlfB)f/l4f5NIJ()IS1IIICfrslJESfJlWWoIS<:t'CI.(lSMMO/TFIifI
MlXT/?N:JI(J//,OOVlIllW!iIIJRI.GC,Eill1I1JNJIN)IXSTi/I/J//1IOI(}FNJ..ta:41~1V<fIBXIf/iIC().!NII.WiY
Jf,f_ASWSI/IfM)(!IIf16$-III1/i(/(}Fomcw.IlfIX)llO$OFRMI/SIOCIX1JIm;~
9. hi CASD/D'fTFIifI fWES1IIWiNIIJ 1IC/fX/IT1J.1'lJI1POS[S, /IfJXJI/()(f) IWICf/ 29. 1~l6AS nsJII!fJ/ENr!lf/.
_f9Of<<Ral.lfliIlJi1OS.
N~lWlJF: 1WSIJi..>ml>l..!cmfO/INiAWlEJlN.PAI?INfRSHIp
~-~
IO.NlAGVICYAf;IIf.fJIf}IT[JAIEIJIWICH29.IS19fffAN/)QilltWI~I1WT'lNIOR4I-Ia/(JCALJF/)f/MA
~1D'I0IS1RICIM/OIflIIlTrsA/il1mlmlrSWOl$TTIICTI5I!fSKi:NlIEIJ.os~AGfJITf/)f/1HE
~~SIOf?ME.8WI&ICNllJOISTRJfJI/JI()I()fAILWCltll'AlIn:IIRXI!//JE/)Il4YI.1919
oISNSII1UiIEJIfNG.19-92JJ(J(}FOIfI(J,<.L/IEJXJiIt)SOfflMflS/EJECOONIt:G4liF/J/?/IIA.
II.AllfASOIfNTfIJI?DG/ESS,EGIifS5NIIJINCIJfHTAL~IIfCIJfIf)E[IAWl1sr6;III</5ASI/'ISI/IfjJJfI/
/iO.85-I1J2J6OFl)fFIC.W.fI{aJIIIIS.
NfAItWOF:/IAI'II)/I)C-'UFOI/MAIP/<NIXSTlI/Cr
.lFFfC15.-SWWIfJ
12.PllJCf/IOTIIl/SSf.WlCf:Cf,IJIYPOiJ(;'(OFlllUlII5iJJWa.lIIEct!W'AlffllllLlIBIIN/E.'
f:iIl1lHFlE!if'EEJro/MJN)IIlUD"Ii'fOO'llt.llH\1041CEN1lJ/IIIC.,AfXII/PO//A~
AACEHTlFll:AJEOF.:tIWIDMJi/KJOFfIECEJ(/l}l/fI5SUIIlElYTllFSB:I/UAf(I"CFSTA/fOF/Hf
1XJI/PO//A/XIJ/'sSWEOFIXXIlC//L
8-ACV<TJFI[/)COf'rOFAfIf.'S(IllfJ1lJNOF1H1:OOIRl?OF~M/IC/IIlJII(;,TIIlCCNrDd'IAIED
I1WIS'.CI/ilHNIIJ~/J//Clf/IIC1/~7rI)fFl{:[llSSHAIL lI\~rlifFl:l!lfll TOmw1f1JN1ifJWf1Jl"
M_
C01llffl~WIIICH/HfCOllPAN'f.\l<lYNPOSfm.t~rrsfll'.VllW(JfM.\I<l1mll1
/1EDJ/IWJ/If1IE1IiIl/f}CTilfRINFOIIIMlXJNJfHalTllf:Cl.lIIPMIY~YIIECIM.
Ii. AUfJlFOI/U/I'SECfAIEJ)PROf'fIIIrTMB',fffJtM:[J)/!rAWlllflCArERfC/Jl/t)UJfff/HfWC1Ji.UCf///IOF
l1MHSIOf:oXtMY,RU:OI/f}{J)IX/TJBER2t2rXJI.ASINSTI/l.IliEJITNO,0I-S19I51JOFCFTICIAtR<CCIIDS.
IJtJmJR:MAMJY.4UITRmICIIIJ.;;[N;N.CfIIillI
r<JH.tIlO~OH12I0221H88
NiOIlIff:i2,219J&,~AN'f01HEIlAJl(JlJ/{f$I)IJ[T/IO/fJHJEl/.
IS. AWlfOflI.MQ)ffl[l)PfIr)PfIIT'lz;un:!I-l'lQICUlBfACEl/17flC.l/ff/WJl/CC{/8YTllEWOIJl1ll:Tr!i/IJF
II>'fRS/DCCQIJffY,fI!C()fIf)[11N(JIatW/I.l.2IJ01.ASHSTRtJ/JE}/fNO.fI2-55l8i!20F0FFIC/IJ.
~,
OE8TOI/:/MNOll\UEYREGtlW.I<flJI(;<(CfJ{/fJI
!1:IIIli:fIIJ"/J2-{)JjIl2JJ982
AAICIINI: 1t,21~!H, ANDN(fIl1l/fHAWfJ//II/SIJ//E 1HElIEUMJEJ/.
nTLE REPORT
ARST AMERIG.W nn.E. ORDER NO. 0625.$66100
LlUWASOFIl4Y",2/IOJArnCAlt
~-
FIfAlPllflf'UffrINT/lEClTYOFIfJlECUU.CW1{1'fOFRMflS1(JE.SJA/fOFCN.EIJIIIIJA..OCSCl?lXI>AS
==
IWICB.lc
fW/CfJ-IOFIlIIIO;l.IJN'1I0./.JiH.J.AS5III)ItIIErfIJAP(///FIUIN/)(}()J(10IWZ21NI/J
~OFPNICfI.~/iW:O'/tJS()ff/MJ/S/C((;()IJNrr.~=]1NI;THfJ1EfROIJ
1I/AlPriflTl()(iOFSJlJW/()/XSCfIJ8(()ASFVUClI:<
_AIrHClII)f{fl/QS/flll.YCf!l/NfPOfSWIWICB.I.SWPOlNlIiDllli1ll7IIE
SIlXl.INF:OFIJi:Pll'/fU(AIIt:lW.l!8-IJ()f[UlI1l1t;SAIIlPWITALSOOOIIGCN.!I,f56-
f()()rF/K)/(lSaJl/VtCOM:<lf"SCUIIIOIlr.A_I'C/I-JTTOSJlJWIilfIJOl/llJr;
1I(///Tl/2Jro;tiU';U' 11'IlBJ;TllfJ/CEmIW~IJ.()IICSAI/)C!JJM TIIROi/i;I/A
COITI/AI.ANCI.[OFIOC<:I/Er;s;o'/1",NlMCWICIIIOFM.OOFffr:TllDlCfW.VfN(;
SAIIlCWM'"N/!IS\IOOIPrJ/1I()/A~SCI.fIH2fl!fGRilSli'21'fAST211.1HffE(1O
APC/I{(/lfmrW/fl/[~UlltQf5NIJfW/CfJ-f:IlitNCf.ALON'OSAI/)~YIlIIE.
~ll[)fJ;11ff!i05'lf'1I'5T21:illfflllOlI/EPOINrOFBEG:!INI/IG.
-,
11WPOIfflOIiOFIW?CH2OFP.!'/Cfl-IJN'~IJ/UJASS1IfJIIm8YlW'CllflUllltKJOI(
1/JPli!f!i2IAMJ22(}ffWll:fllW'5;f/llXIfIIJSOF/1fm/S/I)fC(J(lJfrf.C4LIfOllN/A,
fJESCf//lBJASfC(LQf&
BElIIlHIGArTHES>:IImMfS/El/lYCf!IIMlI.OFSWfWlCE1.2;
IHfJICEAL()N(;T/lE5()IffII8If.YIM1HUIQJf1lOfrlJ/18(Q;11[fSJ'}'51'f;<S(J<.OOf/I(;
1IIEJICENI)f{/Hlfocr;tlEFSI4'2f"1lEST211.11fUTIOAf'(}ll{TII/1IIfltBlWr/JM:
OFSAIlJPNi'l:U2;
THtM:t:1J.1)M;~~rUlltSWIIIIl00Jl/EISG5'14'fAST~UIFffrW1lfE
f'/!fl{J(Jf8CGIIHIPIC-
H'II:9S9-()8()-(XJ2-7
Exr:fl'1IOI<SNllJE}(r;JJ/5I1J/lS;
GEMNALNI/)SPfCPlTA.\fi.wJASSESSIIENlSf1X/1IIE:~lW/2OGJ-2QlH.AUO/Mlrrfrca:0I'
--,
21H1:/J[)/OF~T~IfAllr.=P!ill5l.Wlr1llCiW'lEJ/J.SClJ!/lIVIC/NCII'fIH
se::tlCN1SarTllf~Rn1JIltfAHIJWI.!I/(///Cl//iE:
NlEA5aIENf_0I/1!fII/C,I,ffI)ONTllfJlN'ASIIUEI1IfJJIOII/IlifUG4!f!E51:R/f'11'.W
~~P.u.E.ANDWC//JENTN.PfIIII'I)S[S.
~C1.HXTIOIIS,I1ESrIIII:l/()NNllJEASf)If}{1SIN1IfE[I(XlIII[IITtI[(X)({IJEfl()(;roofRlI,l966
ASIII!STI/UUOffI/O.6fHOO157OFcm:w..!1rn:II'!lSI+IfICHPRrM/JETllArAlI[;{ATl'.WlIIElIH)f5X'IJ./OJ
IJElWI!flIlfJl/JE//Jl(lJlJJ[JIllfIJ[NOFAJ{YflfCif~OfI{)f[f)(}fmusr~INClXliJfNIIIIJ/DFfJII
IlIWE;wr/:.'f!EmN/r"~CC/l)ffJ()/IOI//IfS1RICOOIIHJiC411NGAPl/EFEREJiCE.uscrAT1/IN()f(
_IiI5B'IONR<<:l:;CtJl.CR.Rf}Jr;/()/-/..sa;IWK!iCN'.fN.M14LSWI!S,~Q!//CIN.sotIlI
0fIf[)(IA1IOII.1WIII'Al.SIA'IYS.~Sl)/J//CEOFIIICOIJE0I!~T01HEWfNlQ/CHaMJAAIS.
CONfJ/TiO/IS()fIIifSJ///CWN$IW7r1fM42.5l1:TIOIIJ6fH(C}.0F1IIf:UMlEDSTlJFScaJtS()//S(Cf/()I(
/2955OFM:CIJJfOf/IMGI1rf1MIf)Irct!OCJn/FVlIlESl/llf.:l//'IJN/!U/STA/fA1lllfElXllA).!Alf()(l/IE
AGEOF()C(;(p,<J{fSI/ISEN/IJ/M/O/JSIN(!OI/II011S//IG{()//OWf)/PfJ1S()NSS1flU.NOY8[COI/SI//lI/1}AS
I1fSTR/ClIONSlJA5EIJGilf.IJ//UALSTiII1JS.
AOH:lAlIATJ()/((}fNMXA1/ONiIBXlI/IIfDlJ!G/JSJ20. 195IIAS~IIC-68-8()71~OFOFFICIN.
~
J.O!FICA1IOII5T11fJ1[()f~/iARQ(4.197Io1SINSTR/.IIifNfNO.1I-
ASJo/STT/(/iJ[/ffNO.8/_2J<85..IM)SfPTEJ(fJfJlJI!J9/;ASINSffI!IIJfNT
/K).IXJ-2J11J,AaOF()ff!;JALf1EIXJ1/D5.
fICSITIY:I1OH.'llIS8mlASSUIEJ}Hr1JJS
NlISSI(;N/Jf/{(NI/)A'iS1.I1IPr!ON
lIO.af-2JRJ!j(}fomcw.~OF
-l'aM/lI,'IJ3;WfIfKII(!HS.~III1!OSEJ/fNlSINTllfI)()C()!((N(FI[C()fIf)!J)f!ltEJII!0120.
/Sri6ASIIISIIIlRIf)ffIll!. 66-/21/H8OFOI'fII;lIJ.RHXJlI/!S, wronflW()mr~ CJ!N/IflI()NCI/
1IfSITIIC1IOI/IIb/CAlIHCA~WlTAIJO//O!ID/5Cf/1lJIIOl,rotI8'SDl(JliIlla.IXXJJR.IIlliOOH.5EJ/,
HA!l(!lClJ>,FAIo!WtSTATUS,1IA1lI)IIN.1JIi/I'i/N,;<;<;W\((J//ff}fTATJ(W.MAllJTJJ.SlAMIWCfS!Kf,5f)(1I/CE(}f
/J/CG!IE(JfI(GI8fIJT'f.TOTHt:[l{lf){JSVCH~CCM!flIIJ/IS()//fIfS/TXOONS00'AI!'1lII.f42.
SF:CII(JIIJ&I)f((:),1)f1l/[UIITEJ)SliI/rSc.:t6(Jf1S!CTI(JHI2955(JfT/l(~/XM1/1M]{(1XJIIf;:
WIlUflf:STRJC1IOII5!J//{)ff{SliIIfAMJff()!IW/AWOI/MA6E0FC!CC!JPANTYINSlM/)IIIIf!IISI1/(i(!ll
I/I1U'.;l/Klronl!l1!fHl'fRS/)/{$9WlH:JffJECI!NSII/1J(1JASfI/S1//JC1f.'H;HNJ)IJNFA1RJA(S/'A1US;
COCUIIllff{S)IJfCJAf/IIIGMr.'IXmlI/l!l'lSTllfJl[()fI/E()()(/tJ[])IJB:EJITJEJIJI,I!J6IJASINSIIItINlNrIKJ.ri6_
121JOliOFI!ffVALREWIIDS.
IllEEHfCfOfA lW' CII fIE 1(tKJOI( 2.l. IWZ 2~AMJ26 OFPAIICElIIN't. Jl[CIJRDS 0/'11M1ISIOC
-~
1.)IIfASElDfffOO[()IJtsJTIW(lJI/)lICIlIOII'Al.~iIWO/if!fJ)JWI(;I/29,197oAl"IIISIT/IJI.If){
1K!.1/i-fC!H!/OFomcw.F/RX'111D5.
INFAlQ\'()f:IWSCl/IaIl',At:N.IFOfIIIl'.W/UlA/.I'IIIJNf1?$HP
AFffCTS, SWI)//(t
8.NlN!lJiCYN;IIff),(O{fIWtDI/Il'IO/29./9198r#lf!BE7lI'WIIfAa!'/IIfMTYNIlJI/ANCiIOClllFI!I/tIP,
~lIm{ltSlTlJCrWHEF/UlfTISMIIUlI1HAr~Di5TlllCrJS~Illl.AS~AGmJFI!I1IHE
txTfI)!;f/()f/.DMJ/!1()((S1mIGt/JUKi/NCNl/JIIISTfIlJI.fT/IQfAl.1WCAL.wmREt;(lll(l(J!~Yl, 197ri
ASIIISm!II./DITM:l19-92JJ()Cfcm:w..(Iff(){1/)SOF/1Ml/S(()EI.VlPITY..~
NfEASENEHrfOOlNCIIE5S,fP/iSS,Pf!l;I!JCIfl!llfIE5AN/JIN(:If){)ITA!.I'lJ/If'OSFS.I/f.IXII/JX1IIiCIWf1I5.
IS1SoISliSfliW(Hr/iO.19-211284()f(JfFlCl'l.lIf.CI)IIfl5.
1N1il1lWfJF:.lUFI/PAOEYlliJf'IIf}{(ClJfIf'()lWII)I
AffrrIS.'SAI/)/AJ/O
ORDERNO.0625-fJ6S100(CONT.)
ItJ.JNEASO/ENrflXilNCllE5S,fC/IESS,Pl.I8IK:fffI1HBNliJIIIf:JtXHll.LPIJFIPOSES.fI1.WM!EJJAJ.I(;(tSI6;I9fJ5
ASIHS/Rf!JJfJffIKJ./J.'/-11J2JJlMJ85-11J2JSfXJIHCiFOffICJ>.LF/t/XX?VS;
IIIfAl!I/ICf': fW/CIIOOO.rn\l\I4rt:l1fR1'ASIII!Cf
NfUIS.' SMiWlO
1/.PflYJf/IOIHE/55/WICEOfN(ff'WC'(1)f1lll.fIllSVlWlCE;.TIIl<Xll/P;l,W1IlU1/E1)IJIfIE
/2.~fIESPfC(WIIW/IJlJ\tUYFl@(JNA/.AIaICI!.CEJllfflIIIC.,ACI1~ClJl?J'CflAIIOII.A
-
AACEJmF//:A/f(}f6lWsr_CiFRtWIr~/fISSV/1)HrTHf:SED/WH(OFSTA][1!F1IIE
ClJl?J'CflATIO/I'S~/fOFIXJi./ICH.
8-ACFJmFU/CWf(JfAflESaUl1/JNOFTHE:8fW/I)0F0JRECTII/I'i!lJ/llOl/fZJN(:1!ffcx:wTfM'lA1(J}
TJWIS',f;/1OI/II/f}IJlSiCNAJ1NCII!ik.l'ICO!I1'GI1AIr()ff/(:(Jl$S1/.tU.I>4lf"TIIlf'CKJ/roEXmJlfCIIEllWFOF'
~~=
C.CTII11If/E()IJIIIEJ(I)W//ICHTlff:CGMfW((~YlIIPCSEfI!I1fAIIIIGlTSli'rufJl'()fTJ/E~m/I\t
FIEOOIJI[IJIl8lfJNNlCIJ7IIt1I_/i()((if1fICI/7IIECfl(IPAI('i~YJ/[1)f,f//E.
IJ.AWiflXiUtlSE1Mlf1!P//CPfRl'(04XI$.fY,D[II(:fl)8'fACEffflf/(AIrI1mJ/1Oi1)ff'f7llCrAXCI'A1B:1Of1
OFIINBISIf)f:Cf.!I.MI;lIfJ:C//J!EOocrrJBEJ/2l,2IJ(Jf,ASINSTIItJ/4E/ITIIC.OI-519f5/10F0FFICiAI.PJJ:CfI1!S.
OfJfI()J/:IH/1Wi)!IUill"IIfXKJIIAJ.~CJ:NrE1r
!lmdiIKJ.:2OIJH!(J(!2/Q22(W8a
A!II!1INf:b.219.J6,#ltJAlffOrHtR)J/()/)/I/SlXfETHEJ/ll/N/)f}/,
1~. A IDI FiJi1 UNSECJJREfJ PROPEKT'f rors. ElW/C[/) 8'f A CD/J11CA.rE I/W!ROEf) BY TIll 1M CIJilll:/{J(/
OFIIMlISU:IXilPflY.F/fJ:()//[)fJ)IIIM!J/JFJ/I:iXll2,.ASIJISTI1i.IlIBITI/O.Q2-5579G2OF'(JfFICI'I.
~
l!fBTIJ//:III/AIIO!IUill"{l[l;J()ll',Lt.If/XCillCEJllffl
ILW.tHO"'20f!2-2IJ(JJjG2Jl98'l
nnE REPORT:
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE-ORDER NO. 0625-1/00655
flAIEIJASOFSfPTD/QlR6;2OfJJAr5.-IJIIP.U.
~~
fIh'lPRrlPERT'r"INIllfCffYOFIfJ((J;j)J),C1!1JI{T'IOFRMRS1i!E.STATEOFCAlif(I(I!IIA.
()fSOIIIiEJ)ASfDi.W'I(S.'
PNICEl.4OF/W1(:[/.l<4PNO.611IJIIITllECfJIJN/'(GF~STA][
OF~AS_lffllAPl!NflIlN(J()()K1JfWXS2SA/lf/26
OFflII1C8.lW'S;I1lC()//[}5OFRI\ERS/1!Erot!Ifl't.CAi.JF()fINI,t
PNIC8Sf,2.JNII!l./llQ.IJSNt.OFPAI/f;fl.\W'IJ7J<GllFIU/II/JfX!K
IJ7P11iei~NIl)~lFilI'ICa~(lfClYl1JSOFlIM.NSH!CcotIfflY.
~
N'N:959-OIilHX!8-JANOm-Q80-/JC9-flJlt/959--(18()-<1IC-fNIIJ959-IJ8(J..OOJ-8
AN/JS5!J..OStJ-()()1-1
DIt:fPI!OHSNllJfJ.U1JSI(JNS,
I.GfNfIII.LANI)~/AltSN/!IASStSSJmITSFlll/1IIEr=lW/2IJ()J-2YXX.A/lEN
IIOI"rfrlXlf(!//PAYAIIlC.
2. IHflJEJlOFsm:lII.WRlfIll/Effil0MfilC1fUMCIflIlIW'fI(NEJJfNTBONIJ,fIfI/CIIW
ISC!.IIJ.f:C1(J}Il1/1ITHE:COOIi1YIAlB:
I!ISI//JCJ; JS9-liAN/JI!i9-S-FI
TIIlItDIOf5fJi'PUNENTA!. WB; 1FN/'f,ASSESS/DPI.II/S{1N/TIOCJ/APT/J/:i5
~M1H5EI:IYJ'I15OFTllfCAlJF(lllJllARfM/Il)[ANfJWI.!OOVIJII(){.
I'ilCIITSOFTIIlPffIJIX:fIIANfJIOTI/lfP()llTI()NOFlI/EWiliIWC_AlffIlt:l!./JS
Sll'rCmOllJ/1(;ffl{Ars.
S NlWfMEN(FOIIUH:11IfC'I.,OJIJJII.INIC400vNll)I(,'O/JEJITAlPlJllP(JS[SIIITIIE
IIOCIi!/f/rrR<IXJll/JEl)JJ.lWST25,IS6$A,slNSlTlWElffllll.lI6Jf/)OfOFTlC/ALI/fCV///JS;
Aflfcrs PAI/CE1 A ANO I. 2 NIl! ~ Of PAo\m: e
o.j){fA'il1IEIirFlJi/Ie>IIL\'UJltS.flWlEIJ~_RlCi/!iJ/JALPlJIIP()SESIN
lI/ElXIClJ1.(f]fff/[CfJfIf)[IJDlCl1&tJ/JI, I9SIJMIIISf/IUII[}ffIlO. /2NI~()F()ffIaAL
~
fJ/E:TEJ/ltSNIl)fflrM5IOI/5COH1NNf/JWIHEIX!Cl!I.JOITENmJ.f[!:u:tM:r
N!f/ffi/(}/I'II[(:()IIl>fJ).lW!W/YJI.I96!!oISINSII/(fIIf}/TI/(J.IIJ26()()FOFFIC/IJ.
~
8-NlACllICYilUlfEJlfNrflAIUlAWICH29,/S19EffAJi[1OCf'ftf.01KAC/)f111YilT.1IIC.
AN/JFWICIIO~l!lIJV;>asr1l/CrNlf)IIIWOK!~~JV;>IXSTII1CfWhf1lBllrr
/SJ.QI(![)1/i4TSW/JlSTl/lCf/Sre;r;JlATUJASDnUSM"MOITRJfIiHffX/Rll;1Ii!N.
~5m'O\GE.6IEMJIN(:AJi[1IJ1S1///01.!T/1QfA1/.I.fXAL"'1V<fISX!/?I}{])~yl,
W901SINSJ//WE}ffNO.92JJ()OFiJI'I'lCW./1fCIXItISOfI/MllS/1J!COONIt:CAl!R:!IIHIA.
9. MfASO.IENrRlRllIIJ1:SIT/l4I/)IIOI/ICI/J(}(TA!.PI.fII'OSES/IITIIl()()(;1}).(E}(fF/lL'Vlll!fO
lJ>l/ICH2l\rSI6ASIISl1/IJiJfNJIIC..j()'Ml(JfCfTlCW.1l!l:(;fit)S.
AlffCrsPAflCE!.JrFl'AI/1;:t;/.B
1fJ.NifT1fJ/'sIllfi:ll1SOFI/ICRCSSA/lf/fI;f/fSSI11Of/fI/()j(lWICE1.5/ANlJ2AB1f111M;srAIr
IICHWI.YIIOIH<99I<4YrBEDl/JEfJ/CAIlllOHI/Ell/IQU/SHH)(///THETlUIJIJN'.
1I.THE:um:r()FAI1CCITAI.ON5\IOWJ'fI1IICI(STA/rST/fArCC/JIITY=~fItPOiIT
1I/1222If<SPRfJ'NIfOflJi/!16SI'1ICPfIIT'ltJN.AJ[Y24<IS8fJf/f,;;w/f)(,NIOJSOI/fIl.[
ArTlllflM:R5lOCCCilNTrPWiMNflI.lEPN(lllfNl;SP(CIfIC(/fJ/(Jf(;()//(:!flt(INTllFRCPCRr
I5ASfCUGllS::POsS6JIf:Sl:1IL/IIJIlfFACI/(J//.
(mrcrsfWi'l:a8)
/2.NffASfJl[}fTfOOfIlIIEROfIBfJ/l/f'fU(INts.Cf!//OI.IITSCI/~fAf.:VBES
hl/)IICICf/(/'ALPIRf'U<i{SI/j/ll:l!I!CI/IJ[l(ff/EC()fl()f))ll<rl,lfJ87ASN.iIIiUIJE}ffIl/1
/28S66(Jf1JFf/a4L1/EJXJROS.
AmCISPN?CUB
IJ.,wEASEJlE)ff/'()l//lQlDfJfIAJRA(;[.F'tJBIX1ITIlHBA.'IIJ/!ICK!lHIN.PiJ1/PIJSt:SWlI/E
fX!aJOIfI{(lIfP)f/f)[(J.t=JtlI99JAI"INSIFIIfMC/{TIIO.:JJ!JIJSIOFOFFIC/Al.
~
U AlffI/iQ(/S,IImRESTS, alCW/I5OFfW/TICSlNros5ZSIGIIOFTHEW<fJ/I()rsmlm8Y
~-~
1$.Pf/J()/(roTIIEISSI.WII;E(}f'AN'froucrOFI1IlEI/I$I.I//AIICE.IHE~AllrIlllLRlW/RE;
A(X)P(()f~LEASfSANOIJfE(.'()IIP(RAlfP#'C/ISFlJRINWIDl?J1D'
'o.fl.UccPlfSOFA1/.IJNlIUXJ//()/])LEASfS.<FFEP:IiIIGT/lEIMI!.
/7.If1IJIIiE:SP(CrIOINWIOVAI.lCl'I/f.(;(()((AlIif1Jl(;t,lCENTf//,Ar>>IPOfIAT1ON:
AACEHTIfICA/fOFCXXIOST_OfRECiJfT!lt/[I5SUBJEffTlES(CIIUAKYG"S/'A/fOF
TllFCOIIf'(/(/A/XIJ/'sSTAItOFI!OI.IlCff.
ACUlWlE!JCCf'(()fA/1E:SIJ/1mOI/()fTflEIDI\ll()fI!fRa:TQllS~J//C
fXIN/!JJPl.ollEIJ/1IJWSIi;lXiNN/[)fJi;S8;tlAIWCWIIICIIC()IIP()IIA!F()ffJ(;ffIS51>!1l.I>4YrIlif
PC1rfI/TOCXECIflf()flBE1W.FOFTHf~1Ii!N.
Cf/1Hf11f/[()/t1j(fJj[]WHICIIIHE:COlif'A\ll"",rll/PfJS[fW.C'/I///I,;ns~0F71If
IMIDiMtIlEQlJ///(1!IfUIilN.wJOIlO_00NwHlCHTIIlC()l(pNfy/J4YfItIX1I//E.
SURVEYORS COMMENTS
_IMS._____,lI!RtESTNJUS//f/JfTIiJIlli:aiM1/fllcnrCWIITY
::w~~~M1JfD~=CIIWClD/
tmIl~_n_..'..._..flIOI/1IIR!I/MIJ1(}NSIlf'ffEIermEClJ(NJ.usmu:r
A1lII.f1ifP(lflJ0IImuPt:!lXr.
~rlllCllTS......_. ...pwmV;UfASlJIOITS~_IIif)I/NiC'III/ER_SIfPP!lll)
1fTIEIIfJ'OIIJ.IIOII-ff.OT/'ABUf.lSfI€J/TSAllESIIOW//
ASI<4Il11CTml;{a:'sa;MtSE(KJllSEIMCEJSI1UI1EIJ
1Of/EP(N/Tl!/GI!NEMElfOffIWl~JlfSTR/J/IQ.Y
8ECf!/I!/CN()mlrtffilJ.aJtH:It/iE1/llAIMD1OlIfl'(!//T
tJNTTII.CfW'f/IS"1IIE6/0fl///[/'(.
T!1I.fRe'()ll[."_,___".--+.J1RS11J./ER/CN11l11.fCillllWll'OIII![IIII1IJ625_!!66OfI!iOOW
.[JA1(J}",YIJ2()/)J;()f{IJE//IIO.W5--_OOCIJ~r$.
2()()J;1!fIl!e/MJ.1J625.-!/6611!11,~1(J}",Y:5;2/XJJ;f1fI!IfJI/I().
0625-1I01J1i.'55.!lt1IDSEPr.$.2IIIJJ.
1l'S!S()fE!EAI//NGS._.__..rHE:BEAl/!HGSSilfJY{liJlf.RfO!lN/[!lISE!lOHTIIlCElflfflliNEOF
lWi'GIIim/lf)A()AS5IKNIIsrIiAPONfllElN[){}()K2J.PA/.EI
251HRrXJ6H26OFPAl/mIl4P.S;SHCWIiolSlI()f(1Hl0'56'060ID1
~
nocozlJNE
1Jf5ICNA1ICN...__'n.~.---,-__THf:W/O_IIElIlI!NJSi.'CifGII',IlllASIiEJli()IIIf!(Jf}()lOI/E
YPERFl(Jf}()INS//I?NICfIlAIrItAP(FJfIJJ)/WIEI./IQ.0601f200WIl
1WWNrM:J/Wr20.-19~
-~
ilESI/!NI.ll/itL. _ ~.._"___mr /AlII! SllClWllIIU/ffI/I/S lOI-/f)) f'III!ftSSI()N, rMICE (PO).
11II'VC/WWY.__.___---i-.-lHEaJSrmIr!f'OClW'HTSI/(JII///6/f0N1IlIS0IfTR/Il1)1Hi/Otx;I/
i~SOOfYlfDItoIJSl/jlKMJJ8EJl.=
EARTHWORK QuAmmCS
ESrI/MTITiCUTm:17.500c.r.
ESI7/MTITi FlU (Iai) = 2~,()()() C,y:
ESII.IlATITiEXPORr'_2.500C.Y.
DATI: AND SOURcE OF TOPOGRAPHY
KEtSOEAl-iaASSQCIATES. INC.
I.ANOSUl/Il/iYiNG-DlCINEERfNG--G.P.S.
520DISTPMKRIO(;[A'/[/-/!.JE:
(;(}f/()/{A.a.\. 92819
DECEN8U/fIJ.2f)OJ
BENCH MARK:
m[EtEVAIIONSSH()II'NIiQ1fOl!~8ASEJ)ONANAS5UMEDflEIIA11(JNOFI052.()()
ATCltTIIANSB8lcHMARKNIJ.RIV-19_/1'.619Ss. rHfAC~IBlNCHIMRKa4JA
M,\YN(ffPUBUSHfDArT/lEa4n-OFT/lISSVR~ THEEtEVArroNSSHOWNllEl?COI-I
WIt! flEtlWlJS7!"CAT TIlE IlME()FPUBI)CAT1()II.
1[=
W~
~HEALTH5f'RYJCES.lfIC.
167SOVJllGllU'lloroAD
K1NGOF!'RUSSJ.',PAJ9'l<16
61O-161J.J3IJ//
~ -
HIGAAQ{lw::rs,mc.
t9J9McKlwtEYAVf..
llAIJ.,IS,TX1'i<01
'lH.%9.55'i19
STRlICTURALENGINEBl
I<KSSTl!UCJ1JRES
1919""KI~E'TAVE.
D.OJ.LI\S,TX7S2<ll
-~~
=PAA1NEI<S-n-..._-...-
162SILt\Oil5T.,9J1TEl:lOOlDIl9
0Al1AS.1X7S219
OVIlENGIN<fR
TRCWll1TlONS.------
a140WAU<UTlllU,--",""SlI11I09<.5
llJIW\5,1X7'i211
ImERlOJ!.Di'S1GN'E"
oe>1G//sWOJo,iNc-:-._.'-
161lMRrNGTOl'lAVl'.
PHllAOaf'H[/\,PA19127
'-'!"D$CAPEAROITTEQ
Kru+-A~---"- ..
39lilNORMALSlREIT
SAI'IOlEGO, U\92t~J
fOOC>Sl:FMCECOtISIJl.TPHl
SD~mc-:-'-------
SllIlloTCPAAKWAY,SlJITE:SOO
GRWiWOOOvrLt..'GE.OOall'"
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA,
~,
If_<',""""
~-
;
I' -=-=--~=~~:::=-_.
-=
I
ICONCEPTUA
IG!~DING
iCGP-3
"'"'.:"
''''';'''''
(
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 32468
j
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PORTION OF SECTION 17, T. 8 S., R. 2 W.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER,2004
\ \
~ \ '1; \
\', \ ~ \, -----------r--- -----DE POR-:iA- ROAO--- " ------
.J\:\\\% '--/;--:---=-__--------r- ---------------~----"\
\ :--~ -- RJi-
~ t'\'.' __~---
-; \ ~
--~;-- ---;--;
~;-~ ;----. ---~ .".~
~,- ~-- -- .---::....~.p;;-~
--~;- --~-- '---::p-;'::'?"
-----;;~-~'::';;;~'::'~ -~
___.-/-::: ~,c-rc' . b~
-~-~-~----, -- -::-~~-~ ~ ~~.
---_-.::-_-=--==-_::::---~ - --~:---/
- /---
_.._----~~,/
.
,
------24"5------
-----12"RoIS------
=::;:::=:;;:>48" Ref=:====
~-----4--r; ------
-------E _______
----'---IRR------
---.,----4.G ---.:.....:..:-
------RCwio..,...-.---
-1Q50---
GRAPIIC SCALE
r
':"
i
(IN FEET)
,_..r<<l'1L
/
6
I' oj
/Z'-1I1!"6!~lfHUf~
~7fii.Att_..,
I1t'CWr
-IT=---
! -
i i
, I
II
I'
, I
if
j
"
.,(
'"
\
~o
.~rl
tY~j' .
.~
-"":::::::::--..
./ ,p.
tf1',
-.,.
l8'32
~ll
I'~
.\
/' ,
"
\, .
I' .O;;y .$
~:.t.G,..:(7
.j'.~
N7B'.fOW~"
, ,
I ~WA1D?~-~
I ~~~~T.T~4-o.R.
~DRNNltGfEAsaiENT ro6RifJGEP(YiT PAR~ ~ ---
I lJIJIlNRS. u.c. HEcawJ 2/19/04 Arc. oEC. JI. (9S8 !:
I "1ISl~,.,...,tiMJ ',/,/
I Ii 't-"J ..,:''V
I P M. No, 6813 \ / I /' #'
I PARCEL 4, P,M, 2:3 I 25~2a /1 ; '<$1-, loQ~'b-" .#'--:
,;;;;,;,;,~~'" T, '.Jw!J:.,:..CtJ..Er>-;j' - '</ ' I' .}~-".,f',tJ(7 ,
------l,~ I ~~.~." ;;;;_"'f<.\,:;I'//#1-#,1>~ ,,-~;':.'~,,----
rJlJl.Ct\.- ,. all1IUrrPlRPOSlS ~F .u.~ R;lf-----...~
;..r1:,..i\'llE.fP191.. '1'<> REtXfIDED2/l9/04-f!'ST.Ml~'\, "'_._ .~~ ,,<1'
i"""V t\o. IJ. ,- ~ '. .....- \ ' .~-.,.().~
tIJ>. rC\..- i ~ \,: ) ,/.'(._..__~ i"'it"f"-? ,,-rJ'0 ~~ \
"""~"" 1,lii f'", (/,' /r ~~?/< <:> +,:j':.iI#I'
v,. 1""-- 'I!: ......., ", Yo i ! r\/.... ~~.,..~'
~ 7',' ~,~- . -' - ..sY!/,l' : Ii
rc\--' ! i/ // //''--- _""''''"Nl!RESSN</EQ/ESS '''r'' i ~ii
=::=-=~::::),- % '~--~'7- _ _n_________ ~"'__=-n- __ =.r;;:l.~ll.'tt."f/r:!'tJ7" .~ ------- __...J III
------~_=c____ rs=-:---~~~-,~~=~~---~~~,~-,~,=~~~~~~-~=--~.:.~....;::~ - ::_~=,~---~~=_'_~n~~~~-----,-""'~~---~~~,==,=~~~,=dj
;.. I I' }:; /11
_ _ _ _ ~_ ~ :- --.011--- _ _ __ _ __ - - .-.-L - __,'_ - - - - - - ./.,L/ ---4"/r--'- -
-------------------7'--------- ------------:;~cr -~;;:_~~B,,--R7i------i-----ll i: r--" ~~It ~~9 2~5~C:----l---+:t~. ~~~2~;~~:i:--~-n_u----n-
M.B. 246 I 33-34 i >>.II~' i
LEGEND
_____._&1!______
,
\
/'
,~
.f -.,.0 \~<fl/
~";jY"'oj
.j"."o/'?,{Y
i
rC\.. 1.\
APPROXIMA TE
. EARTHWORK ESTIMA.TE
" CUT. . 27,500C, Y.
FILL. 25,000 C.Y.
EXPORT, 2,500 . . C, Y,
I
"'.,,'"
BY DArr APPRO DArr
RtQHTCf WltY
EX. LOTUNE
"'''''''
EX. FOf/CEI.t/lJN'SfItfR
EX.STORl.IDR,olJ/oI'
EX. GAS LINE .
EX MC. UNE
EX /RRJGAllON UNi
"'GAS
EX. RECLAIliiED WMER UNE
OJSTIN6CONTOUR:
PROPOSED PAk{;a-MIIP8D1JND/tRY
EXJS1IN6'EASEMENT'UNE
..
15
VlCiNITYAfltP
NDTTOSCALE
l'
~~
~ ~
GENERAL NOTES
DAlCPREPAfIfD: APRIL. 2OlU.
GROSSltCREAGf: 35.9% ACRES
GENERAL PLAN DfSlGNATlON: PO
EXlSTING ZONE: PO ItND POO-B.
PROPOSEDZON/NG: PO,
A5SfSSl:W:5"PAflCEL NUMBERS: 959-{lSO-1-4k 7-10.
EXJSTlNG tAND USE: TWO HOUSES ON THE: NORiHERJ. Y HAtE ,l)/fJ VAC/tNT
LAND ON THE: SOVTHERLYHAlF.
PROPOSED U.NO use HOSPfTltL AND PRDfESS/ONAL BtIIWINGS.
NW.fBER OF PARCELS: ONE.
AllBOIJNDARYDIJ.fENSIONS.4REAPPROXIIrIATE
GAS.S!J/.'I1Cf: SIXITHERNCAGAS(800)427-2200
El.EC1RICAL: SOUMRN C.4 EDISON (800) 68....8123
mEPHOHe ~ '(8(J()J 48J-.fOOO
CABtEWSfRwce ItbEiJiHJACABLE(9D9)69mOO20
WA1E1i': RANaiQ CALlFa<NlA WAlER DlSmfcr 9f)9J 296-6900,
SE\IER: EASTERNIrUJN1CJPAL WATmfJ/SJRJCT 909) 92lJ-3777
noooZCtlE:
1HfPRO.ECTSI1I:ISLOCA1EDINfLOOOZONEX
ZONE'J('~AStF500-~nJXl1;.4REASOFIOO\f'Al?FLOOD
IIllJlAWRAGEDEPTHSQFIESS THAN 1 FOOT OR IlIlHDRAlNAGE
MEASOFLfSS1HANfSQUItRE'M/1l: ANDARfASPROTEC1EDBY
I.E\fESFROU 100- laRnQOD,
PfRF.I.R.II.IrlAPPNlfL~1l607420010801tlEll~20.t996
LEGAL DE~RIPTION.
TH~LItNO REFERRED TO HEREIN ISSJ1tIA1EDIN THE: CITY OF 1DIECtJtA
COUNTY Of R/VffiSlDG, stArr OF CAUrCRNlA. AND IS DtSCRI8Ell AS
F"OLLO*S:
PARca5 I, 2 de .J OF PARCEL MAP NO. ~3043 AS SJ;O~ BY MAP ON
FlLE IN BOOK 70 PAGES 21 Af/O 22 OF PARCfI. MltPS AND PARCEL 4 OF
PARCE. MIIP NO. 6813 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FI1.E IN 800K 23 PAGES
25 AND 26 OF'PARCE!. MIIPSAMl PARCElS 1,.2.3. AND 4 OF PARCEl.
/.lAP NO. 1.J7J4 AS SHOIm 8Y NAP ON FILE IN BOOK 137 PAGES 4 AND
5 Of PARCElIrIA!'S. AlL RECORDS OF RlltERSIOE COUNTY; CAUFORNIA.
'-'.
ENGINEER, ,
~ '01' '''''''~'''~.''''''';;l'''('
. - ~~ l~_':;~lll;~'~'_"~,,'~
-' , 1_ tl';i~ ~~.~NN~~~NG"" . . .
NO U ,
1181 CAlIFORNIA AVENUE, STE. 202 CORONA. CAUfORNIA 92881
PH. (909)280-4144 . 'FAX(1I09)2S0-41SO
OENNIST.OONAHUE, R.C.E. 21537
RECORD OWNER' / APPLiCANT / SUBDIVID~.
INLAND VALlEY RmrMAL l/EDICAL {am?, TNC.. A C}JJF()RNJA WiPORATION
c/otlNl'ofRSALHEALTHseMCB',lNC.
3675.00tPHROAD
K/NGOFPRUS9A,PAf~
AT1N:OOIP)SI(ACfl(
PH:610768-JJCJO
FAX:6101m-456{J
THIS 1ENTATI~ MAP INC/..UOES JH/S ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF
o
PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER.
PLANT MATERIAL
I":l\ 8CAEEMTREE8,.,ah.
~~J.J!..I~N
_ PIMI$a..t:lARICA
~
~
f:? ~~-
o ERJoeorRY DEF/..EKA
<::) Glt.ERCU$1LB<
as ~=PORL_
f:\ RClADWAYTREElI -" III:
~ I(OS.REJ/11;R/A 8/PINNATA
~A6R.IFOLJA
!J6"SOX
exlST1N6~
PARKING LOT TREES 1UCIh.
1:\ 8TATEHlQHWAY781REE8 1UOha:
\!:.iPl.ATA1iJS~
0XHIH.I!5~
f:\ EHtRYTREE8IUOh.
\.J l..A6ER5TROEM1A INDICA w,TCfIEt'
t::\ 8PEClMANTREE8aJC1h_
\!!.} 6/..EDfTSIA 'TRJACANTHOS 1NEf<MIS
0. GERATONlA SlUQI/A
\::.J !J6"SOX
0) DECOAAlIVE/ACCEHTTREE8IUOh_
A P'f'FlJJ$ ARJSTOCRAT
!J6"SOX
D8HRUB8.EWIOLKlCOVERANDYINE8IUC1hIll:
ARC,T05TA1'H'11.06SF1".
-""""""'''''',
~ SALY1A SPP.
mim ..JASMIMHSPP.
.....~JASI1INOIPES
MAVE V/1..JofORINIANA
FRE3'1ONTIASPP.
~ARBUT1FOL/A
HElIC/eRA ~NEA
IRiSDOIJ6LAS/ANA
1-/I-fON11JHSPP.
MAHONIA !SPP.
f'UI"eA6O CAPENSIS
~""',
RJElE5SPP.
"""'....
.DlSTlCT1SSPP.
-1..ON1a!FtA..JAPONICA
D:IUOh...
PLANTING NOTES:
I.A<I'c:.I<IQ'"zOI'IolI<:lI'"OIIfIClfl.....""""1<
d<oc.i:<:>r$..!Il~"",,~~.
2..lItlllbJ <'C:l,vipn'1olM1te/'lclrr nQtloev15l:>l..
!'rom the ot:.-..ot. T.--formo!I~ e/'IcIrr ~
~~..=~..=t~t:"t=or
l:enc:riop=eo,lIlOflI.IIMr1l:elgno"'"
........'
~~~~~b:~~~><1n
=;:,~~~:~~ct~~;:d
for_ta><lsoli eroelon"""trol.
......... SIZE OF PI.NfT MATERIAL:
""'"
.2O:<5,S6"b:>><(Appr<>~iHf76
....,
50$, 24" be>><
~./S9"'II""
-
fOOj5,~9<>Ik>n
~
1~,~fflthlrll!J"<:r"
I.NfDllCN'E DEVELOPMENT 8TAHDARDll
"
j
F31JllolNso.o.REA
242.<n5SF
PARKI_~
<f67,<J6lJ5F
1~Al"FAREA
sa.,..,,,,,
....
.....
so,,,.
NIMH REaJlRED l..ANDSGAPE IS
R:R DE\IEJ...OPHENT STANDARDS
,
j
,
1
'""."""-"''''''''
;,:,;o;W<~~--"<'""""""'''-"",C''"'''\'''"''--'''''''
LEGEND
IRRIGATION NOTES
EFFICIENT WATER USE PROGRAM
~~ING$,AL6..J.1l,..
o
AAl'ERIAl.5 pARl<a'IA.y t;lSl~
HAiRlX_----i--
~MAX4.r5LOf'Ef'ERCI ~
OF ~ AAreR~ ~
P~2 OESI- ....TFJx.
--
';:
$!II<T.......
~~~~~:7;Z
~/Qtco. P"P""P~~rllllbe>lIHdl'MNotJ"'!f
ac:a.rrlIthlnIOF....~oF~l:rIancrwh/t:.u/al"~,.
In-1g<:1tk:n5Y''t<<nflhalllitlllU,,,"~,,,,,,wl.t<<n
ff/th ~/:M" t:CtItrc1l vo'- a><l1i<>w........i'lgd~t~
t:ndbt>~baud,...Mlc:cnIr<>la><l~t'"
I'IQ/:M"~~~II. ~v...-al~oFGCntrol
~_.:M:IIk:Ib~H1Ido_ldprqv/(;lllll/t4J_h::kJ
<=lw/>f/thmlltplll wntrc>IIIIr~. ~cI
.t4mII.:M:llk:lbIll"",",Obllt:Ctltrc1lkHif'llmOUiHvk>tM
IflUmxJt VIIt1g"'ph>nII, '-I rQdk:>, crht:rdl'/Iro>_~
cr2JI:>f>~""Q'l_/t4J~I~11U<Jt1M
1'IIthF-' '-I rt:Idk:>,orht:rdl'/IrII MU'It:>rl<"",wllt>g
tMII/t4J... "",ulI/t4J &<<'ltrcIlNl.
EP
"'--
ROLA ROAD
-..
~
Goa5I.LIv.. 0<:01<
Evllrq-HnAsh
6r",,",l...<>qlXlt
Kon~Oak
_.,.,..
In-Ig<:1tk:nY~C/l"etc'''"dtn~JSUdll:hot,,,adl
zcne,"'clelltlllatedl:Jydlf""'1fl!JlrrlfptlMr"'<:JIIInMltmIllOt>,
~1rr1gat1<>n,~Ifrtgal:k>n.p/alt.1'Iater
dt:>m<2'>dcrlt<ork>.~apng,.../ar""""""","'a><l","M;III,
...1I~1'IhIIrekn<mn,IIrt.......crIterlc>.IIk;;.
inlllq>>lrrIg<:<tk:>na..II/t;p11,u",!"rig<:>fk:>nlaUJrDlllMII
ffould bII /ndk:.ded "" p~ "" rm paralllllrl/th III~
~,~---... ~1rrtg<>tfcn"!J5ttJm5",1II
bIIprcY~fcrt>::>tt<om.mIdd~a><l""Pcfe/t:IptJJ
~-,
Nrk>m ~
5HR!.BNiNEfOWloKrIHGoATT1'V<5H
EliCLOSURE (5 SIDE>-TYF'
Gh......_f'I""'" Tr....
C<:lllfaml"~"
C<:lUtomlaP"f'F""";r.,..
SprQljll!f'tII=t:nd/crt:M:hler"!l"t..=......~n
plt:ritlg~gtmt>raIJy4f_trlldlltc""~ti!an
f!'Ftrllcle,mlllH/:Mt:Jt"II<>5Q"'11d1Fhori'lgl<111lzlla><lO
~QIj"!J5t<<n/flU1fld/k;Ivet<>flttMareQ,t:nti/or
dllrt!nJp/a'tt"",,"i'lgreqvnoollI'l<'ll:llrGOWlJrq;prllthm<>rtJI
<Wt1..llltha1rti><:t1;a~rat<<"!J5I4m_'d
prDVl<:le. ~.....I:orII_~~"pl<ll1Ulg
."._."..,~liHI61_tt:ndI~"'''IU.
Shoulda_b:>cllterp""pbe>~_"'l/lprDVl<:le
a "P"&"/i;(Jt1<?n aid a..tc>II For Q total p""p C>IIIItJJ/tbIy
~oFOIIf"d>o=i'lg.Jn-Igatk:>n~
"P"&lfk;atk:>n aid dotamn9 IIh<olI be> of 0IIf" ,*-,Ing. ~ fflll
.....1erk>(;lNwJr...~Mo...dr-t/alFor
~volv"("l"k*""'Pllflgval_)pravIe_",,/:h<>
''1tII<>5tJ'''!fr..~l:05ltll,,,,,,~~~.
~v~=~~o;;lIiha~~~~~r::J,~pr*;;:~.
-----,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Crq::7IIMr!.I..
",,",""'"
Go'<b
On><:menl.cdP"'"
.....,..
-
I'lIldLlloc.
-..
....-..
'"..".."-"
F_IElueh
c.allfamIc:lT"!l"'1
Coral Eilel'"
Poc.!flc;Cc>c:wtIris
...,..,."."
......
- "-.-
'""-'<
~~
.ex15TfN5 \I'BSfT,o,TlON TO
Fen""'(....,./~..<O
"
is
'..3
"
~
~'
Cf
'''.
I
J 1
J
I R/f
"'""':-
,
4"s
M
4":;
:t
-----------------------~cF------~~,
--=
/
lI.RF, MAX -'hI Sl..OPE,. P!;R c.1TY
OF "1'e$CU...A ARl'ERIALS
HEDGE PLANTIN& I'iI eEl'lM TO
~PAAKlNd7LOT
~
SCAl.E:l""8O'
I~l!~~ ~o_ ---
ARQRtIUR["'-""'"
...~---_.--+~ ::":=
n;:EE PLANTlN5, P!:R c.lTY OF
~LA~,o.u;
PARlQ'tAY I:lE$!6N HAmlX
MIH1'1'IlO'TH
MAX12t'l1OTH
t-EDIAH AT ENTRY
rn:_
"'1fM"
UIlMRSALHEALlH5I:RYn5,.w.::.
3G7SOl./THliUutlRCWl
KlNli(Ff'RlISSII\."Al"'106
61~76e'3300
~
~-~
1919Md(!IINEYAVE.
0IUJ.AS,"lX7S2<l1
21',969.~S9'I
--
..-
11'19M<J<J>,"NEYAVE.
0AUAS,"IX~201
MEPENGlNIRI
=~
302S1I.IlAllST. ~UITE 13001EI139
0IUJ.AS,1Jl75219
~--
~~
SHOWA1MlTKllLiANE..suITE92S
""""~-
~~
-~~
161LEVSUlltiTONAVE.
PH1IAllEU'Ill.A.f'Ill!ll27
~~~
-
3I'!&OO/lMALSTREET
S"llDIWO.CA9l103
RlOO!BMCECJlN!U"Wlr
""~
1200DTCPNWliAY,SUITESOO
GREENWDOOvnlAGE,CDBll111
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
llITER11l REVIEWOMLY
--..-..
--..--......
-...-..--
--..--
-..-......-
-....... ..ami.-
--.........-
-~~
8693,000
Q,ll,ltPI>PIlOI.
m~
~(L')
'l'. .,.~
~6
2 5
1 ,--1
M'
C.U-"S"""'TT"l
AOOlJSTlO.~
-
-~
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
-~
L 1.0
02002
""9Ono
[-
\.
Ei-lW;t-\cw
~<'1\~9 I
V61"l1'-'-"+f-,
f€if~l1-,,",H
fA"It4E:-
~\..r!>-~'f;~e'
~,..11i,...l,...
..;,c.~t-ll-\e~c:a.
f""\"i<>'t--l("~ '-""r \~~NP
T"'r-T
@ ~.~~. CAMPUS
~1_eN ~
~.-t-n,...l{,.
~ ~ ~,,">p......,",eF"-
f~-r,,..k-
"'f'
~~,-.lc.'eP
~.o~ ve~l(#'-A17
f6t'~1V-J,o...J ,
f',I:,\fINv
~"'..,
'.:' .-.. ,...'....
",...,...
..,-- -...,,-..,..."'-....-. -
-. "..'. .,..."
':;';;d;:::;"''''i'';'''':
;'-':.,\
,
"
~
,
,
p...POI TIO,.Jh-
:f"p,.~lc:.\{-l.&-
1'1>
~l"-~. ~~,rp GIIM.;"'P-
I4Y CaV_~P-: lfY",<.JTlIJ&- re-_I'-
~~CO\olA""""'NI'T'-f
Q..,"'~~ f'1..A,...t\~~
C~Q. '7"I>'Et ~I"'-l~)
<~p.,-r--e HI&+,J.-J""y
,~
Ho'"'f"TP<\.---
fh ?~l~&-
HQ~t:'''''''''- f.A{Z--\o'-I,.J.&- HO$f'''',AL
\,.-Qf' \Z'G\PlPtJAy f."F-\<'-I..-\C:o-
1
,
,
~ ~~;:!.ION AT ROUTE lS
,
""'''.'"0>-''''''''''
"\,,~,"~,,\'_'<-"'''''p\'''OU..p,,....,
..,."'"''''
$C11CN
~f'C€""""~ ,__
c.Nc,
'7r ~=
~~~~'5'::;'~ ~rf ANP ~ITeG.TUAAL
ft..,s.rl.1Q ~6 Fov'; ,A'N ~..NL.
w/~"~....e:~ (lM*,'1'"'T6~t'A"'ll'''''-' 'S17''' e)
~o'h.,;>ei<- ~~ .;-"u,..,.€'
'"'---I-t€b&-C PL./I,....ITi,.J& ~~,r-..I1S--
I..-O-r """'-~eEtJ. ' 1r.
"""'"
PLAN
...: ':oS
"'5Ft-,-r,tzA.'--?6'_r-loC.'C1
5'6<<:96\7"'-
96' F~.:?\..-"
<
n fOp.-"""...,..,
"k:,{ZoffiJ.~ettr ~e"1W-ll..:
~\l.--,
e::-::-e....
r.:;..iA<.-/...'
--,.,
,,'
ft-n-l~ C6:--lT6r-<- ~,.....e-ro-!;= L-A,.Lp~f'E'1 "-
6Jl?;eG-;z.e'e'J-l. sc.r:-e'lft-l ~'f"6 'f'\-A'1-l'T1NG,--, Sf>1<->.IC::/ r
~bv.-1P~V6'F -vuJe' f'-A,.J'-\..!C:::-r lfA'Pf~
~~\l4b. '
-u'
<$'
C
U"
SECTION AT DE PORTOLA RD,
1'.20'-'"
I~ll;f~.=-~~=
.........---.-
ocm
-
_I'8LTH5BlYD5,lNC.
3WSWll/Gl.U'HRO.olI
I<JNGDF~PA1!M06
611).70$-=
~
-""""""~
1919Mcl<J1<<1EYAV<.
DAtlAS,lX752OI
2H.969.S5!19
!1TRl1C1l1RA1 GINRR
--
1919~AvE,
0AUAS,lX75201
MEPENGIMiR
=~
3625H.lIAl.lST.SlJITEl30011l139
PAUAS,TX75219
aJ\I"""""='
~~
&1"'WAUf\JfIUl.LlANE,SU~2i
0AUAS,TX7S231
~
remNSIIEJZ),lHC.
161lE1'SUHGTONAVE.
PIIllAIlfLPlllA,.PA19127
~~
-
3916NOIlMAlSTREE\'
SNlDlEGO,CIl921113
FOOn~OJNSUl""""
..~
52OOD1l;PAfllW/AY,sumSOO
GOEE>IWOOD'<1UAGE,ID8011l
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula. CA.
INTUIJlRBVIEWOMU
n-_.._...
..-..--.......
....-..--
--...--
............-
--""'~
-~..-
_D~
8693.000
QS.H.P.D.PIlOt,lOOOCIOIlOl
~~
ep~
3 -'61
I 2[ I 5 I
~y
~
c.U.PSO.;IITTAl
^OOUSTlo,_
~
-~
LANDSCAPE
DETAILS
-~
1..2.1
02002
""St",
I
(
~~
~"r?&1<-
~~ HEc>"",e
!_T.f'''c.€~J<-
$'O"f~~I-1' '1'Pe65
.a~~\..ro"';p
"'>"''''''11'<'''
yv<,...l'r;.>-1t...-
~,,-~v-'I<
I,..l.P'<;:+:, "f-..,U\'f6At'Z."
-:&0"$.01-
Ao:::-(:tSf""lnF-elO-
-fl_A~I..Je:
~~~e
lMo,:l\A",rg,..,-t
& \-1 W A ,"
., "
@ ~~:_::Y STREET
,.
~
,
1
,
,
-0
'"
fc.'''''
CoNC-(?-€1"G~,..lC.....
-~l"""""'€'P s....~6-
fiR\S",.;
~
@ SPLIT RAIL FENCE
",
,
",,".2005_11.>5"'"
"\O<w..-f",I,"_'5-'" """\""'0"...1"<>2-'.,
'''..b''''''"
~
"""'"
'"'-""
.,,,,"'"
r:vw'z.:~-
-To,...le~
-rvlZ-f
----- j:;>Cc.<>\Z1>rr,..I1S 1\?'60
fL....,...I..,-'t-IG-
C-.::J4?-
f"''-'I~-
(~C€~
eel.j;Te?
l~"~./
-;)
/
I
J I
q_"i>.-rO$'Y__ I
/
@ ~~~~~G COURTY ARP
Sro.eetJ.llZ-fe
?I.A,.l'Tio-lG- f1~h.l<;
6-Pe'\"'<:A' .
~
NORtH
'"'-""
11';81P1'i'ij! ::''':..:.':::':~
...~~~~!+MfH ...__
~."'i"~
-0
..........u!Z....- ~
._~..
~?...~ t ,.
rn:_
-
lINMRSo\I.lElol.TH!BI'IICfS.1NC.
3WSOIrnIGl.U'HROAD
1Wl60HIUISS!ll,PAl'XOG
61G-708-33OIl
"""'"
~"""""~
1919IWaNIIEYA~.
1lAUJ>S,TJ:752Ol
ZIU69.sm
IDBQl:JI....-
~-
1919Md(Jr.1<EI'AVE.
llAU.AS,TX152Dl
-~
~~
362SN.llAltst.SI,ITIl;IJOOW1J')
OI>JJ.AS,1X75<lS
~~
~~
Sl40\\'ALNlITKD..llANE,sum:ws
0IIU.J\S,1X7S2.l1
B
DI5lllNSlIlOlO,1NC.
161~AVf.
PlillADELPHIA,PAl91V
,.........""~
-
3916NOllHALsrmr
SANOIEGO,CA91103
mnDSBMCElDI!Slll.TRIT
..~
S200on;PI;llJ<WAV,SlIITf5o:J
GREB\'WOOOVIUAGE,mB<l111
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
INURllllIEVIEWOny
..--...-...
..-...--.......
.....-..--
--...--
-...........-
-.............iEi!!..-
_""""""n_
~ISXlBNO.
8693,000
Cl.5H.P.D.moJ.'lOOIlOOCXll
~~
~H~
~-'6I
I 21 I 5 I
~1J I 4r~
u'cr-
=
CU,p""",,,.t.(
~UGl.IST10,2O'Y.
~
-=
lANDSCAPE
IlETAI!..S
-~
1,,2.2
.,'002
""Sln,_
,
(
PLANT MATERIAL
a,8CREI!NtREESlUDha:
.~~.u..1fJRJ55/N
_ P1/f1S aoAA~
a ~A6RJFOI.JA
w !weox
~'EX1$TJNtS~
PARKINCJUJJTRl!DIUDl'lu:
I=-=-
@"""",,"dE<
.1 ""-"""'CHIroN""""","
""''-'NCEA
.&: AOAlIWAY1REE8IUDh...
~ KOEiREIITERIA B1P1NNATA
'tITATEHlGHWAYNTREEllIUDhU:
F'LArAMl5~
SCHIWS MOUE
&:EHTRYTREE8a.ochU:
.. 1.A6fR51ROEM1A 1N1:>/r;A NA~
(IJ=::~/~$
~ Weo~'A 51UGIJA
~." DECORATlVE/IDCENT1JlEE8IUCtl...
if' ~AAJ5TXRAT
36' BOX
~ 8HRUBI, GROUNDCOVER AHO VIHE8..ch...
~ ARC~TAF'Hl'LOSSPP.
_ ~SPP,
_ $ALVlA SPP.
..JA5MIM.M5FP.
~.JA$MINOI05
A6AVE ~INJ,4}(A
"""","",SPP,
HETrROMEl..E5ARIWr1FOLIA
~SAH6()INEA
JRJSlXItASl..A5/ANA
LIMONIIJMSPP.
MAHON/A SPP.
f'LIRolBA6OC;APEII5IS
""'SPP.
RJEJE5SPP.
---
- DISTlt;.T1S SPP.
-I.ONICEf;IA..JAJ>OHICA
)~J.I':IUDh-
PLANTING NOTES:
I. A;l'.;ICOQI" Zc>n!ll <:ll'"<>md Fir.. c.I-oo>c.k
....."\:0r5...IlI~rnantalnsd.
2.utlltty<lqu1f'l'M"t5I\QUl\QtbClVlSIbI..
From l:h!II ..tr_t. Tr<ll'l&~"" $hcI1I bel
""",ko~loJ&c:.r.._c:lbo,ll'tClll5orc:l..""..
1"""~,ClI'ldohclrrMt"...~tv\el....,,F
b"'",n1:"pac;..,,,~"ISfl5or
"'""''''''''''JS.
;..,~~~";;~t~"=:~ln
=~~";t=~~~;;'''"t:d
for_tald""U..t'Q5IOn""""trQI.
MlNIMt.NISIZEOFPLAH1'MATEAIAl.:
""'"
20$, 56' ~ r::::JXImQt4.hJ /76
5OJli.:24"bDx
!fO:ll\,ISgollon
.......
IOO:lI;,Sgollcn
;;RQUNo("..n'\IFR.
100000000,"ov"""'9",<lthlnl~cr
1.NfD8CAPEDEVEl.DPMEHTSTANDARll8
.
~
F.lJl1 01N<;. ARF.'A
""-"'"''
PARKIN.s AREA
467,<J6aSF
I"'''''''''''''''''''''''' ARFA
51:2,7S45F
""..
IS.1!>>I5
SOA>
MlNI/<fkf FlEaJII<ED L.ANDSCAPE IS
,l"E!;!DE'\IEU:lPMEHT5TAI'I!:'ARVS
,
J
,
,
"",,,,,.,,,_u.,,Om
'.\"""'o'O>'_'<"""".'''''"~"''''4<."'''\''''ooo-,,",.,
""n" ,,_..
LEGEND
,,--
Coo:ot LN.. Oak
Ev....q-..""'Aah
Elr'<>nz<oLoqU<lt
.....-
M-_,""",
Ghho_ 1'1....... Tr.....
CclI1fQnl"'sycanor.o
CclU'QnII"P"pp"rTr....
Gr"'P"'iYtl..
Hc:>rwo~ LoGwt
Ornc:mentaIP..<r
~~
.".
rlIldLIlac.
....N
__....N
Oc.l:opw Agav..
1'tc:nwIElueh
""'IIP,,","'T"!/C'Il
C<:>rale..llo
p=ll'r~ Co=t Irlo.
5e"L<2v~r
"""'""
C<:f>c>Ph.ni:>ag"
'""'"
~~
f'coocwo(e"dlt.;<:!roo....d,l
---,
"
-~
IRRIGATION NOTES
EFFICIENT WATER U8E PAOQRAM
I~ 6RaUPINlSS, ALB.u..
o
~~PAl'lKt'V."'I:1ESI6N
HATRlX_----i--
"'i'iiRF" MI6o.X 4,1 FER GI:rf
OF 1EI-ECIA.A AA'TERIAL5
..~~~
~
~
S1UoT......
--
;
~
-~
~~...~~~7;%
~. P"'P"'P...~r"/lboollHd~~
<'=IA" N/thIn 10 F....t. 01 fNld-trfa> or 1MhIw/Qr _>>.
1rr/gQUcn8!Ptcom5haIll1tlIIztlQlQ<;/va>cco~~
NIthm=Ur=ntn::>/valvco t:1fldFIOI'/O<<IStJg~~
t:1fldbe>rw>athcor~_"'/I=ntn::>lt:n:I~t..,
N<:Itcorr~/st:>bt:t:znc:bJ.. ~~I~o1GDntrDI
~t:rCOQVQ/k::blorlhtdl_lt:I~stt._".
=ntrDI NIth multpJ. =ntrD//t:It' ~_. 1lP- 01
~_IId:>Jco...",IJbe>=ntn::>II..dNlll'llD"'IJIV/Q/:hco
I'lt<trncotwtJg"F*-,kx<DlrlXllt:>,or/lt:nIr(hI>M~
or2Jbe>~Q1.,..,-n:..unV<>I~/<<.at.1<>rl
NltJt~,IDuIJ......,orlltrdN""''''''~~I/J''g
u....IIIItcoIoO<JtcoIIItcoGDntr../IOI'S.
--
E
OLA ROAD
!EI
;$)
~
"
~.
~
~
~
"
5HRl!BNINE Pl..ANTlN6 AT 1RASH
EtIC.L05lIRE SIOES-iYP
Hcolly0<2T<.
IrrtgtztJon5!J5I:com.111<r..I:D"""~ll<.dI/:hQtco=h
~/sdco~bydIFF..,.tIglrrlg<>l:l<>rlr~bo()co,
l:cotrport:Vylrrigatf<>lt~1rr1gt.'ltf<>ltp/ant.~
t:/comQndU'Jtcor""~K>/t:Jr..~and.."_b,
_lll:Jpco.lll~~..Itco.......U'/tcoI"/Q,"",J.
1".IIIk1pco~ds.III9>",u...'"/gt:1tk>flI<2tcorDII_
_ldbco~"'pk:n.llll:onnpat"QIJcoINIIh.lllk:>pe
~.""""<>ecmo.~t:MIrrJg<>tlcn5!J5I:com.111NIII
bcoprOYl<:fcoc/Forb<>t.tom.mJd::IJcoDndtcpol.lllk:>pe
~-,
Ga"
~ 5!J51:com.111 ~orbvf:t>r......t<<n.III a'I1 prc;pcHd 1'1
p/QUtJg~~11!J4,.."tNk:I<ow,..,.~CODtNthan
IS Fl N/dtI, mhHs u... t:tnJQ.III.,..... dlFFcorklg 1'1 slzco Q1d"
.IIIpt"QIj"il"tem/s~I:DFltthea'_.allVDr
"""'- pled IIIl:IHtIg ""'f"~ N<:1tcor GtWlH'Dfp NIth mar..
<'IItkJboU-Nht:n"~Mmrcklr"!l"temc.cvld
pnMdco. 6tnr-d"1Wm rDk>ro.,..... ~d~ p/t:lntl'lg
.,....,.,., a''' ~Dlty 16 ,_t DIId /a'gfIl' In .lll1U.
ShwldD I'fDl:<Jr b::I.:>5t..r pmp """ ~""""!J."'" Nill pro_
""P""'IF1=tk:>rtDllddcoklJl For "f0t<2IfM'p""stmbI:!
fX"';:,.,g..o1.,....c.hat:>.IIIlng.lrrig<:1Uon~
~~DnddcoklJltlglh<oJlbe>..,.,....~./'W>1111
....f",.U>o-.r~""P"~\>dr'tn11<>rl for
~vaIVLO(qUt.<k""'PlttgvaIVLO)prDVl5/<>n5""tfuo
..1tco~u...yr..,<>t..U>.III!M""'In~r<J<:V'Ir<'fr>.lllflb.
g:v~r;;':n"rt:d~II~~~~~.".~t1d~~ :;;:t.
, "(
5'3449
~.
c
.;"(;
"'J.'WW&,"1!9}?f;:W@.:'-"'.'...""
7"~
----------------------~------~~~,
/-.-=:- =-=J
'T!RF, MAX 401 5l.OI"e. PeR GITY'
OF T&1ECliLA ~AL5
~Pl..ANTlNlSorv6ERMTO
5GREEN PAAKll* LOT
~
SCALE:'''BlJ'
I~l;!~.~~~?
-----.--
"",,,"',.
mE: Pl..ANTl~, P!:R ~ITY' OF
~""""'....
P~YDESl6NHATRlX
MINTrtlOTli
MAXI2WIOTli
~,~
ISTIN5 VE6ETATlON TO
rn:_
C11l'fn'
tIIIMIlSALllEH.lllSl'll'llCE5.INC.
J67~O<mlGULl'HRllAD
l(IP1GOI'PItlJSSlA.PAl9m
610-703301l
~
~-~
1919Mcl(1Nt~AVE.
Dl\l1AS,1X7s/o1
2H.90l1.5m
snwcnmal -.or
~-
1919M<lClNNE'iAVE.
OA1lAS,1X7QOl
HB>eGINESI.
~-
:l625N.IIIJJ.ST,SUIlElJIlllUllJ9
DAlIA5.1X7S219
CMII'11r.1><_
=~
61<DWAlMlrHILlLAllE.SUITE9l5
1IAl.UIS,1X752J1
1IIIl'IfIOR-
_m1ll1O,1NC.
161lB'<P.11<<iIOIIAVE.
PHlLAOW'HIA.PA19ID
LNIDSC1l'EAllDInFr.r
~
J916HOJUolAlSTREEr
SNtOlEGO,CA921.llJ
RlOD""""""ClWSU\.TANr
""~
5201l0TCPAAY;'i/AY,SUlTESOO
G""6'M'OOD1'1l~COaD.lll
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
IKnRl1l REVIEWOIILY
:-..::.:.~~
.....-..--
--,,--
- ~_.............
-......... ..ai!!!!!...--
__w_
H"".IOIIIO.
8693,000
O.5.ll.P.o.PROJ.'~_
0~
~~
:t;.. ~
---.-I3 -'61
I 21 i 5 I
'r..jc 1_",- J
u
~
Cll.P5"''''lTlIl
~U:;=IO.'IlO-;
~
--
I..kNDSCAPE
PLAN
-~
L 1.0
"'''''2
~"S ,..,
"
,
~(;-\_eN ~
~-rt,..J('.,.
~ ~ ~~"''''>t>."..ve:~
f"'""-r,,,k-
"l<f'
~~~HIt;""""
J'fP6'11>'^'"
r,Mlf-tc.-
a.>__,
""""'0
V6~It..~,
~~,^M
fAVU.j,E;-
~\N~ t&f'~€
fLA,..i1"l,J~
""i:G~I-1l"\~'E<a..
r"~J-1<E:"Ldf" lS..........U:>
T"'T
@ ~.~I_~. CAMFUS
~,
)
~
.,--J
~:::-
"
I
l
!
f>..t;;>",'-r\,;t,...l~
r-Pr~l"'-lr-J,ar
Ioh. ~~ <;;~v:f" ~- #h-r-e HI&.l:H....1Pty
'" ,Hy, =6~,~-f'''''' 1'<'<'-- '__-r"l
~eo.......,lV\1)fJ.Ty- -
CH<J~H f''''''''....r:r'~{;~
c..;.... "7"1:>11 .;:..F-i"l)
~.o';;f'-r~\...<
1'r~i~cr
HJ?~~.',..... 'f:.'l"I~""'G.- H&'G-f-,1J6,L
c.::o'f ~~~ fP'P-t<'-J~~
1
,
,
~ ~~:1.ION AT ROUTE 19
.seCTION
~
"".'''''''-'''''''''
\."...., P,.t,\._,,,..o, OJP\O-;O".....,,,,.,
0.0<." ..._.,
,
fU>l4'ef%-rN* 1""j1lI-t:::6 fL-"t-1T,t4-f:<-
~i-lA~ .c;;uop6::> ~ fA.v,~)
<$oP,'.lI;'''~''''''t~'''''f'' '-sites.
-'
'-"'''," "-.':;"'-
"''''''-'- ."
:.:,:-'~",;.'-":'.:>', ,':..
".' <?,,~ .
, "'i~J"::!:"l i'. .,.,A(;';':'
~f""'''''''''':__'
~, -
'lfr ~:=:
~DVeF-l-\eAP ~I"'Y' At-I~ ~1~G.T""fZ.I<L
c........V\MoJ,.s ' I
ft.,",Srt -121 ~6 f".ov,.l-r-,.",..l "I;:-6'NL
\.fGv'i~',h..e:\Z- (\Ml!c>.'ft'e"~&N .,.,-]"-e)
:1J;""'l,...~e;~ 1f-..LI.:re~ c;;".... ~e
~t!;.f'~~-nt-!b, fA~'Nr=-
""""
FC'>\
~
<$f"'->"i't%A.1,.'f".~i;'l?~,
%E'~"-
C
,,,
""~""
~_"_~~~-r1t:!!"l.::
~l l'2>l.-
I
I
SECTION AT DE FORTOLA RD,
~Ft;z'rOvP,
f'\,l)".l.I,;:<;;.o;;. c6-ln:;.~ ~',,^En5"~ l-A,..lt=>~<:,Af5', '-
15J~~j.:l 'S<:.~6'6,.;l: "Ttt-~ :f'I-A,.111~1 ~'\C-V~/ ("
Gtt-DbiJ.t:1a~..t;. vaJ~- l::o'LA-,J-nf-lb- ~>-\
_~~\R:-Gi.. s.o,,"_ 1'-" .1
".20'-0'
'~l!f~.~~~~"
oc_
"""
Ulll'IBIS.<t..-ntS6llo'J:f5.1NC.
307S01JTHGUlJ'tlllOJ>D
KlNGOI'PllUSSIA, PA 1~400
61(l.768-3300
~
1iiiS~1NC.
1919MdaIlNI:'iAVE.
0AUAS,TX7S2Ill
ll~.~.sm
~J;i!~!~!~l~
--
1919MOON1lEYAVf.
0AUAS,TX75lll1
--
~~
J5Z5I1.IIAlJ.ST.SUlTE1JOOllllJ9
0AUAS,TX7SZl9
~-
1ii:~
8140WAlMIl'tllUl.AIIf.SUlffm
OAUAS,TX1S2Jl
~~
-"""'~
lEllElBUlllrrOllAVf.
PH!lAD;ELPHlA.PAl9127
-~
--
391GIIORMAlsmEET
SNlDIa;o,<.:A9211l3
flXlD~tOIf;\l.lllIfT
...~
52OODTCPAAKWAY,SIllTE5IlO
GREEM'IOODVlllAGE,CDRClll
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
INURIIl REVIEW ony
n._.._...
..-.--""'...
.....-..--
--..--
- ..-.....--
-..."'" ..aI!iI!l.-
_.........ft_
~~~
8693,000
O.5.!l.P..o.PIlQl.IIXlOOQ!l!lIX_
~~
~~
.=. =..
Mre
c.u.PSlla.'IlTI....
~
^'-"".lSTIO,2OO\
-=
LANDSCAPE
DETAILS
-~
L2.1
"~.'~~
c
i
~. .=.
"",,>:\7-,
~~-OF-
J,."f._f'411.-6~F-
U~~'1'lt--\%S
"""~---
~ 6~W'f;e,
,*,"~r:.
AcP(:t-lT T~ee
rl!lrt-I'TI~
~~~€-
l-v..<;'t-\w.'6l.1'
~J€i.l~..Jt.jlo,ll.
~,n:;~1pe'
_ Ac.;=,~r<l-1"' ~ffiW~
.......'Q:~,\UO""'LOJ@..
,.Jn~l'::o"/G4
,,~el "Yr'
c;,. 11 W A
"
m
""'""
Fl-'N
@ ~~:_::Y STREET
,
~
j
s
.
!
,
<
';;r'-'''t'" P....Il..-
~<(}O~~ ~'J.. f~
(~~.,-)
Cot-lCP1>"f6 fiwn,..1G..-
Cl:>w-1"'..-..reP5~
fiJ-l.\SH ~PE- /-
~I,.fb I
-.
'"
,
,
@ SPLIT RAIL FENCE
m
6EC11CN
.
"""."'''''_02'2,..
,\,~"."""\O-,...",,,,,,,\,,,,,,,--,,,,,-,,.,
,,,,..,.. ,"'.."
~ve"l~
r-1"fi.4Gr .z.+~,~:.:&~
~~~~~-~I
"'".~,-..........,-
cv1'"o~
C'''''''''''"
e::::~P.-;~:F,
''''-''''1';)
;t::€co\71<Ynvi'e;:ll"-'~
i~l1~G-
'1:1"
flJ1:VJf-? ~ -~Tot-y
-r-eY4~
-ruit-f
CID ~~~~~GI COURTYARD
~~;r~.~~~.=.
m
""'""
Fl-'N
rn:_
-
iiNMRsN.-'1lIsam:e5,JlC.
3Ii1SllUT1lGllU'HlllWl
K1NGlll'PlWSSIA,M:\9406
611)-7$-3300
~
--~
1919Hd\rn1lE'fAVE.
"""'~-
:U~.969.559J
~~
--
1919Kcla11llEYAVl:.
ClI>U.AS,1lt7nCl
-~
~-
l525N.IIAlJ.ST.,SUITE 1300 III 139
OI\llAS,1ll1S219
~~
..-~
al40WAIRlITI!IlLl.M'O,sumW5
MIlAS,lX7S23J
~~
DESlGNsnilJo..lNC.
IGllfVBlINc;rooAVE.
PHllADaJ'HIJl,PAllllV
1........"ENDlnECI"
-
EI6NOllMAlSlllfET
SANOIEOO,CA921m
fOODSBM:ElIl!.SUlTNlT
...~
52O(II)lCPAAAWAY,SUm;SOO
GFl.I:BNIOOOWlAGE,COOOIII
HI<S
Temecula
Hospital
Temecula, CA.
INTERllIREVfEWOIILY
--"-""
..-..--......
.....-..--
--"'--
_ 1o__N_
-...... ...li:ilII22l..
_.........ft_
HISJOBNO.
8693.000
o.s.H.I'.D.I'RllI.'~~
~~
~~
:?.. ::f_
~
CJ).PSUBMlTTI.L AlmISTln,'lOOl
-
--
LANDSCAPE
DETAILS
-~
L2.2
02002
HKS'oo
"-
=---
~
Scheme A
Southwest View
Temecula Regional Medical Center
November 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI{S
(
Entry Close-up (with canopy removed)
I I I I
o 4 8 16ft
~=
Scheme A
Southwest View
Temecula Regional Medical Center
1 November 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 3
Tile Base
Cement Tile Roof
North Elevation
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 3
o
East Elevation
Temecula Regional Medical Center
Scheme A
Hospital Building Elevations
I I I I
o 8 16 32ft
1 November 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Hea~h Services
HI<S
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 3
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Painted Metal Pane
Tile Base
Cement Tile Roof
\.
(
South Elevation
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Painted Metal Panel
Cement Tile Roof
West Elevation
Temecula Regional Medical Center
Scheme A
Hospital Building Elevations
I I I I
o B 16 32ft
1 November 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI(S
(
,
Building Views
Temecula Regional Medical Center
21 December 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
Building Views
Temecula Regional Medical Center
21 December 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
,
\
Building Views
Temecula Regional Medical Center
21 December 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
, ,
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
East Elevation
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
North Elevation
,
Temecula Regional Medical Center
Cement Tile Roof
'i,f
South Elevation
Cement Tile Roof
West Elevation
Phase 1 Medical Office Building Elevations
I I I I
o 8 16 32ft
16 June 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
. .
(
East Elevation
North Elevation
Temecula Regional Medical Center
South Elevation
West Elevation
Phase 2 Medical OfficeBuilding Elevations
I I I I
o 8 16 32ft
16 June 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
. ,
l '
Property Une
Tile Base
Riding Trail
Section at De Portola and Riding Trail 40'
Temecula Regional Medical Center
West Elevation
East Elevation Similar
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 1
Exterior Plaster Paint Color 2
East Elevation
North Elevation
,<
South Elevation
North Elevation Similar
Fitness Center Elevations
Cement Tile Roof
South Elevation
West Elevation
Cancer Center Elevations
I I I I
o 8 16 32ft
16 June 2004
Temecula, California
Universal Health Services
HI<S
CC RESOLUTION 06-_
(DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT)
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND RELATED
ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATEL Y 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-
0463, PA04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that:
A This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to
CEQA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described herein,
B, The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions ("Project"),
initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the development of a
35,31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula, The Project site is
located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of Temecula,
California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles and north of
the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided by Highway 79
South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462) to
remove the Project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from the Land
Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed two-
stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-8
(De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a
maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the
hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative
Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35,31 acres,
also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos, 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-
007 through 959-080-010,
C, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, lnc" filed Planning
Application Nos, PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571 , Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby
incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35,31 acres
generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s), 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"),
D, The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act
E, The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to
this matter.
F, The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project
G, On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project
H, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental
powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project
L Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR")
was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other
regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15082,
J, Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of
Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis
in the Draft EIR,
K, Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project
implementation pursuant to CEQA.
L, On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR
(SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent
with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research
for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code,
M, Therefore, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated September 26, 2005,
the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with
the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005,
N, The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City, Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
public agencies, organizations, and individuals, In addition, the City placed copies of the
Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at
City offices,
0, Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR,
the City received eighteen (18) written comments, all of which were responded to by the
City, Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR),
p, Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092,5, the City provided its
responses to all commentators on and before November 22, 2005, including those
received after the end of the public review period, Responses to public agency
commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005,
Q, On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005, November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006
the Planning Commissiorof the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on
the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to
present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft EIR,
R, On January 24, 2006, the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly
noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons
interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and
the Draft EIR,
S, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a Project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding:
1, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2, Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding, Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3, Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the final EIR,
T, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Project
will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the Project A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse Project effects are acceptable if
expected Project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts,
U, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City Council
finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3
hereof.
V, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant,
but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through
the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and set
forth herein are described in Section 4 hereof.
W, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level
despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 5 hereof.
X, Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 6,
y, A discussion of the Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated
to a less than significant level are set forth in Section 6 hereof.
Z, Public Resources Code Section 21081,6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any Project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures; and,
AA. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record
including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings
and hearings, The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and
related actions, No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional
environmental review of the Final EI R under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the
Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental
impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impacts would occur.
Section 2. Findings Concerning Impacts Identified in the Initial Study as
Having Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment The City Council hereby
finds and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final
EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of
testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental
impacts associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital will have a less than significant
impact through the Initial Study:
A Aqricultural Resources The Project site is not currently in agricultural
production, In the recent past (at least 15 to 20 years), the site has not been used for
agricultural purposes, The Project site was historically used for agricultural uses as
noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM
Tech, September 17, 2004, During the mid-1800s, the Project site was cultivated as an
agricultural field, However, the Project site has not been utilized for agricultural
purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural resource, The
site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses, This
property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance, as
identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General
Plan, In addition, the Project will not involve changes in the existing environment which
would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project (Initial Study, p, 5)
The proposed Project could, because of its regional significance, cause other
agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use, There are some
remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and
surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural; however, the
conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the
proposed Project The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of
San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the
proposed Project Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external
economic forces rather than the proposed Project A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project (Initial Study, p, 5)
B, Bioloqical Resources A habitat assessment study was prepared for the
Project site (Habitat Assessment, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc" September 14,
2004), The study identified a man-made flood control channel that parallels the eastern
boundary of the Project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and
Fremont Cottonwoods, Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes has also
been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to
be jurisdictional under the U,S, Army Corps of Engineers definitions, The Project
applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access
bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require Section 404
permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U,S, Army Corps of Engineers and
potentially clearances from the U,S Fish & Game and U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service,
The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside County
Flood Control. The study (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc, September 2004)
concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed
alteration, placement of fill into the channel, and the encroachment into jurisdictional
areas, However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided, In
order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be
present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge, In addition, if activity
within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur
between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols
shall be provided to determine the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo
belli! pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), In
the event either of these endangered birds is found, the construction of the bridge
(schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the
birds to complete their reproductive cycles, A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the Project with mitigation measures,
The Project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery
sites, The Project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or
state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP), The Project site has been grubbed and disturbed for
many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord, 8,16),
There are some grasses on the Project site; however, they are not considered sensitive
habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the
Project site,
The proposed Project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP, The Project site
is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic
plants, as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004), However, the MSHCP
guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the
Burrowing Owl. A Burrowing Owl survey was conducted by AMEC and the results
reported in a report dated August 9, 2005, The survey did not identify the presence of
Burrowing Owls on the subject property,
The following Mitigation Measures will be required in the event that an extension of
Dartolo Road across thEflood control channel occurs:
Due of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would
need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell's Vireo and
the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found,
bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts
to the birds' reproductive cycle,1 Both the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected
under the MSHCP, (DEIR, p, 5-14)
C, Cultural Resource A Phase I survey (Historical/Archaeological Resource
Survey Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been
prepared for the proposed Project. The survey did not identify any historical resources,
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064,5 on the Project site, No impact on
historical resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.
1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment September 14,2004.
The Phase I survey did not identify the Project site as a potential site for historical
resources, including human remains, Historically, the site has been used for agricultural
production, which involved substantial and repeated soil disturbance, The archaeology
survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to
contain historical and archaeological resources, Given the known sensitive resources
discovered within close proximity of the Project site, conditions of approval are required,
The Project site is also a potential site for paleontological resources, and conditions of
approval are required, The City will apply standard conditions of approval to the Project
to address monitoring during grading operations,
The following Conditions of Approval have been required of the proposed Project and
shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the
Project:
1, Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a
written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiselio
Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural
resources, human resources, and human remains discovered on-site,
2, The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including archaeological artifacts found on the Project site, to the
Pechanga Band of Luiselio Indians for proper treatment and disposition to
the extent authorized by law,
3, The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and
paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at
the applicant's sole cost
4, If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing
activities, they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this
condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in Condition A
above,
5, The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the
Historical/Archaeological Resource Paleontological Resources
Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004
and September 16, 2004, respectively, except as modified by Project
Conditions of Approval.
6, Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological, and
Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities,
The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or
divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large
specimens, The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are
likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates,
7, Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrate fossils, Recovered specimens should be
prepared so they can be identified and permanently preserved,
8, All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with
permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement
requires alternative treatment
9, A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered
specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined
above, The report should include a discussion of the significance of all
recovered specimens, The report and inventory, when submitted to the
Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program
to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources,
10, If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist
and the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately, In the event any
Pleistocene-age or older sediments/resources are discovered, a program
shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the
resources unearthed, (Initial Study, pgs, 14 and 15)
D, Geoloqv/Soils A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the
proposed Project "Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA,"
PSI, Inc" May 14, 2004), The Project is located 1,6 miles from the Temecula segment
of the Lake Elsinore Fault The proposed Project will not be subject to fault rupture
since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the Project site, The Lake
Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large
magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc" May 14, 2004), The Project has the potential to be
exposed to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby
faults, The site, in its current condition, includes subsurface strata that could
experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural
loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction, Due to the presence of loose surficial
soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc" May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and
recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements, Native soils may represent
a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive
environment with respect to buried metals, The Project site has a moderate risk for
liquefaction and/or seismic settlement Unless they are structurally supported, floor
slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement
due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the
groundwater.
The following Conditions of Approval have been required as a part of the proposed
Project to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant, and will be established
as enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
1, The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the
Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared by PSI Inc" dated May 14,
2004 and as stated below without deviation,
a, All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious
materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction,
Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 1 0 feet beyond
the proposed building limits, where practical.
b, Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as
properly compacted fill. The depth of over-excavation should
extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-grade
and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat
foundations are constructed, The exposed subgrade below the
removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a heavy
vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture
conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on
ASTM Test Method 0157) until design finish grades are reached,
This earthwork should extend at least four feet beyond building
limits, wherever practical.
c, The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform
horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and
scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils, Fill materials,
including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious
materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and
should possess an expansion index of less than 20 (UBe 18-2),
Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill.
During the course of grading operation, oversized material
(particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated, These
materials should not be placed within the compacted fill.
d, Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should
be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture
content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
density, If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and
thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying, Each lift of
compacted-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts,
The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the
edges of buildings prior to sloping,
e, Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in
unison to provide lateral support, Backfill along building walls must
be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive
unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop, The type of fill
material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly
tested by the geotechnical engineer with consideration for the
lateral earth pressure used in the wall design,
f. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should
be removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above
optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction based on Test Method 01557, The upper 12-inch
densification should be performed immediately prior to the
placement of base material and not during the initial grading
operation,
g, As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc" May 14, 2004, alluvial
deposits underlie the site, As such, it is anticipated that shallow to
moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional
earthmovhg equipment
h, All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's
Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of
Temecula standards,
The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Project
site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the
implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's), The Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan does not identify
any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site, Less
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project
According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc" May 14, 2004, the Project is
not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), and, thus, will not create substantial risks to life or property, The geotechnical
exploration prepared by PSI Inc" dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the
Project site as "very low expansion potential," as defined in the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Table No, 18-1-B, The Project is required to comply with the recommendations
in the investigation report prepared by PSllnc" dated May 14, 2004,
The Project will not utilize septic tanks, A public sewer system is available; approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District
for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit
The Project will be required to connect to the public sewer system, No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this Project as the current sewer system and waste treatment
facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility, (Initial
Study, pgs, 16, 17, and 18)
E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project could potentially create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, The Project consists of medical uses and will
include the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials, The Project is
located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the
proposed Project is not anticipated to result in hazardous emissions materials or wastes
that would create a significant impact As a standard condition of approval, the
applicant is required to submit to the City an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of
the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health,
A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the Project
The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and therefore
would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project (Initial Study, pgs, 19 and 20)
The Project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP), There are no other airports located near the Project
The Project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, The Project does
include a private helipad that will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of
patients to other facilities, As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to
commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe, A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project
The Project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or
evacuation plan, Therefore, the Project would not impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan, The Project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local
treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency, No impact is
anticipated as a result of the Project
The Project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards, The location of the Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, No impact is anticipated
as a result of this Project
The following standard Conditions of Approval have been required of the Project and
will be established as an enforceable condition on the entitlements:
1, Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a
hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials
Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and
transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state,
and/or federal regulations, (Initial Study, pgs, 19 and 20)
F, Mineral Resources The Project is not located in an area that is known to
include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state, The Project
will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource because the Project site
is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the
Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan, No impact is anticipated as a result of
the Project. (Initial Study, p.25)
G, Population and Housinq The Project is a regional facility that will add
additional medical services to the region, As a result, the Project could potentially
cause additional growth in the surrounding area, However, the southwest Riverside
County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial)
since the mid-1980s without any such regional medical facility, The surrounding
community is nearly built out with residential dwellings, The Project, therefore, is not
anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has
already occurred over the last 10 to 20 years, A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly,
The Project includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center, and a fitness
rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed, The Project site is vacant and
will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing, The
Project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial
Study, p, 30)
H, Public Services The Project will have a less than significant impact upon,
or not result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation, or other public facilities,
The Project will provide additional public services available to the community and
general public, The Project will also provide better emergency medical response and
allow for better transport of medical emergencies,
The Project will contribute fair-share contributions through City Development Impact
Fees to be used to provide public facilities and infrastructure, The Project will not have
an impact upon nor result in a need for new or altered school facilities, The Project will
not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City, The Project will
have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities,
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental
Health have been made aware of this Project. A condition of approval has been placed
on this Project that will require the applicant to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the
public utilities agencies, Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential
and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the Project ,
The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line
connections, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual
analysis concerning sewer flows from the hospital, and the total flow is estimated to be
approximately 94,100 gallons per day, Based on the estimated discharge volume, the
hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity,
assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP)
sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP
sewer in Margarita Road, As a condition of service, the applicant is responsible for
payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee,
Impact is less than significant (Initial Study, p, 31)
L Recreation The Project is a hospital and medical office Project in a
professional office zone, The Project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or
remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes, The anticipated need to
increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of
this Project is not anticipated, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project
The Project does not include an open space or recreational aspect Furthermore, the
Project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities,
No impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project (Initial Study, p, 32)
J, Utilities and Service Svstems The Project will not exceed wastewater
treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect
the capacity of treatment providers, The Project will have an incremental effect upon
existing systems,
The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line
connections, The applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, EMWD, to
determine what, if any, improvements are required, As a condition of approval, the
applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in
place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the
proposed Project Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
Project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle
this quantity of wastewater.
The Project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed, The Project may require
various state and federal permits, The Project will include the construction of
underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the Project
site, No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a
result of this Project Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
Project
The Project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded
water entitlements, According to RCWD's Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban
Water Management Plan, RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported,
and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet The
ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is estimated to be 129,545 acre-feet, while
the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 acre-feet Based on the
projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands
projected for the Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water
Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the Poject location,
The Master Plan projected demands for the Project site are based on use of the site as
30 acres of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate
Residential (0,75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the Project
area, Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided
for and can be met with existing supply capacities,
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the
Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a
combination of the following:
1, Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and
artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned
RCWD-owned wells,
2, Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake,
3, Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as
proposed to be available,
4, Conservation measures,
Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local
groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the
basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability
to supply customers, Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of
single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by
augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with
implementation of conservation and other measures, RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic
water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or
critically dry, years, Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists
to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water
Code Section 10910, (DEI R, p, 4-35 and 4-35)
The Project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity, Any potential impacts from
solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City, Less
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project (Initial Study, pgs, 35
and 36)
Section 3. Findings Concerning Impacts Found in The Draft EIR to Have
Less Than Significant Impacts on the Environment The City Council hereby finds
and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR,
written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony
from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts
associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have a less than significant
impact through the EIR and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation
measures:
A Aesthetics - Scenic Hiqhwavs and Visual Character or Qualitv The
Project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by
the California Department of Transportation2 According to the City of Temecula
General Plan, the Project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for
its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources, Development of the
Project will result in a less than significant impact (DEIR, pA-4)
The proposed Project will be visible from various residential lots north of the Project site,
as illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b in the EIR, However, the views are
considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by
any City regulation or policy, While the hospital/medical complex will be apparently
taller than surrounding development, it will appear as infill development As illustrated
in Figure 4-2a in the EIR, while the Project site can seen from residential areas to the
north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will
not be blocked by the Poject, The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent
residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the Project site,
Therefore, the building height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the
residences to the north,
To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the
preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine,
Coast Live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences
and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the
development of the site, Incorporation of these Project features will help to reduce
viewshed impacts, The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct
views from nearby locations, However, because the views are considered private, are
not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or
policy, impact will be less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-5)
B, Air Quality - Construction Odors and Consistency with Adopted Plans and
Policies The Project has the potential to create objectionable odors during construction,
Some odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines during site
preparation, However, these odors are typical of urbanized environments and would be
subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper maintenance of
machinery to minimize engine emissions, These emissions are also of short duration
and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere, Therefore, the Project will not create
significant objectionable odor impacts during construction, (DEIR,4-24)
2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
http://\MMN.dot.ca.aov/ha/LandArch/scenic hiahwavsl Date accessed: August 11, 2005.
With respect to determining Project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it must be recognized that air
quality planning in the South Coast Air Basin focuses on the attainment of the ambient
air quality standards at the earliest feasible date, The SCAQMD CEQA emissions
thresholds for construction and operational phase emissions are designed to identify
those Projects that would result in significant levels of pollutants, as well as promote the
attainment of the California ambient air quality standards and national ambient air
quality standards,
General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the
framework for attainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air
quality standards, The Temecula Hospital Project proposes development on the Project
site at an intensity greater than the two-story building height limit established in the
General Plan Land Use Element for this site, However, the proposed hospital and
medical uses involve a total of 566,160 square feet of building area, whereas a
commercial office development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations
could yield up to 769,059 square feet based on an assumed Floor-Area Ratio of 0.5.
The proposed uses would generate up to 65% fewer vehicle trips than the
commercial/office uses on the site assumed in the General Plan (see discussion of
Alternative 2 in Section 5,0 of the EIR), Finally, Policy 1,8 in the Land Use Element
states: "Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as
well as a community college, major college or university," Therefore, the Project is
consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan, As the Project is consistent
with the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Open Space/Conservation
Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the AQMP, and the development's
assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP, (DEIR, p, 4-25)
C, Hvdroloqv and Water Qualitv Storm Water Drainage and Water Quality
Compliance with the existing regulations, which require Riverside County Flood Control
District review to ensure adequate flood control capacity, on-site drainage provision,
drainage fees payment, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan preparation, will
ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality, (DEIR,
pA-33)
California Water Code Sections 10910-10915
In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development
Projects pursuant to the General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required
to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and
multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed Project, in
addition to existing and planned future uses, No major development Project will be
permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made, Water Code Section
10910 applies to the Project because the proposed hospital and medical office building
complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(1) in
square feet and potential employment
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public
water system within which the proposed Project will be located, RCWD will be the
water purveyor to the Project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the
proposed Project; this assessment states that the projected water demand for the
Temecula Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This demand has
been anticipated and included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and
Water Facilities Master Plan for RCWD, Furthermore, based on the projected water
demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the
Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan
projected demands based on land use for the Project location, Therefore, the 42 acre-
feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided for and can be met with
existing supply capacities,
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the
District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following
alternatives:
1, Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and
artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned
RCWD-owned wells,
2, Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake,
3, Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as
proposed to be available,
4, Conservation measures,
Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local
groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the
basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability
to supply customers, Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of
single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by
augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with
implementation of conservation and other measures, RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic
water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or
critically dry, years, Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists
to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water
Code Section 10910, Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p, 4-33, 4-34, and 4-35)
D, Land Use and Planninq The Professional Office General Plan land use
designation will continue to apply to the Project site, The uses proposed are all
permitted within this designation, Thus, no conflict with underlying General Plan land
use policy will apply, The elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height
restrictions, As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply, The PO
zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet However, the applicant has
submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum
height of 115 feet for the tower structures, In approving the Project, the City Council
has determined that no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations
result, and impact is less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-39)
The Project will be a phased development that will allow for efficient implementation of
public facilities and services within the Project area, Furthermore, potential jobs will be
created through the development and programming of this regional hospital, and the
housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing
developments anticipated in the City's General Plan, Therefore, the proposed Project
will be consistent with goals and polices of the Growth Management/Public Facilities
Element Impact is less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-40)
All uses currently permitted in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in new
PDO-9 zone, Thus, no conflict or impact will result The primary changes that will occur
as a result of the new proposed PDO and the Development Plan will be a change to the
building height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development
standards applicable strictly to this site, The PDO document submitted with the
application indicates an allowable maximum building height limit of 115 feet In
approving the PDO-9 zone, the City Council has determined that the PDO-9 zone is
appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property, Therefore, impact will
be less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-40)
The hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with established and
planned development uses and patterns along Highway 79 South, south of De Portola
Road, With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by,
respectively, a six-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of-
way to the north, Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and
landscaping to ensure compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses,
The uses proposed are considered consistent and compatible with surrounding uses;
impact will be less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-41)
With regard to intensity of use, the Project will result in a more intense use of the site
than is currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased
height standard, The Project will require approval of a planned development permit to
provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping,
and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development
standards for the Project
The hospital bed-towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site, The
nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially
zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road, Extensive perimeter
landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided, These Project
features will minimize perceived visual effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding
uses, Therefore, land use compatibility impacts with regard to development standards
are not considered significant (DEIR, p, 4-41)
E, Noise (Construction, Ground-Borne Vibration, Traffic-related Noise,
Sirens. Loadinq Activities. Parkinq Lot Activities. Trash Pickup.
Landscapinq/Maintenance. and Future Exterior/lnterior Noise Environment
Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section
8,32,020 of the Municipal Code, (DEIR, p, 4-64)
The proposed Project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels, However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the
demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very
near the property lines, This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the
short duration of the activity, (DEIR, p, 4-64)
Although siren noise may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors,
noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact
because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens
are necessary for safety during an emergency, (DEIR, p, 4-58)
Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less
than significant. (DEIR, p, 4-64)
Activity at the loading docks have the potential to create excessive noise, Assuming
that the worst-case 1 O-minute average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be
the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance from the loading
docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet), the estimated 10-minute
average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately 50
dB(A), With four deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB,
This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB,
Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading
dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more, The impact is less than
significant. (DEIR, p, 4-61)
At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet) from the loading docks,
the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB, This is below the City's standard of 70 dB,
and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is less
than significant. (DEIR, p, 4-61)
Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to
commercial uses, Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50
feet from the source during raising, lowering, and compacting operations, However, this
noise is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis, A typical trash pickup lasts
only three minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the
community, Therefore, this Project impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p, 4-63)
The exterior noise standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior
locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South,
However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope, Impact
will be less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-64)
The interior noise standard will not be exceeded within any medical office building nor
hospital facility given the noise estimates and the noise reduction characteristics of the
buildings themselves, The noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the interior
CNEL standard of 50 dB, At locations further from the street, the estimated CNEL will
be lower than 50 dB, Impact is less than significant (DEIR, p, 4-64)
Section 4. Findings Concerning Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can
be Mitigated to levels of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR have been incorporated
into the Temecula Regional Hospital Project that avoid or substantially lessen the
following potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Project Draft EIR
to a less than significant level. The potentially significant Project impacts and the
mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant
level are as follows:
A Aesthetics - Liqht and Glare
1, Potential Significant Impact
The Project will introduce new sources of light and glare typically
associated with a hospital and medical office, A minimum of one-
foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and
circulation areas, and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is
required for the main entries of each building, Lighting is required
to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of
glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, The applicant
has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which
is consistent with Ordinance 655, The City is requiring the Project
applicant to locate all ground-mounted lighting as far away as
possible from the residences, All free-standing lighting in the
parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the
Development Code and Design Guidelines,
The hospital towers have the potential to emit glare from the upper
floors, (DEIR, p, 4-14)
2, Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the DEIR, Implementation of
the following mitigation measures will reduce potential aesthetic
impacts to a less than significant level:
A-1, Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify
that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the
proposed light levels for the entire Project site onto adjacent
Project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including
means to mitigate, Corresponding criteria for
helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and
operations shall also be prepared and include means to
mitigate potential light impacts, (DEIR, p, 4-15)
A-2, All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or
medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows
and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the
amount of glare emitted from the upper floors, (DEIR, p, 4-
15)
A-3, The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary,
and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater)
and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the
Project site, Such landscaping treatment may include
decorative walls, The Planning Director shall approve the
final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping,
Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern
property line and adjacent to residential parcels, (DEIR, p,
4-15)
B, Noise - Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard. Emerqencv Generators.
Mechanical Equipment Room, Rooftop Equipment)
1, Potential Significant Impact
Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment
The mechanical yard duty equipment's noise level for all the
equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet At the worst-case noise-sensitive
location, the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A) and, over a 24-hour
period, the CNEL will be about 58 dB, This level complies with the
City's standard of 65 dB; however, the CNEL at the residence will
increase by approximately 4 dB, In addition, the CNEL generated
by the duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB at the nearest office
location, This exceeds the City's standard of 70 dB, Therefore, the
impact is significant, and mitigation is required, (DEIR, p, 4-62)
Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators
The emergency generators' estimated noise level for each of the two
generators is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet This level does not include additional
noise from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level
by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. At the worst-
case noise-sensitive location, the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A),
without the contribution of the engine exhaust On a maintenance test
day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the
City's standard, However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-
hour period, the CNEL will be at least 70 dB, This exceeds the City's 65
dB standard, In addition, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB at the nearest
office property if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, which
exceeds the City's standard, Therefore, the generator impact is potentially
significant at both the worst-case noise-sensitive location and the office
location as well. (DEIR, pgs, 4-62 and 4-63)
The Mechanical Equipment Room
The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB
hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard, An analysis of the
central plant room noise levels is not currently possible, as the
construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the
equipment are not available, However, based on the fact that the central
plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers,
and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at
nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the
design, Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is
required, (DEIR, p, 4-63)
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration
units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise
sources, However, structural designs are easily implemented in new
construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included
during the final design of the Project to minimize rooftop mechanical
equipment noise, (DEIR, p, 4-63)
2, Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the DEIR, Implementation of
the following mitigation measures will reduce potential noise
impacts to a less than significant level:
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency
generators) is fully operational upon completion of Project
construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct
continuous, 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one
week, Such monitoring shall be conducted by a certified
acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land
use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City
of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that
may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall
implement measures to achieve the thresholds or other
adopted criteria, Such measures may include, but not be
limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or
other approaches deemed appropriate by a certified
acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been
implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with
the City documenting compliance, (DEIR, p, 4-65)
N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and
office buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior
noise standards established in the General Plan, (DEIR, p,
4-65)
C, Transportation - Proiect Impacts
1, Potential Significant Impacts
The Project will result in the following significant traffic impacts
requiring mitigation:
Phase 1: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project-
related or cumulative impacts:
D Highway 79 South/lnterstate 15 southbound ramps - both
peak hours
D Highway 79 South/lnterstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak
hours
D Highway 79 South/La Paz Street- P,M, peak
D Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P,M, peak
D Highway 79 South/Red hawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak
hours
Phase 1: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to Project-
related or cumulative impacts:
D Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
D Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Project at Build-out: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to
Project-related or cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both
peak hours
. Highway 79 South/lnterstate 15 northbound ramps - both
peak hours
. Highway 79 South/La Paz Street- P,M, peak
. Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P,M, peak
. Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way -
LOS F at AM, and P,M, peak hour
. Margarita Road/Highway 79 South - LOS F at AM, and P,M,
peak hour
. Highway 79 South/Red hawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak
hours
Project at Build-out: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to
Project-related or cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
2, Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the DEIR, Implementation of
the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
transportation - Project impacts to a less than significant level:
The Project applicant/permittee will be required to contribute fair-
share payments for the following improvements:
T-1, Signalize the main Project site access from Highway 79
South opposite Country Glen Way with the following
configuration:
Westbound: 1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) (DEIR,
pA-93)
T-4, Irnprovernents on the Project site shall include a driveway
onto De Portola Road developed to the specifications of the
Public Works Director. (DEIR, 4-94)
Section 5. Findings Concerning Impacts Which Cannot be Fully Mitigated
to a level of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the
incorporation of rnitigation rneasures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following irnpacts
cannot be fully rnitigated to a less than significant level, and a Staternent of Overriding
Considerations is therefore included herein:
A Air Qualitv - Short-terrn. Lonq-terrn. and Curnulative
1, Potential Significant Irnpact
Short- Term
Construction activity will produce daily ernissions above the South
Coast Air Quality Managernent District's (SCAQMD) significance
thresholds for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases
(RaG), The NOx ernissions are prirnarily attributable to exhaust
frorn construction vehicles, and the RaG ernissions are prirnarily
frorn the application of architectural coatings, The ernissions of
these pollutants are considered to produce a significant adverse
short-terrn regional air quality irnpact because the levels of these
ernissions are projected to exceed SCAQMD air pollutant
significance thresholds, (DEIR, p, 4-23)
Long- Term and Cumulative
Air pollutant ernissions associated with Project operations will be
generated due to the consurnption of electricity and natural gas (so-
called stationary sources) and by the operation of on-road vehicles
(rnobile sources), Because it is not possible to isolate
geographically where production of electric power occurs, these
ernissions are considered to be regional in nature, Ernissions of
criteria pollutants associated with the production of energy were
calculated using ernission factors frorn the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. (DEIR, p, 4-24)
Regional emissions from the operation of the Temecula Regional
Hospital are estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the
SCAQMD significance thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) and
ROG, As such, regional emissions associated with the operational
phase of the Project will result in a significant adverse air quality
impact related to ROG and CO, (DEIR, p, 4-25)
2, Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce air
quality impacts to the extent feasible,
AQ-1, The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of
staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the Project site,
Written authorization and final approved design plans shall
be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department
(DEIR, p, 4-26)
AQ-2, The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage
Transportation Demand Management (TOM) techniques for
reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during
the daily operations of the hospital facility, TOM techniques
shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging
car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex
schedules during the on-going operation of the facility,
Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for construction activities and prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of
the medical offices, (DEIR, p, 4-26)
AQ-3, The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency
standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional
office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations,
(DEIR, p, 4-26)
AQ-4, The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan
for the Project site incorporating native drought-resistant
vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-
inch box), If more than 100 days elapses from the time
grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City
of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce
the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with
such temporary landscaping to be installed at the
applicant/permittee's expense, (DEIR, p, 4-26)
AQ-5, Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the
duration of construction activities, the applicant/permittee
shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all
earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and
maintained to reduce emissions, In addition, alternative
clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible,
Construction equipment should be selected and deployed
considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy
efficiency reasonably possible, (DEIR, p, 4-27)
AQ-6, Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program
shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works
Department for approval. Said program shall include control
of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access
roadways, The City Public Works Director reserves the right
to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the
circumstances that present themselves during the Project
construction, (DEIR, p, 4-27)
AQ-7, The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a
comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of
Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 -
Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust The Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall include applicable best available control
measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403
during grading and construction such as the following
examples listed below:
. Soil stabilization methods such as water and
environmentally safe dust control materials shall be
periodically applied to portions of the construction site
inactive for over four days,
. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days
after active operations have ceased,
. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of
grading completion,
. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice
per daily, at least once in the morning and at least
once in the afternoon,
. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80
percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a
daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven
fugitive dust or install temporary coverings,
. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site,
. Direct construction traffic over established haul
routes,
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of
grading and excavation operations, Compliance with The
Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site
monitoring by the City, (DEIR, p, 4-27)
AQ-8, During the course of the Project grading and construction,
the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting
construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles
per hour or less, (DEIR, p, 4-27)
AQ-9, The applicant/permittee shall establish construction
equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet
from the nearest property line of a residentially improved
parcel. (DEIR, p, 4-27)
AQ-1 0, The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-
related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state
emission controls to ensure against Project site related
odors during construction and subsequent use, (DEIR, p, 4-
28)
AQ-11, All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the Project
site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance
with State Vehicle Code 23114, Material transported in
trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with
State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections
23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended,
Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or
secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions, Lower portions
of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with
water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent
runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they
leave the construction area, (DEIR, p, 4-28)
AQ-12, During the course of the Project grading and construction,
the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of
adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or
accumulation of dirt in the roadway, Sweeping of adjacent
streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less
than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or
construction, (DEIR, p, 4-28)
AQ-13, During periods of high winds (Le" wind speed sufficient to
cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally
wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an
hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing,
grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed
by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent
fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from
being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as
determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion,
(DER, p, 4 -28)
AQ-14, The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the
construction and repainting of the Project to the maximum
extent feasible, This measure will reduce VOC (ROG)
emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural
coatings, The following websites provide lists of
manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings:
http://http://www,aqmd,qov/prdas/brochures/Super-
Compliant AIM,pdf
http://www.delta-i nstitute, orq/publicatio ns/pa ints, pdf (0 E I R,
p, 4-28)
AQ-15, The Project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times
(not including the morning and evening water down) during
construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. (DEIR,
p, 4-28)
AQ-16, All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a
covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed
structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up
times for off-site removal. (DEIR, p, 4-28)
AQ-17, The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel
for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public
streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote
alternative transportation, (DEIR, p, 4-28)
3, Supporting Explanation
The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project will result in
significant air quality impacts during the Project's construction and
operational phases, With mitigation, ROG emissions will be less
than significant. However, NOx emissions from construction vehicle
exhaust will continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold
and result in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact.
(DEIR, p, 4-29)
Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation,
estimated emissions of CO and ROG will exceed the operational
phase thresholds established by the SCAQMD, Even with
measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency,
emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance,
Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable,
(DEIR, p, 4-29)
B, Noise - Associated with the Maximum Potential Number of Emerqencv
Helicopter Fliqhts
1, Potential Significant Impacts
The Project includes a helipad to be used for the emergency
evacuation of any patient who cannot be treated at the hospital.
The helipad permit to be issued by the California Department of
Transportation will have a limit of a maximum six flights per month,
The applicant anticipates no more than one flight per month,
However, assuming one flight on a "worst-case" day, and that the
flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound
exposure level (SEL) would be 94 to 100 dB(A), The estimated
annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a
scale from 0 to 10), If this condition occurred up to six times per
month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered
significant by those persons living closest to the hospital. (DEIR, p,
4-61)
2, Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce noise
impacts to the extent feasible:
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only
circumstances for critical patient transport, The
applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad
Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as
provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21,
Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions, This permit
allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an
average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on
the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical
response to a mass casualty event, even if that response
causes the site to be used beyond these limits, (DEIR, p, 4-
65)
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport
shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure
heading of 1350 southeast (DEIR, p, 4-65)
3, Supporting Explanation
Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise
impacts, these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance because of the uncertainty of the exact number of
flights per month due to the unknown number of emergencies that
will occur within any given month, Helicopter flight noise impacts
will be significant and unavoidable, (DEIR, pA-66)
C, Traffic & Circulation - Cumulative Impacts
1, Potential Significant Impacts
New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development
occurring throughout the Project area, combined with Project trips,
will increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the
surrounding area,
Vehicle trips from the Project and related Projects are anticipated
to create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South,
especially near the 1-15 ramps, and at selected roadway
segments and intersections, The 21 cumulative Projects generate
a total of 160,500 average daily trips with 5,560 trips in the AM
peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound and
1,489 outbound), Some vehicle trips would be confined to the
area (short trips), while others would travel outside the Project
area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the
regional transportation system, Adverse impacts to the circulation
network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction
measures and programs are not implemented,
In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each
development Project will be assessed its fair share for identified
roadway improvements, Payment of the City's traffic impact fees
will allow the City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and
other transportation programs and improvements necessary to
maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections,
Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally
anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through
payment of fair share fees and citywide and Project-level roadway
improvements, The proposed Project will not result in any
cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway
links will continue to operate over capacity:
. Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at Project build-out will
be significant and unavoidable, Furthermore, some intersections
near 1-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into
the future, Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR,
will be significant and unavoidable, (DEIR, p, 6-4)
2, Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce traffic
impacts to the extent feasible, Also, other roadway system
enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement
the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element (DEIR, p,
6-4)
T-2, The Project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate
cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at
1-15, (DEIR, p, 4-94)
T-3, The Project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share
toward the provision of the following roadway improvements
to address the Project's contribution toward cumulative
impacts:
Intersection
Required Improvements
Highway 79 South/I-15
Southbound Ramps
Highway 79 South/I-15
Northbound Ramps
Highway 79 South/La
Paz Road
Highway 79
South/Pechanga
Parkway
Highway 79
South/Project
Driveway/Country Glen
Way
Highway 79
South/Redhawk
Parkway/Margarita
Road
(DEIR, p, 4-94)
Additional southbound left-turn lane
Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert
westbound right lane to free right turn
Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes
and one shared through/right lane
Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound
and northbound free right-turn lanes
Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes
and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared
through/right-turn lane, Provide a dedicated right-
turn lane for westbound approach,
Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and
right-turn traffic signal overlaps,
3, Supporting Explanation
Cumulative impacts on these roadway links at Project build-out will
be significant and unavoidable, Furthermore, some intersections
near 1-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into
the future, Cumulative impacts, as noted in the EIR, will be
significant and unavoidable,
Section 6. Findings Concerning Alternatives to the Project The City
Council hereby declares that it has considered the alternatives identified in the EIR as
described below, CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives to a Project, or to the location of a Project, which: (1) offer substantial
environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved, An EIR must only
evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly attain most of the
Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, In all cases,
the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason," The lead
agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in
an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over a proposed
Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects
of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic,
technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible,
The City's objectives for the proposed Project and the Project area are to:
. Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services
. Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's economic and employment base
. Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding
uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and
landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and
other environmental conditions
. Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the
City of Temecula
. Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity,
and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses
. Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an
operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that provides economic benefits to
the City
The objectives of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, for the proposed
Project are to:
. Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
surrounding communities
. Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with
outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices
. Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-
of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors
. Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of
doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical
procedures
. Provide a regional hospital facility that is centrally located, with access from a
major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and
the region
A No Project Alternative - No Build
1 , Description
The "No Project Alternative" alternative assumes that site
conditions would remain the same as existing conditions, and no
development would occur in the near future, (DEIR, p, 5-4)
2, Finding
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative does not meet
any of the Project objectives identified by the City nor the applicant
However, it has fewer environmental impacts than the Project
3, Supporting Explanation
This alternative generally would avoid the significant air quality
impacts associated with the Project and would not generate any
additional traffic, No new noise sources would be created, Overall
impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be less
than those resulting from the Project While this alternative has
fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, it meets
none of the Project objectives identified by the applicant and the
City, (DEIR, p, 5-4)
B, No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan
1 , Description
The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current
General Plan" alternative assumes that the Project site ultimately
would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use
policies, goals and policies, and zoning criteria, The site would be
developed pursuant to the standards of the Professional Office
(PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO
and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8), This development
scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square feet of
commercial and office development, based on current zoning
regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0,5, (DEIR, p, 5-4)
2, Finding
The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current
General Plan" would not attain the City's objective to encourage
future development of a regional hospital and related services, or
the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to
the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities, It would
potentially have greater air quality and traffic impacts, while
potentially having reduced land use and planning impacts,
3, Supporting Explanation
This alternative could result in potentially greater air quality and
traffic impacts, Impacts related to land use and planning would be
reduced compared to the Project. Noise impacts associated with
helicopter operations would be avoided, However it would not
attain the City's objective to encourage future regional hospital and
related services nor would it attain the applicant's objective to
provide high-quality health services to Temecula or surrounding
communities' residents, All other impacts would be comparable to
those associated with the proposed hospital Project. (DEIR, p, 5-6)
C, Alternative Site - Corona Family Properties
1 , Description
The alternative site considered for this Project includes land now
owned by Corona Family L TO Partnership located at the northeast
corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South, The site
is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39,5
acres (APN 952150003, 9,61 acres; APN 952150001, 9,56 acres;
and APN 952150002, 20,34 acres), The two smaller parcels are
designated within the General Plan as Community Commercial
and are zoned for Community Commercial use, The larger, 20+
acre parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent
to the City within the County of Riverside, The Project site is within
the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is
designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20,
All properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the
Project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone
change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel.
(DEIR, p,5-7)
2, Finding
The "Alternative Site" alternative has the potential to result in similar
traffic and air quality as impacts the proposed Project, and could
also result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use
compatibility impacts, This alternative will not attain the applicant's
objectives, However, this alternative would attain the City's
objectives,
3, Supporting Explanation
This alternative has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic,
agricultural resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas
the Project does not. Also, the alternative site would require
annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula, Noise
impacts of this alternative could be greater due to slightly longer
helicopter trips due to the location of the Project site on the eastern
boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more
residential neighborhoods, Biological resource impacts are
uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to
determine impacts, All other impacts would be comparable to
those associated with the Project. The alternative site would not
attain the applicant's objectives because the site is located farther
from the broad population to be served City and the site has limited
access, The alternative site would attain the Project objectives set
forth by the City of Temecula,
D, Access from Dartolo Road
1 , Description
The "Access from Dartolo Road" alternative would require the
extension of Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel
immediately east of the Project site, For this alternative, no access
to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented
to/from De Portola Road under the proposed Project have instead
been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access point. As with
the proposed Project, the access points along Highway 79 South
were assigned the majority of the Project trips (63 percent), with a
slightly lesser percentage of trips to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and
the remaining (4 percent) Project traffic assigned through the
reciprocal access to the adjacent development to the west and to
Country Glen Way, Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point
would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized
intersection, According to City staff, there has been some
discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo
Road/Margarita Road intersection, However, currently there are no
plans to do so,
2, Finding
This alternative has the potential to create greater environmental
impacts than those of the proposed Project The alternative would,
however, attain each of the Project objectives set forth by the City
of Temecula and the Project applicant
3, Supporting Explanation
Traffic and biological resource impacts of the Access from Dartolo
Road alternative could be greater than those associated with the
proposed Project Queues on Margarita Road would negatively
impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road
intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road,
This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a
signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which
results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the
intersection; thus, long queues form, If the traffic signal were
removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road
intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road,
This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor
but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of
removing traffic from Highway 79 South, as compared to the De
Portola Road access scenario, Additionally, the biological impacts
of this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed
Project, as the Initial Study found that no biological impacts would
result from the Project (DEI R, p, €) 14)
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or
noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the
proposed Project The alternative would, however, attain each of
the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the
Project applicant (DEIR, p, 5-14)
E, Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road
1 , Description
The "Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road" alternative
was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in
conjunction with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road
access, as described for the proposed Project, would be provided
with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-
turns, Outbound left-turns would be prohibited, Upon construction
of Phase II, this alternative would require a third access via an
extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Access from
Dartolo Road, This alternative would involve the extension of
Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the construction of a
bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the
Project site, (DEIR, p, 5-15)
2, Finding
This alternative would not avoid nor eliminate adverse
environmental impacts; however, it attains both the City and the
applicant's Project objectives,
3, Supporting Explanation
This alternative would not avoid the significant traffic impacts
associated with the Project The extension of Dartolo Road as part
of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the proposed
primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola
secondary entrance,
Biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would
be greater than those associated with the Project due to
construction within a jurisdictional wetland, The Initial Study found
that no biological impacts would result from the Project
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or
noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the
Project The alternative would, however, attain each of the Project
objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project
applicant (DEIR, p, 5-20)
F, Construction of Hospital Only
1 , Description
The "Construction of the Hospital Only" alternative would result in a
smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer
center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative was
considered as a means to reduce the overall impact of the Project
while still providing the community with a regional hospital. (DEIR,
p, 5-20)
2, Finding
This alternative has the potential to reduce environmental impacts
and it meets the City's objectives, This alternative, however, does
not attain the Project applicant's objectives,
3, Supporting Explanation
The "Construction of Hospital Only" alternative would result in
reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and
transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint
of development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by
the Project, and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be
less than those associated with the Project. Noise impacts
associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced,
While this alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage
future development of a regional hospital and related services, and
ensure compatibility of the proposed Project with surrounding uses,
it fails to meet the City's objective to support development of
biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's
economic and employment base, Furthermore, it does not meet
applicant's objective to provide a regional hospital facility that
includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care,
rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in
construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels
of rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the
applicant's objectives, (DEIR, p, 5-22)
Section 7. Findings Concerning Project Benefits and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must
balance the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against any unavoidable
environmental impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Temecula
Regional Hospital. If the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered
"acceptable,"
The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects that will occur as a result of the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the
implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can
be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant
impacts as discussed in Section 5 of these Findings,
The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Temecula
Regional Hospital.
The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended
in the Final EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible
because they would impose restrictions on the Temecula Regional Hospital that would
prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, The City Council
further finds that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the City of Temecula, Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and sheld be adopted by such other agency,
The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effects of the Temecula Regional Hospital to the extent feasible by
recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the
entire administrative record on the Temecula Regional Hospital, and having weighed
the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its unavoidable adverse impacts
after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
1, The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical
services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency,
acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation
services,
2, The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with
new employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical
services workers,
3, The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification
of Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited
to biomedical, research, and office facilities,
4, The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access
from a major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local
residents and the region,
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated, The
City Council further finds that each of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable, Each of the benefits listed above,
standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these
unavoidable environmental impacts,
Section 8. Review and Independent Judgment of the Council. The City
Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the
Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies
with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that
the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
Section 9. Certification of EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the
Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions:
A Finding
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the
Final EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 6 of this
Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant: short-
term and long-term Project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise
impacts associated with the potential number of emergency helicopter
flights, and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts,
B, Conclusions
1, All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional
Hospital's construction and operation have been identified in the
Final EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures
identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant, except
for those impacts listed in Section 5 of this Resolution,
2, Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital
that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula
Regional Hospital have been considered and rejected in favor of
the Temecula Regional Hospital.
3, Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the Temecula Regional
Hospital override and make infeasible any alternatives to the
Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation measures beyond
those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital.
Section 10. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
Sections 9,0 and 9,1 of the Final EI R and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A
Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set
forth in full. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set
forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
Section 11. Location of Records. The documents and materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are
located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590, The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081,6,
Section 12. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify
to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption,
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 24th day of January, 2006,
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W, Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
CONTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W, Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No, 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the following
vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W, Jones, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPO
for
THE TEMECULA REGI '
FINALw
w'
Date: November 2005
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code Section 21081,6 requires the Lead Agency,
mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensur
designated lead agency for the Mitigation Mo ' d Reporting
enforcement actions, and document dispositio 'II rely on inf
check mitigation measure status as required,
ccordance with Public Resources Code (PRC)
e purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the
omplies with all applicable environmental
, 'unction with the certification of the Final
'tigation measures are organized and
ortation, Each measure has a
, and the responsible party that will
INTRODUCTION
The City of T emecula will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (
Section 21081,6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
Temecula Regional Hospital, which is the subject of the Final Environmental 1m
mitigation requirements, Mitigation measures for the project will be adopted by t
EIR. Those mitigation measures have been integrated into this MMRP, Wi
referenced by subject category and include those for: (1) aesthetics; (
numerical reference, Specific mitigation measures are identified, as well
ensure that each action is implemented.
Mitigation measures applicable to the project include avoiding c
the action and its implementation, rectifying impacts by repairing,
impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operatidns dun
, inimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
affected environment, and/or reducing or eliminating
hat i subject to the CEQA, to monitor performance of the
, n does, in fact, take place. The City of Temecula is the
gram, T u City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports,
ation provided by the monitor as accurate and up to date and will field
ings is t ity of Temecula, City Clerk, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
d of proceedings upon which the City's decision is based, are and at all
, the custodian for such documents or other materials,
1
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Completion Date
Status
Notes
A-1, Prior to issuance of a building City of Temecula
The proposed project permit, City staff shali verify that a Planning
will introduce new photometric plan has been Department and
sources of iight and submitted which details the Building and initials
glare typicaliy proposed light levels for the entire Safety
associated with a project site onto adjacent project Department
hospital and medical boundaries and vertical fugitive light, Name
offices (up to 6 stories Including means to mitigate,
in height), The Corresponding criteria for
hospital towers have helicopter/heliport uses and
the potential to emit ambulance light use and operations
glare from the upper shall also be prepared and include
fioors. means to mitigate potential iight
impacts.
A-2, Prior to Completion:
issuance of
building permits
Date Initials
Name
Visual Character or
Quality A-3, Ci.!y::6f Temecula Review of Prior to Completion:
Planning landscaping plans issuance of
Incorporation of Department and prior to issuance of building permits
lanscaping wili help to Building building permit Date Initlais
reduce viewshed Department
Impacts, The
proposed height of Name
the hospital towers
will continue to
2
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
obstruct views from
nearby locations,
However, the views
are considered
private, are not
considered to be of
public benefit, and are
not protected by any
City regulation or
policy,
Short-term:
Construction activity
will produce daily
emissions above the
SCAQMD significance
thresholds for NO,
and ROG, The NO,
emissions are
primarily attributable
to exhaust from
construction vehicles,
and the ROG
emissions are
primarily from the
application of
architectural coatings,
The emissions of
these pollutants are
considered to produce
a significant adverse
short-term regional air
quality impact
because the leveis of
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Pre-grading
AQ-1.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
AQ-2,
Completion:
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
construction and
prior to issuance of
occupancy permits
for operations
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits for
construction and
prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits for
operations
Name
inca,
Transp
Manage
reducing
construction,
daily operations
facility, TOM t
include but not be
followin: encoura I
Date
Initials
3
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
t ese emiSSions are
projected to exceed
SCAQMD air pollutant
significance
thresholds,
Long-term: Air
pollutant emissions
associated with
project operations will
be generated due to
the consumption of
electricity and natural
gas and by the
operation of on-road
vehicles, Once the
hospital and other on-
site facilities are in
operation, estimated
emissions of CO and
ROG will exceed the
operationai phase
threshoids
established by the
SCAQMD, Even with
measures to
encourage trip
reduction and energy
efficiency. emissions
cannot be mitigated to
below a level of
significance.
Cumulative: Vehicle
trips associated with
the proposed project,
other known projects,
and ambient growth
AQ-4,
Initials
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Completion Date
Status
Notes
vanpooling, and offering flex hours
and/or flex schedules during the on-
going operation of the facility,
Written proof of such program shall
be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to the
issuance of a grading permit for
construction activities and prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the operation of the
medical offices,
AQ-3, The applicanVpermittee shall
incorporate energy efficiency
standards appropriate for medical
facilities and profession
buildings, as defined
California regulation
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
riortothe
issuance of building
permits
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
Completion:
Date
.. elap
compl
construe
may require\i
to reduce thea
prevent dust an
temporary landsc
installed at the appli
ex ense.
Name
4
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
WI Increase va Ie as
on area roadways.
These trips will all
contribute to
increased pollutant
loads locally and
within the Basin as a
whole, Cumulative
impacts will be
partially reduced by
implementation and
achievement of
emissions levels
identified in the
AQMP and air quality
components within
the Temecula General
Plan, However, given
that the proposed
project itself will result
in emissions in
excess of SCAQMD
thresholds, the
cumulative effect will
be significant as well.
AQ-5.
AQ-6,
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Required Time
of Application
Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit and during the duration of
construction activities, the
applicant/permittee shall verify in
writing (to the Planning Department)
that all earth-moving and large
equipment are properly tuned and
maintained to reduce ami
addition, alternative
vehicles shall be
feasible, Constr
should be selecte
considering the lowest
factors and hi st energy e
reasonab
Prior to the
issuance of
ing permits
d during the
uration of
construction
activities
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
suboii
Public
approval.
control of
and on adjace
The City Publi
reserves the right
requirement as n ,',', ary based
u on the circumstance's that resent
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits
Completion:
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits
Date
Initials
Name
5
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measures
themselves during the project
construction.
AQ-7,
The applicant/permittee shall
prepare and submit a
comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control
Plan to the City of Temecula,
including compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 -
Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall include applicable
best available control measures
included in Table 1 and Table 2 of
Rule 403 during grading and
construction such as the following
examples listed below:
.
.
vehi
per dal yin
morning fih
afternoon.
Restrict vehic
miles per haUL
A I water
chemical
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Required Time
of Application
Completion Date
Status
Notes
City of Temecula
Building
Department and
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
Dist(
Prior to the
issuance of
grading and
building permits
Initials
Name
6
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Grading and Constructio
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Impact
stabilizers to at least 80 percent
of the surface area of open
storage piles on a dally basis
when there is evidence of wind
driven fugitive dust or Install
temporary coverings,
. Cover haul vehicles prior to
exiting the site,
. Direct construction traffic over
established haul routes,
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the
SCAQMD prior to the
commencement of grading and
excavation operations. Compliance
with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan
shall be subject to peri' ,
monitoring by the City
During grading Completion:
and construction
AQ-8, During the course
grading
applic<jpll
on ,\.~iV site limiti
r"'iJ traffic and all
Jles per hour or les
Date
Initials
Name
AQ-9. The
establish
and supply sf
least 500 feet'
property line of
improved parcel.
City of Temecula
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits and during
the duration of
construction
activities
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits
and during the
duration of
construction
activities
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
7
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
/
""tra
SUffiCI
prevent
Lower po
including th
sprayed with w
properly managed
runoff, to reduce/eli
the trucks before
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Impact
AQ-1Q, The applicant/permittee .shall
properly maintain all waste-related
enclosures and facilities and comply
with the state emission controis to
ensure against project site related
odors during construction and
subsequent use,
City of Temecula
Planri"
Depa
During grading Completion:
and construction
Date Initials
Name
During grading Completion:
and construction
Date Initials
Name
AQ-11,
8
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
AQ-12, During the course of the project
grading and construction, the
applicant/permittee shall ensure the
sweeping of adjacent streets and
roads to prevent the placement or
accumulation of dirt in the roadway,
Sweeping of adjacent streets and
roads shall be done as necessary,
but not less than once per day, at
the end of each day of grading
and/or construction.
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Required Time
of Application
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Impact
construction area.
City of Temecula
Planning
Department
Completion:
Inltiais
Name
AQ-13,
During grading Completion:
and construction
Date
Initials
Name
AQ-14, The applicant/
zero Volatile Or
(VOG) content arch
during the cons,,,. ion and
re aintin of the 'ro'ect to the
City of Temecula
Building
Department
During construction
During
construction
Completion:
Date
Initials
9
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
AQ-15. The project site shali be watered
down no less than 3 times (not
including the morning and evening
water down) during construction
and/or grading activities to reduce
dust
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Required Time
of Application,
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Impact
maximum extent feasibie, This
measure will reduce vac (RaG)
emissions by 95 percent over
convention architectural coatings.
The foliowing websltes provide lists
of manufacturers of zero vac
content coatings:
Name
http://www,aqmd.gov/prdas/brochure
s/Super-Compiiant",A1 M,pdf
Completion:
Date
Inltiais
Name
Operations
enclosed and'
subject
Plan
sh
e
o the
ance of
occupancy permits
Monitoring will
occur over the
lifetime of the
project
Completion:
AQ-16,
Date
Initiais
Name
10
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mechanical Yard: It
is estimated that the
combined noise level
for all the equipment
at the hospital's
mechanical yard Is 74
dB(A) at 50 feet The
closest occupied
noise-sensitive
location an existing
home approximately
710 feet to the north,
At the nearest office
property to the east (a
distance of about 160
feet), the CNEL
generated by the duty
equipment is
estimated to be 71
dB, This exceeds the
Cit 's standard of 70
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Required Time
of Application
AQ-17, The appiicantlpermittee shall provide
a clear path of travel for pedestrians,
including directional signs to/from
the public streets ( De P ortola Road
and Highway 79 South) to promote
alternative transportation,
City of T emecula
Public Works
Department and
Planning
Department
Completion:
Initials
N-1
onitoring will for Completion:
one week will be
continuous, 24-
hour Date
Initials
Name
ap
meas
or other a
measures m
iimited to, nois
equipment baffiin
approaches deeme
a certified acoustical ' near.
Once the mitl ation he's been
11
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
B.
Helicopter Flights
The 65 dB
Community Noise N-2
Equivalency Level
(CNEL) contour
associated with
helicopter flights is
located entirely within
the project site and
neighboring !iood
control channel, and
does not extend to
any neighboring
noise-sensitive
receivers. The
ambient noise level at
existing occupied
homes in the vicinity
of the proposed
heliport is
approximately 57 dB
CNEL, Helicopter
fiights are not N-3
anticipated to
increase these
ambient noise levels
by 3 dB or more,
Impacts associated
with any single
helicopter flight will
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Required Time
of Applicatio~
ALi:,
dMe'llj,toring
d"W reqlilmcy
Completion Date
Status
Notes
implemented, the acoustical
engineer shall file a report with the
City documenting compliance,
Helicopter flights shall be limited to City of Temecula
emergency-only circumstances for Planning
critical patient transport, The Department
applicant/permittee s hall apply f or a
Special Use Helipad Permit for an
Emergency Medical Services
Landing Site, as provided forln the
California Code of Regulations, Title
21, Section 3527, Airport and
Heliport Definitions, This permit
allows, over any 12-month period,
for no more than an average of 6
landings per month with a
patients on the helicopt
allow for adequate m
to a mass casuait
that response cau es
used beyond these limits.
Name
As needed
Completion:
Date
Name
12
Initials
Initials
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Status
Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring Completion Date Notes
Part
0 e sign! Ican .
N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital City of Temecuia Completion:
loading dock shali be limited to four Planning
Emergency per day, between the hours of 7:00 Department
Generators: If the A.M, and 6:00 P,M, Initials
generators run
continuously over a
24-hour period, the
CNEL will be at least
70 dB. This exceeds
the City's 65 dB N-5 Mechanical ventilation shali be Monitoring wili Completion:
standard. At the provided for ali medical and office occur over the
distance of the buildings on the site to ensure lifetime of the
nearest office compliance with interior noise ect Date Initials
property to the east standards established In the General
(about 185 feet), the Plan,
CNEL will be about 53 Name
dB on a maintenance
test day, which
complies with the N-6 AIi demolition and con During Completion:
City's standard of 70 activities shall be Ii demolition,
dB. However, if the and other restricti grading, and
generators run City of Temecula Muniel construction Date Initials
continuously for 24
hours, the CNEL will
be at least 82 dB, Name
which exceeds the
City's standard,
N-7 During grading and During grading Completion:
Mechanical construction construction
Equipment Room: It
Is anticipated that the Date Inltiais
mechanical
equipment room could
produce significant Name
impacts at nearby
13
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
nOIse-sensitive
receivers unless
mitigation is
incorporated Into the
design,
Transportation
The project will result
in the following
significant traffic
impacts requiring
mitigation:
Phase I
The following
intersections will
operate at LOS E or F
at Phase I of the
project due to project-
related or cumulative
impacts:
. Highway 79
Southllnterstate
15 southbound
ramps - both
peak hours
Mitigation Measures
N-8
During demolition and construction
operations, the applicant/permittee
shall stage all stationary equipment
operations as far as possible and
practical from surrounding
residential properties,
T-1.
Signalize the main project site
access from Highway 79 South
opposite Country Glen Way with the
following configuration:
Westbound:
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Completion Date
Status
Notes
City of Temecula
Planning
Department
Compietion:
Initials
City ofT
Public W
Departmen
Planning
Department
itoringwill
ccur during
project
,construction,
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
14
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
. Highway 79
South/Interstate T-2,
15 northbound
ramps - both
peak hours
. Highway 79
South/La Paz
Street - P,M,
peak
. Highway 79
South/Pechanga
Parkway - P,M.
peak T-3.
. Highway 79
South/Red hawk
Parkway/Margarlt
a - both peak
hours
The following
roadway links will
operate at LOS E or F
at Phase I of the
project due to project-
related or cumulative
impacts:
. Highway 79
South: west of
Pechanga
Parkway
. Highway 79
South: west of
Margarita Road
Project at Build-out
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Completion Date
Status
Notes
The project applicanUpermittee will
pay Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to
mitigate cumulative impacts to the
Highway 79 South intersection at 1-
15,
City of Temecula
Public Works
Department and
Planning
Department
Completion:
Initials
The project appllcanUpermittee will
contribute a fair share toward the
provision of the following roadway
improvements to address the
project's contribution toward
cumulative impacts:
City of
Public
Departme
Planning
Department
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
Highway 79 South/t-1
Ramps: Additional
turn lane
Highway 79 Sou
Parkway: Addition
ieft-turn iane. plus e
northbound free ri ht
15
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
e 0 oWing
intersections will
operate at LOS E or F
at project build-out
due to project-related
or cumulative
impacts:
. Highway 79
South/Interstate
15 southbound
ramps - both
peak hours
. Highway 79
South/Interstate
15 northbound
ramps - both
peak hours
. Highway 79 T-4.
South/La Paz
Street- P,M,
peak
. Highway 79
South/Pechanga
Parkway - P.M,
peak
. Highway 79
South/Project
Driveway/Country
Glen Way - LOS
F at AM, and
P,M, peak hour
. Margarita
Road/Highway 79
South - LOS F at
AM. and P,M,
peak hour
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Part
Completion Date
Status
Notes
Required Time
of Application
Highway 79 South/Project
Driveway/Country Glen Way:
Signalize and provide dual
eastbound left-turn ianes and dual
southbound left-turn lanes with a
shared through/right-turn lane,
Provide a dedicated right-turn lane
for westbound approach,
Highway 79 South/Redhawk
Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide
southbound and eastbound dual left
and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
Improvements on the pr '
shall include a drivew
Portola Road deveio
specifications of thr Pu
Director.
Monitoring will
occur during
project
construction.
Completion:
Date
Initials
Name
16
NOVEMBER 2005
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
. Highway 79
South/Redhawk
Parkway/Margarit
a - both peak
hours
The following
roadway links will
operate at LOS E or F
at project build-out
due to project-related
or cumulative
impacts:
. Highway 79
South: west of
Pechanga
Parkway
. Highway 79
South: west of
Margarita Road
. Margarita Road:
De Porlola Road
to Darlolo Road
. Margarita Road:
Darlolo Road to
Highway 79
South
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Completion Date
Status
Notes
17
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT
PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN"
OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO
STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATEL Y 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-
080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 8,
2005.
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2006 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support or opposition to this matter; and
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-001
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-002, recommending approval of a General Plan
Amendment.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-
, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes
the following findings:
A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public and open space land uses (Goal 1 )," "a City of diversified development character
where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land
use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the
community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment
facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of
the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a state highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light
and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the Project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low
and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and
associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking,
landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned
and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The
Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project
allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than Yo
mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permitted use as has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the
surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability
and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In
addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby
amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove eight subject parcels
from the Z "Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story
height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South, approximately
700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending
Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit A,
Existing General Plan; Exhibit B Proposed General Plan attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.)
Section 4. Severabilitv. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan 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 Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Susan Jones, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(EXISTING GENERAL PLAN)
EXHIBIT B
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN)
&
L
A
N
o
u
S
E
P LAN
&
L
A
N
o
u
S
E
Temecula
Regional
Hospital
,-,::\-\'\
_600
~\G~~~9
E.~\j\J~) ~
€: po. y\,\ <5:-
~>P ~"" 't,;,.
~000<:& '-
e?JPi.~\ \ \
~ 17. ~-'k \~
~ ~
1,} ~
~ 1,)
*///---------
1. =--------///
tkR8
Ee\:.l
o-rEM
\/\kR\
kRE>
"A-\:\NE>
tOM
c
T Y
E
P L
o F
E
U L
LU-28
N E
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06_
(ZONE CHANGE)
ORDINANCE NO. 06-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206, TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-
004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-
080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 8,
2005.
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2005 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support or opposition to this matter; and
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-001 recommending that the City Council certify
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-003, recommending that the City Council
approve a Zone Change to amend the land use designation from Professional Office
and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9)
and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206, including the PDO text and
development standards for property generally located north of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010.
J.
2006 and
The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
, 2006 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-
, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use
designation for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The
PDO text, as proposed is also consistent with the General Plan and related General
Plan Amendment
M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Zone Chanqe. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula by changing the zoning
designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO 8)
to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) for the property consisting of approximately
35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70
feet west of Margarita Road, and specifically known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending the
official Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A, Existing Zoning; Exhibit B Proposed Zoning
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.).
Section 3. Zone Text Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby adds Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 to read as follows:
"TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
17.22.200 TITLE.
Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as "PD~ 9" (Temecula Hospital
Planned Overlay District).
17.22.202 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for
design flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects
of this PDO will be consistent with the land use designations that are described in the
land use element of the Temecula general plan.
17.22.204 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE
DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and
regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area:
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any
development in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is
deemed complete.
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect
at the time the application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the
application is deemed complete.
17.22.206 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the
exception of the following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum
allowable building heights, as defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the
Temecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited as follows: No more than 30% of the
total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot building height limit. The
maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area
may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that
portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the
parapet wall that defines the roof area."
Section 4. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a
court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this
Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts
of this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 24th day of January , 2006.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 06-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of January, 2006 and
that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06-_
EXISTING ZONING
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06-_
PROPOSED ZONING
Zoning
_Hillside Residential (HR)
DVeryLowDonsityResidential(VL)
_LowOensityResidential(L-1)
_LowDensityResidential(L-2j
D Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
El Medium Density Residential (M)
_High DensilyResidential (H)
. Rural Residential (RR)
. NeighbClrhClCldCClmmercial(NC)
. CClmmunity CClmmercial (CC)
. HighwayiTClurist CClmmercial (HT)
. Service CClmmercial (SC)
. PmfessiClnalOffice (PO)
DBusinessPark(BP)
DLJghtlndustrial(U)
DpubliclnstitutiClnal(Pl)
D Open Space (OS)
. Public Park & RecreatiCln(PR)
.CClnservatiCln(OS-C)
D Planned DevelClpment Overlay
= Specific Plan (SP)PmpClsed
DSpecificPlanAppmved
D Tribal Trust (TT)
\\0 I'I.I~B\..O B-O
B-f'.~C PDO-6
"
'''"'''
SP-4
\.
VL
. .1'-0
~o."OI'-'OV'
/'
PDO-8
/
/
SP-9
Zoning
_Hillside Residential (HR)
DVeryLowDonsityResidential(VL)
_LowOensityResidential(L-1)
_LowDensityResidential(L-2)
D Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
El Medium Density Residential (M)
_High Density Residential (H)
_Rural Residential (RR)
_NeighbClrhooclCommercial(NC)
_ Community Commercial (CC)
_ HighwayiTourist Commercial (HT)
_ Service Commercial (SC)
_Professional Office (PO)
DBusinessPark(BP)
DLJghtlndustrial(U)
Dpubliclnstitutional(PI)
D Open Space (OS)
_PublicPark&Recreation(PR)
_ConservatiCln(OS-C)
D Planned Development Overlay
= Specific Plan (SP) Proposed
DSpecificPlanApproved
D Tribal Trust (TT)
B\..ORO
OI'I.I~
Rf'.~CT\ PDO-6
"
'''"'''
SP-4
VL
,,"0
ORiOI)'>
oc"
//;;:-~
SP-9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY
AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A
HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT
FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY
79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH
959-080-010 (PA04-0463)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-
080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 8,
2005.
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2006 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-001
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-004, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-
, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinqs. The City Council hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad,
is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use
standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1 )" "a City of diversified
development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with
newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated
regional land use patterns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project provides a regional use that
needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical
treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the
general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary
for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to
residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which
circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the
conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The
project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional
Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses
such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development
standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay
(PDO 9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for
the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed
conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than Yo
from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed
and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the
site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital
and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined
that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides
amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences
to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without
affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the
proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and
it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and
general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually
contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing
additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building
permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD)
as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review
the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Findinqs. The City Council hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of
the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General
Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the
project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined
that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the
General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has
been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the
surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to
comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. Conditional Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and
a helipad and Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad,
two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer
center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately
566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres, located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in
Application No. PA04-063, subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as
though set forth in full.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed
hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet and
a helipad within a related Development Plan (PA04-
0463) located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known
as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through
959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010
DIF:
Office
TUMF:
Service Commercial/Office
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
November 22, 2005
Expiration Date:
November 22, 2007
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
3. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
4. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004,
(attached) on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions
of approval.
5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
6. The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be
limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined
unsafe due to weather conditions. flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the
greatest extent possible.
7. The applicant shall pursue agreements with all emergency service providers stating that
emergency vehicles shall turn off sirens no less than one quarter of a mile from the
project site.
8. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the final
Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Hospital and the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program as attached.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
3
Police Department
9. All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized
after 11 :00 PM to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore,
all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements.
10. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
11. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware
shall be commercial or institution grade.
12. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within
twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department
immediately so a report can be taken.
13. Upon completion of construction, the interior of this facility shall have a monitored alarm
system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company,
to notify the police department immediately of any intrusion. All multi-tenant buildings
located within the center should have their own alarm system.
14. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
15. Any public telephones located on the exterior of this facility should be placed in a well-
lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering.
This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of this
facility.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
16. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee,
required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars
($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section
21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
17. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
4
PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HOSPITAL PLANS TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF STATEWIDE
HEALTH AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (OSHPOD)
Planning Department
18. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the Aviation Division of Caltrans and the
Federal Aviation Administration, if required, to operate the proposed helipad. All
construction and operational requirements of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation
Administration shall be complied with. The applicant shall provide a copy of these
agencies approval documents to the Planning Director within 30 days of their approval
action.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
Date
Applicant Printed Name
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
5
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
6
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 320-bed hospital
facility, approximately 408,160 square feet in size, two
medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a
10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling
approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
DIF:
Office
TUMF:
Service Commercial/Office
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
November 22, 2005
Expiration Date:
November 22, 2007
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
7
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this development plan.
3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as
attached.
4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
5. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
6. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan,
contained on file with the Planning Department.
7. This Development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's
Development Code.
8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan
elevations and landscape plans contained on file with the Planning Department.
9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent
of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
8
Material
Stucco Color NO.1:
Stucco Color NO.2:
Tile Base:
Aluminum Panel:
Ceramic Roof Tile:
Tinted Glass:
Window frame:
Color
Senergy, Parchment, # 342
Senergy, Walden, # 3104
Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51
Centria, 9910 L T Seawolf
Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta flashed
Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M
Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 fluorocarbon
10. The condition of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staff prior to approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish, technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of
that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
11. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be
provided around fire check detectors as required by the fire Department before starting
the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of
utilities shall not look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around
utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall
insure that there are no conflicts with trees.
12. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent
site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines.
13. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be
submitted for review and approval for the project site.
14. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
15. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan)
contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project
shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of
Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of
Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping
into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in
interest.
16. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape
Design) are required to be met.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
9
Police Department
17. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police
Department immediately so a report can be taken.
18. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can
contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department.
19. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should
be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature
to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the
interior of the building.
20. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at
a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants,
hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from
breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows.
a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
21. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and
minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting
Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting
Requirements.
22. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
Building Department
23. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
24. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays
Community Services Department
25. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
10
26. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a
regular solid waste container.
27. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways,
perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting.
28. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
Fire Department
29. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM
at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4-hour duration. The required fire flow may
be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type,
or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The
Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2,
Appendix III-A).
30. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site
and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire
access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart,
at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow
shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing
fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
31. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying
the required fire flow shall be provided. On site fire hydrants are required for this
project (CFC 903.2).
32. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
33. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
34. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. This condition only applies if
any manual or electronic gate is proposed or conditioned (CFC 902.4).
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
11
35. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should
any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce
any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
Public Works Department
36. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work
and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
37. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
38. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with
adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be
submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
39. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or
property owner.
40. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
41. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in
movements.
WITHIN 48 (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
review and revision.
42. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee,
required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars
($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section
21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
43. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
12
WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT
SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
Planning Department
44. The applicant shall submit seven complete sets of final approved plans to the Planning
Department with the following revisions shown on the plans. Planning staff will stamp
these plans as approved for distribution to each department and the applicant.
45. The Landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide a vines on the screening wall at the loading dock
area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
b. The landscape plan shall provide shrubs, vines and/or other acceptable
screening methods to screen the oxygen storage container in the loading dock
area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show final color and finish details
for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape
shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas
(including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness
rehabilitation center).
d. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per every 4 parking
spaces. The tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it is
to shade.
e. One landscape finger shall be provided per 10 parking spaces. The interior
finger planting width shall be a minimum of 5' wide with the length equal to the
adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5'
width. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree with surrounding
groundcover or shrubs or both. The grading plans shall be revised as necessary
to reflect this requirement.
46. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are
screened from the public view of Highway 79 South.
47. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing
details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance.
48. The applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing of the water and boulder feature
at the main entrance, near the porte-cochere. Said feature shall be subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning.
49. The applicant shall submit cross section verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be
screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning.
50. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and
structures, excluding trash enclosures.
51. Trash enclosures shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and
shall comply with the following:
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
13
a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the
site.
b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and
include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide
shrubs and wall vines on 3 sides of enclosures as required to provide screening.
52. The elevations shall be revised to show decorative lighting fixtures at the primary entry
of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Details of
all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting shall be
provided on the plans.
53. The Applicant shall revise the site plan and provide a detailed elevation drawing to show
a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that
deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all
FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per
Section 171 O.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
54. A note on the grading plans shall be provided and shall read as follows:
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of
cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately
advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other
disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at
his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems
reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully
qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the
significance of the find.
Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the
Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall
authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an
archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner
that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other
corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning.
55. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/
archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall
provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
14
paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving
activities.
56. The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an
opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions
regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit
correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been
made prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
57. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets
forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native
American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for
the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that
may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the
presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The
applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to
the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
58. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all
archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of
Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be
placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
59. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be
present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation
with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate
the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This
mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
60. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities
in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's
office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the
treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan
as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
61. The applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga
Band of Luiseiio Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural
resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. A copy of the
signed document shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
62. The grading plan shall be revised to include the following:
a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79
South as discussed in these conditions of approval.
b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within 100
days shall be tufted, seeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion.
c. Show the 5-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1-foot
concrete landing strip (7 feet total width). One parking island is required per ten
(10) parking spaces.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
15
Public Works Department
63. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit
from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for
work within their right-of-way.
64. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
65. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
66. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
67. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction.
68. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to
protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
69. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post-
construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction-
phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the
City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for
Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction
Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development
Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include
a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs
to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff
year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction
BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the
approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project
proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term
maintenance of all structural post-construction BM Ps.
C:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
16
70. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
71. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
72. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
73. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
74. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
75. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Developer shall design the following features
into the approved construction plans, or submit the appropriate information as required below.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Planning Department
76. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the
colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and
Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
77. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved conceptual landscape plans, or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
17
a. Consistency Check fee shall be paid (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at
time of submittal of construction plans).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. One (1) copy of an agronomic soils report.
d. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
e. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
f. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
78. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following:
a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall
be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that
minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the
specific zone requirements.
b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate
proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally
mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department.
d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30' of
street frontage.
e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six
months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted,
seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan
and landscape plan shall be provided.
f. A minimum 5' width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking
rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter
length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a
minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers.
g. Accent trees (minimum 36" box size) shall be installed at entries to parking areas
in order to define the entry and provide a focal point.
h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle.
i. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building
MOB #2 as approved by the Director of Planning.
j. A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California
Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern
perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved
by the Director of Planning.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
18
k. A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent
to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box)
screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare
from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross
section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer
area.
I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering berm
with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant
shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3' around all parking areas to screen parking
from off-site views.
m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features
shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area
along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be
landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed.
79. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot-candle
illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel and
building entrances. A minimum of one-footcandle illumination shall be maintained
throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be provided at
primary building entrances.
80. The final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with
Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting
onto adjacent properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible.
81. final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the
primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning. final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including
decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting.
82. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility.
83. The split rail fencing for the equestrian trail proposed along the northern property lines,
adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western
edge of the property line. Said fence shall be a continuous fence beginning from the
driveway at DePortola to the western property line.
84. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined
acceptable by the Director of Planning.
85. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they
are not visible from Highway 79 South.
Public Works Department
86. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless
otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
19
87. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public
Works. The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
88. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer).
b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88'
R/W) to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing
and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and
eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
a. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way
shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection.
89. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private
streets:
a. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Private 28 foot wide ingress/egress road to include installation of paving and curb
per the approved site plan.
90. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal
systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
20
c. Sewer and domestic water systems.
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
91. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
92. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and
reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and
approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through
private property.
93. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
94. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
95. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08.
Building Department
The Conditions of Approval herein (Building Department) are not applicable to the projects that
fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California OSHPD. These conditions are applicable to
the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are within
the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department.
96. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code 2005 Standards, California Title 24
Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
97. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for
the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside
lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property
or public rights-of-way.
98. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
99. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
21
100. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1,1998.)
101. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
102. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
103. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
104. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
105. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
106. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
107. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
108. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Community Services Department
109. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
Fire Department
110. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC) , and related codes which
are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
111. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil
engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are
signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants
shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National
Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE I - (A 170-bed
hospital with 80,000 square feet of medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
22
Public Works Department
112. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of
Public Works.
113. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include
installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
i. Westbound
a) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
b) Provide three (3) thru lanes
c) Provide one(1) left turn lane
ii. Eastbound
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
c) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
b. Dona Lynora (66' R/W)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
c. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South
i. Signal modification
ii. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive
aisle
iii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
iv. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
d. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R/W)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Provide a 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection to De Portola
Road
e. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
23
Community Services Department
114. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting which ever
occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an
approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the
transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program.
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING
SHALL BE COMPLETED
Fire Department
115. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GWV (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
116. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE II - (Expand to a
320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space), THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
Public Works Department
117. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' RfW) include dedication of full-width street right-of-
way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER
Planning Department
118. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of each building for Planning
Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
Building Department
119. Developments with multi-tenant buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house
electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals
and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User
Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for
the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house
meter is not specifically proposed.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
24
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Planning Department
120. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
121. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning
Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
122. Performance securities (Maintenance bond), in amounts to be determined by the
Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private
common areas and the Right-of-Way for a period of one year, in accordance with the
approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning
Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
123. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural
resources. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered
specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of
Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the
palentologic and archaeological resources.
Police Department
124. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
125. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall
be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code.
Fire Department
126. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or
aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or
any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire
Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
127. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the DWG format
must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be
acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval.
128. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
129. This development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
25
130. Blue Reflective Markers shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3).
131. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in
such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial,
multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches
numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a
minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4).
132. Based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer
shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
133. Based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the
developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10).
134. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department
vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an
exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC
sec 902).
135. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6)
feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser door (CFC 902.4).
136. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs.
PHASE I - a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space
Public Works Department
137. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be
constructed and operational:
a. Highway 79 South
i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and
Country Glen Way
ii. Roadway improvements
a) Wetbound
(i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
(ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes
(iii) Provide one(1) left turn lane
b) Eastbound
(i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
26
(ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
(iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
b. Main Entry/Country Glen Way
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive
aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R/W)
i. 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De
Portola Road
ii. Roadway improvements
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
e. Dona Lynora (66' R/W)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
PHASE II - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office
space.
Public Works Department
138. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase II, the following improvements shall
be constructed and operational:
a. Dartolo Road (Principal Collector - 78')
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road
139. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
140. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and
completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director
of the Department of Public Works.
141. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
C:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
27
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
142. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 7, 2004 from the Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health.
143. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 24, 2004 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
144. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 21, 2004 from the
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA).
145. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 12,2004 from the Rancho
California Water District.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0792\$ASQpdf79163 7 .doc
28
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING
35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATEL Y 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA 05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-
080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 8,
2005.
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2006 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support or opposition to this matter; and
H. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-001 recommending
that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and
approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-005 , recommending approval of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 32468.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-
, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinqs.
makes the following findings:
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the
subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General
Plan, and the City ofTemecula Municipal Code.
B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a
contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965,
or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract.
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown
on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements,
with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared and certified prior to action on the Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely
to cause serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements
which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be
provided.
H. The subdivision is a commercial Project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. Conditional Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571,
consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1 parcel, for the property generally
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of January, 2006, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0571
Project Description: A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight
parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel located on
the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
DIF: Office
TUMF: Service Commercial/Office
MSHCP: Commercial
Approval Date: November 22, 2005
Expiration Date: November 22, 2008
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The applicant shall comply with the phasing plan, as superseded by these conditions of
approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application
Nos. PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04-0571.
5. The owners association may not be terminated without prior City approval.
6. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
7. All the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or nay use allowed by
this permit.
Public Works Department
8. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
9. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
3
10. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
11. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
12. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or
property owner.
13. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
14. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed
easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may
require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
Planning Department
15. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight
Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required
by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County
administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental
Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of
Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer
has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for
the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
16. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
18. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
4
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning.
19. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning
Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations
and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery
of fossils.
20. The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio I ndians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity
to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection
and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the
Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of
a grading permit.
21. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits that sets forth
and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American
cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment
of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered
during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga
tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed
copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
22. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all
archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio
Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the
grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
23. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present
and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the
significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation
measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
24. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office
and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio I ndians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of
such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
5
Public Works Department
25. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
26. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
27. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP
Planning Department
28. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
ii. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and is on file at
the City of Temecula Planning Department.
iii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
iv. This property is located within an area identified by the City of Temecula General
Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to archeological and paleontological
resources.
c. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, an Owner's
Association shall be required to be formed. In addition, Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted the City of Temecula for review and
approval. CC&R's shall address the following:
i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's
shall include liability insurance, identify and include methods of maintaining all
open space, landscape areas, drive aisles, private roads, parking areas, exterior
of all buildings and any common areas.
ii. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
iii. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Planning Director,
City Engineer and the City Attorney and shall include such provisions as are
required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the
interests of the City and it's citizens.
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
6
iv. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association
are subject to the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments and
the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A
recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
v. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
facilities.
vi. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
vii. The CC&R's shall provide that the association may not be terminated without
prior City approval.
viii. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
ix. All open areas and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the
association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this
maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Department
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Public Works Department
29. The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable TV Franchise
i. Community Services District
j. Verizon
k. Southern California Edison Company
I. Southern California Gas Company
30. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
7
include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer connections)
i. Westbound
a) The dedicated right turn lane into the main entry (Country Glen Way) shall be
12 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum.
b) Provide three (3) thru lanes
c) Provide one (1) thru lanes
ii. Eastbound
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
c) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
iii. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and
Country Glen Way.
b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' RJW)
to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer connections)
c. Improve Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) include dedication of full-width street
right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but
not limited to water and sewer).
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and
eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
31. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of half-width street improvements,
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Private 28 foot wide ingress/egress road connecting to De Portola Road to include
installation of paving and curb per the approved site plan.
c. Main Entry/Country Glen Way
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
32. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
8
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
g. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
h. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
33. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
34. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with
the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
35. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from De Portola Road on the Parcel Map with
the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
36. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
37. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
38. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map.
39. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
40. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
9
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
41. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of
any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
is required for work within their right-of-way.
42. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
43. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
44. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions. "
Fire Department
45. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
46. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide forthis project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a
4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into
account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
47. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI
Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
10
48. This parcel shall maintain reciprocal access to all parcels.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
Public Works
49. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise
approved by the Director of Public Works.
50. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
51. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
52. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
53. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
Public Works
54. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be
constructed and operational:
a. Highway 79 South
i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country
Glen Way
ii. Roadway improvements
a) Westbound
(i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
(ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes
(iii) Provide one(1) left turn lane
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
11
b) Eastbound
(i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
(ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
(iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
b. Main Entry/Country Glen Way
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R/W)
i. Half-width roadway improvements
ii. 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De Portola
Road
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
e. Dona Lynora (66' R/W)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
55. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase II, the following improvements shall be
constructed and operational:
a. Dartolo Road (Principal Collector - 78')
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road
56. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
57. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and
completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of
the Department of Public Works.
58. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
12
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
59. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated November 19, 2004 from the
Rancho California Water District.
60. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 19, 2005 from the
Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
C\ WI N DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\13904\$ASQpdf791638.doc
13
Please refer to the document entitled Hospital EIR Attachments.pdf for the
following attachments:
D Draft EIR
D Final Response To Comments 12_28_05
9.1 Responses to Comments
on the Draft EIR Received after
Close of Public Comment Period
This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to written comments received after
the close of the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) on October 28, 2005 through
publication of this document prior to the December 7, 2005 Planning Commission hearing.
Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines the City of Temecula requested a shortened review period to the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit.
Revisions and clarifications to the EIR in response to comments and information received on the
Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (DEIR te"t romovod) or underline (text added to the Final EIR).
Corrections of typographical errors have been made throughout the document and are not
indicated by strikoout or underline text. Revisions and clarifications are included as Errata pages
within this document.
Each letter has been assigned a number code, and individual comments in each letter have been
coded as well to facilitate responses. The coding system continues using the format established in
Section 9.0 of the Final EIR.
Comments Received that Address Environmental Issues
The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals after the close of the
noticed public review period:
8. J.B. "Pete" Olhasso, Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Board of Directors,
October 31,2005.
9. Victoria Mata, Trumark Companies, November 3,2005.
10. Board of Directors, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, November 14, 2005 (received
November 16, 2005).
11. David Oberbeck, via facsimile transmittal on November 14, 2005 (received November 16,
2005).
12. Roger Ziemer, President, Murrieta T emecula Group, November 15, 2005.
13. Linda Betts, via email on November 16, 2005.
14. Jon Silver, President, Covenant Development, via email on November 15, 2005.
15. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, November 16, 2005
16. O.B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, November 16,2005.
17. Helen Chichester, November 16,2005.
18. Don L. Rhodes, November 21,2005.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-238
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
A&;[)cIA liON
MANACfMENT
42430 WINGHESTEfl:rm.
ltMECULA. CA 92590
PH: (95l) 2tJ6-$MO
FAX, (951) 296-~5l4
~ ~ @ \1 f~ ~ ~\
\\1\1 NO~ 0 3 2005 ~
Equity
MANAGEMENT.
October 31, 200~
---
B
~bbie Ubnoske,Director of Planning
City ofTemecula:
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589-9033
Letter 8
Subject:
Santiago Ranchos Property Owners AssOCiation
Proposed Zone Change
Re:
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
The Santiago Ranchos Properly Owners Association Board of Directors, on: behalf of the entire
membership, strongiy believes designation of the proposed zone change to allow an A6 (six) story
structure Is misleaijing to all except those In the construction trade. We feel an urgent need to see
something placed' onsite at the proposed height, showing everyone, induding the Planning
Commission, the impact such a structure would impose.
We understand this concept was brought up in a planning meeting and reje~ed by the applicant 8-1
Pleaserespolld in .writingasto,why .the.applicant declined this request. It wOuld be as simple as .,
ftying balloons at the indicated height. The Board of Directors sees no reason this matter cannot be
resolved in a timely manner before the November 16, 2005 Planning COmmi:lSion Meeting. If the
applicant declines to provide the Commission and neighbors a structure (i.e. balloons) indicating
the height of their! proposed building, we feel the application for consideration by the Commission
should be pulled !Tom the November 16, 2005 agenda.
Should you have alW questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (951) 296-5640,
Sincerely,
'"
lBO/jIb
CC: NM
(orrs/City :
Planning Commissioners
CORRS/cm/UBNOSKE,1<MEaJ!A-PROP ZONE OiANGE.SRH
:-".
,.
, .' '.'~ ."
. .: ~;" ,. <. " ~..r, . ,': ,." ., "'
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
8. J.B. "Pete" Olhasso, Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Board of Directors,
Ocober 31, 2005.
Response 8-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. A common and
accepted method of analysis for aesthetics impacts in a CEQA document are visual simulations. The
analysis provided in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EI R provides two visual simulations that
show the proposed project in the built environment. The City of T emecula accepts this method of
analysis to demonstrate aesthetics impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, the applicant did
not "reject" a request to float balloons on the site to demonstrate the proposed building height as
suggested by the comment. To the contrary, in order to demonstrate the proposed maximum
hospital tower height on the site and to allow people to visually experience that height, the project
applicant floated tethered balloons on the project site on November 12, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-240
Tnllnark
Companies
Novemb~l' 3, 2005
,
Ms, Debbie Ulmoskc
PhuU\ing ()it'e~lor
City ofTemecllla
Plannhlg Dcparunelll
43200 B1J~ine!ss Park Drive
Temccula. California 92589
Letter 9
Rf:'-' COl11nlcnts on Draft Envin\nmcntallmpact Report tot' Tcmccula RCHional
Ilospital (SCHIt 200501 1017)
Dear Ms. Ubnoske;
Tt"umark Cmnpal1ies is pl'(lce~sil1g ihc clIiitlCfllCLlt of an approximately 7 .3-~<:1.C pmject
~ile dir~el!y 10 \h,~ ca.~t (,fthe pl'op,,",;d T,;:mecub Reg;uml1 Ho"!"il"1 ("'-'''1';;,,1) f01'lh"
purpo.~.s of clev.loping a >oniol" I'e:>idential devckpmcnt. The al,plic(!tioll t<)l" the
prop(l~cd senior re.,ilknli"l development. W>IS filed with the City ufTI1JncC\1la (City) on
August 9, 2005 and th~ mtitlctllcnt for development;s ant.i"ip~tcd to he COillpleled by
January 2006. 'I'he r"que:>ted e-ntitlcment allows I,)r the cl~veloprrlent llt' appro.dlmlcly
112 attachedtwo-:>tOl'Y residential units, a common recreational facility .Ild opcn space,
and pedestrian and vehicular access.
9-1
"frumill'k Companies submits the following comments related to land u.<e ClJmpatibility
with rcspectto three of the project charact~-risties of the hospitallhat arC located di.rectly
to the west of the proposed senior ""sidential development These three project
charactcristics, whicl1 00"0 described on pages 1-3 and 3-1 of the Oraft EIR; are: th~ 6()-
foot by 60-1'001 hclipad proposed neaT the northeast corner (If the hospital; the truek
loadins area! located at tbe east= edge of the hospital, to the SlJuth of the helipad; and
facilities plant located at the eastcrn edge ofthe hospital. to the south oftJje helipatJ. Il.1e
comments are as follows:
Aesthetics:: The an~lysis of visual character or quality provided on pages' 4-5 thra-IIgh 4-
14 in SeetioJ] 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft' E1R fail ed to analyze p(ltcnti~l view/aesthetic
impacts and light 1,nd glare impacts on the proposed se.nior rc!\idential development site
located immcdiately to the east of the proposed hospital site. Please revise tht: discuss;')ll 9-2
in the Drai}EIR to include an an.llysis ofthe potential view/aesthetic impacts and light
and glare impacts on lhe senior re.lclential development due to the develO\lment oflh"
proposed hospital. This needs to specitically add-ress the pote"tial impacts to the
LA KEF l.) Po. EST, ,C"_ A l)::! (', ,'III
,~_.
2 r,..+ .-:7 l~ t\ N 1.,.; H (,) l-' A R I( W ^ Y s. 0 \.!"" H
~-'-
proposed senior residential development from the construction and operation of the
helipad, the tnick loading area, and the plant. .
Air Quality: 'The analysis of long-term impacts to air quality provided on pages 4-24
through 4-26 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft ElR failed to adequately analyze the
long-term impacts of the proposed hospital on regional and local air quality; Please
revise the diSC\15siOn in the Draft EIR to include an analysis of the impacts of the ongoing
operation oftl1e proposed hospital. This needs to specifically address tbe potential
impacts to regional and local air quality due to operation of the helipad. the truck loading
area, and the plant (including the ma;ntenmcc and testing of emergency power
generators). .
Land Use anli Planning: The analysis of land use compatibility with surrounding land
uscs provided'on page 4-41 in Section 4.4, Land Use and Plarurins, of the DraJt EIR
failed to analy"e the potential land "llse compatibility impacg on the proposed senior
residential development ,Ite located immediately to the ",,-,t oHhe proposed hospital sit.e-
Please revise the discus.ion in tbe f),oJt EIR to inclUde an analysis <lfthe l'otentialland
u,t compatibility impacts on the senior residential devdopmcnt due t(l th~ development
ofthc hospital. This needs to specifically address the potential imp"';"!s to the proposed
senior residomtial developmentltom the operation oj' the heHpad, the truck loading area,
and the plant and the ll1i.ociated aCBthetic, air quality, and noise impacts from the
operation of these project characteristics.
Noise: The analysis of operations-related noise provided on pages 4-58 through 4-63 in
Section 4.5, Noise, of the Draft ErR failed to analp.c potential noise impa<.."ls on the
proposed senlor residential development site located immediately to the east of tbe
proposed Ternecula Hospital site, Please (evise the discussion in the DraftBIR to inelude
an analysis of the potential noise impacts on the senior residential developrilent due to the
development pfthe hospital. This ne<:ds to spedlically address the potential impacts to
the proposed senior residential development from the operation of the helipad, the truck
loading area, and the plant (including the maintenance and testing of emerll.ency power
generators).
Trumark Companies requests that, prior to taking action on the proposed Ternecula
Hospital project, please provide the written responses and the revised analyses indicated
above. These written responses and revised anal yses should be transmitted to 'frumark
Companies attention Victoria Mala at the address indicated on the letterhead.
While Tnunark Companies strongly supports the development of the Toem<o<:uJa Regional
Hospital on the site where it is proposed to be located, we need the analysis of the
potential impacts of the proposed hospital to be reflected in the environmental
documentation in order to protect the pending entitlement lOr tbe proposed senior
residential development and the future health and safety of ilS residents. We have every
confidence that the City will require that the issues indicated be adequately addressed in
the Response 1'0 COllUTlentslFinal fIR and any changes to the design of the project
9-2
Cont.
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
characteristics will be reflected in the final entitlement approved for the Pl'oposed
hospital.
~~~j<<l~
Vlctona Mala,
Cc: Emery Papps, City ofTemecula Senior Planner
9-6
Cont.
9. Victoria Mata, Trumark Companies, November 3, 2005.
Response 9-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. This comment
provides an introduction to the Trumark Companies comments on the Draft EIR. No response is
required. Specific responses are provided below to address specific comments in the body of the
letter.
Response 9-2
The application for the referenced senior housing development was submitted to the City of
T emecula approximately one year after the City accepted the application for the proposed hospital
project as complete, after circulation of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration in March of
2005, and after the initial public hearing scheduled for the hospital in April of 2005. The proposed
hospital project has not changed since the application was released for public review and comment.
The Trumark Companies has not previously presented any letter or public comment regarding the
subject hospital project until this letter.
Features of the hospital project have been known and available for public review for some time.
The Draft EIR for the subject project was nearly complete at the time Trumark first submitted its
application to the City on August 9, 2005. As such, it becomes incumbent upon any person or
entity (i.e. Trumark) submitting a development application subsequent to the hospital application
and its public review period to assess that subsequent project's relationship to the earlier and
reasonably foreseeable project (i.e. the hospital).
The aesthetics analysis beginning on page 4-3 of the EIR recognizes the adjacent referenced
property as zoned Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO), and
analyzes potential impact based on these zones and the uses generally permitted; the proposed
senior housing development requires a conditional use permit. As noted on page 4-5 of the EIR, the
project will provide for buildings to be centered on the site and will include extensive perimeter
landscaping. These project features will avoid adverse aesthetic impacts relative to surrounding
development. Also, the three mitigation measures stated on page 4-15 will avoid potential light and
glare impacts on adjacent uses, including Trumark's proposed project.
Response 9-3
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The
comment does not indicate as to how the air quality analysis is deficient, other than suggesting a
need to examine truck emissions, emissions from the generators, and helicopter operations. The air
quality analysis beginning on page 4-17 of the EIR fully analyzes short-term (construction related)
and long-term (operational) impacts of the project. Truck operations are analyzed as part of the
mobile source emissions. Generator equipment is regulated separately by the SCAQMD and must
comply with strict point-source emissions regulations. Helicopter activities are anticipated to be
infrequent (average of one operation per month, with no more than six); helicopters are regulated
by federal, not local, air pollution control agencies. The EIR includes 17 mitigation measures to
reduce project construction and operational air pollutant emissions. The EIR fully discloses the
potential air quality impacts and incorporates feasible mitigation. Nonetheless, the air quality
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-244
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
analysis concludes that short-term and long-term impacts will be significant and unavoidable,
requiring adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Draft EIR, page 4-29).
Response 9-4
See Response 9-2. The proposed hospital project and site plan were public information and the
DEIR preparation was underway many months prior to when the Trumark Companies submitted its
application. Since the Trumark Companies' project application was submitted many months
following that of the proposed hospital project, it is incumbent upon that applicant (Trumark) to
consider known land uses and land use applications deemed by the City to be complete, and to
examine how such known and proposed or reasonably foreseeable uses may affect that subsequent
land use application.
The land use analysis in the EIR (pages 4-38 and 4-39) recognizes the adjacent referenced property
as zoned for commercial and office uses, and the EIR analyzes potential impact based on this zone
and the uses generally permitted; the proposed senior housing development requires a conditional
use permit. On page 4-41 of the Draft EIR, the analysis concludes that the proposed hospital
project is consistent with existing and planned surrounding land uses, and that the site design
respects surrounding uses. The EIR concludes that impact will be less than significant.
Response 9-5
See Response 9-2. The proposed hospital project and site plan was public information and the
DEIR preparation was underway many months prior to when the Trumark Companies submitted its
application. Since the Trumark Companies' project application was submitted many months
following that of the proposed hospital project, it is incumbent upon that applicant (Trumark) to
consider known land uses and land use applications deemed by the City to be complete, to
consider all planned activities associated with such uses, and to examine how such known and
proposed or reasonably foreseeable uses may affect that subsequent land use application.
Project noise impacts were assessed based upon the Professional Office zone on the adjacent
property and the office and commercial uses generally permitted; the proposed senior housing
development requires a conditional use permit. The EIR concludes that noise from on-site activity
will not exceed City noise/land use compatibility standards (page 4-65). Restrictions will be placed
on loading dock operations (see mitigation measure N-4 on page 4-65). While noise associated
with mechanical equipment also is not anticipated to exceed these standards, mitigation measure N-
1 on page 4-66 is included to ensure compliance over the long term. Helicopter noise associated
with a maximum possible six events is concluded to be significant and unavoidable due to the
annoyance factor (EIR page 4-66).
Response 9-6
This comment provides a closing statement to the Trumark Companies' comments on the Draft EIR
and presents no further specific comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-245
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
NOV 1 62005
Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 471, Temecula, CA 92593
Phone (951) 296-9030, E-:Ma.il: Irhoa@hotmail.com, Website: lrhoa..com
OIllcers 2005-2006
Presiden~ Neal Zifl
Vice President, Don Stowe
Se<:retaryrrreasurer, Marian Guy Lette r 1 0
AECC, Ray Bennett
Directors 2005-2006
Jeff Tomaszewski
Dee Messing Irish
Kathteen Stowe
Linda Doucett
Chuck Gunderson
November 14, 2005
David Mathewson
Ron Guerriero
Dennis Chiniaeff
John Telesio
Stanley Harter
Mr. Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92592
Dea.r Mr. Papp:
The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation (NaP) and a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Temecula
Regional Hospital Project. The proposed project is located on
about 35 acres located north of Highway 79 South, South of De
Portola Road and west of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula.
The Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHOA) previously
submitted comments on the original Initial Study because the
proposed hospital project is located effectively in the front
yard of our neighborhood, and actually includes parcels that are
within the boundaries of the Los Ranchitos Homeowers
Association. We have assembled the following comments, which
include a review of the Draft EIR by a qualified expert and
concerns expressed by numerous residents of the Los Ranchi tos
community. We present our comments for the City's consideration
as it begins the hearing process on the certification of the
Draft EIR and the decision on whether to approve or deny this
proj ect. Our position regq.rding the proposed Hospital remains
the same. as stated in our April 3, 2005 letter: the proposed
location is not an acceptable location for this facility, the
environmental documentation remains inadequate and the Planning
C;ommission and City Council should deny any approvals for the
project based on the record before them. The rationale for this
10-1
conclusion and LRHOA's
follow.
detailed
Draft
EIR 110-1
Cont.
comments on the
However, before we begin our specific comments on the Draft EIR,
there are two general issues where the City has totally failed
to understand and present this project to the community. The
Draft EIR evaluates the proposed hospital as just another
professional office use which can be compatible with the
adjacent Los Ranchitos residential neighborhood. Have the
members of the Planning Commission or City Council ever lived
adjacent to a large hospital with a functioning emergency room?
This approach is fatally flawed because installing and operating
the proposed hospital at this location would be entirely
different than approving the construction of a professional
office building at this site. Of necessity, a hospital must
operate 24-hours a day, and would be more closely compared to a
large commercial/industrial enterprise operating 24 hours per
day, with the resulting activity and traffic at all hours of the
day and night. In contrast, a professional office complex
functions primarily during daylight hours and thus, the activity
patterns are similar to the activity pattern in a residential
area. A hospital's acti vi ties include employees and emergency
patients arriving and leaving at all hours of the day and night,
including late-night and very early mornings. Further, each
time an emergency vehicle delivers patients to the hospital at
two o'clock in the morning, the noise and related intrusion into
our rural residential neighborhood would constitute an extreme
and highly unacceptable nuisance.
Frankly, this level of intrusion by hospital activity is
essentially ignored in the Draft EIR. We believe it is ignored
because the City totally failed to define the hospital
operations. There is no discussion in the Chapter 3 of how the
hospital will operate, and therefore, the analysis in the Draft
EIR is fatally flawed because there is insufficient information
about the project to conduct an adequate evaluation. In our
April 3, 2005 letter, the LRHOA identified specific operational
aspects that needed to be defined. For example, how many people
will be employed at the hospital? We could not find this
defined in the Draft EIR. How many people will arrive for each
shift and when will shift changes occur? At night in our
neighborhood we may get a few vehicles after 9 pm but with the
hospital we may have hundreds of people passing through our
neighborhood.
10-2
10-3
This level of intrusion into our high quality rural neighborhood
represents a major change in the quality of our neighborhood.
This issue is never examined or the information on the degree of
intrusion portrayed for use to review and for the Council to
consider before it makes a decision on the proposed project.
One specific example will suffice to illustrate this point. We
requested a description of how many emergency vehicles would
arrive at the hospital each day and some description of when
they would arrive. The primary concern is the intrusion into
the n~ighborhood of sirens, particularly in the evening, night
and early morning hours_ This issue was totally ignored. The
only data regarding siren noise is provided on page 4-58 and it
states: "Although these levels may cause some annoyance at
nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles
is considered to have a less than significant impact because it
will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and
because sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency."
This text does not constitute analysis of the siren issue; it is
nothing more than rationalization of an impact which does not
presently occur in our neighborhood, except on the rarest of
occasions. Sirens have a noise level of 105 dB (A) at 25 feet
and they will occur regularly throughout the day and night
hours, no longer rarely, and all of these events during the
night will awaken or disturb the neighborhood residents. This
is not annoyance, it is the intrusion .of a very significant
incompatible land use activity into our existing rural
neighborhood.
What other operational activities have been ignored in the Draft
EIR. There will be some level of routine transport of hazardous
materials into and hazardous wastes out of our neighborhood.
The Draft EIR effectively ignores this issue. How many of these
materials and wastes can be considered extremely hazardous
and/or acutely hazardous? No real discussion of this issue is
provided in the Draft EIR. We asked whether the hospital would
have an incinerator to burn any wastes. No answer was given
regarding this issue and if an incinerator will be installed,
what emissions will result and are such emissions hazardous to
humans? Without information and evaluation of these operational
issues, the LRHOA has concluded that the Draft EIR is terribly
deficient in meeting its informational purpose at this time and
it needs to be revised and re-circulated with adequate and
accurate information about the whole of the project_
10-4
10-5
Comments on specific issues in the Draft EIR follow and are
submitted in the order discussed in the Draft EIR.
Page 2-2:
Page 3-1:
Page 3-3:
Page 3-7:
Page 3-7:
The scope of EIR is incorrectly identified under this
section. Two issues, Land Use and Planning and Air
Quality, were not mentioned. Also, the LRHOA believes that
the Initial Study inappropriately fails to address several
issues in the Draft EIR that may be significant, including
Hazards, Population & Housing, primarily because no data
were compiled regarding the use of hazardous materials and
generation of hazardous waste during operations and because
no discussion of the total number of hospital employees or
induced growth related to the presence of a major hospital
was provided in the Draft EIR.
10-6
First two bullets on page, the project is described as
revising the present two story height limitation by
allowing a "maximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of
the roof area of the hospital." In fact, other height
limitation must also be revised by the City for this
project because it includes two other structures that are
four and three stories respectively. Please revise the
project description to correct for this oversight.
10-7
Third and fifth bullets on page, the lack of an adequate
project description results in a failure to adequately
analyze several of the compatibility issues listed in these
two project objectives. The result is that it is not
possible to properly evaluate whether the proposed project
can be compatible with the adjacent Los Ranchitos
residential neighborhood.
10-8
Top of page, there is no rationale stated in the Draft EIR
for the buildings being constructed at up to seven stories
(115') in height. The 35.31 acre site would easily support
two story buildings, even a single story hospital complex.
Ata Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .40 this site would allow up
to 615,000 square feet of floor area, which is greater than
the 566,160 square feet of proposed buildings. The LRHOA
does not see the justification for a seven story hospital
structure, nor the requirement for the three and four story
office complex.
10-9
Under Parking and Access, to avoid imposing traffic on De
Porto1a, a local neighborhood residential street, it would
seem more appropriate to extend the secondary access to
Margarita which is a major street. Failure to do this
10-10
Page 3-8:
Pages 3-9
3-10:
Page 4-4:
results in the conflicts associated with heavier traffic on
De Portola, which could have been avoided by redesigning
the site access.
This page summarizes the seven new structures, but does not
provide any data about the number of people that will be
employed at any of the facilities or their hours of
operation, and the type of activities that might be
included in each facility. This is a major flaw and
oversight in this document.
and
There is no discussion of wastewater and solid waste
management requirements under the project actions and
approvals. Typically a hospital will require pretreatment
of wastewater and special management requirements for
several solid waste streams, such as blood contaminated
waste. Without this information the potential hazards and
solid waste and wastewater management requirements, and
potential impacts, cannot be adequately evaluated.
Top of page, the discussion on General Plan policies does
not provide any discussion of policies related to visual or
aesthetic values and resources in the General Plan. Please
provide a list of all applicable policies and their
relevance to the aesthetic analysis presented in this
subchapter.
10-10
Cont.
10-11
10-12
10-13
At the bottom of the page, the text references documents
and the area "is not known for its visual character". Yet
the open space and pastoral low density residential area
that comprises Los Ranchitos is one of the highest quality
residential areas in the City of Temecula from an aesthetic
standpoint. It serves as the background view for all
travelers along State 79 South in the project area. The 10-14
State Highway may not be designated as a Scenic Highway
along this portion of its alignment,. but we believe that
concluding the views from the highway across the project
site to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood contain no scenic
resource is in error. This is a one of the high quality
views within the City and the finding of "less than
significant impact" is not justified by the actual visual
conditions of the project site area.
Page 4-5: At the bottom of the page, the analysis in the Draft EIR
concludes that "because the views are considered private,
are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not 10-15
protected by any City regulatory or policy, impact will be
less than significant." Since when are private views that
are destroyed by changes related to development of a
project not considered as potential significant impacts?
The thresholds identified on page 4-4 do not qualify
potential significant impacts to private views, only to
"Substantially degrade scenic resources" or "Substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings". As the visual simulations
(which are very poor in quality in the published document)
demonstrate, particularly from Location B (Figures 4-3a and
4-3b) , the proposed structures will eliminate long-distance
views, change the visual setting and these changes are
certainly not positive, they are substantially adverse.
Moreover, the view from Pio Pi co Road (where the worst
visual impacts will occur) is a public location providing
visual scenes that are presently of high quality and to the
public's benefit. We believe that the analysis and
conclusions in this section of the Draft EIR text are in
error and that the change in views will be significant.
Further, there is no analysis of the change in views to the
Los Ranchitos neighborhood from State Highway 79 South,
which should have been included in the Draft EIR.
Page 4-13: The analysis of visual impact in the third paragraph on the
page concludes that the landscaping and architectural
"blending" of the colors and styles used on nearby
buildings minimizes the significant visual effect and
ensures "compatibility" with surrounding uses. Please take
another look at the visual simulation for Location B. This
building will be five and six stories in height. The
landscaping cannot hide this buildings height. It will
intrude on the surroundings like a sore thumb. It cannot
look like the other buildings because it is not like the
surrounding buildings. Therefore, it cannot be hidden,
cannot look like the surrounding professional buildings and
its visual effect is neither compatible with its
surroundings nor minimized. The rhetoric used in the text
ignores the reality that the project as proposed will be
significantly incompatible with the surrounding developed
land uses.
Page 4-14: The analysis of lighting on the hospital site fails to
provide adequate and enforceable mitigation and ignores the
fact that for safety purposes the structure and parking
areas must by lighted to the point that it cannot avoid
becoming a source of night glare in the neighborhood. The
undeniable fact is that lighted 6 to 7 story structures
10-15
Cont.
10-16
10-17
extending to a height of 115 feet will literally stand out
as a beacon in an otherwise dark sky. Regarding the
mitigation, the City must establish specific performance
standards for light spillover from the hospital structures
and the surrounding three and four story office complexes.
Without a performance standard, there is no assurance that
lighting on the site will not intrude into the surrounding
neighborhood, in other words light spillover is likely to
intrude into the local neighborhood. Further, without
knowing the specific lighting performance standards, it is
not possible to assess what "whole" effect of night sky
illumination will be on this project site and the adjacent
residential area. For a facility as large as proposed and
as tall as proposed, the cumulative night sky illumination
on the site will be considerable, not necessarily related
to Mt. Palomar, but to creating a lighted environment that
is likely to spillover into the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Thus, the analysis in the Draft EIR does not
really address the potential incompatibility due to
lighting of the site based on the cumulative effect of all
night sky illumination on the project site after
development is completed. Until this issue is fully
analyzed, the potential light-glare impacts have not
accurately been portrayed for either our conununity or for
the City Council to understand the consequences of
approving the total project.
10-17
Cont.
Page 4-18: The last sentence on this page is gratuitous because it
implies air quality in Temecula is better than in Perris or
Lake Elsinore. This may be a good guess, but it is just
that, a guess, unless the EIR preparer has some recent 10-18
comparative quantitative data (reflecting the phenomenal
regional growth over the past several years) to validate
this statement.
Page 4-21: Toxic Air Pollutants, what is the potential range of toxic
air pollutant emissions from an operating hospital
comparable to the proposed facility? We have previously 10-19
requested these data in our April 2005 letter, but no
information on such potential emissions have been
identified.
Page 4-23: A review of the Draft EIR text and the data in Appendix B
indicate that most of the assumptions used in making the
air quality impact model forecast are not provided for 10-20
public review. For example, what is the assumed mix of
equipment that was used to develop the emission inventory
for each phase of construction? What type of fuels were
used in the emission forecast; what duration of
construction activity; what hours of operation, etc.?
Please provide these data for independent review.
Page 4-25: Operational carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot impacts are
inappropriately dismissed in the third paragraph on this
page. The evaluation dismisses the potential for hotspots
nominally because the project will not worsen traffic at
any intersections. Actually this proj ect and cumulative
projects will substantially worsen traffic at several
intersections, most notably the I-l5/State Highway 79 South
interchange. By identifying potential mitigation and
contributing fair share, the proposed project and
cumulative projects do not immediately eliminate the actual
significant LOS at the interchange intersections, primarily
because the required improvements are not guaranteed to be
in place prior to operation of the hospital. Because the
severe traffic congestion at these intersections will occur
for an indefinable period (until the major circulation
system improvements are actually installed), a detailed
hotspot model should be exercised for at least the worst
intersection affected by the proposed project. Without
such analysis, it is false to conclude that there a finding
of no significant CO hotspot can be substantiated.
Page 4-26: The proposed hospital project will use a large variety of
hazardous materials and may generate emissions from an
onsite incinerator to handle biohazardous waste. The Draft
EIR does not discuss the possible chemicals that will be
used or stored onsite; their potential for release during
routine and accidental operations; and the generation of
hazardous or toxic emissions from general hospital
activities. If no such materials will be used on the site,
then simply state so and our neighborhood can breathe a
sigh of relief. However, for each hazardous or toxic
substance that will be brought to the site and used, a
detailed discussion of the fate of such substances must be
examined. For those hazardous substances that will be
emitted into the atmosphere at any measurable quantities
(that above detection limits), the risk to our families
must be evaluated, again for both routine and accidental
release conditions. We do not believe that this hospital
can be operated without such materials as chlorine, oxygen,
acids, and other hazardous materials (such as bacteria and
virus), so the failure to analyze the effect of bringing
these materials to the project site and possibly exposing
our neighborhood to such hazards must be fully explored and
10-20
Cont.
10-21
10-22
potential health risks clearly stated in language that the
layman can understand.
10-22
Cont.
Page 4-31: Top paragraph, as previously noted a lot of hazardous
materials and wastes will be produced by hospital
operations. We raised the potential for contamination of
wastewater by hospital operations in our April 2005 comment
letter. After examining both the Draft ErR and the
NOP IIni tial Study, we find that. this issue has not been
adequately addressed. Therefore, the content of this Draft
EIR is fatally flawed with regard to defining and
evaluating the wastewater may be generated by hospital
operations; any required pre-treatment systems; and the
environmental effects of managing any re~idual byproducts,
hazardous or nonhazardous.
10-23
Page 4-33: The analysis of storm water drainage and water quality
impacts has fallen into the trap of deferral of analysis
and. failure to analyze impacts of required mitigation
measures. The Draft EIR correctly notes that a SWPPP and
WQMP must be compiled for this project. However, it fails
to analyze the impacts to the environment from implementing
these two plans and establishing a performance standard
that will assure the City and water quality agencies that
water quality will meet established requirements, primarily
downstream beneficial uses and water quality objectives in
the Basin Plan. What best management practices will be 10-24
installed by the project to meet SWPPP and WQMP
requirements, once they are defined? What are the effects
of installing and operating the BMPs? Such facilities do
not operate in a vacuum with no adverse effects on their
own. For example, if a detention basin is installed and a
certain quantity of surface runoff treated, what are the
anticipated residual wastes that must be managed and how
long will surface runoff be stored? Will surface water be
accessible to mosquitos. There is a whole series of issues
that must be addressed from compliance with the standards
that have not been identified or discussed in the Draft
ErR. Until they are, this section of the Draft EIR does
not adequately discuss water quality and hydrology issues.
Page 4-34:
Middle of second
use on the site
ft1500 gallons per
paragraph on the page, the rate of water
is 1,500 gallons per day per acre, not
day". Please correct in the Final ErR.
10-25
Page 4-35: Based on the comments above, LRHOA does not agree with the I
conclusion presented on this page. 10-26
Page 4-37: Second paragraph, the text indicates that habitat
conservation planning issues are not addressed in the EIR.
However, a review of the Initial Study indicates that the
project may require a 404 Permit (Corps of Engineers), a
401 Certification (San Diego Regional Board) and a 1600
Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Department of
Fish and Game) . If such permits are required, the City and
applicant cannot defer evaluation and identification of
mitigation to offset any potential adverse impacts
associated with such permits. Deferral of such issues is
no longer permitted by either the Department of Fish and
Game or the Regional Board. The potential impact must be
detailed and the specific mitigation acceptable to the City
must be identified. Further, it is not clear whether the
riparian and riverine policies of the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) have been properly
evaluated to determine project's consistency with the
MSHCP. Based on the data available in the Draft EIR and
NOP/Initial Study, it would appear that this issue needs to
be brought forward into the Draft EIR and properly
addressed before a conclusion of nonsignificant impact can
be reached.
10-27
Page 4-39: LRHOA disagrees with the analysis of General Plan policies
beginning on this page. Imposing a hospital on property
directly adj acent to the Los Ranchi tos neighborhood with
its distinctly different use activity patterns (all night
operations, lighting, noise, etc.) is not maintaining a
"land use pattern that protects and enhances residential
neighborhoods. " It is impossible to conclude that this
hospital development will enhance our residential
neighborhood. This proposed use is an imposition of 10-28
conflicting uses of the highest order, unavoidably
significant, and therefore the proposed hospital project is
clearly inconsistent with this General Plan goal, Goal 5.
Further, it is ridiculous to assume that landscaping at
ground level can establish a visual buffer (Policy 3.1).
As the visual simulation for Location B shows, the hulk of
this six story structure will intrude on every view to the
project site and totally alter the skyline of the local
area.
Page 4-40: The potential effect of this project on growth and growth
inducement hinges on the number of employees envisioned at
the hospital. The total number of employees, part and full 10-29
time, within the project site for the seven proposed
buildings is not defined anywhere in the Draft EIR or the
NOP/Initial Study. Second, this document fails to examine
the induced growth from other support activities that will
be developed around this hospital. Third, the document
claims that there are sufficient housing resources to meet
the forecast growth and demand. Yet, not one fact is
provided to support this conclusion. Equally important,
without knowing what the salary structure will be for the
future employees that would be supported by this project,
it is not clear whether and how many of the future
employees will be able to afford to purchase a home in
Temecula or the surrounding area because the price of homes
in this community is too high. The potential growth
inducement issue is totally ignored in this document and
based on the large number of employees, this issue may
result in significant indirect effects on the environment.
10-29
Cont.
Page 4-41: The potential land use conflict issue is addressed at the
beginning of this letter. Suffice it to say that LRHOA has
demonstrated that the compatibility issues have been
inadequately addressed and it is our strong opinion that
the hospital proposed cannot be approved and be consistent
with the City's adopted General Plan. As a general rule of
thumb, consistency is required with the General Plan, but
consistency does not need be to demonstrated with every
policy. However, consistency analyses must demonstrate that
a project will be in "harmony or agreement" with the Plan.
LRHOA's previous comments indicate where we disagree with
the EIR's findings of consistency between the Plan and
proposed project. For several of the fundamental issues
where agreement or harmony is required between the Plan and 10-30
the proposed project, the project is inconsistent with the
General Plan.
As a final issue, the Draft EIR is fatally flawed because
it fails to examine the impacts on regional policies, both
those of the Western Riverside Council of Governments and
the Southern California Association of Government. This
type of policy and consistency analysis is required because
this project qualifies as a project of statewide, regional
or areawide significance. Specifically, proj ects of
regional significance (defined in the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15206 (b) (2) (C) a proposed commercial office
building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space) are required
to evaluate consistency with such regional plans. The
Draft EIR contains no discussion of such impacts and is
there inadequate with regard to this issue.
Page 4-53: It is not clear from the text whether construction noise
impacts can stay within the parameters (daylight hours)
identified in the Draft EIR. For example, there is no
information regarding the possible use of pile driving
equipment or other extremely noisy and vibratory
construction methods. Similarly, it is not clear that this
project can avoid carrying out evening concrete pours due
to mandatory construction techniques. Please address the 10-31
potential for these construction methods to be used on the
project site at any time. If these methods will be used,
then the construction noise evaluation needs to be modified
to adequately address this issue. This includes potential
ground borne vibration associated with pile driving or
equi valent construction techniques. Also, note that when
construction equipment is moving, such as with several
scrapers, the noise attenuation factor may only be 3 dB per
doubling of distance, not 6 dB. Please factor this into
the additional evaluation.
Page 4-56: The first bullet on the page identifies 3 dB as a threshold
for change in noise level. However, 3 dB is not an
appropriate threshold when the background sound levels
already exceed the referenced noise standard, typically 65 10-32
dB (A) . A more appropriate threshold would be either any
increase where. background noise levels exceed thresholds,
or a 1 dB increase which must be justified when sensitive
uses are already exposed to significant noise.
Page 4-58: We have already demonstrated that the analysis of emergency
vehicle sirens is totally inadequate. This document
presents no data on what single noise events at 105
decibels in the middle of the night will do to our
residential neighborhood. We believe that each member of
the Planning Commission and City Council must imagine what
it would be like to have an emergency vehicle siren disturb
their sleep at night and then conclude that this could
happen night after night. A hospital adjacent to
residential use is a severe imposition on the existing
quiet that our neighborhood experiences during most of the 10-33
day and certainly at night.
The analysis of the helicopter operations is similarly
flawed. The CNEL value of noise from the helicopter is not
the major concern, as is disingenuously portrayed on pages
4-58 and 4-59. It is the single event intrusion at night
that creates the incompatibility_ We have no helicopter
flights into or out of our neighborhood at this time. If
approved, we may have six per month, at all times of the
day or night. This change in the noise activity pattern of
our neighborhood is a significant intrusion into our lives,
regardless of how the Draft EIR downplays the impact.
An additional consideration is the fact that Los Ranchitos
is a rural, equestrian oriented community with equestrian
trails which add to the value of our neighborhood and are
used consistently by many of our residents. These trails
run throughout our community, including areas contiguous
to the proposed hospital project. What happens when a
helicopter takes off or lands while horses are being ridden
on the trails along the perimeter of the hospital property?
Will the flight pattern ultimately approved for helicopter
traffic create a significant safety hazard for residents
riding horses on this portion of our equestrian trails?
Page 4-61: We have a question. If more than six emergency helicopter
trips are required during a month, does the hospital turn
them away? If not, what are the controlling variables that
would limit helicopter landings?
Of possibly greater consequence, as we have discussed at
previous city meetings on this project, we believe that
based on the size and significant emergency and critical
care services initially provided by the proposed hospital,
it is reasonable to expect that the hospital will
eventually expand its services to include a full blown
trauma center. When this occurs, the number of helicopter
trips in and out of the facility during the day and night
hours will increase dramatically, and could occur several
times in the same day.
Can the hospital accept mitigation measure N-4? There may
be a need to provide for an exception during emergencies.
Please indicate if revision in measure N-4 are required.
In the last paragraph on the page, there appears to be some
confusion. There is reference to a daytime stationary
noise source standard of 65 dB. If this is accurate,
clarification is required for the nighttime standard.
Page 4-64: First paragraph, this paragraph contains analysis that is
typical of the rationalizing analysis in this document. No
data are provided and the Draft EIR concludes that "Such
activities will typically be shielded from some of the
noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings
themselves.". In reality, much of the . landscaping, perhaps
most of it, is located on the north side of the hospital.
10-33
Cont.
10-34
10-35
1 0-36
10-37
The analysis is flawed,
properly evaluated. As
analysis and findings
significant.
non-substantive, and needs to be
presented in the Draft EIR, the
in the document are less than
The third paragraph contains a discussion of the 70 dB CNEL
standard for the exterior of the hospital. The standard
does not contain qualifications for useable or habitable
spaces; it is simply a standard. As a result, this impact
should be considered significant regardless of exterior
activities.
10-37
Cont.
The fourth paragraph discusses the interior standard, and
concludes that the noise attenuation will be "at least 21
dB." Provide the data to verify this unsupported
conclusion.
Page 4-65: Measure N - 3 is not proscriptive. It allows deviation of
helicopter approaches, therefore, the analysis must be 10-38
revised to address all feasible approaches or restrict
approaches to the southeast corridor only.
Page 4-86: It does not make sense to ignore the traffic volumes
Margarita Road between De Portola Road and Highway
South. Pleas€! explain why and how it does not affect
overall circulation system impact analysis.
for
79
the
10-39
Page 4-93: Mitigation Measures, the implementation of fair share is
allowed by CEQA to address contributions to cumulatively
considerable impact to the circulation system. The problem
is that this project, by itself contributes to significant
impacts to the circulation system. As a result, the 10-40
adverse impacts at intersections that will result from
project implementation may be mitigated at some time in the
future, but the only way to ensure that the measures
identified in the Draft EIR are in place prior to the
project's impacts on the road are to require the project to
fund and install all of the required improvements, and then
be reimbursed by the City. Otherwise, the project's
contributing to fair share will not reduce "real"
circulation system impacts to a less than significant
level.
Page 5,..6: The alternate site selected is a "strawman" with greater
potential impacts than the proposed project. A logical
site, such as property adjacent to I~l5 where there appears 10-41
to be space for a hospital facility, would make much more
sense from the perspective of conflict with adjacent uses
and access to emergency care.
10-41
Cont.
Page 5-14: The Dartolo Road a1 ternati ve may have different effects on
traffic and biology than the proposed project, but the
effects are mitigable. This is in contrast to the
introduction of increased traffic into a residential area
and the possible use of De Portola Road as an emergency 10-42
access road_ As shown in previous comments in this letter,
the land use incompatibility impacts for this project are
significant and any means of reducing these impacts,
including redirecting traffic in a less than significant
impact alternative.
Page 6-4: Our previous comments clearly indicate that the analysis of
growth inducing impacts presented in the Draft ErR is based
on conj ecture and rhetoric, not any quanti tati ve analysis
of growth effects of implementing the proposed proj ect. 10-43
This section is flawed and based on no substantiation.
Based on the size of this project and future support
activities that will gravitate to the general area, growth
inducing impacts have a high probability of being
significant and adverse to the City of Temecula.
Conclusion
We began this letter by stating our position regarding the
hospital being proposed adjacent to our neighborhood, Los
Ranchi tos. Based on the data available and the inadequacy of
the Draft ErR in characterizing the changes in the environment
associated with this project, the LRHOA concludes that the
proposed location is not an acceptable location for this
facility, the environmental documentation remains inadequate and
the City Council should deny any approvals for the project based
on the record before it. We are opposed to approval of this
project as designed. At a minimum, we believe that if the City
chooses to proceed with this project at the proposed location,
they must resolve the serious environmental concerns raised in 10-44
this and other documents, and take actions which include the
following:
-First, the hospital must be re-designed with low
structures that would be consistent with the existing
Plan (maximum height of structures should be two stories;
profile
General
-Second, the emergency room must be relocated to the south side
of the structure. Placing it on the north side locates the
emergency room activity closer to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood
and does not take advantage of the noise attenuation that can be
provided by the hospital structures;
-Third, remove the secondary access from De Portola Road and
relocate the access to Dartolo Road and Margarita Road, where
traffic and noise effects would not intrude into our residential
neighborhood;
-Fourth, abandon Pio Pico south of De Portola in
eliminate the concern that this route will eventually
to provide additional access to the hospital;
order to
be opened
-Fifth, resolve concerns regarding helicopter operations by
restricting flight patterns in such a manner that the residents
of our community are not subjected to the extreme disturbance and
danger that would result from helicopters taking off and landing
in close proximity to adjacent homes and equestrian trails; and
10-44
Cont.
-Last, maintain the vegetative and distance buffer between the
hospital facilities and the Los Ranchitos neighborhood.
The LRHOA does not want this hospital next to our neighborhood
because we believe that it is totally incompatible with our
beautiful, rural, equestrian oriented neighborhood. If the City
will not relocate the facility to a more suitable location, then
the above changes must be implemented or the City would leave us
no alternative but to oppose this project with all means
available. We look forward to continued dialogue regarding this
matter and the opportunity to further discuss the considerations
involved in approving this hospital project adjacent to our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
10. Board of Directors, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, November 14, 2005.
Response 10-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. This comment
provides an introduction to the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association comments on the Draft EIR.
No response is required.
Response 10-2
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As stated
on page 3-1 and pages 3-3 through 3-8 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project analyzed in the Draft
EIR is the construction and operation of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical
offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 1O,000-square-foot cancer center, and an
8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. The hospital includes an emergency room. As noted
in the comment, the hospital will of necessity operate around the clock. However, night-time
operations will be limited primarily to those associated with the emergency room.
Response 10-3
The comment is incorrect. The indirect or secondary effects associated with long-term operation of
the hospital complex are assessed in the Draft EIR in the Air Quality, Hydrology and Groundwater,
Noise, and Transportation sections. With regard to operational aspects of the hospital, shift changes
have been addressed as part of the traffic analysis, which assumes peak-hour impacts based upon
typical operating characteristics (e.g., shift changes) at a hospital. The applicant estimates that
between 1,000 and 1,200 persons will be employed on the site. The traffic analysis takes
employees into account in trip generation totals and peaks.
Response 10-4
Universal Health Services (UHS), the project applicant, currently operates two hospitals in the
region: Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs. Both of these facilities have emergency
rooms that currently operate beyond capacity. There are approximately 110 ambulance trips per
month to the two existing hospitals combined. With the emergency room at the proposed
T emecula Regional Hospital, those ambulance trips will be distributed among all three facilities.
Based on current ambulance service to the two existing facilities, UHS projects that approximately
one to two ambulance trips could arrive at the proposed T emecula hospital daily. While the
preferred route will be via Highway 79 South (east or west), some trips could originate from the
north via Margarita Road.
As a matter of practice, the ambulance drivers use sirens only when necessary to clear traffic. UHS
generally does not allow sirens to be used once an ambulance arrives on the hospital grounds.
Sirens generally would not be used during night-time hours when traffic volumes are minimal. Siren
nOise IS part of the current noise environment. Thus, siren noise is not considered a significant
impact.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-262
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-5
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As
indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR), the proposed project will result in a less
than significant impact with regard to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
or waste. Per the project conditions of approval, and consistent with standard City practices and
requirements, the applicant/operator will be required to submit for review and approval by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and Fire Department a Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. Such report will be kept on file with
these agencies, and should any quantities of hazardous materials used or stored on site increase or
should changes to operations introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in such reports,
the operator will be required to update such reports. All other potential impacts associated with the
hazardous materials will be regulated and mitigated through federal, state, and local laws and
policies. No incinerator is proposed as part of this project. No additional analysis is required.
Response 10-6
In response to the comment, under the "Scope of the Environmental Analysis" subheading on page
2-2 of the Final EIR, the bullet points under the second sentence of the first paragraph have been
revised to read as follows:
The Initial Study concluded that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan
might have a significant effect on the environment with respect to the following:
. Aesthetics
. Air Quality
. Land Use and Planning
. Hydrology and Water Quality
. Noise
. Transportation
The revision does not affect any of the facts, analyses, or impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
The City of T emecula used the I nitial Study process, as encouraged and permitted by CEQA, to
identify those issues requiring analysis in the EIR. All CEQA issues are adequately addressed either
in the text of the EIR or in the Initial Study, which is part of the EIR (see Appendix A of the Draft
EIR).
Please refer to response 10-5 for a discussion of hazardous materials. Development of the hospital
is consistent with adopted General Plan and zoning designations for surrounding sites, is consistent
with General Plan policies to expand medical and other high-technology employment opportunities,
and would not induce further growth in these sectors beyond that anticipated by the City's General
Plan. The proposed hospital is responding to medical care needs associated with past and current
growth, and is not a mechanism to spur additional growth within the City and region. No further
analysis is required.
Response 10-7
The first two bullet points on page 3-1 of the Draft EIR are correct. As stated in the first bullet point,
the General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan,
which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The medical
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-263
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
office buildings would be allowed to be developed as three- and four-story buildings with removal
of the Z2 overlay.
Response 10-8
The comment is incorrect. The comment asserts that the "lack of an adequate project description"
results in a failure to analyze land use compatibility issues. The Draft EIR of pages 3-1 through 3-10
provides an accurate and thorough description of the project and environmental setting.
Furthermore, on page 4-41 the Draft EIR provides an analysis of the proposed project's
compatibility with surrounding land uses, including residential properties and horse-keeping
properties. The analysis concludes that impact will be less than significant because of project design
features and the nature of surrounding uses.
Response 10-9
The comment incorrectly states that there is no rationale for the height of the proposed buildings.
The project is proposed to include two bed towers of 5 and 6 stories. On pages 1-29, 2-2, 4-13,
and 5-2, the Draft EIR references discussion in Appendix F regarding a technical explanation for the
necessary project design. In Appendix F is a description of the functional reasons for the proposed
tower heights and an explanation as to why a reduced building height alternative was rejected.
Response 10-10
The comment suggests opposition to a secondary project access to De Portola Road. The traffic
analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road with the
proposed restricted driveway (i.e., no permitted exiting left turns). The roadway will continue to
experience operating conditions consistent with the City's LOS 0 standard. Also, the General Plan
Circulation Element designates De Portola Road as a Modified Secondary Arterial. This
classification consists of a four-lane undivided roadway with a cross section of 70 feet within 88 feet
of right-of-way, which allows for a trail alongside the roadway.
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road on pages 5-11 through 5-14 of the Draft EI R provides an
analysis of a secondary access east of the project site via and extension of Dartolo Road in lieu of
the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. The analysis concluded that traffic and
biological resource impacts of Alternative 4 could be greater than those associated with the
proposed project. Therefore, secondary access via De Portola Road is the preferred access
compared to Dartolo Road. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-11
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The City
concludes that the Project Description contained in Section 2 of the Draft EIR adequately describes
the proposed project for evaluation and review of all environmental impacts addressed in the Draft
EIR. Per CEQA Guidelines section 15124, the project description contained in the Draft EIR meets
all of the requirements to adequately describe the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-264
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-12
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As stated
in the Initial Study, project wastewater and solid waste impacts will be less than significant. Also,
the project permittee will be required to comply with all existing and applicable federal, state, and
City of T emecula laws and regulations enforced through the project conditions of approval.
Response 10-13
Goals and policies related to visual or aesthetics are presented on pages 4-37 and 4-38 of the Draft
EIR in the Land Use and Planning section.
Response 10-14
As stated on page 4-4, "The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special
visual significance in the project vicinity." This statement is correct from the standpoint of the
General Plan. The project site is a vacant, fallow piece of land covered with non-native grasses and
weeds. The project site is not designated as open space, and General Plan policy anticipates
development on this site. Further, the City's General Plan contains no policies establishing the
project vicinity as an aesthetically important sensitive area.
Response 10-15
The Draft EIR on pages 4-5 through 4-13 presents the analysis of visual character and quality
impacts associated with the proposed hospital project. Two photographic renderings were
prepared, one illustrating views from a hillside to the north overlooking the project site (presented in
the Draft EIR as Figures 4-2a and 4-2 b), and a second illustrating conditions just north of the
intersection of Pio Pico Road and De Portola Road (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures 4-3 a and 4-
3b). As noted on Page 4-5 of the Draft EIR, the project will be visible from various residential lots
north of the project site. While the project site can be seen from the north, distant views of
Palomar Mountain from areas north of the project site will not be blocked. At the request of the
Santiago Ranchos Property Association, the project applicant floated tethered balloons on the
project site on Saturday, November 12, 2005 to provide residents information regarding the
proposed height of the hospital towers. The renderings and use of balloons to indicate the
proposed project's height are standard and accepted techniques used to analyze the aesthetic
impacts of a project pursuant to CEQA. The analysis was not dismissed. The Draft EIR and
subsequent activities requested by the public have adequately disclosed the potential aesthetic and
viewshed impacts of the project. Nonetheless, the last sentence on page 4-5 of the Draft EIR is
revised as follows:
However, because the views are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by
any City regulation or policy, impact will be less than significant.
The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the potential aesthetic impacts of the
proposed project and describes how project features will reduce impacts (pages 4-5 and 4-12). No
significant impact will result.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-265
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-16
Building design will feature the use of earth-toned stucco and terra cotta tile roof. As seen in Figure
4-2b on page 4-9 of the Draft EIR, the proposed building colors will match the surrounding
commercial development. While the proposed buildings will be noticeably taller than the
surrounding uses, the aesthetic impact from the proposed project remains less than significant, as
analyzed in the EI R and restated in Response 10-15.
Response 10-17
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As discussed on pages 4-13 and 4-14, all outdoor lighting must
comply with Ordinance 655 to avoid impact to Palomar Observatory. See Response 6-10 for a full
discussion of lighting impacts and mitigation. Pursuant to mitigation measure A-l, the City has
included the following condition of approval for the project:
Final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with Mount
Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting onto adjacent
properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible.
Compliance with this standard project review requirement constitutes compliance with mitigation
measure A-l and will ensure a less than significant impact. This information clarifies how the City
will implement the mitigation measure (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 [bl). No new measure is
proposed; therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
Response 10-18
The comment is incorrect. The last sentence on page 4-18 states that the air quality conditions are
not reflected by the closest air quality monitoring stations due to the stations' distances from the
proj ect site.
Response 10-19
Air Quality impacts are addressed beginning at EIR page 4-17. The project will comply with all
federal, state, and local regulations related to air quality and air emissions. The applicant, Universal
Health Services (UHS), has indicated that their other hospital projects in the South Coast Air Basin
operated by UHS do not emit toxic air pollutants; thus, SCAQMD would not require the proposed
project to obtain a permit for toxic air pollutants. As shown in Table 4-6 (page 4-25 of the Draft
EIR), regional emissions from the operation of the proposed project are estimated to produce air
pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO and ROG. As such,
regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the project will result in a significant air
quality impact related to ROG and CO. See EIR pages 4-26 through 4-29 for discussion of
mitigation measures.
Response 10-20
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The EIR
analysis utilized the URBEMIS2002 air modeling program, which is an accepted model. The
URBEMIS2002 summary report and analysis were made available for public review at the same time
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-266
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
as the Draft EIR, and are incorporated as part of the EIR. Please refer to Response 7-10 regarding
the statement of assumptions for construction emissions, as reported in Appendix B.
Response 10-21
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The EIR air quality analysis identifies the end state of intersection
conditions since the project requires these improvements over the long term. The analysis correctly
concludes that because intersections will continue to operate at LOS 0, SCAQMD methodology
does not require CO hot spot analysis. Also, as stated on page 4-25 of the EIR, CO concentrations
in the area fall far below air quality impact thresholds.
Response 10-22
Please refer to Response 10-5 and 10-19 regarding hazardous materials, waste, or air emissions
during operations of the proposed hospital. As stated in Response 10-5, no incinerator is proposed
as part of this project and the project will result in a less than significant impact with regard to the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or waste. Hazardous materials impacts
will be regulated and mitigated through federal, state, and local laws and policies. At the local level
the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and Fire Department will regulate the
transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the proposed project. A health
risk assessment of the fate and transport of hazardous materials is not required for the project and
no additional analysis is required.
Response 10-23
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or concl usions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 10-12.
Response 10-24
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please
refer to Responses 7-39 and 7-41 for a discussion of water quality impacts.
Response 10-25
In response to the comment, under the "Rancho California Water District Urban Water
Management Plan" subheading on page 4-34 of the Final EIR, the third sentence of the second
paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
The Master Plan projected demands for the project site are based on use of the site as 30 acres
of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day per acre) and 6 acres of Estate Residential
(0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the project area.
The revision does not affect any of the facts, analyses or impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-267
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-26
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The conclusion on page 4-35 is summarized from the Water
Supply Assessment (WSA), which was prepared and provided by the serving agency, the Rancho
California Water District (RCWD). As stated on page 6 of the WSA, the 2005 Water Facilities
Master Plan estimates a demand of 129,545 acre feet per year for 2025 and the projected water
demand for the proposed project is 42 acre feet per year. The City concludes that the WSA
provided by the RCWD fully complies with California Water Code Section 10910. The RCWD has
appropriately determined that the District has sufficient water supply for the project. See RCWO
S8610 Water Supply Assessment in Support of the Temecula Medical Center, City of Temecula, dated
August 29,2005, at EIR Appendix G.
Response 10-27
As stated on page 4-37 of the Draft EIR, to address habitat conservation plans that apply to the
project site, a comprehensive biological resource survey and focused surveys for the Burrowing
Owl were conducted, pursuant to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) guidelines.
The surveys concluded that no protected species or habitats and no Burrowing Owls occur on the
project site (see Appendix E of this EIR).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction may apply
under Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road (page 5-14 of the Draft EI R) and Alternative 5,
Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road (page 5-19 of the Draft EIR). Because this is
evaluated as a project alternative, rather than as the proposed project, no additional surveys or
mitigation are required per CEQA at this time. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-28
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 5.2, which
supports GoalS of the Land Use Element in the City's General Plan. As written in the General Plan:
Goals are broad statements of community desires, purpose or direction. Policies serve as guides
to the City Council, Planning Commission, other City commissions and boards, and City staff in
reviewing development proposals and making other decisions that affect the future growth and
development of Temecula.
General Plan goals are written as broad statements describing the cumulative outcome of
implementing individual policies. The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the
potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project and describes how project features will reduce
impacts (pages 4-5 and 4-12). However, because the City of T emecula Municipal Code does not
contain any view protection regulations, no significant impact results.
Pursuant to mitigation measure A-3, the City has included the following conditions of approval for
the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-268
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or
other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen
off-site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planni ng.
A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the
residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box) screen trees to screen the
view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans
verifYing the buffer area.
Therefore, the amount and conditions under which additional landscaping is required on the
northern boundary of the site have been defined. Compliance with these conditions of approval
constitutes compliance with mitigation measure A-3, and will ensure a less than significant impact.
This information clarifies how the City will implement the mitigation measure (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5 [bl).
Response 10-29
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please
refer to Responses 10-3 regarding operations and number of employees. Growth inducing impacts
are discussed on page 6-4 and 6-5 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 6-5, the proposed project is
not anticipated to induce population or jobs growth beyond that which is already planned for and
anticipated by adopted land use policies. As stated on Pages 6-4 and 6-5 of the Draft EIR, the
additional commercial, professional and medical-office support development that may result from
development of the hospital is consistent with adopted General Plan and zoning designations for
surrounding sites, is consistent with General Plan policies to expand medical and other high-
technology employment opportunities, and would not induce further growth in these sectors
beyond that anticipated by the City's General Plan. The proposed hospital is responding to medical
care needs associated with past and current growth, and is not a mechanism to spur additional
growth within the City and region. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-30
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 10-8. As described in Section 4.4 Land
Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the proposed project upon amendment of the General Plan as
proposed by the project is considered to be consistent with the City's General Plan, which was
found to be consistent with all Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan, and Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and Growth Visioning policies
within the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR at 5.9-14 through 5.9-23). No further analysis is
required.
Response 10-31
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Section 4.5, Noise, described a range in time provided in the City
of T emecula Municipal Code (Section 8.32.020) which limits construction to between the hours of
6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday, and never on
Sunday or holidays. No "pile drivers" are anticipated. As stated in the EIR, the primary source of
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-269
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
vibration noise will be large bulldozers, which for this project is below the noise impact criteria. See
EIR page 4-55. No additional analysis is required.
Response 10-32
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 6-7 regarding the noise analysis and a
noise threshold. The com mentors opinion regarding the appropriate threshold for ambient noise
levels is noted. However, as noted on page 4-51 of the Draft EIR, a significant impact will occur
only if project traffic increases the CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible
amount of 3dB or more. This is a commonly accepted threshold of significance for ambient noise
because the average human cannot distinguish between sounds that are only 1 dB louder or quieter
than each other. No further analysis is required.
Responses 10-33 and 10-34
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Responses 6-7 and 6-8 regarding the helicopter
noise analysis and Response 10-4 regarding siren noise. The commentor's opinions regarding the
impact of helicopter noise on horses is acknowledged. However, CEQA does not require the
unique analysis of impacts of noise on horses or other domestic animals. CEQA noise thresholds
are designed to analyze the impact of noise on persons, particularly persons at sensitive receptors.
No further analysis is required.
Response 10-35
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Responses 6-7 and 6-8 regarding the helicopter
noise analysis. There is no plan to "expand" or designate the hospital as a "trauma center" as
suggested by the comment.
Response 10-36
As stated in CEQA guideline 15126.4 (a) (2), "mitigation measures must be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments." All of the mitigation
measures contained in the EIR are fully enforceable and will require future legal action or
compliance and proof will be shown in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Therefore, truck deliveries will be limited to daytime hours and no nighttime standard is necessary.
The applicant is aware of the mitigation requirement.
Response 10-37
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 6-7 regarding the noise analysis and a
noise threshold.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-270
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-38
Pursuant to mitigation measure N-3, the City has included the following condition of approval for
the project:
The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be limited to
the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined unsafe due to
weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
If the project is approved by the City Council, conditions of approval will be adopted by the City,
and the conditions will be enforceable measures that the applicant must comply with prior to
proceeding with different phases of the project.
Response 10-39
The roadway link analysis for traffic volumes for Margarita Road between De Portola Road and
Highway 79 South were analyzed during project buildout as shown in Table 4-24b on page 4-92 of
the Draft EIR.
The segment of Margarita Road between De Portola Road and Highway 79 South is a short
segment on which the flow and operations are directly dictated by the operations of three
signalized intersections along this section of Margarita Road (at De Portola Road, Dartolo Road, and
Highway 79 South). An intersection analysis is a better predictor of actual arterial operations than a
link analysis. These three intersections are all fully analyzed in the Draft EIR and therefore a link
analysis of Margarita Road is not necessary. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-40
Please refer to Response 7-69.
Response 10-41
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As identified in public testimony at the November 16 Planning
Commission public hearing, the applicant completed a thorough search of sites located within
Temecula, including sites within the immediate 1-15 corridor, to identify sites that meet appropriate
size and access criteria. Only the proposed project site meets the applicant's needs in terms of size
and access. No further analysis of alternative sites is required.
Response 10-42
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Responses 10-8 and 10-10.
Response 10-43
The comment is incorrect, expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary
to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As stated on Page 6-4 of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project is located within an area of T emecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure systems.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-271
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Please refer to Response 10-29, for a discussion of growth inducing impacts. No further analysis is
required.
Response 10-44
This comment provides a closing statement to the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
comments on the Draft EIR. No new comments are included in this closing statement. No
response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-272
DAVID B. OBERBECK CPA
44300 LA PAZ RD
TEMECULA, CA 92592
Tel: (951) 587-8758 Fax: (951) 587-8732
e-mail: davld.oberbeck@verizon.net
Letter 11
Fax Transmission Cover Sheet
Number Faxed To: (951) 694-6477
Date: 11/14/2005
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Company: CITY OF TEMECULA
From: DAVID OBERBECK
Tel:
Regarding: PROPOSED HOSPITAL
_ Urgent
_ Response Required
~ For Your Review _ Please Comment
Number of Pages Faxed - including cover sheet:
Comments:
PLEASE NOTE MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED HOSPITAL AND THE PROPOSED
LOCATION. TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. NOISE AND CONGESTION. HOSPITAL SHOULD LOCATE
ON A MORE REMOTE LOCATION IAS MURRIETA AND INLAND VALLEY LOCATIONS
HAVE). THEY ARE NOT RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN. BUT ARE QUITE 11-1
CONVENIENT. FOR THAT MATTER. WHEY DO WE NEED ANOTHER HOSPITAL ANYWAY.
WE HAVE THE AFOREMENTIONED TWO PLUS SCRIPPS AND UCSD TO THE SOUTH AND
LOMA LINDA AND OTHERS TO THE NORTH. AND THESE ARE ALL VERY GOOD
HOSPITALS!!!
Confide~tiality Notice
This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain Information that is privileged and confidential. .11 the reader of this message IS not the Intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, or. COpyi~g of t~is information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please nobfy us Immediately by telephone or fax.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
11. David Oberbeck, via facsimile transmittal on November 14, 2005.
Response 11-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment
expresses opposition to the proposed project due to noise and traffic congestion and the proposed
location. This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to
the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The EIR analysis concludes that project traffic impacts will be
less than significant with mitigation, and that except for helicopter noise impacts, noise issues will
either be less than significant or can be addressed through mitigation. No further response is
required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-274
.J
Presld,"~ Roger Ziemer
Southern Callfom~ Gas Company
VIce Presld.n~ Greg Morrison
E~inolO Valiey Mun~ipal Waler D~bict
2"" VIce Preslden~ Doug Leiber
Temecula Creek Inn
Secretary, Debbie Lindberg
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
TreasulOr, Paul O'Neal
Paul L. O'Neal and Associates
'Samuel C. Alhadeff, Esq., Alhadeff & So~r, LLP
'Ron Booley, Temecu~ Valley Bank
Denn~ Chin~eff (emeritus)
Ped1anga Indian Reservaaon
ScotlCrane, Univereal Health Services
Lou~ Dllemanlo ,The Castle B&B
Midlael Doblado, The Promenade in Temecuia
Cindy Domen~oni, Domen~oni Properties
Bob Doyle, Riverside County SherifflCoroner
Ben R. Drake, Drake Enterprises, In~
'Dennis Frank, UC Riverside Temecula Center
Dr. Ridlan! Giese
Mt. San Jacinto Community College
'Bill Green, RBF Consuffing
Bill Harker (emeritus)
O.B. Johnson
WestMar Commercial Brokerage, Inc.
Nick Jones, Mil~r-Jones Mortuary
A.G. Kading. A.G.K. Group. LlC
Joseph J. Kueblar, CPA
Kuebler, Prudhomme & Company
Canne~ RI1con Loelkes , The Loelkes Group
Robert Lopez
Sou1hem California Edison Company
Deane Manning
Superior Hearing Aid Service
Stewart Moms Jr., Morgan Stanley Dean Willer
BuldJ Murphy
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Ind'lns
David L. Phares, D. L. PhalOS & Associates
Greg Prudhomme, Kuebler, Prudhomme & Co.
Claude W. Reinke, The Califomlan
David E. Rosenthal
E~ctronlc Packaging Solutions
Roland Skumawilz, Romo~nd ScI100l Disbict
'Joan F. Spar1<man, Temecula Valley Bank
Dan Stephenson, Rancon Financial Corporation
Lori Stone
Leg~lalive Assistant to Superv""r Jeff Stone
Alice Sullivan
Temecu~ Valley Chambero! Commerce
'Ron Sullivan, Sullivan & Sullivan LLC
Pamela Vo~ Vo. Management
Gary Votapka, Mission Oaks National Bank
Kirk Wright The Garrett Group
Mark Wright Murrieta Police Department
Won Sang Yoo
Ranpac, Inc.lTrans.Paciflc Consultants
"Past Presidents
lIIurrieta telllecula poup
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CA 92591-2984
(951) 719-3640 (MAIN)
(951) 719-3650 (FAX)
/';;:'....
/:?)
//, " ,.' " .:" .....
. - - (,~
November 15,2005
/2/'"
< 'v(; 1'0 .~:;:
<-'1- 'j.- ./ '//;:,
"'::,' 6' ~ '/;i?>>
, (:;''''''' ' /? !
<0 /,/,,',-
." <,,><,1/"
"" '- .
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Dept.
City ofTemecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Letter 12
Dear Ms Ubnoske,
The Board of Directors and members of the Murrieta Temecula Group (MTG)
fully support the efforts to establish the quality full-service hospital facility
proposed for construction on Hwy 79 South in the City of Temecula.
The current and future growth of Southwest California and the Temecula
Valley requires that a state of the art hospital be a key component in our
community. The health and well being of our citizens depends greatly on our
ability to pave the way for such facilities to be built. Considering that the
projected population growth ofthe combined cities of TemecuIa and Murrieta
will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years requires immediate action and
approval of this hospital facility.
12-1
The community and business leaders that make up the MTG stand firm in their
opposition of outside interveners promoting their personal agendas. Any delay
in approving this important project will have profound far reaching personal
and economic impacts on our region's ability to grow, prosper and meet the
health care needs of our community for years to come.
The MTG respectfully requests that the Temecula Planning Commission and
City Council give serious consideration and support for the much needed
Southwest Healthcare System hospital planned for Temecula.
.
Ro;ZSziem -
President, Murrieta Temecula Group
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
12. Roger Ziemer, President, Murrieta Temecula Group, November 15, 2005.
Response 12-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment is
noted. The Murrieta T emecula Group notes its support of the proposed hospital and emphasizes
the need for additional hospital facilities in the area. This comment does not address an
environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No
response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-276
Page lofl
<)
Debbie Ubnoske
Letter 13
From: Aaron Adams
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Debbie Ubnoske; Gary Thornhill; Don Hazen
Cc: Barbara Osborne; Michaela Ballreich; Susan Jones; Norma Childs; Peter Thorson
Subject: FW: Planninghomepage
Fyi- for the record for Planning Commission tonight. This came through the website today.
Aaron
From: Linda Betts (mailto: Iinda.betts@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20059:57 AM
To: Department - Planning
Subject: Planninghomepage
Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the DePortola Access and building height. I have
lived in Los Ranchitos for over 10 years. I moved here for horse properly and a safe place to raise my
developmentally disabled daughter. It used to be easy to cross DePortola Road on horseback or on foot. Now I
have to take my life in my hands because people go flying down the road with no regard to it being a residential 13-1
area. Now you are going back on your commitment to us home owners that you are going to give access to the
hospital from DePortola. You will be ruining one of the nicest residential areas in Temecula if you do allow access
and increase in the height of the hospital.
PLEASE STOP THE CONTINUED BROKEN PROMISES AND PRESERVE ONE OF THE BEST AREAS IN
TEMECULA. If you do not stop now you will completely destroy the charm and beauty of what was Temecula.
Linda Betts
29630 Vallejo Avenue
Temecula, CA 92592
951-695-1924
951-695-3277 (fax)
11/16/2005
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
13. Linda Betts, via email on November 16, 2005.
Response 13-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment
asserts opposition to the proposed De Portola Road access and building height. As stated on page
3-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed De Portola Road driveway at the northeast corner of the project
site will serve as secondary access, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and
in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. The traffic
analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road. Also, as
noted in Response 10-10, the City's General Plan Circulation Element designates De Portola Road
as a four-lane roadway, with the ultimate cross section to include horse trails consistent with the
character of the area. Any future widening of De Portola Road will take into account traffic safety
Issues.
The Draft EIR at pages 4-5 through 4-13, presents the analysis of visual character and quality impacts
associated with the proposed hospital. Two photographic renderings are presented, one illustrating
views from a hillside to the north overlooking the project site (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures
4-2a and 4-2b), and a second illustrating conditions just north of the intersection of Pio Pico Road
and De Portola Road (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures 4-3a and 4-3 b). As noted on page 4-5 of
the Draft EIR, the project will be visible from several residential lots north of the project site.
However, while the project can be seen from the north, views of Palomar Mountain from areas
north of the project site will not be blocked.
At the request of the Santiago Ranchos Property Association, the applicant placed tethered balloons
on the project site on Saturday, November 12, 2005 to provide residents information regarding the
proposed height of the hospital towers. The renderings and use of balloons to indicate the
proposed project's height are standard and accepted techniques used to analyze the aesthetic
impacts of a project under CEQA.
The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the potential aesthetic impacts of the
proposed project and describes how project features will reduce impacts to less than significant
(pages 4-5 and 4-12 of the Draft EIR). The comment is acknowledged, and no further CEQA
analysis is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-278
Page 10fl
. ,
-,
Debbie Ubnoske
Letter 14
From: Susan Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20057:45 AM
To: Debbie Ubnoske
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-0462; PA05-0302; PA04-0463; PA04-0571 - re: Hospital
FYI. Thought you may need this for tonight's meeting.
From: Shawn Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:25 AM
To: Mike Naggari Susan Jones
Cc: Jeff Comerchero; Debbie Ubnoskei Gary Thornhill
Subject: RE: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-0462; PA05-0302; PA04-0463; PA04-0571 N re: Hospital
No problem. Susan will make a copy and have it ready for the City Council meeting, which will be probably on
Dec. 13th. 1'1/ also have Susan get copies for tonight's Planning Commission.
Shawn
From: Mike Naggar
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 20056:37 PM
To: Shawn Nelson; Susan Jones
Cc: Jeff Comerchero
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-0462; PA05-0302; PA04-0463; PA04-0571 N re: Hospital
I want this read into the record please.
From: Jon Silver [mailto:JSilver@CDIHOMES,COMj
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 5:32 PM
To: Jeff Comerchero; Ron Roberts; Maryann Edwardsi Chuck Washington; Mike Naggar
Cc: Skip Hubby; Dave Hubby; Undsy Hubby
Subject: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-0462i PA05-0302i PA04-0463; PA04-0571 N re: Hospital
Honorable Mayor and Distinguished Members of the City Council:
In consideration of Subject Application as noticed for your further consideration and public hearing on November
22nd, please be advised that, as the adjacent owner of property to the west of the proposed hospital project,
Covenant Development is in favor of the applicant's proposal as outlined and we encourage your approval of the
pertinent Cases as aforementioned. .
14-1
Thank you for your diligent efforts.
Jon. Silver
President, Covenant Development
29995 Technology Drive, Suite 201
Murrieta, CA 92563
Office: (951) 834-9040 x 102
Fax #: (951) 834-9046
11/16/2005
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
14. Jon Silver, President, Covenant Development, via email on November 15, 2005.
Response 14-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment is
acknowledged. The comment states that Covenant Development supports the proposed hospital.
This comment does not address an environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis
or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-280
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
RICHARD T. DRURY
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
MARC D. JOSEPH
OSHA R. MESERVE
SUMA PEESAPATI
GLORIA D. SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1225 BIn STREET, SUITE 550
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4810
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
TEL: (650) 589.1660
FAX: (650) 589.5062
FELLOW
KEVIN,S. GOLDEN
gsmith@adamsbroaclwell.com
OF COUNSEL
THOMAS R. ADAMS
ANN BROAOWELL
November 16, 2005
Letter 15
Hand Delivered
Mr. Emery Papp
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Temecula Re€rional Hospital
Dear Mr. Papp:
On behalf of the California Nurses Association, the attached letter provides
supplemental comments on the City of Temecula's focused environmental impact 15-1
report for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. Mr. Matt Hagemann prepared
the supplemental comments. His curriculum vita is also attached.
Sincerely,
()!A,~ 'vv--J
Gloria D. Smith
GDS:bh
Attachment
1818-006.
() printed on recycled paper
ibli(;~~ef
Y~.'.;.<~':~tt":...
<-"!;':';_':;;.!:;'4~\":':biX:J,:::;: >;
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Lnigation Support for the Environment
SOILIW A TERI AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
201 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Fax: (310) 393-3898
Matt Hagemann
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Email: mha2emann@swane.com
November 14, 2005
Gloria D. Smith
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
Dear Ms. Smith:
Please consider these comments as a supplement to the letter written to you on
October 26, 2005 regarding the Temecula Regional Hospital Focused Environmental
Impact Report ("focused EIR"). We have prepared these supplemental comments
concerning the issue of leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFfs) under three existing gas 15-2
stations within a quarter-mile of the proposed project. The City did not acknowledge
contaminants from these LUFfS in its focused EIR, but we believe, for reasons below,
that a full evaluation of the extent of the contamination, and potential human health and
environmental impacts is warranted prior to project approval.
ARCO, Shell Oil and Chevron have discovered three separate plumes of
contaminated groundwater stemming from gasoline releases at three service stations near
the eastern and southern boundaries ofthe proposed hospital site (Figure 1). Both Shell
Oil and Chevron have actively monitored groundwater in the vicinity of the stations since
2001. Shell Oil has documented groundwater contamination in monitoring wells on the
north side of State Highway 79, along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site
(Figure 2). Specifically, in an October 28, 2005 monitoring report, Shell Oil reported
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) at a concentration of 23 ugIL in groundwater at a depth 15-3
of 19.90 feet along the southern boundary and directly adjacent to the proposed hospital
site (monitoring well No. 24A).! This concentration is nearly twice that of the California
drinking water standard of 13 ugIL.
Shell Oil also reported tert-buytl alcohol (TBA) at 33 ugIL at a depth of 19.92 feet
along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site (see Figure 2, monitoring well
No. 24B), nearly three times the California safe drinking water level of 12 ugIL. In its
monitoring program, Chevron found MTBE-contaminated groundwater at the Chevron
I (httos:llesi. waterboards.ca.gnv/geo reoort/3029416739rr0606597082.PDFl.
1
gas station located just 250 feet from the proposed hospital site which is just across
Highway 79.
As recently as April 2003, Chevron detected MTBE at 1,400 ugIL at a depth of
approximately 20 feet, roughly 500 feet from the proposed hospital site. (See Table 2,
monitoring well No. 6)2 In Chevron's most recent monitoring report, it documented
MTBE at the same site at 14 ugIL, which is in excess of the California drinking water
standard (Figure 2).
This contamination is particularly important because Shell Oil has found
contaminated groundwater flowing directly towards the proposed hospital site (Figures 1
and 2), i.e., the MTBE plume is flowing in a northwesterly direction beneath and across
Highway 79 directly towards the proposed hospital site (Figure 5A).3 The Shell Oil
report shows the movement of the plume on the north side of Highway 79 with question
marks, indicating that the plume has likely extended beneath the proposed hospital site.
Accordingly, Shell has sought to test groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site in
order to determine the extent of the plume. Unfortunately, however, the property owner,
Universal Health Services, has refused Shell access to the property. According to a Shell
report:
15-3
Cont.
"[Shell Oil will] Continue to pursue access agreement with Universal Health Service,
Inc., in order to conduct additional downgradient site assessment activities.
Regional Board assistance may be required."
Shell Oil Monitoring Report, October 28,2005.4
Shell's report certainly underscores the importance of gaining access to the
proposed hospital site in order to track groundwater contamination. Access may also
ultimately be needed to hydraulically contain and treat the plume which may jeopardize
Well 120, a public water well located just east of the proposed hospital site (Figure 1).
The report also indicates that regulatory action from the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board may be necessary so that Shell can gain access to the hospital site
and conduct essential monitoring and remediation work.
As noted in our October 26, 2005 letter to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo,
the focused EIR has failed to acknowledge the presence of the gasoline related
contaminants in shallow groundwater. We noted, in fact, that the focused EIR did not
include any evaluation of hazardous materials. In large development projects, such as
this hospital, DEIRs typically reference American Society of Testing and Materials
International (AS1M) Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, standard
tools for determining if hazardous conditions exist beneath or near a proposed
development.s
2 (httos:llesi. waterboards.ca. eov/2eo reoort/95 I 849l446fT0606599286.PDFl.
3 httos:llesi. waterboards .ca.eov/eeo reoort/73l9440543fT0606597082.PDFl.
4 (httos:/Iesi.waterboards.ca.eov/eeo reoort/30294l6739fT0606597082;PDF, p. 6);'-==0.
, (see for example htto:llwww.c1u-in.orl!!downloadlmisc/roadmao4.odt).
2
These documented exceedances of drinking water standards along the southern boundary
of the project area means that the project has potentially significant impacts. The focused
EIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts as follows:
1. Hospital workers and patients may be exposed to gasoline related contaminants
from vapors in soil beneath the hospital. Through a process known as vapor intrusion,
gasoline-related compounds may collect in soil under proposed buildings in
concentrations sufficient to contaminate the air inside the hospital. If concentrations
exceed guidelines published by U.S. EP A 6 or Cal EP A 7 public health may be at risk. The
potential for vapor intrusion of gasoline related compounds should be evaluated in a
technical report to be incorporated within a revised DEIR.
2. Construction workers may be exposed to gasoline related compounds in shallow
groundwater upon excavation for the hospital. If the excavation extends to depths greater
than 20 feet, the water table would be intercepted. Standing water containing MTBE and
TBA could constitute a hazard to construction workers along with potential exposure to
other gasoline contaminants. The potential for exposure of construction workers to
gasoline related compounds should be evaluated in a revised DEIR.
3 Sampling of groundwater and soil vapor should be conducted to evaluate potential 15-4
health risks for construction workers, hospital workers and patients. Results of the
sampling should be used for comparison against U.S. EP A and Cal EP A standards and
guidelines in the assessment of potential human health risks and included in a revised
DEIR.8 .
4. Sampling of groundwater and soil vapor should be conducted in the area of the
proposed hospital to define the down gradient extent of the gasoline contaminants and the
potential impact to the public well as shown in Figure 1. As noted, Shell has requested
access for sampling from Universal Health without success and access is essential to
ensure that the plume does not progress undetected toward the public well.
5. If groundwater contamination beneath the proposed hospital site is confinned, a
revised DEIR should outline any necessary steps to contain and treat the plume of
contamination to protect the health of construction workers, hospital patients and staff.
The DEIR should also discuss any necessary remedial measures that may be required on
the proposed ho'spital site to ensure protection of Well 120, the public water supply well.
6 (htto://www.eoa.gov/rel!ion09/waste/sfundlonuindex.html)
.7 (htto://www.caleoa.ca.l!ovlBrownfields/docurnents/200S/CHHSLsGuide. odD,
8 (see for example htto://www.eoa.gov/correctiveaction/eis/vaoor/comolete.odf and
htto://www.dtsc.ca.l!Ov/ScienceTechnologvIHERD POL Eval Subsurface Vaoor Intrusion interim final
,mjf).
3
6.
Following additional investigation to define the extent of groundwater
contaminants at the proposed hospital site, a revised DEIR should include an
assessment of the potential effects of construction-related dewatering on the
plume migration and measures that will be implemented to prevent spreading of
contamination toward building areas and Well 120.
Sincerely,
'It&(t~I/-c~~'
Matt Hagemann
~IJ~~
Rob C. Hesse, R.O., REA
_ ____.::-==-.7-=.:-:.:--.--,-----___.,.
15-4
Cont.
4
Leaend
-MTBEplufll3S(uI1U
_T8o\plurms(ugII.)
~RePOrledOrolJ'l~rFlaNDL-ectlon
. PubllcwaterSupplyWe11120
Dst~onBoundQry
C:J Proposed Ho$iitaJ ate
Sfte:
TemeculaRElgionalHospital
Temecula,California
A
nit:
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
o
""
'r.1,
DrllWlEty. FlIlIl:eNa~
RCH 11/14..os 1
1~~I===~r:=-
___________.,_u___
-.--.....--.------
- --~'"'.~C'".....:::::::-=-~;:-_-
5
Leaend
- MTBE plumes (u!1l.)
-TBI\plUl'JBs(lgll..J
~ Rsporled OrounDN<ter Flaw Direction
e 9lell Oroondwater MonloringWells
o Chevron OrounONaler Monitoring WeUs
o StaJonBoundal)l
~~ ! Proposed I-klSJjtal SIte:
....
Temecula Regional Hospital
Temecula, California
A
o
250
"
MTBE.MIDTBAGOUNDWATER PWMES
DreWl By. f91e No~
RCH 11/14105 2
1'..-1 ===:..r::=-
."'"
,...
.. ~=- =-::-:::=-:==.--- ..... - '-
6
'i:~21i:al=~Jl~Am.lysl$and
'......lioll " , :tl19EnVttonmllllt
Matthew Hagemann
Principal
Regulatory and Litigation Support Specialist
Regulatory Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Hydrogeologic Characterization
Litigation Support
Expert Witness
Research
Education:
M.s. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Hwnboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Teaching Certificate, Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 1987.
Professional Exnerience:
Matt has over 15 years of experience in key areas of environmental assessment and remediation. He spent ten years
with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the
Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While
with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in ensuring the rapid assessment of eight major military
facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of RCRA while also
working cooperatively with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EP A legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and
enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical
staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations,
groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
. Founding Partner and Senior Regulatory Analyst, SW APE;
. Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc;
. Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch;
. Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division;
. Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
. Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences;
. Instructor, Coliege of Marin, Department of Science;
. Geologist, U.S. Forest Service; and
. Geologist, Dames & Moore.
Knowledge,!ikills ~nd Abilities
Curriculum Vitae
Matthew Hagemann
Senior Re~ulatorv and Environmental Analvst:
With SW APE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
. Project manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of
releases of gasoline components to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations
throughout California.
. Lead reviewer of environmental impact reports in identifYing significant issues with regard to hazardous waste,
water quality and geologic hazards.
. Liaison to Tribal EP A staff in assisting with their response to perchlorate contamination of the Colorado River
and related drinking water supplies.
With Komex H20 Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
. Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former
. U.s. EP A Administrator and General Counsel.
. Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of M1BE use,
research, and regulation.
. Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate
use, research, and regulation.
. Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water
treatment.
. Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in
California and New York.
. Expert witness testimony for oil production-related contamination in Mississippi.
. Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met
strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
. Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and
regulators.
Executive Director:
Currently, as Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt leads efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In
reporting to a Board of Directors that includes representatives from leading Orange County universities and
businesses, Matt has prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the
dischrge of grease to sewer systems. Matt has actively participated in the development of countywide water quality
permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt has worked with other
nonprofits that have been effective in protecting and restoring water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources
Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County
Business Council. Matt also manages the publication of a widely read weekly newsletter, the Orange County Water
Quality News (www.ocwatch.or~).
Hvdrol!eolol!V:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize
and cleanup closing rnilitary bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure
Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot.
Specific activities were as follows:
______..__u___.__..____.__.. ______.._, .
-~._. -~-.........__.. .'~' .-------''- --'--'--"-~~ ,.
Curriculum Vitae
2
Matthew Hagemann
. Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks,
and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
. Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military
bases.
. Identified emerging issues, wrote tecbnical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through
work on four national U.S. EP A workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Tecbnical Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater
to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of
vulnerability, and the results were adopted and oublished by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EP A Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
. Received an EP A Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of nationall!Uidance for the orotectioo
of drinking water.
. Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through
designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and
responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
. Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large
hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt selVed as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
. Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C
requirements.
. Reviewed and wrote "part B" pennits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
. Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for
significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel.
. Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractorts investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent
degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
. Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEP A, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to
control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
. Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic
National Park.
. Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park
superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
. Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while selVing on a
national workgroup.
. Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and
snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation-wide policy on the use of these
vehicles in National Parks.
. Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agencv Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Actiou Plan.
... -..----....---.-- -- -~------~----
-.-.----.. -.>
Curriculum Vitae 3 Matthew Hagemann
Policv:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9. Activities included the following:
. Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the
gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
. Shaped EPA's national response to these threats hy serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,
including the Office of Research and Development publication, OXv2enates in Water: Critical Information and
Research Needs.
. Improved the technical training ofEPA's scientific and engineering staff.
. Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the
Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process.
. Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geolol!V:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber
harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
. Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine
slope stability.
. Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
. Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford,
Oregon.
Asa consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites in the Portland,
Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
. Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
. Conducted aquifer tests.
. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teachin!!:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
. At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology,
oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Reports. Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River: A Dam Mess. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact ofPerehlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.
Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water CoDt.rnin.nt. Invited
.C.~=~-C.C-~- . presentation.to1:heV$. EPA Region 9.
Curriculum Vitae
4
Matthew Hagemann
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the
National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology ofMTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M,F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and
the Resulting Impaclto Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground
Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology ofMTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.
Water,Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.
Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society
Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater
Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas;Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., imd Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station,
Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island ofMaui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukunaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerahility in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste
Management Association Publication V1P-61.
Curriculum Vitae
5
Matthew Hagemann
.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California.
Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge
Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposiwn on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. .EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
- .'-_.__.~-~..~------~.-
_.-._------~_..............."'.
Curriculum Vitae
6
Matthew Hagemann
15. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, November 16, 2005
Response 15-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. This comment
provides an introduction to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo comments on the Draft EIR.
No response is required. This letter represents a second comment letter from the same party,
reiterating and expanding upon some of the comments made in the October 28, 2005 letter (see
Response to Comment to Letter #7).
Response 15-2
The comment provides an introduction to supplemental comments, from SWAPE, consultants to
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on the leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFTs). The City
acknowledges the LUFTs in the vicinity of the project site. Refer to Responses 2-2 through 2-7 and
Response 7-18.
Response 15-3
Please refer to Responses 7-18 and 7-19.
Response 15-4
Please refer to Response 7-18,7-19, and 7-20.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-294
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Executive Committee
O.B. Johnson
Chairman of the Board
West mar Comml":rcial Brokeragl":
Nancy Stephenson
Chair Elect
NSL Insurance Services
Scott Crane
First Vice Chair
Southwest Heahhcare Sysrem
ROD Holli.day
Treasurer
LPL Financial
Murrieta
Chamber of
Commerce
~EC!:'1ft:1:'
','n" I"
It I I' ")"1/';-
~. '-' (\jUJ
CITY MAN.I\GER'~
OFFICe ~
November 16, 2005
Shawn Nelson
City Manager
City ofTemecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula CA, 92589=9033
Letter 16
Dear Mr, Nelson:
The Board of Directors of the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce whole
heartedly supports the development of the proposed hospital facility on
SR-79 South in Temecula
Shane Lesovsky
Swm,y . . co gh ha h'tal .thin
Temecula Valley Communications. Inc. We m Mumeta are lortunate enou to ve a OSpl campus WI
our city limits and another campus just outside our city in Wildomar.
This is an important quality of life issue that is not currently available
to the citizens of the City of Temecula
Tim Freese
Past Chairman of the Board
Mission Oaks National Bank
Directors
Vickie Ashmore
Wells Fargo Bank
Alex Braicovich
Waste Management
John Campbell
Coyote Rentals & Sales. Inc.
Pat KembalI
SCGA Golf Course
Timothy C. Kuzelka
Law Offices ofTimorhy C. KU1.elka
Elizabeth Nigro
Nigro. Nigro & White, LLP
Rick Schoenfeld
KIA World ofTemecula
Joan Sparkman
Temecula Valley Bank
Jack van Hauter
Jack F. van Haaster CPA, Inc.
Roger Ziemer
Southern California Gas Co.
The population ofTemecula is expected to grow to 102,000 people by
the year 2013. The surrounding areas of Anza, Aguanga, French
Valley and the Temecula Wine Country will also increase substantially
over the next 10 years. The current level of service is at full capacity
now and cannot possibly handle these increases in population.
16-1
The need for this facility is now, and current efforts to delay this
project will ouly serve to exacerbate the problem.
Therefore we strongly recommend that the Temecula Planning
Commission and the City Council proceed with this project as quickly
as possible.
Sincerely,
(jh-
Ii taL-..,..-L,
O.IfJohnson
Chairman of the Board
Rex Oliver
President/CEO
~ ~ ~CY92.9 .,uv fll'iil!,Jl..;':..,c
Iwtcvh _l:lIt.€Ul:lJ'j,'t~"''IIl!!i''~ ~r:~, ',;,. SnJP'O
M U R R I "F A V~ll'"Y B~"T.:.;, =""'__''''',
26396 Beckman Court, SIC.C J\.lurriera, CA 92562 (951)677-7916
Fax (951)677-9976 www.murritracnambtr.org
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
16. a.B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, November 16, 2005.
Response 16-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment is
acknowledged. The comment states that the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce supports the
proposed hospital, and highlights the importance of additional hospital facilities in the area. This
comment does not address an environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis or
conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUu\
9-296
,
."
. Letter 17
I
I
.au.. ~~ .'
0..11.. .... /.h ....: ;,....? ~.'.'C~ "13~.'" .......~)f..:r.; n.. ,,1.(;),(1.'
~<ofl"~~ ..' .... .... -,-.
S~h~r-f7:~k~- ....
~h~~?Yl~- ....~ .
-t:h~.~r~Lr~-
1'JrM ~~,~?Jl-_h~J.; .A4J....-n4
4-?!t:'~r~ . ~?7UtzM ~ w~ ~
J- PIs ~ Is:!.j rf::h..<.-~rt-#'. ..'
. ?-;))f's~ ~.. WRO/v'6-~#'. .
3-#'''; g~cM~'''-~~ ..
~d.~d..u-~~~dL~ .
. t5A. tfVn~ei. ~. ~."'. ....., q .."
'7Y)1. s p~~...;<:J.h~,::L. 4-J..t.cl<.
,-?I;;o.' ..€~.~ .~~ ~ t;iu....
..".........-:. ........ . . ",.~'. . .
foP ..,...~~~...9~~
.'.~~~~'~'"
. .'72rw, f-.,~" ~...."'~ ~",nfh
..' ~. b......... f....a.....".,2."~..;.....-;.-..~-.. ..... :..... ..-........:,p,,;...
. . ,,' . .' " ,. -,,'. ," . ....,.... ".'. '. ," ,'"
. .,'
-v..>a.<-j .u-- c h~.,.t 6..0 0.. ~ J '?\P-<..~I{ brn..hp-r;L.
17-1
I
,~ .
...(u. ~..u.c _~ ~ o. f<, -/dM.?
t7 p.R~
r-,...._~.
"~c. -r
1" ~. ' ' .
... '.,
IflustraHon by
cdk.~~
Nlla Leger c.'lSey
S~/h~~~ .
~ A - . J -;::z::;.d::;:." .
- ().... - -'<.e dau--n~ ~ J_:) :
. . L/t.-f CIUO~
I .q3~5 Noah J .....,...~..,h."'.
to. <f'f --4 8 :2. ,., . -r I ." 2005 ""^ ""0'<0'0')2
;;/ 'T I~ Me, u.. A- 9;;? 5'9 '2 :
fS
RECYCLABLE
17-1
Cont.
17. Helen Chichester, November 16, 2005.
Response 17-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period.. The comment
states opposition to the proposed project location, size, and impact on the Los Ranchitos
neighborhood. Please refer to Responses 11-1 and 13-1. This comment expresses unsubstantiated
opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No further
response is required.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-299
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
November 21 , 2005
, - ~ ~~ ,'",
',,"'')
'.,
';:
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Attn: Emery Papp, Senior PlaMer
43200 Business Park Drive
Tcmecula, CA. 92590
NOV 2 1 2005
Letter 18
Dear Mr. Papp:
I have two main concerns. The first is the Hospital's ingress and egress. I 'object to the
presem.ac=s oll-DePOllola Roodbeing.l~laced.on.the east side of the proposed hospftal
property. My chief concern is that my property at 31625 DePortola Road (setting next to
their lot on theellSt) and the other two parcels east of my property all will be under
development iIi the near future. Our necessary access to DePortola Road needs to be
preserved and given consideration as futurc development occurs keeping an eye on the
big picture. If the November 14, 2005, Prcss Enteroris!< plot design is acclirate, their 18-1
proposed access is to the most east end of their DcPortola Road Lot paralld to the
drainage \OOur~e. All drawings that I have seen dUl'ing my sixteen years in Temecula show
Pio Pico Road having access on and through the lots now \U\der proposed development. I
think if there is to be an entry or exit onto OePortola Road that is the place that it should
remain.. Also,Dartola Road to the cast 011' of Margarita Road dead ends into the
drainage course. It seems to me that Dartola Road facilitates a perfect access onto the
proposed hospital development I think it should be used.
. .
This is an invitation to enhance communication with absent property owners/developers.
Sincerely,
~./.
~~
Don 1. Rhodes
31625 DePortola Road
Tcmccula, CA. 92592
(951 )501-9687 (cell)
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
18. Don L. Rhodes, November 21, 2005.
Response 18-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment
asserts opposition to the proposed De Portola Road access and supports access from Dartolo Road.
As stated on page 3-7 of the Draft EIR, the De Portola Road driveway at the northeast corner of the
project site will serve as secondary access, with turning movements restricted to in and out right
turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. The
traffic analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road.
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road on pages 5-11 through 5-14 of the Draft EIR presents an
analysis of a secondary access from the east of the project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the
proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. The analysis concluded that traffic and
biological resource impacts of Alternative 4 could be greater than those associated with the
proposed project. Therefore, secondary access via De Portola Road is the preferred access
compared to Dartolo Road. No further analysis is required.
CITY OF TEMECUL,A,
9-301
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~~9fP~.
...t~"
Ii *~)
t.~~:.
''''''''''''1P
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
Sean W.lsh .
Director
September 26, 2005
OCT 0 3 2005
Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Temecula Regional Hospital (EIR) SCH#2005031017
Dear Emery J. Papp:
We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that it is consistent with
the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for
shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
The shortened review period for an EIR shall not be less than 30 days. The review process for
the referenced project will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/28/2005.
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Morgan at (916)445-0613.
Z= ~r-
~erryRoberts
Director
cc: file
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.c..gov
,.
", (
Shortened Review Request Form
Form E
(To be filled out aud signed by the Lead Agency and submitted with DEIR or Negative Declaration to SCH)
To: State Clearinghouse
P.O,. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
From:
CITY OF TEMECULA
LeadAgency:
43200 Business Park Drive
Address
Temecula, CA 92590
Phone #: (951 ) 694-6400
SCH # 2005031017
Contact: EMERY J. PAPP, AICP SENIOR PLANNER
Project Title:
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Project Location:
TEMECULA
City
RIVERSIDE
County .
Explain "exceptional circumstances" (CEQA, Section I 5205(d)) for requesting a shortened review:
An initial study (SGB #2005031017) for this pro;ect was previous Iv released for public
review and cOllllIlent.with the intent of preparing a Mitigated. Negative Declaration. The
cOllllIlent period for the proposed Mitigated Negative De.claration was March 8, 2005 through
April 6, 2005. No State Agencies cOllllIlented on the original Initial Study. The scope of
the project has not changed; however, the City is now recommendiyg that a Focused EIR be
prepared. The attached letter was sent to agencies requesting their authorization for
a shortened review. The City received no respoilses to this letter.
List responsible and trustee state agencies, as well as any agencies that have commented on the project (Indicate whether the Respon-
sible and Trustee Agencies have granted approval for this shortened review):__
Native American Heritage Commission 8/15/05 No cOllllIlent concerning shortened request
Riverside Transit Agency 8/19/05
Pechanga Cultural Resources 8/29/05
No comment concerning shortened request
No cOllllIlent concerning shortened request
As designated representative for the lead agency, I verify, in their behalf, that there is no "statewide, regional, or areawide
significance" to this project.
,Length of review being requested:
30
days
D~lu/os
( .
Today's Date
EMERY J. PAPP
Print Name
~~,'Pyf
Revised January 2004
:B
..j
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive . Temecula, CA 92590. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033. Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(951) 694-6400. FAX (951) 694-6477
August 2,2005
Trustee and Responsible Agencies
Subject:
Request for Shortened Review of a Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional
Hospital Project
Dear Agency:
The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Focused
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The City of Temecula
is requesting a shortened (30-Day) review of the EIR for this project. The shortened review is being
requested because at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City heard public input and
. testimony, the City determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential impacts. identified in the
attached NOP should be prepared for this project. Furthermore, an Initial Study (SCH # 2005031017)
for this project was previously released for public review and comment with the intent of preparing a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005. No State Agencies commented on the original Initial Study.
Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been addressed. The scope of the project
has not changed; however, the City is now recommending that a Focused EIR be prepared.
Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the City of Temecula believes that the project is riot of statewide, regional, or area wide
significance, as defined in Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of. Temecula is
requesting that your agency approve the request for a shortened review period for this project. We
respectfully request that your agency provide. written approval of the request for a shortened review
period to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula,by August 15, 2005. If I may be of any
assistance, please call me at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emerv.papp@citvottemecula.ora.
Thank you for your consideration and quick response to this request.
Z:'/Il~ ..
~e~ J~app, ~CP "'If
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Nptice of Preparation
Initial Study
cc: (Continued on next page)
)
R:\C U P\2O()4\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Shortened Review Request ~ Agencies.doc
;,
State:
~
CA Department of Fish & Game
. Regional Water Quality Control Board
State Clearinghouse
CA Department of Water Resources
Federal:
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Land Management
Reaional:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Riverside Countv:
Airport Land Use Commission
Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Health Department
Planning Department
. Habitat Conservation Agency
Riverside Transit Agency
Transportation. Department
Utilities:
Eastern Municipal Water District
Inland Valley Cablevision
Rancho California Water District
. Southern Caiifornia Gas
Southern California Edison
Temecula Valley School District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Verizon
. Other:
-
Pechanga Indian Reservation
Eastern Information Center
Local Agency Formation Commission
Riverside County Transportation Commission
R:\C U P\2OO4\04-0463 Temecula RegioOat Hospital\Shortened R~view Request - Agencies.doc
,City of Temecula
J
Planning . Department
Notice of Completion
SCH # 2005031017
Project Title: TemecuIa Regional Hospital Contact Person: Emery J. Papp
PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan Title: Senior Planner
and. Conditional Use Permit; and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map .
Lead Agency: City of TemecuIa Phone: (951) 694-6400
Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive ,
City: Temecula, CA Zip: 92590
Project Location Within 2 miles
City of TemecuIa, Riverside County State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South, Airports: N/ A
south of De Portola Road and west of Waterways: TemecuIa Creek
Margarita Road Railways: None
Assessor's Parcel No.: Schools: Sparkman Elemeutary, Rancho Community (private school under
920-100-00 1 through 13 construction)
Total Acres: 35.31 . .
CEQA Document Type
[ ]NOP [ ]Negative Declaration [ ]Supplement EIR [ ]EIR (prior SCH #)
[ ]Earlv Consultation [X]Draft EIR [ ]Subsequent EIR [ ]Other .
. Local Action Type
[ ]GenerafPlan Update [ ]Specific Plan [X]Rezone [ ]Annexation
[X]Generl'li Plan Amendment [ ]Master Plan [ ]Prezone [ ]Redevelopment
[ ]General Plan Element [ ]Planned Unit Development [X]Use Permits [ ]Coastal Permit
[ ]Community .Plan [X]Site PlanlPlot Plan [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]City Development Project
[ ]Other .
Development Type.
[ ]Residential: Units_ Acres_ [ ]Water Facilities: Type MGD_
[X]Office: Sq.ft.140,000 Acres 35.31 Employees_ [ ]Transportation Type
[ ]Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ [ ]Mining: Mineral .
-
[ ]Jndustrial: Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employees_ [ ]Power: Type .
[ ]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment: Type
[ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type
[X]Other: Hosnital408 160 So. Ft.. Cancer Center 10 000 So Ft.. Fitness Center 8 000 So Ft. .
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
[X]AestheticNisual [ JFlood Plaiu/FIooding [ ]SchoolslUniversities [ ] Water Quality
[ ]AgricuItural Land [ ]Forest LandlFire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwater
[X]Air Quality [ ]Geologic/Seismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandJRiparian
[ ]ArcheologicallHistorical [ ]Minerals ~ [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife'
[ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing
[ ]Drainage/ Absorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]Toxic/Hazardous [X]Land Use
[ ]Economic/Jqbs [ ]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]TraftidCirculation [X]Cumulative Effects
[ ]Fiscal . [ ]RecreationlParks [ ]Veaetation [ ]Other: Light & Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
General Plan Use: Professional Office .
Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a .
request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office
and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
acres. The Tentative Parcel MaD is a reauest to consolidate eiaht (8) lots into one (1) Darcel.
Mail to: State Cleannghouse, 1400 Teoth Stree~ Sacrameoto, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
R:\C U P12004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospillll\NOTIcB OF COMPlETION FElR Q9-26-05.doc
I
EnviroDmental Affairs
Air Resources Board
APCD/AQMD
California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB:. Water Rights
..I.. Regional WQCB# 9
Y onth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Con:ui:rission
Native American Heritage Con:ui:rission
Public Utilities Con:ui:rission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land Con:ui:rission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare
..L Health Services.
REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
. Resonrces Agency
BoatinglWaterways
Coastal Con:ui:rission .
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
..J: Fish and Game
Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Con:ui:rission
..I.. Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housing
..I.. Aeronantics
..L California Highway Patrol
..L Caltrans District No. -L
..I.. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
_ Honsing & Community Development
Other
... State & Consumer Services
General Services
..I.. aLA (Schools)
..I..
..I..
..J:
..L
KEY
S=DOCun1ent sent by lead agency
X=Document sent by SCH
T=Snggested distribution
(
)
Public Review Period:
Ending Date: October 28, 2005
Date
Se tember 23, 2005
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
For SCH Use Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
. Clearance Date
Notes:
City of Temecula
43200 Bnsiness Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Emery J. papp, AICP
Phone (951) 694-6400
Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc.
Address 367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
R,IC U 1'12004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOTICE OF COMPLETION FEIR 09-26-05.doc
. ? .
DATE: September 26, 2005
TO: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF
A DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
PROJECT
The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Preparation of this EIR is required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision rnakers, public agencies, and the general public
with an objective and informative document that facilitates a basic understanding of the
proposed project, including direct, indirect, and cumulative environrnental effects. The EIR also
identifies feasible rnitigation measures to mitigate significant environmental effects. The City of
Temecula will use the EIR to obtain permits, agreernents, and approvals from necessary
agencies to implement the portions of the project under their respective authorities.
Proposed Proiect
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan
Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently
limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to
change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9
allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. The Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of
hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres.
The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
Proiect Location
The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west
of Margarita Road (Assessor's Parcel No.: 920-100-001 through 13) City of Temecula, Riverside
County, California.
Sic!nificant Environmental Effects of the Proiect
The Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the project indicates that
approval and construction of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in unavoidable
significant impacts with regard to Air Quality, Noise (related to helicopter flights), and Traffic and
Circulation. Irnplernentation of mitigation measures specified in the Draft Focused EIR will
reduce significant issues related to Aesthetics (light and glare), Noise (hospital operations), and
Transportation. Impacts considered in the Draft Focused EIR but found to be less than
significant include: Aesthetics (visual character or quality), Air Quality (odors and consistency
with adopted plans and policies), Hydrology and Water Quality, and Land Use and Planning. In
all other areas of environmental concern, the project was found to result in either no impact or a
less than significant impact. Pursuant to Section 150879(c)(6) of the CEQA guidelines, no site
in or adjacent to the project location is listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese List).'
1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List).
Located at http://www.dtsc.ca.aov/Calsites/. August 28, 2004. .
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOA 09-26-D5.doc
Public Review Period
The Draft Focused EIR is available for public review and comment from September 28, 2005
through October 28, 2005. All comments on the Draft Focused EIR must be in writing and
should be sent to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, CA 92592. Mr. Papp can also be contacted by phone at (951) 694-6400, by
fax at (951) 694-6477, and bye-mail at emerv.papp@citvoftemecula.ora.
Copies of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report are available at the City of Temecula
Planning Department at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, and available for public
inspection at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOA 09-26-05.doc
2
, City of Temecula
J
Planning Department
Notice of Completion
SCH#2005031017
Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital Contact Person: Emery J. Papp
PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan Title: Senior Planner
and. Conditional Use Permit; and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
Lead Agency: City of Temecula Phone: (951) 694-6400
Street Address: 43200 Bnsiness Park Drive
Cilv: Temecula, CA Zio: 92590
Project Location Within 2 miles
City of Temecula, Riverside County State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South, Airports: N/A
south of De Portola Road and West of Waterways: Temecula Creek
Margarita Road Railways: None
Assessor's Parcel No.: Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho COlUU1uuity (private school under
920-100-001 through 13 construction)
Total Acres: 35.31 .
CEQA Document Type . .
[ ]NOP [ ]Negative Declaration [ ]Supplement EIR . [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #)
[ ]Early Consultation [X]Draft EIR [ ]Subseauent EIR [ ]Other .
Local Action Type
[ ]GeneralPlan Update [ ]Specific Plan [X]Rezone [ ]Annexation
. [X]General Plan Amendment [ ]Master Plan [ ]Prezone [ ]Redevelopment
[ ]General Plan Element [ ]Planned Unit Development [X]Use Permits [ ]Coastal Permit
[ ]ColUU1uuitj .Plan [X]Site PlaulPlot Plan [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]City Development Project
[ ]Other .
Development Type .
[ ]Residential: Units_ Acres_ [ ]Water Facilities: Type MGD
[X]Office: Sq.ft.140,OOO AcreS 35.31 Employees_ [ ]Transportation Type
[ ]COlUU1ercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres - Employees_ [ ]Mining: Mineral
[ ]htdustrial: Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employees_ [ ]Power: Type
[ lEducational: [ ]Waste Treatment: Type
[ ]Recreational: . [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type
[X]Other: Hosnital 408 160 Sa. Ft.. Cancer Center 10000 Sa Ft.. Fitness Center 8 000 Sa Ft.
Project Issues Discussed in Document.
[X]Aesthetic/Visual [ ]Flood PlainlFlooding [ ]SchoolslUniversities [ ] Water Quality
[ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest LandIFire Hazard . [ ]Septic Systems [X]Watersupply/grouudwater
[X]Air Quality [ ]Geologic/Seismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandIRiparian
[ ]ArcheologicaJMistorical [ ]Minerals -. [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife
[ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth htducing
[ ]Drainage/ Absorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]ToxiclHazardous [X]Land Use
[ ]Economic/Jqbs [ ]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [X]Cwuulative Effects
[ ]Fiscal [ ]RecreationlParks [ ]Vegetation [ ]Other: Light & Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) .
General Plan Use: Professioual Office
Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a .
request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the ;z:oning from Professional Office
. and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eiaht (B) lots into one (1) parcel.
Mail to: State Oearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
I\:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula I\egional HospitallNOTICE OF COMPLETION FEIR 09-26-05.doc
1
REVIEWING AGENCmS CHECKLIST
KEY
S=DOCunient sent by lead agency
X=DocnmemsembySCH
T=Suggested distribntion
Resources Agency
BoatinglWaterways
Coastal Commission
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
. Conservation
....I Fish and Game
Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
-I. Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housing
-I. Aeronautics
..L California Highway Patrol
..L Caltrans District No. -L
-I. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
Housing & Community Development
Other
-. State & Consumer Services
General Services
-I. OLA (Schools)
Environmental Affairs
Air Resources Board
-I. APCD/AQ!\.1D
-I. California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
....I SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB:. Water Rights
-I. Regional WQCB# 9 ( )
Youth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commission
l Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land Commission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture .
Health & Welfare
..L Health Services.
Public Review Period:
. Starting Date: Se tember 28, 2005
Ending Date: October 28, 2005
Date
Se tember 23, 2005
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
For SCH Use Ouly:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
. Clearance Date
Notes:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Emery J. papp, AICP
Phone (951) 694-6400
Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc.
Address 367 South Gulph Road
King of Ptussia, PA 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Terneculo Regional Hospital\NOTICB OF COMPLETION FBIR 09-26-0S.doc
.2.
1).8 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
THE CALIFORNIAN
CITY OF TEMECULA .
DATE: September 26,2005
TO: Responsib_le Agencies.. IntereSted. Partles~ and Organlzatlo'ns
,
SUBJECT:' NO.TICE.OFCOMPLETIONiNOTICE OF AVAILASILfTY OF A
'._ V~t~~gg~E~~~~rJ~~~~'b~~t~~~~8~f6fORT FOR
The Cw o(Temecula,is the le;ad Agen2Y for a Focused Environm_ental Impact
Report EtR) ,for th8Propo.sed Temecula Regional HOSP. Ital Protect. Preparation of
this EI . is required by the. ~alifomia Envlronment~1 Quality Act (CEOA):_.
The pu fan EIR is to provide de . lie agencies, and the'
general with an objective and.lnfor that facilitates a basic
under of the p'roposed p'roject, I Ireet, and cumulative
r~~~ ~~~~~o~~ee~l~ 0 'iW~~U{~~ tB~~~
o~tain pennlts( agreements, an app.rovals from necessarY agencies to implem~nt
the portions 0 the proJect under 1tie_Ir respective authorities.
Proposed ProJect _, ' . . ,
The.-prep.:osed'preject-lncludes a General Plan Amendment"Zene:qhange
(PDO-9) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a TentatlveParcel Map.
The General Plan Amendment Is a request to. eliminate the Z2 overla,y.area from
the General Plan which currently .limits the height of buildings alongfiighway 79
" 'ene ChanQ.,e is a reQuest to change the zQrlIna from p'rolessienal
la Read Planned DevelQPtnenrOver1ay (PDQ.-81 to.Temecula
H6s elop.ment Overlay IPDO-9). The prep.esed PDO-9 allews a
heiR Jer 3Q%',_01 the roearea.of the hespltal:The Develepment
Plan an Co Use Pennlt is a request to. cer:lstructapproximately, 565,260
square feet e. h I{,medlcal offic!"l cancer ce. nter and. a. fitnes!'!. ca. nter's'l'~.R6 on
35.31 acres. Th {atlve Parcel Map Is a request. to censolidate eiQh {B) fots
into elJe (1) parce . .
Project Location, ,',,' , .
The proposed prolect is loc.atednorth of HighW~'79;Southk. seuth of DEl.-portela
Read and west of MalJlarita Rpad(Assessor's I:'arcel Ne:: l:120.100-001through
13) Qil;y ef Tamecula, Riverside ~eunty..California., ' .
Significant Envlronmental- Effechiof the_ P('OJect
Tlie Draft Focused Environmental Impact Repert (DEIR) P\'~pated for ttle project
. indicates _th roval, and censtruction ,of.ttle :Ter'necula- Ragienal Hosp'ltal will
result in una Ie significant )mpacts wijh regard to. Air Qualltv,.Noi.s8 (related
to helice te t.sl, and TraffiC :al)d Olrculatlen. ImpJementatfon ef mitls:lation
d ".the Draft Fecu. s~d EIR will reduce sIgnificant issue.s related
htandglare). Noise.fhosJ;!ltal 0 eratlon~), an. d. T.ranspertation.
ed In the Draft FecuseCl EIR but . 'than slgnificant
~(visu ~lity),Ai rs and ccinSl.stency'_
5 and gy an and land Use ana
Iller a aas of ental . eject was ,found to
ImQ.act .era " .signl Impact. Pursuant to Section
150879(.C EqAguid site in. jacentto the pro/ect location
is listed' rmaDe f Toxic u stance.s, Centro _ Hazardeus
W!'!-ste ~nd SUbsta.nces,Ust"( _ ),~' . <,
Public Review Period - . '. ". "-, .
The Draft FeCQSE;ld;EIRls available for J)ublic review 'and com
bar 28,2005 through Octeber"28, 2005. AILComments on
must be In.wrlting and sheuld be .sent to Emery J. Pap
Temecul~ 4320UBuslnes.s..Park. Driv~A.TemlroUla~CA
~fec~~~~p;g~~g~gtTe~~~~~~~t6~, bYf~aI~5 ,i
CO.Qles eflhe. Draft F. ocused Environmental' Impact Report j3:fe available 'at the CIty,
of Tamecura Planning Department at 43200 Business ParK Drive, Temecula, ana
available for P.ublic Inspection aUhe Temecula Library, located at 41000 Cl)unty
Center Drive, Temec~la: . -. - - -.
. PUB: Septemb"er 28, 2005'
S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
Notice of Preparation
August 3, 2005
AUG 1 1 2005
To:
Reviewing Agencies
Re: Temecula Regional Hospital
SCH# 2005031017
I,,'i.>T.-O'fPlAN#I,t
#~"I>
i*~~
li,.,-~.1
'li "..,~
~'~OFIlA\.W\ll"
Sean Walsh'
Director
Attached for your review and comment is the Notice' of Preparation (NOP) for the Temecula Regional Hospital draft
Environmental Impact Report (ElR).
Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 davs of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agencv.
This isa courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghonse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely
roaIlller. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the
environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number
, noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at
(916) 445-0613. .
SinCerelY"" ~ '
C Ch '
~v, /r-
Scott Morgan
Associate Planner, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95312-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3016 www.opr.ca.gov
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
2005031017
T emecula Regional Hospital
Temecula, City of
Lead Agency Contact
Name Emery J. Papp
Agency City ofTemecula
Phone (951) 694-6400
email
Address
City
Type
Description
NOP Notice of Preparation
A proposed General Pian Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Deveiopment Overlay District),
Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital
Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office
buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160.square fet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road.
'.
Fax
43200 Business Park Drive
T emecula
State CA Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City T emecula
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
N. of Hwy. 79 South i De Portola Road / Margarita Road
920-100-001 through 013
Range
Base
Section
Proximity to:
Highways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S
Airports N/A
Railways None
Waterways Temecula Creek
Schools Sparkman ES, Rancho Community (private school under construction
Land Use Vacant
Z: Protessional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
GP: Professional Office
Project Issues
AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Water Quality; Water Supply; Landuse; Noise; Traffic/Circulation: Other
Issues
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Department of Health Services; Native
American Heritage Commission; Department of Water Resources; Office of Historic Preservation;
Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol;
Caltrans, District 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Region 9
Start of Review 08/03/2005
End of Review 09/01/2005
Date Received 08/03/2005
NntA' Rlilnks in rt;qt~ fip.lds result from insufficient information provided bv lead agency.
"
::>
-I
':t
:>
~
:>
:>
02
*I:
:J:
t).
rn
~iI
(J
J\
,..
~
>
~
>.
..
C
::l
o
:J
o
'"' "
" "
o 0
m OJ
.. ..
a:" a:
COx Gl C
Eli; Em
CO 0 <<I ~Q)
CHi: C)::i
0II!Jt:: olS:2:
.r:..CD J: Q)
.!!.g Ctl ~
!La:: i:i::2
0..0
...
III
::;
C
o
;:;
::l
Q
l:
...
III
:5
)"
::>
,..
-e-
'E
o
()
~
ro
::;J
o
~m
j!l()
'"
S:s:
roD::
c:
0'0
.- ~
0>",
"0
D::m
'"
o
"
-;;,..
- ><
c",
-:;
"'0.
"0
E'"
"'"
.."
uo
"
o
u;
'"
E
I:
o
U
'"
~
:;:;00
::;J~
""
---'
:is,,
:s "
...'"
o
J
.,
e
::;J
o
00
.,
....
o
"
o
u;
'"
E
E
o
U
"'0
'0"
:;.-=
--'co
Cf)
$"
.. "
-..
00-,
.
"
".2
0'"
","
'0 a:
:s_
'rIm
","0
u$()
a-<=
~:5t:::
>"0
a:uz
o
0>
o
""
-;;"
-"
c"
cit3
"a:
e~
"',..
.."
uCl
o
o
I:
E
'"
e
"-
"
o
'" ""
" "
a: 1:
,,>< "
1:"'"
IU ~ 6
c)~-t..>
~<=-
"'U()jg
'5t::5
_0"
,u.. 0 :c
'"
"
.2
o
'"
"
"
"
'"
<:s
..R
" "
eCl
o=ai
.."
.. '"
a:z
n
<:>
~
o
"
-;;
em
fIl- 5
Iii 0
~E
" 0
UI-
'"
"
c:
"
"
ii:
CU<foo
"... "
..2 0::' 6-
"'I- 0
"-,,
~ >."'"
""1:-
o"~
<=""
" "'<=
I-<U
~
..
1:
..
-;
~
oll
'"
.5 c
';g
0"
"'<=
~o
0-,
- "
0."5
" "
co
g
"
o
'5>
"
a:
,..
"
ID
o
o
,,~'"
N 0)..90:
mEroc
c C,CO:
g,g'Eil:
3:i:8ffi
a:wUcn
1"
"
I:
i3
o
o
]j
o
~
~
o
"
'Ii
00
vr~
"0
Eo
-."
-.;"
U::;;
N
~
o
1:
'Ii
0<=
0.
0~
" 0
E-,
"'.0
"'0
UID
o
o
c:
'0;
::;J
o
I
o1l
00
c:
'"
~
I-
'(;
"
o
u;
'> "E
cn~
. _ 00
en= Q)
" ,,:I:
U) co c >.
(J) ~ E?,-g
~ caQ)ro
__ O<(rn
~.
I:
~ :;;
'" '"
... e
" "-
o "
m .2
&1i>~
,,<= "
E~~
"Cl 0
Cl"U
olI.~!
~.B:O
ii:~'~
II 0
;; '"
en "fi
" :s
O"IL
U 0 .
..-<
"2=:5
~;:: Q.\
oc.c
:!::Ero
'iio~
Uuw
n
n
6:
"
o
'5>
'"
a:
u;
"
,",0
IDU
U10
a'"
~~
a:u
o
g:
LU
ro
()
o
...
"
o
t ;m
a: .0
Q)c~
1:" _
ca. = 0
C)<(cE
oll E'~ ~
.J:: Eo 0>
~ ro >.E:
LLI-E~
'0
ft; ffi-
,llE
-~ '"
" E
.l::E
D::N
.g/i
=-0
.2e
0.'"
UCl
n
~
"
o
0."5>
B~
.!!l",
vm~
",,,,,
o~ g>
O(5<C
~"'"
a:~.9
o
1!
"
o
'"
'"
~
:s
o
'"
/2
;;;;0
-tl- ~
,,~
"e-j
"-I:
15=:i
~ 0
'"
"
c:
"
"'0
a: ~~
o
",,,
""
.."-
.::0-;::
rom
UI-
e
-;
...
,..
"
~
<= "
~ .0
:t:..::.:::Q)
-- 0.
IV .S-en
"211>_
"-00
~c~
,- _J: !E
lJ~o
II 0
"
o
~
"
'"
"
o
U
:;;
"
I:
'"
Cl
oll "
-;~.Q
u:' m g>
~-a:
0"..
.. ~c
Q.Oi::
..""
CCl::;;
o
"
.2
-;
i: ~
".2
"',..
5~
u"
~"
0"
..:s$
0.",
..0
ca:
,..
2'
" "
ccg
wo"
.!!:-a
,,--,
'~fE'.li;
:!:EtJ)
..00
uua:
n
o
€
""
e ~~tE
c &0
.~ >."fi
Q) u...!! c
0::: It) 10 ~
>. m>m
cn::g 0- 0
1D(\'l aee
co> ::im
8~ a:ou:
~~O
a:u
'"
'0
"
'e-
"-
" '"
Se
..'"
"0.
o~
g.~
""
~:s
1-'"
o
a ~ c:
Ql"E 0
.0' ~ m
a. I: '5
I: i5
8c &'
~-~~~
Olo.{3o>
c: 0-- c:
"ia;Z'oo
~>CD~
0&00
:rC:.::::i:J:
~
.a
:;
.Q
0,
~ <
00 "':s "
'E "
Q) ::s CD
E o~"
't:~o
t "',,0
ctl ..::t.s:: lL
04Cf)'5
~ -g g!~
Q5 .f t; t'5
.r:
50
~
iL
oll
i:'
v; 5
~ i!!
0_1: Q)
ILO.D
~:g~
.wSc:
g.e~
0...<
n
on
-"
"0
.Q~
:iro
a:<=
,..l!
a::~~
"'''ID
ID>'"
O~.E
O_:c
>""
>""
D::()n::
o
{l
.!.; 0.
e :s
"-,,,
'"
J!!15
"'I-
~~
'0 _
E::;;
$
..
..
~
'0'0
$~
....
~o
g>1D
CC":c>.
-.. ~.
"1:"
"E&Ql
... cn::-l
.scaD
=cQl
.. "':s
U:;;(/)
o
o
.g :5
o i!l
]!gro
:r:W5
~ .. 0
~--~ Q)
0""
!E!ii'
0..."
.
"
o
-=
!f!,0
,,<=
~, .Q g
c: > aP f:!
o CD n:: m
en mC..!!:1:
Ql OS~
CD ~ a ,5 0
5s ;:'ffio
s g [t..J>
~30
o
o
c:
o
""
19
~
o
.,
o
o
..
"
0"
-0
i:""
,,0
(/)2
-u;
I! "
,,0
"u
c;o
o
~<=
00
.(/)
"0
...-
0.:0
.. :s
C"-
~
o
13
"
(/)
'"
"
o
-~
"
" (/)
~ -
G> ,....
C 0.-
& g. iji
CI_E
-coc
0" e
.w'Q)>
.0..0 C
g~w
'"
..
"
~
..
(/)
o
"
.2 0.
n; ~
l!! "E
M. ~
a:""
oa ro en
",E-
.:.:<="
~g~
",I-E
'O"ffi 6"6
Q.~ -5 13
& . C Ql
DmwCf)
.
e Ql
1: 0
o lii
U u;
Cfl .iij
2 ~
g 1'5
: ~~
a: ""
... .gu:
$ -
~ ~ 0
~ 0"
lP~~.Q
-.... I:'-~
_ 0 2:::
cnm::;o
~.
~
.. "
.- '"
c E
uiu
"",
~-,
"'x
.."
ua:
o
II
n
1:0:
"
o
0>
"
a:
"
'w
..
ID
~
"
>
.....0::
",0
u"
a~
~8
@:
"
o
'5>
..
a:
"''''
m"
u<
aJ!!
~lii
a:(/)
o
o
B
m
:s
o
e
1:
o
u
m ~ g
u :> co
:; :> ::J
0(;0
: ~~2
0:: c => co
:; CD c~
1; :Ego
==,,,C~6
CD...~Em
i~.ai~
cn!:DWOO
o
NN
-"
.g~
-"
.!!o
oCl
-0
'" "
,,-
.~ ~
m"
u::;;
:1:
0'"
:s~
.!!..
cw
-"
"'"
:;-;::
~ "
- <=
cam
u'"
o
o
~
"
1ii
.. "
.. '"
o "
~ 3<
lP .~
V).!:l! 0
.slv:c
1i ~~
!oc~
'0 J~ '5
'S.e1i
&'Ql Q)
c>o
"
o
u;
'"
E
I:
00 0
"E 0
'" "
~ .2
:1::1.11
., E co
'000
E()
1!
..
o
"'",
""
.26
-;-,
I: "
.!!~
""
""
a:o
oll
"
o
1ii
i:
"
.. . I:
.C E co
01:"
uo'5
.~() :2
m-.wQ)'
- ~> >
U:lP$
mc(/)
n
"
:g
'Ii
o
-"
~:o
.."
~(/)
i.s
Ul-
ei:
"
o
-5>
"
a:
0>0
1D:ir
U .-
aO
~"
a:~
II
'0
:;;
o
'"
e
1:
o
U
.. .l!J
G> <=
U '"
g 0:
'" :;;
~~"tV
;~~
-;~o
~,,"
lPQ).Q
-; ~.~
0000
o
'"
~
"''''
Q~
-'5
:!!::;;
E"
~.>
.. '"
uo
o
o
'"
"
e
:s
o
'"
"1;'
a: "
~"
.!9::J
..- 0
~~~
'OeC>
.w 5=ai
0.",,,
"""
ca:z
.
~
..
<=
5
o
e
-
"
o
U
..
"
u
"
J!!"
"'1"
.0"
~()
u'"
-"
~=8
I-~
'(;1-
.<
0.0
..w
cu
"
o
1ii
'3
'"
..
a:
"
'0
:li
-;;
..
...
~
o
1:
...
I:
"
..
0.',.
"
C
g
o
...
-
u
EE
'" :s
cE
uiE:
;m
:2e
....
u::;;
....
o
"i::=
Ci~
-0
c"-
.;.
,,-'
(!~
~'ttl-
..<=
UU
o
o
..
..
o
~
"
m
'"
"
"
"
2'0
..=
EE
wgj
'(;U
...!!l
0"
-"
lI::"
00
'"
"
c:
"
..
ii:
~
o
..
o
IE
o '"
..0 fj -2
~ ~ ..
0.. "
flU
~lPQ)
o D::"tV
C)~ w-.
"
'"
J!!
1:
"
:I:
" ,..
3 ~
" '0
" '"
1f $!
~ E-~
~E:8
"0"
zuo
"
'"
:s
o
<=
o
.
,..
o
"
'"
>
I~
"
o
'00'
'5
" 0
I: '"
.. 1l
CI .~
oll "
<= (/)
.!L 1'5
II. 1"
o:E~
t::U:~
m_ ~
g.8'~
Q'C/)W
n
.,
E
'"
Cl
'0
c:
'"
.r:
.!!in
..
'"
o
o
'"
....
o
"
o
'0
"
1ii
'0
0.
:::>
-
'"
..
-'
~
"
o
'6>
/2
~-5
..0
CI'"
oll:!2
<="
!lEi
ILO
N
"
o
'6>
/2
~.~
,,"
C!J8
oll,..
<=><
'" "
-'"
u.lD
n
n
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Preparation
To:
Distribution List (Attached)
Subject:
No.tice o.f Preparatio.n o.f a Draft Fo.cused Enviro.nmentallmpact Repo.rt
Lead Agency:
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Co.nsulting Firm:
P&D Consultants
800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270
Pasadena, CA 91101
Co.ntact:
Pho.ne Number:
Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
(951) 694-6400
Co.ntact: Laura Stetson, AICP
Pho.ne Number: (626) 304-0402
The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental
impact reportforthe project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope
and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities
in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency
when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached
materials. A copy of the Initial Study LL is _ is not) attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date
but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Emery Papp at the address shown above, We will need the name for a
contact person in your agency.
Pro.ject Title:
Temecula Regional Hospital
Pro.ject Lo.catio.n: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Pro.ject Descriptio.n: A pro.po.sed General Plan Amendment, Zo.ne Change (Planned Develo.pment
Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Develo.pment Plan and Co.nditio.nal Use Permit to. co.nsider
a Regio.nal Ho.spital Facility co.nsisting o.f a 320-bed ho.spital appro.ximately 408,000 square feet in
size, two. medical o.ffice buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square fo.o.t
cancer center, and an 8,000 square foo.t fitness rehabilitatio.n center, all to.taling appro.ximately
566,160 square feet, Io.cated o.n the no.rth side o.f Highway 79 So.uth, appro.ximately 700 feet west
o.f Margarita Ro.ad.
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Date
L:\env\8300s\8302 _ OO\IS\NOP.doc
City of Temecula
Planning Department
PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital
Agency Distribution List
DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 2,2005
CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety................................... (x)
Fire Department..................................... (x)
Sheriff .................................................... ( x )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD)................... (x)
Planning, Advance................................. (x)
Public Works.......................................... (x)
STATE:
Caltrans ................................................. ( )
Fish & Game.......................................... (x)
Mines & Geology................................... ( )
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ........ ( x )
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)........... (x)
Water Resources................................... (x)
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ...................... (x)
Fish and Wildlife Service ....................... (x)
Bureau of Land Management ................ ( x )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ............ ( x )
Western Riverside COG ........................ (x)
L:\env\8300s\8302 _ OO\IS\NQP .doc
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission............... (x)
Engineer................................................ ( )
Flood Control......................................... (x)
Health Department................................ ( x )
Parks and Recreation............................ ( )
Planning Department ............................ (x)
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ( x )
Riverside Transit Agency...................... (x)
Transportation ....................................... (x)
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ................................................ ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ........... ( x )
Inland Valley Cablevision ...................... (x)
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ... ( x )
Southern California Gas. . .. .......... (x)
Southern California Edison.................... (x)
Temecula Valley School District............ (x)
Metropolitan Water District.................... (x)
Verizon .................................................. (x)
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... (x)
Eastern Information Center ................... (x)
Local Agency Formation Commission... ( x )
RCTC ................................................... (x)
Homeowners' Association ..................... (x)
Los Ranchitos
Santiago Estates
County of San Diego, Planning Dept..... ( )
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment)
Lead Agency:
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Consulting Firm:
P&D Consultants
800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270
Pasadena, CA 91101
Contact:
Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP
Phone Number:
(951) 694-6400
Phone Number: (626) 304-0402
Issues to be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional
Hospital, as determined by a scoping session held on April 20, 2005 include the following:
Aesthetics - Height, massing, and view impacts
Air Qualitv - Construction and daily operations
Hvdroloav and Groundwater - On-site drainage
Land Use and Plannina - General Plan and Zoning Amendments are required
Noise Issues - Operations related to helipad and potential for increased traffic related noise
Traffic/Circulation Issues - Potential neighborhood street impacts
Proiect Alternatives
City of Temecula
. P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Proiect Title Temecula Reaional Hosoital
Lead Anencv Name and Address City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Emerv J. Paoo, AICP, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400
Project Location North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and
aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road .
Project Sponsor's Name and Address UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA
19406
General Plan Desfanation Professional Office IPOT
Zoning Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8)
Prooosed: Planned Develooment Overlav (PDO-9)
Description of Project The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative
Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request
to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The
Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories
within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the
zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for
30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to
construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical
office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad
space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a
request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the
hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall
project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning
Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are
under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the
extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation
Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits
are intended to aoolv onlv to the non-hosoital facilities.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting . Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family
residences to the south, single-family residential to the north,
professional office, commercial and educational to the west
(currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to
the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south
and Interstate 15 is located aooroximatelv 2 miles to the west.
Other public agencies whose approval Other public agencies which may require approval and/or
is required subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside
County Flood Control, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC),
California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health
Deoartment.
R:\C U PI2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Aariculture Resources X Noise
X Air Quality Population and Housing
Biological Resources Public Services
Cultural Resources Recreation
GeoloQvand Soils X T ransportation/Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems
X HvdroloQV and Water Quality X Mandatory FindinQs of SiQnificance
X Land Use and Plannina None
Determination
. On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on. the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that.although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the proiect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired. .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is reauired, but it must analvze on Iv the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are.
imposed upon the proposed project, nothinQ further is required.
s~1f.p
~/~/ 6
Date '
Emery J. Papp. AICP. Senior Planner
Printed name
For
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospital\lnilial Study PRAFT No. 2.doo
2
~,,~_&,o~\L._-_..
/
"
,~...~-
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
uali of the site and its surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
x
a.
b.
x
c.
x
d.
x
Comments:
1. a.: No Impact According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located on or
near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista.
1. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The residential areas to the north of the project site currently maintain
views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain. The proposed project includes two hospital bed towers
that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4 stories. It is anticipated that views of Palomar
Mountain will be impacted as a result of the project. The current City of Temecula General Plan Land Use
Element indicates a Specific Plan Overlay exists on the site that requires all buildings constructed at the
proposed location be limited to one or two stories. The tallest portion of one of the proposed hospital bed
towers is at more than 100 feet high with the eave line of the top floor at approximately 85 feet. As a result,
there is a General Plan Amendment as part of this project that would eliminate the Specific Plan Overlay for
the site, leaving the underlying Professional Office zoning district to determine the maximum height
requirement. The current Development Code calls out a maximum building height of 75 feet in the Professional
Office zone. A Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) is also being proposed for this site
only to allow the proposed height bed tower height.
The current underlying zoning designation does allow buildings up to 75 feet in height. If the General Plan
Land Use Element Specific Plan Overlay were eliminated on this site, the hospital could be constructed to a
height of up to 75 feet under current zoning. Impacts to views in the area would not be additionally impacted
by allowing the bed tower to exceed 75 feet. It is recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment to
remove the Specific Plan Overlay and the Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) be
evaluated in a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address the impacts to surrounding properties
resulting from the proposed height of this project.
1. c: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located between a State Highway (79 South) to the
south and very low density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The project site is currently vacant.
The residential area immediately north of the project is an area with large-lot single family rural and equestrian
homes. The current General Plan Land Use Specific Plan Overlay on the subject property was put in place to
protect the residential area from large scale commercial development. Highway 79 South and Margarita Road
in the vicinity of the subject project site are commercial corridors. This property is considered to be a suitable
location for the proposed project, and there is a demonstrated need for the proposed project in the community.
However, the impacts to views and other aesthetic impacts created by the mass of the proposed buildings
must be analyzed in a focused EIR for this project as it will require a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning
Amendment to obtain approvals for the proposed height.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaMnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
3
1. d.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or
glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital
and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to
comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance
655. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code
and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one-
foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot
candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down
and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has
proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition,
the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded.
The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval,
all windows above the second floor will require glazing and/or tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing
and/or tinting will reduce the Illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires
all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655
requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of
glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00
P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 :00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late
evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar
Observatory.
The following are Mitigation Measures and/or Conditions of Approval that are recommended as a part of the
proposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is
mitigated to a less than significant level:
a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded,
directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be
shut-off by 11 :00 P.M.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the
proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive
light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance
light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate.
c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for
General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in
parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at
project boundaries.
d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall maintain
glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is
emitted from the upper floors.
e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or
greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include
berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the
project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any
walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern
property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnftial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
4
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-a ricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use?
x
a.
b.
x
c.
x
Comments:
2. a. b.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15-
20 years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for
agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech,
September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. However,
the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable
agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This
property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State
Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve
changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause
other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural
uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses
other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered
a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego
County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth
of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regionalliospita~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
5
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air ualit Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin or ro'ected air uali violation?
. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
x
b.
x
c.
x
d.
x
e.
x
Comments:
3. a. - e.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is not able to meet the thresholds established
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for clean air standards in the region. The realization of the
project will not obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan goals, but is likely to be in conflict
with the policies established in the Regional Air Quality Plan. The City of Temecula has identified a need in the
community for the proposed project and will carefully analyze the merits of the project and weigh them against
the air quality goals and objectives for the region in a Focused EIR for the project.
An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was prepared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional
Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16, 2004. The study identified two primary areas of concern that
may cause potentially significant impacts; construction emissions and operational emissions.
The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project.
Table 1 Dailv Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibslday)
.
ROG NOx CO PM10
Construction Emissions 42 266 353 363
Mitigated Construction 42 266 353 184
Emissions
SCAQMD Significance 75 100 550 150
Thresholds
Exceed Thresholds? NO YES NO YES
The NOx and PM10 emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the
NOx and PM10 levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated
. to a level much less than without mitigations.
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnitial S1udy DRAFT No. 2.doc
6
The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project.
Table 2 Dailv Onerational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibs/day)
ROG NOx CO PMlO
Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01
Vehicular Source Emissions 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4
Total Unmitigated Emissions 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41
Unmitigated Area Source 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01
Emissions
Mitigated Vehicular Source 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01
Emissions
Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02
SCAQMD Significance 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0
Thresholds
Exceed Thresholds? YES YES YES NO
Table 2 above identifies ROG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. The
primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions such
as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions.
The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project
would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the
exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts
are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10.
The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental
Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as
either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The
primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an
"extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone
and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PMlO.
The State standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is
0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the
Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO)
are 9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter
(PM10) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic
meter over 24 hours.
The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the
Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as a
reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December
16,2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnil;al Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
7
to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula
generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County.
The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative
modes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature
trees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to
the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the
proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative
mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to
employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TDM practices are
designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation
measures.
The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will
provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RT A and Caltrans
to finalize the location and design of the bus stop.
The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which
the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regard to the immediate
surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air
Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as
having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the
Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located
within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants
considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of
Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. .
The City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General Plan
Update. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant
level. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the
General Plan" on April 12, 2005. The Final EIR includes a statement of overriding consideration for these
impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of
overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The
application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a
change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses
allo,/\,ed, floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the land
use designation within the current General Plan, but is inconsistent with a current Specific Plan overlay for the
site which limits development to one or two stories. As a result, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to
remove the Specific Plan Overlay designation from the General Plan for the project area. The project is,
. however, consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor area ratio) found in the
Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor Area Ratio 50%.
The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot Coverage of 15.7%
(242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital project was not
proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site would be
769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059 square
feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio
permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies
within the General Plan.
The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors.
The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and
could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed
project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors,
. R:IC U P\2004104.0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
8
dust and/or other pollutants. The exceedance of thresholds of significance for short-term and long-term air
quality impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed project will be evaluated in a Focused EIR
that will be prepared for this project.
The following Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures are recommended to be incorporated into the
EIR and placed on the following entitlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map):
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air
Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction
of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department.
b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the
state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and
subsequent use.
c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be
discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous
waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health
Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department.
d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of
the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered
at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from
the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative
transportation.
f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for
the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City
of Temecula Planning Department.
g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the
hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car
and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the
facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital.
h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project.
The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards.
i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-
resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100
days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula
may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to
be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
9
j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the
Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large
equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-
fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and
deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably
possible.
k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
I. During .construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent
fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading and/or before construction begins and in
the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be
watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during
construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best
management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading
and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel.
m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust
on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this
requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the
project construction. .
n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the
load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or
from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections
23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be
sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks,
including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent
runoff, to reduce/eliminat6' soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. .
o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a
ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the
contractor via incentives or other inducements.
p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site
limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500
feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast
corner of the project site).
r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active
portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to. prevent
fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application
of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering
shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and
evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include
complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to
time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at its sole cost.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
10
'.
s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant
at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and
roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or
excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish
and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to
prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the
Applicant.
t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent
streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping
of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the
end of each day of grading and/or construction.
u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent
properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the
Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by
the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and
operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City
Engineer at his sole discretion.
v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of
Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement
of grading and excavation operations.
w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater
than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of
dum. .
x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and
construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by
the City.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
11
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
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
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru tion, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
4. a. b. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: A habitat assessment study was prepared for the project site
(Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004). The study identified a
man made flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site, which contains riparian
vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes
have also been identified within the man made channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be
jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a condition
of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may
require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers and potentially
clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood channel
may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth & Environmental,
Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed
alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts
to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified
biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In
addition, if activity within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur between
April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided to determine
the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
(Empidonax trai/lii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the construction of the
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~ln~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
12
bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete
their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project with Mitigation
Measures.
4. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery sites.
The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including
area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has been
grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord.
8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the
site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site.
4. f.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP.
The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants as
stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a
habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study prepared by Amec (September
14,2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential habitat suitable for Burrowing
Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading permits.
The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project and enforceable
pursuant to the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned:
a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city
Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the
flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site.
b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are
required.
c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing
activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive
or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols.
d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel.
e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the
bridge across the channel.
f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place from April 15 through July 15, the
applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell's Vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax trai/Iii extimus). In the event
either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules)
and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their
reproductive cycles. .
g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is
imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further
environmental review.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospila~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
13
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
x
b.
x
c.
x
d.
x
Comments:
5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (HistoricaVarchaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital
Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not
identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as
a result of the proposed project.
5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for
historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact
that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not
known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within
close proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site
for paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required.
5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The
project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the
project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as
enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project:
a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation
agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and
disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site.
b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological
artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment
and disposition to the extent authorized by law.
c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring
during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost.
d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided
and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the
Mitigation Measure a above.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
14
e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004
and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures.
i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga Tribe
monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the
authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or
large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain
remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate
fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently
preserved.
iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent
retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment.
iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion
of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the
Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to
the palentologic and archaeological resources.
v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of
Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older
sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with recommended
mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
15
6. GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvin :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
ii. Stron seismic round shakin ?
iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
s readin ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or ro e ?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
6. a. i-iv and c:Less Than Significant Impact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the
proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc., May 14,
2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The
proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the
project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large
magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the
event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition includes
subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of
structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the
study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of
building slabs and pavements.. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to
concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has a
moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs
should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and
seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to a
level that is less than significant and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional HospitaMnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
16
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration,
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation.
i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be
removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a
minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical.
ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The
depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-
grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed.
The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a
heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly
above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork
should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical.
iiL The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be
adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill
materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials,
have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of
less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill.
During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches)
may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill.
iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned
to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly
mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should be
tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent
lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior
to sloping. .
v. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral
support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure
excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with
consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design.
vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified;
moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. The upper 12-inch densification
should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the
initial grading operation.
vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As
such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with
conventional earthmoving equipment.
viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
(Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaMn~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
. 17
6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion
control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate
to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not
located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies
the soils on the project site as ''very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004.
6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and
waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the
public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and
waste treatment facilities are adequate toprocess the anticipated flow from the proposed facility.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnltial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
18
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. .
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
dis osal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
uarter mile of an existin or ro osed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Comments:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project
consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The
proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed
project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated,
September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of
approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County
Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
19
7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to
the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
7. e.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project.
7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include
a private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities.
As a oondition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical
and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency
response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project,
which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event
of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires: No impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project:
a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage
and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling,
storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal
regulations.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
20
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: .
a.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
re uirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which ermits have been ranted?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodin on- or off-site?
Create. or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
olluted runoff?
Otherwise substantiall de rade water ualit?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
ma?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would im ede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Comments:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management
Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution
Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if
the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of
dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the
appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge over/across the flood control
channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant irnpact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
21
8. b.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
. volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local
development standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and
ground water recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water
District (RCWD), adjacent to the project site to the northeast. The City has instructed the applicant to contact
the RCWD and request that a Water Supply Assessment be prepared for this project. RCWD has not provided
any comments of immediate concern at this time. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project
8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not
alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion
. or siltation on-or off-site.' The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because
the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and
maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the
proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works
Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on-
site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
8. e.,f.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project will add a significant amount of impermeable
surface area on the project site. As a result, there will be an increased level of runoff during a rain event. The
Hydrology and Drainage Analysis for this project indicates that the project would not create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management
Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution
Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. The project
will be conditioned to implement Best Management Practices to reduce potential impacts caused by runoff and
will be required to implement mitigation measures that are proposed by responsible and trustee agencies. The
City recommends that a Water Quality Management Plan be prepared for this project and that impacts related
to drainage and potential for polluted runoff be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this
project.
8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown
in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements to Temecula Creek have
resulted in a new 100-year and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the
primary drainage course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The
dredging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements
and dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood
Insurance Rate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November
20, 1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
22
The proposed project site was is located within the Vail lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of
Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail lake Dam and has submitted to the City
a Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An
additional study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The
FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the
event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail lake Dam. The proposed project will place
structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996),
The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated
to impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address
flow and drainage facilities and provide comments and/or recommendation concerning the failure of the Vail
lake Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail lake
Dam Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A
revised Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam
Inundation Area.
A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted
floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge
capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and
letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 100-year
flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail lake is a 51,000 acre-feet
facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top
and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation of
1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in partial
flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss,
however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of
structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from
Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of
additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood
insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula
Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the
updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of
Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:\C U PI2004\04-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
. 23
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Ph sicall divide an established communi ?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding ormitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
x
c.
x
Comments:
9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use
is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding
commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an
established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is
planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the
community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation
plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The
proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to
exceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General
Plan Amendment is approved.
9. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations.
There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will
change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDO-8, to T emecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan because
the project site is within the Specific Plan Overlay which restricts height on the subject property to one or two
stories. A General Plan Amendment has been proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay on the property
to allow for the proposed height increase.
All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary
change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof
area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO
as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The
project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be
impacted as a result of the project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment will bring
the project into compliance with land use policies and development criteria. Compatibility issues will be
analyzed in a Focused EIR for this project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospltalllnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
24
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
eneral lan, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian?
x
b.
x
Comments:
10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are
considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally-
important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain
such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
25
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
c.
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro' ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro' ect?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
x
a.
b.
x
x
d.
x
e.
x
f.
x
Comments:
11. a.-c..:Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De
Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office uses between the project site and
Margarita Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De Portola Road. The state highway
forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the south.
The City Council of the City of T emecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities
in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following:
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or
designated public or private primary, secondary or high school.
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured
property line to property line).
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future
assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with
hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance
Shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot
setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
26
Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and
constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor
blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or
inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter.
Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences.
The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction).
Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is
approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol Park, which is
approximately 1 ,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho
Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The
helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet
away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding
lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11.
The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling
approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the
medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story.
The proposed project also includes a he.lipad on the northeast portion of the site.
The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior
areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal
commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this
area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the nearest
proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79
South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South.
The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which
will buffer some of the noise.
The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the
hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows
per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double
paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will
mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be
temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during
construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated
with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's
noise element in the General Plan will be enforced.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General
Plan in 2005 when they approved Resolution 05-43 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of
Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General
Plan". The General Plan EIR included a statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant
impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural
resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. The information is contained
within the current General Plan which was adopted in 2005. The City of Temecula has been consistent with
land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is deemed reliable. The
Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial study and the approval
of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall be binding requirements of the
project approval.
R:IC U P\2004\04-D463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doo
27
There is a potential that the proposed use will have an influence on vehicular c1rculation patterns and that the
potential exists for additional vehicular traffic to be experienced in the residential areas north of the project site.
This potential for increased noise on residential streets will be addressed in a Focused EIR prepared for the
project.
11.d:Potentially Significant Impact: The General Plan noise element identifies the project site as an area
that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level of 65 CNEL is permitted
for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial and offices uses. The
primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed project is required to
construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the noise impacts on-
site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from generators and
equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a residence and
includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level at adjacent
property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above the
maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities.
The following conditions of approval will be required as a part of the proposed projects entitlements as stated
in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004) and the City of Temecula General Plan
Final EIR:
a. All construction equipment fixed and/or mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes,
bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained
mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to
issuance of grading permit.
b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous
barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound
. blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties
abutting the project site.
c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the
Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going).
d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors,
including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units,
ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In
addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, and/or
structures such as walls for acoustical shielding.
f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for
service and maintenance.
g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from
residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to
the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM.
h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within y., mile of the hospital site unless
required to allow for emergency access.
i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless
required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospi1a~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doo
28
j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation
Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies
detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for the helipad.
k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of
construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically
Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an
occupied residence.
Monday-Friday
Saturday
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Federal/State Government Holidays
11. e.-f.:Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and
there is not an airport, public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. However, the project
proposes to construct a helipad used for transporting patients to trauma centers at other locations. There
is no method available to quantify the number of helicopter trips related to the hospital operations as a
result of trauma. Noise impacts on neighboring residents and equestrian uses should be analyzed in a
Focused EIR prepared for the project to determine the effects of helicopter noise on the surrounding area.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
29
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
x
b.
x
c.
x
Comments:
12. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional
medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in
the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth
(residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding
community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to
induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20
years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
12. b.-c.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential
uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or
remove/replace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
r
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
30
13. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
x
Fire rotection?
Police rotection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other ublic facilities?
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or
result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide
additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better
emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies.
The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide
public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to
the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities.
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made
aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to
obtain 'Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the
surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal
Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and
the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge
volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all
hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital
flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is
responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated
connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of
$3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU i.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development
fee is approximately $120,000.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
31
14. RECREATION.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facilit would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
x
a.
b.
x
Comments:
14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project
will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes.
The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result
of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project.
Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc
32
15. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC. Would the project:
a.
X
b.
X
c.
X
d.
X
e. X
f. X
g.
bus turnouts, X
Comments:
15. a.-c: Potentially Significant Impact: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip generation information have
been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Medical Center, Linscott Law &
Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill Hughes, November 23, 2004).
The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road. The proposed project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260
square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000 square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer
center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will
generally be constructed in two phases and will generate a total of 11 ,458 vehicle trips per day with 865
vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact
analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway
Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase
one includes approximately 150 beds for the hospital and 80,000 square' feet of medical office space. Phase
one is anticipated to generate approximately 6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak A.M.
hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were
assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were assigned to De Portola Road.
As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study.
The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in
several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA. The TIA has identified several roadway and
intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study area
intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in a Dartolo Road connection, which could
reduce the impacts to each road and intersection.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitiat Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
33
The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project:
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I:
1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a three way
signal to a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from Highway 79 South.
2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South.
3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional
eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been completed.
4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road.
5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (OIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
6. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study
area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II:
1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road.
2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study
area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
3. Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
4. It should be noted that if the project's DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact fees of
the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair share fees for
mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17 cumulative projects.
The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned
above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of
the state CEQA Guidelines. Even with proposed mitigation, Level of Service on Highway 79 South and
Margarita Road will be operating at a LOS of D or worse during peak periods as a result of the construction of
this project. An analysis of cumulative impacts that considers recently approved projects and projects currently
being processed along the Highway 79 South corridor must be analyzed in a Focused EIR.
15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or
modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish
incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve
intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or
traffic patterns.
15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has
been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius
templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles.
15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking
spaces are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
15. g.: No Impact:. The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop
facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RT A. No impact
is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospltal\lnltlal Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
34
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a Iicable Re ional Water Quali Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve. the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or ex anded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project
will have an incremental effect upon existing systems.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is
required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if
any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from
EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to
provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less thim
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems
are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater.
16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The
project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground
storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or
expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control has
reviewed the proposed plan and has not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District
Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water
entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided "water
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaMnftial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
35
available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the
applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a domestic well near that project site,
owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not
notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is also
consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies.
Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
36
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo. or rehisto ?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl orindirectl ?
x
x
x
Comments:
17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment on site or in
the vicinity of the project because proposed Mitigation Measures are expected to reduce the impacts to levels
that are less than significant. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable State and Federal Permits
including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearance from the
State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was
reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming devices and mitigation measures
to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan.
17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant
with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as
potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the
South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the
City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 05-43, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air
quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution
05-43 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of
the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures
in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code,
and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact.
17. c.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be designed and developed
consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to
reduce impact to a less than significant level.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial StUdy DRAFT No. 2.doc
37
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(0). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of .and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect.
Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0,4.1,4.2,4.4,4.5,4.6,
4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified
technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result
of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were
made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and
inspection.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
38
SOURCES
1. City of T emecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4,2004
4. Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004
5. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17,
2004.
6. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004
7. Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004.
8. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC
Company), November 2004.
10. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16,
2004.
11. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004.
12. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996.
13. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John
W. Eidridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Region IX, dated January 25, 1996
14. Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975.
15. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc.,
December 16, 2004
16. City of Temecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula Certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the General Plan for the City of T emecula, Adopted November 5, 1993.
17. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH # 2003061041), March 2005.
18. City of T emecula Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T emecuta Certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan," Adopted
April 12, 2005.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
39
THE MINUTES OF
JAN UARY 5, 2006
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
WILL BE AVAILABLE
UNDER SEPARATE
COVER
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner
December 7, 2005
SUBJECT:
Temecula Regional Hospital - PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay); PA04-0463, Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit; PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map
Staff requests a continuance of this item until the next regular scheduled Planning Commission
meeting to be held on January 4, 2006. Staff is in the process of finalizing the responses to
general public comment letters. All of the responses to comments will be completed prior to the
January 4, 2006 meeting.
C\ WIN DOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\6888\$ASQpdf791500.doc
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 7,2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on
Wednesday, December 7, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
Chiniaeff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Mr. Chris Donelli, Temecula, queried on the status of the proposed residential development
surrounding the Vail Lake property.
Referencing Mr. Donelli's query, Chairman Mathewson stated that he would need to contact the
County for any status information regarding the proposed residential development surrounding
the Vail Lake property, advising that the proposed property is out of the jurisdiction of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Continued from November 2, 2005
Due to the applicant not being able to attend this meeting, staff requested that Item NO.1 be
continued to the December 14, 2005, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue Item NO.1 to the December 14, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
1 Planninq Application No. PA05-0064. a Development Plan. submitted bv Matthew Faqan. for
a Comprehensive Siqn Proqram for the Marqarita Crossinqs shoppinq center on 5.56 acres.
located on the southwest corner of Marqarita Road and Overland Drive
Staff is requesting that Item NO.2 be continued to the December 14, 2005, Planning
Commission.
R:\MinutesPC\120705
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continued Item NO.2 to the December 14, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
2 Planninq Application No. Planninq Application Nos. PA05-0155 a Pedestrian Plan and Siqn
Proqram. submitted bv Allen Robinson. on a 0.55 acre site for Butterfield Square. located at
the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street
Continued from November 16, 2005
Staff is currently in the process of finalizing the responses to the general public and comment
letters and therefore requested a continuance of Item NO.3 to the December 5, 2005, Planning
Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue Item NO.3 to the December 5, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
3 Planninq Application No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned
Development Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. PA04-
0571 Parcel Map. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan
Amendment. Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit. Development Plan and a Tentative
Parcel Map to construct a 566.160 square foot hospital. includinq medical office buildinqs on
35.31 acres. located on North side of Hiqhwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and
approximatelv 700 feet west of Marqarita Road
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
No reports at this time.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No reports at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:38 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinq to be held on December 14. 2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\120705
2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on
Wednesday, November 16, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Per requirements of the Fire Marshal, Chairman Mathewson announced that additional seating
will be available in the Main Conference Room.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 2, 2005.
2 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October, 2005.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
R:\MinutesPC\111605
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
New Items
3 Planninq Application No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned
Development Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. PA04-
0571 Parcel Map. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan
Amendment. Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit. Development Plan and a Tentative
Parcel Map to construct a 566.160 square foot hospital. includinq medical office buildinqs on
35.31 acres. located on North side of Hiqhwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and
approximatelv 700 feet west of Marqarita Road
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp presented the Planning Commission
with a staff report (of written record), advising that subsequent to the preparation of the agenda
report and packet of this meeting, two additional letters and three emails were received
concerning the proposed project.
For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that all street
improements along 79 South ,the intersection at 79 South, and the driveway on De Portola will
be in the first phase, except for the Dartolo Road connection.
With regard to helicopter flights, Mr. Papp noted that the type of license that the applicant will be
applying for would allow an average of one flight to six flights a month and that the perimeter
landscaping will have 24-inch box and 15-gallon trees installed.
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson, representing P&D Consultants,
presented the Environmental Impact Report (of record), highlighting the following:
D Impacts considered but found to be less than significant
o Aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality
o Air Quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies
o Hydrology and water quality
o Land Use Planning
o Noise - construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading
dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exterior/interior
noise environment
D Potentially Significant Impacts that can be mitigated
o Aesthetics - Light and glare
o Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency generators,
mechanical equipment, rooftop equipment)
o Transportation - Project impacts
D Unavoidable Significant Impacts
o Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
o Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency
helicopters flights
o Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
R:\MinutesPC\111605
2
Ms. Stetson stated that given all the information, and as part of the approval process, if the
Planning Commission were to recommend and the City Council were to approve the project with
these significant unavoidable impacts, a finding must be made that the project benefits out-way
the unavoidable significant affects (as noted below) associated with construction and operation
of the hospital.
D That the proposed hospital will provide necessary medical services to the local
community including Emergency Acute/Outpatient and Cancer Medical care and
rehabilitation
D That the proposed hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for
highly trained medical staff and medical service workers
D That the proposed hospital will support diversification of Temecula's Economic and
Employment base including and not limited to the biomedical research and office
facilities that would be on site
D That the Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located with access from a major
roadway to best serve the medical service needs of local residence as well as the
region.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the applicant how the noise concern of sirens at night will be
addressed.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson stated that because staff does not have all
the responses to the numerous comments that were received from private parties, the Planning
Commission will be asked to continue this item to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission
meeting; at that time, staff will be addressing concerns of the Planning Commission as well as
concerns from speakers.
For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that all questions and
comments will be addressed at the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Scott Crane, Director of Business Development for Riverside County for Universal Health
Services and Ms. Linda Bradley, CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Health Care System
(consisting of Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center) spoke in favor
of the proposed project, offering the following:
D That in light of the size of the City and considering its anticipated growth, this City should
have a high-quality, state-of-the-art hospital
D That a hospital would be a key facility in providing health care services to citizens of
Temecula
D That Temecula Valley is currently served by two Universal Health Service Hospitals,
Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, both part of
Southwest Health Care System; that Rancho Springs Medical Center (closest
emergency room to the proposed site) is approximately eight miles north of the hospital
project for Temecula
R:\MinutesPC\111605
3
D That both current hospitals regularly operate at above 90% capacity for its average daily
census; that the health care team desires and needs the proposed hospital; and that
currently patients are treated in hallways because the community and demand for
medical services has exceeded the design capacity of the current facilities
D That Universal Health Services will be investing more than $50 million in expanding the
two existing hospitals to add beds and rooms, an open heart and cardiac unit at Inland
Valley Medical Center, O.B. Department at Rancho Springs, including a neo-natal
intensive care unit, and doubling and tripling the size of the current emergency room
D That expansions of Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs will not
be able to accommodate the current demand
D That in the event of a natural disaster, the community will not have the facilities to
adequately handle a natural disaster or national security event
D That although other properties were considered, it was determined that the 79 South
corridor is properly configured with appropriate access
D That for years Southwest Health Care Systems has proven to be a good corporate
citizen for the community
D That if the proposed project were approved, the hospital will be providing high-quality
services easily accessible to Temecula residents who will no longer have to travel long
distances to receive such care
D That the hospital design will be based on clinical needs and patient-care concerns; that
departments that need to be close to each other for optimum critical patient care are the
emergency departments, x-ray, and surgery; that out-patient services tend to flow
horizontally within a hospital and in-patient services tend to flow vertically; that
additionally, loading dock functions, materials management, and other support services
are all areas that have primary relationships to the first-floor functions; and that
departments such as administration, Human Resources, and Education are also located
on the first level, to enable access from the public while maintaining secured areas on
the non-public side of the hospital, including patient care towers
D That patient rooms will be designed in stacking order, similar to a hotel; that typical bed
floors operate most efficiently at 34 to 38 patient rooms per floor; for initial construction
of the 170 beds; that the project will dictate five floors of patient rooms above the first
floor of the whole facility; thereby, defining the project as a 6-story bed tower
D That the State limits the distance hospital staff may travel from a nurse station to the
patient room to 90 feet which, in turn, has an affect on how large a bed floor may be
designed in order to maintain practical efficiency; that State code requires that all patient
rooms have an exterior window; that with 170 beds, the amount of exterior wall needed
to ensure that code requirements are met will dictate multiple levels of patient floors
R:\MinutesPC\111605
4
D That after establishing a need for a multilevel tower, the location of the hospital tower will
be determined by how the tower will relate to internal functions; and that the key criteria
for locating the bed tower will be dictated by the proximity of the critical core
departments, ER, Imaging, and surgery
D That in the design of the Temecula Hospital, the core elevators are located centrally
among the core departments and central to the first-level floor plan; that optimum patient
transfer efficiency will be achieved with the central core; that if you were an in-patient in
the hospital, one would desire to be closer to the elevators so that one could get to the
needed services faster
D That mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are more efficiently designed with the
central tower which lead to faster construction and help provide quality health care
sooner
D That if the proposed hospital were designed with shorter bed towers, patients would
have a longer distance to access needed critical services and, therefore, taking longer to
get life-saving services to patients
D That the hospital project will bring between 1,000 and 1,200 new local jobs and will
eliminate long commutes; and that the hospital will also bring two medical office
buildings, one that will be built prior to the hospital, providing outpatient hospital services
such as outpatient care, x-ray and lab, physical therapy as well as physician offices
D That the hospital will bring medical and surgical services, an intensive care unit, eight
operating rooms, lab and x-ray, and an emergency department that will be able to assist
more than 40 patients at one time
D That the hospital will not be designated as a trauma center
D That when the hospital will be built, it will be one of the top three employers and tax
payers in the City of Temecula
D That the applicant is aware of the concerns of the helipad but that the helipad would only
be used to transport critically injured or ill patients to a specialty hospital
D That the patient care tower will allow for a future planned expansion if necessary, with no
need to expand infrastructure; therefore, expansion may occur rapidly to meet the needs
of the community
D That the proposal including a complete plan for the hospital with no hidden parts and/or
no changes contemplated down the road for the hospital
D That with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the
City Council's approval, Universal Health System will deliver a hospital.
R:\MinutesPC\111605
5
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern regarding the sound of sirens at night, Mr.
Crane stated the construction of a hospital would not create more ambulance runs; that
ambulance runs are currently based on population, that ambulance needs occur whether there
is a hospital or not; and that it would be the destination of the ambulance that would cause the
siren.
Referencing Chairman Mathewson's question regarding doubling up on nurses station to reduce
the height of the towers, Ms. Stetson advised that doubling nurses station to have broader
patient towers and less stories would result in a longer distance to get a patient to emergency
services; that it is very important to have patient care floors be the perimeter in order to provide
shorter distance times from the furthest patients out to the central core down to the emergency
services; and that higher towers, with less square footage, would be best for patient care.
For the Planning Commission, Mr. Crane stated that a designation for a trauma center would be
designated by the County, not Universal Health Systems.
Ms. Stetson informed the Commission that because sudden and unanticipated changes in
patient's conditions occur, it would be difficult to determine how patients are placed in a hospital.
It was also stated for the Commission that the State and County regulate the disposal of
hazardous materials.
Mr. Crane advised that Universal Health Systems explored other construction sites but that the
sites were not adequately designed to meet the needs of the hospital.
In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. Crane stated that typically the number of
helicopter flights would relate to emergency room visits; that there will be occasions when
conditions will change with a patient which would require relocation and that if the hospital were
to exceed the maximum number of helicopter flights allowed, a viable alternative would be to
ground transport patients to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (Trauma Center) from a
critical care ambulance transfer and helicopter transport the patient from there.
Chairman Mathewson thanked Mr. Crane and Ms. Stetson for their report.
At 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a 15-minute break. At 8:15 the Planning
Commission resumed with the meeting.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed hospital project:
D Dr. Russ Hatt
D Dr. Kevin Flaig, Murrieta
D Dr. Edward Pillar, Murrieta
D Ms. Linda Maxwell, Temecula
D Mr. Charles V. Bahr, Corona
D Ms. Joan Sparkman
D Mr. Rick Meyer
D Ms. Leah Patterson, Murrieta
D Ms. Tomi Arbogast, Temecula
R:\MinutesPC\111605
6
D Ms. Vanessa Ruelas
D Mr. Roger Ziemer, Temecula
D Ms. Alice Sullivan, Temecula
D Mr. Dennis Frank, Temecula
D Mr. Michael Murphy, Canyon Lake
D Ms. Rene Aberle, Murrieta
D Ms. Debbie Parker, Temecula
D Janis Rustard, Temecula
D Mr. Mark Nelson, Temecula
D Dr. Brett Ginther, Fallbrook
D Dr. Reza Vaezazizi, Temecula
D Ms. Debbie Moss, Temecula
D Ms. Barbara Lasko-Hoellinger, Temecula
D Ms. Chesi Levy, Temecula
D Ms. Susan Wildgoose, Temecula
D Ms. Linda Barr, Murrieta
D Mr. Norm Everett, Temecula
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
D Ms. Trisha Heide, Temecula
D Ms. Justine Castro, Temecula
D Mr. David Moorhead, Temecula
The above mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following
reasons:
D That Universal Health System is committed to quality patient care
D That there are not enough beds at the current hospitals to provide the health care needs
of the community
D That the expansion efforts of Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional
Medical Center will only help with the current over crowding issues
D That true adequate future health care coverage could only be obtained with building the
proposed hospital project
D That in terms of an emergency, minutes are critical
D That to avoid a local health care crisis, the proposed project must be built
D That if the proposed project were not approved, the health of the public will be in
jeopardy
D That the combined yearly volume of patient visits at Rancho Springs Medical Center and
Inland Valley Regional Medical Center would be over 60,000 patients a year
R:\MinutesPC\111605
7
D That the City of Temecula needs and deserves a state-of-the-art hospital
D That the diversity and accessibility of the helicopters would make medical operations
more capable
D That good emergency care is needed in the Temecula Valley
D That the current and future growth of Southwest California and Temecula Valley requires
that a state of the art hospital be a key component in the community
D That the health and well being of Temecula citizens depend greatly on the ability for
pave the way for such facilities to be built
D That considering the projected population growth of the combined cities of Temecula
and Murrieta will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years, it will require immediate
action and approval of this hospital facility
D That any delay in approving the proposed project will have profound impacts on the
region's ability to grow, prosper, and meet future health care needs of the community
D That while Temecula's population has tripled since incorporation, the City of Temecula
and its outlined region cannot rely on medical facilities at its immediate service areas
D That in the event of a major catastrophe access to Murrieta or Wildomar may not be
available
D That Southwest Healthcare System will be committed to developing a state-of-the-art
facility to serve the need of the community
D That although the services at Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho
Springs Medical Center are excellent, the facilities are inadequate to deal with the
current growth as well as the future growth
D That Universal Health System is a great organization to work for and will provide high-
quality cost-effective, coordinated health care services to the Temecula Valley.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed hospital project:
D Mr. Brad Storman, Temecula
D Ms. Gloria Smith, Murrieta
D Mr. Matt Hagemann, San Marcos
D Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula
D Mr. Jerry Toliver, Temecula
D Mr. Richard Anderson, Temecula
D Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula
D Mr. Don Brown, Temecula
D Mr. Raymond Bennett, Temecula
D Mr. George Di Leo, Temecula
R:\MinutesPC\111605
8
The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
D That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has not completely addressed the noise
traffic impacts that the proposed project will bring
D That a block wall installed between the proposed project and nearby residents would
significantly reduce the noise impacts that will be created by the proposed hospital
D That the EIR should include estimated number of helicopter flights and its associated
noise
D That the EI R does not describe the project
D That the EI R does not analyze the reasonable/feasible impacts
D That the residents surrounding the proposed site are of the opinion that the City could
mitigate the noise impacts to the homes by installing a brick wall along DePortola Road
and Pio Pico Road, advising that this would be a simple, inexpensive, and affective
opportunity to reduce the noise impacts
D That the surrounding residents are concerned with the additional impacts that the
hospital will have on Pio Pico Road
D That the EIR does not address leaking underground fuel tanks from nearby gas stations
that are contaminating ground water and moving toward the hospital site; and that the
EIR must address all issues regarding leaking underground fuel is warranted under the
law and requires the preparation of an EI R
D That the EIR only addresses a fraction of the significant impacts associated with the
proposed project
D That the EIR has failed to address hazardous waste materials and geology
D That in review of documentation obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's website, there are gas stations leaking plumes to the area of the proposed
project; and that a Methyl Tertyl Butyl Ether (MTBE) gasoline additive has been detected
in the drinking water along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site
D That further evaluation of the proposed site and a revised EIR would be necessary to
ensure hospital water and patient safety; that sampling of ground water should be
granted in the vicinity of the proposed hospital to ensure that the water supply well will
be protected; and that any necessary clean-up should be conducted prior to construction
D That the proposed hospital is located in a liquefaction hazard zone; that the Riverside
County Geologist has designated this area as very high potential for liquefaction; and
that maps indicate that a study will be required prior to a public hearing for the project
entitlement
D That although residents agree with the need for a hospital in the community, it will have
a negative impact on the surrounding residences
R:\MinutesPC\111605
9
D That surrounding residents of the proposed project are concerned with traffic problems
as a result of the DePortola Road access; and that a No access on DePortola Road
would be preferred
D That noise from sirens would be a safety issue for equestrian-type activities that occur
around the area
D That the proposed project will lower property values and destroy the rural setting of the
community
D That visual tranquility will be destroyed with the lights and tower height of the proposed
hospital
D That Los Ranchitos and Santiago Rancho Estates represent equestrian areas within the
City of Temecula; that the streets in the area are narrow rural residential streets without
cement curbs, sidewalks, and street lights; and that the streets cannot handle the daily
cut-through traffic that will be generated by a DePortola entrance
D That the proposed height of the hospital site will be unacceptable
D That the applicant of the proposed hospital must make reasonable modifications to
better conform to the City's height limits.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item NO.3 to the December 7, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
Commissioner Guerriero thanked the doctors and nurses who spoke on behalf of the hospital.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Chiniaeff advised the Commission that he will not be in attendance of the
December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting due to him being out of the Country.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Referencing the selection process and reappointments of Commissioners, Deputy City Manager
Thornhill, advised the Planning Commission that at some point in the future, staff will ask the
Commission for their thoughts with regard to the selection and reappointment process.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Planning Commission meetings for the month of
December 2005 will be December 7 and December 14, 2005, advising that that December 21,
2005, will be cancelled.
R:\MinutesPC\111605
10
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:21 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinq to be held on December 7. 2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\111605
11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
November 16, 2005
Prepared by:
Emery J. Papp, AICP
PA04-0462 Application Type:
PA05-0302
PA04-0463
PA04-0571
Title: Senior Planner
File Number:
General Plan Amendment
Planned Development Overlay District
Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment to remove the project area from the "Z"
Overlay District of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which
will permit new construction to exceed two-stories in height; a Zone
Change from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-8 (De Porlola Road
Planned Development Overlay District) to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay District-9) and adoption of a PDO text document
to create height standards which would allow a maximum building
height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit to establish a hospital
facility and private helipad; a Development Plan for the design and
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two
medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square
foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation
center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative Parcel Map to
consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres, also
known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and
PA04-0571)
Recommendation: [8] Recommend City Council Approval with Conditions
CEQA: [8] EIR with Statement of Overriding Considerations
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
General Plan Designation:
Professional Office (PO)
Current Zoning Designation:
Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay
District 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8)
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Planned Development Overlay District 9 (Temecula Hospital
PDO-9)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
North:
Vacant
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
South:
East:
West:
Highway 79 South, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC)
Professional Office (PO), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO-8
PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay)
Lot Area:
35.31 Acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio: .36
Hospital:
Medical Office Building NO.1:
Medical Office Building NO.2:
Cancer Center:
Fitness Rehabilitation Center:
408,160 square feet
80,000 square feet
60,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
8,000 square feet
TOTAL:
566,160 square feet
Landscape Area/Coverage:
33.3%
Parking Required/Provided:
633/1,278
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. submitted applications for a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. On
November 4, 2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468) to consolidate eight lots,
including a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way (south of DePortola Road) into one lot. Staff
originally prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 2005031017) and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. The original Initial Study was circulated for
a 30-day public review period from March 4, 2005 to April 6, 2005.
A City Council Subcommittee (Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar) was formed to meet
with neighborhood groups to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with
the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago
Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on
December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding homeowners
within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in
attendance.
The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the
public include the following:
D Traffic and circulation (access points)
D Building height and views
D Compatibility with residences
D Noise
D Helipad (location and number of flights)
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
2
On April 4, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this project. Staff
received comment letters (Attachment 16) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration. In addition, citizens attending the Planning Commission hearing provided additional
oral comments. The following is a summary of the written and oral comments provided to the
Planning Commission:
California Environmental Qualitv Act (CEQA) Issues
D A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project
D There are analytical gaps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
D A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared
D Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain
D Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico
D Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area
D Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed
D Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts
D Mitigation is required for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction
(Phase II Dartolo Road access)
D Additional Burrowing Owl studies will be required
Traffic/Circulation Issues
D Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
D DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide
D Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be gated
for emergency access only
D Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project
D All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated
D Emergency room should be relocated
Noise Issues
D Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels
D Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
D Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise
Aesthetics
D The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area; views will be lost
D Windows will reflect too much light and create glare
Hvdroloqv and Groundwater
D Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be prepared
D Contamination from existing underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if
the contamination plume moves. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
3
The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these comments and recommended that a Focused
Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was
held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in a
Focused EIR for the hospital project. It was determined that the Focused EIR should evaluate
impacts related to Traffic and Circulation Issues, Noise, Aesthetics, and Hydrology and
Groundwater. Staff met with the Applicant's consultant to confirm the scope of the EIR, and the City
oversaw the preparation of the document. The Draft EIR (SH # 2005031017 - the same number
as originally given to the MND) was circulated for public agency review and comment from
September 28, 2005 to October 28, 2005. The State Clearinghouse granted a shortened review
period of 30 days instead of 45 days, because the City had previously circulated a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for this project and the project scope had not changed.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
1. Focused Environmental Impact Report
Processing History:
An Initial Study was prepared for this project, which concluded that, the approval and
implementation of the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment with
respect to Aesthetics, Hydrology and Groundwater, Noise, and Transportation. A Notice of
Preparation for this Focused EIR was issued on August 3, 2005, indicating that an EIR was being
prepared and invited comments from public agencies and the general public. Comments were
received from four agencies. Copies of these letters are included in Appendix A of the EIR.
A Notice of Completion was prepared on September 26, 2005 and was forwarded to the State
Clearinghouse along with fifteen copies of the Draft EIR for distribution to Responsible and Trustee
agencies for review and comment. The City requested a shortened, 30-day, review under CEQA,
which was granted by the State Clearinghouse on September 26, 2005 because the City had
previously circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and the scope of the project
had not changed. A Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was posted in the Californian
newspaper on September 28, 2005. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR was
from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. At the time this report was prepared, four
public comment letters had been received and four Agency comments were received. A summary of
these letters is included at the end of this section of the staff report. Copies of the comment letters
and responses to the comments are included in the Technical Appendices of the EIR.
A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines to analyze the potential
environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed
Temecula Regional Hospital. The EIR conclusions are as follow:
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of
emergency helicopter flights
Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
4
Potentially Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated
Aesthetics - Light and glare
Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency
generators, mechanical equipment room, rooftop equipment)
Transportation - Project impacts
Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less than Significant
Aesthetics - Scenic highways and visual character or quality
Air Quality - Construction odors and consistency with adopted
plans and policies
Hydrology and water quality
Land use and planning
Noise (construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise,
sirens, loading dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape
maintenance, future exterior/interior noise environment)
Issues Deemed by the Initial Study to have a Less than
Significant Impact or No Impact
Agriculture resources
Biological resources
Cultural resources
Geology/soils
Hazards/fire safety
Mineral resources
Population and housing
Public services
Recreation
Utilities and service systems
The EIR included discussions concerning environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the
following impact areas; Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Groundwater, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, and Transportation. The EIR also discusses the Cumulative and Long-Term
Effects of the project, and six Project Alternatives. These sections of the EIR are briefly summarized
below.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
5
A Transportation
The EIR indicates that the total average number of vehicle trips that will be generated by this
project per day will be approximately 11,458 at project build-out. The proposed project
includes 637 inbound/228 outbound trips during the AM. peak hour and 334 inbound/595
outbound trips during the PM peak hours. Six alternatives have been proposed for this
project. Three of these Alternatives generate the same number of vehicle trips, two
Alternatives will generate less traffic, and one Alternative will generate more traffic. The
transportation impacts associated with each of the Alternatives are summarized in the
following Table:
Project Alternative Traffic Analysis
Alternative 1 : No Project - No Build No additional vehicle trips
Alternative 2: No Project - Development Utilizing the Target Floor Area Ratio,
Pursuant to General Plan vehicle trips are expected to be 33,000 -
causing an increase of 21 ,542 ADT*
Alternative 3: Alternate Site - Corona Total number of vehicle trips equal to
Family Properties proposed project (11,458) - some vehicle
trips would be expected to utilize
Butterfield Stage Road as alternate route
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Total ADT same as for Project (11,458)
but will result in 550 fewer ADT on
DePortola Road - creates delays at 79
S/Margarita and at Dartolo/Margarita
Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Total ADT same as for Project (11,458)
Road and Dartolo Road but will result in 1,140 more vehicle trips
on DePortola Road (570 right turns in, 570
right turns out) - reduces vehicle trips on
Margarita Road by 1,340 ADT
Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Total number of vehicle trips reduced by
Only 2,890 due to absence of medical offices
* Maximum Floor Area Ratio would result in greater impacts
Per the Table above, in terms of the total number of Average Daily Trips (ADT) , Alternatives
1 and 6 would generate less traffic, but do not meet the City's or the Applicant's objectives
for the project, and are therefore not considered viable Alternatives.
Alternatives 3 and 5 would create traffic impacts similar to the proposed Project. Alternative 4
would generate the same number of vehicle trips as the proposed Project, but impacts would
be greater at the intersection of Dartolo and Margarita Roads due to the lack of adequate
stacking distance between intersections.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
6
Alternative 2 would generate more traffic than the proposed project. Under the current
proposal, a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.36 is proposed, which translates to 566,160
square feet of combined hospital/medical office space. Under Alternative 2 (No Project), the
site would ultimately be built out under current General Plan land use designations and
zoning. Future buildings would be limited to two-stories in height, but the Target FAR is 0.5,
which could allow the site to be built at up to 769,051 square feet of commercial and office
uses, and have a greater trip generation impact than the proposed hospital. Furthermore,
intensity bonuses exist under current conditions that could allow the site to build up to an
FAR of 1.0, or more than 1,500,000 square feet of commercial/office space. In terms of
traffic generation, the Hospital project as proposed, is superior to the No Project Alternative.
With the proposed Hospital project, projected traffic volumes on DePortola Road have been
a concern for neighboring residents because of the proposed driveway access to/from
DePortola Road. The traffic study that was prepared for this project indicates that with or
without a driveway access on DePortola Road, the LOS will be "D" or better. DePortola
Road, which is a collector roadway, can easily handle the total projected volumes of 8,650
ADT of which only 1,700 ADT are related to the hospital. By eliminating the driveway on
DePortola Road, less than one-third of the hospital trips would be removed from DePortola
Road. Those diverted trips (approximately 550 fewer vehicle trips per day along DePortola
Road) are insignificant. This results in approximately 50 fewer vehicle trips during the peak
hours, or a saving of less than one vehicle trip per minute. Table 5-2 on page 5-13 of the
Draft EIR shows that the resulting Level of Service (LOS) on DePortola Road with existing
traffic, plus the Cumulative Projects, plus the proposed hospital project will be maintained at
LOS "D". The total number of ADT will be 8,650. Up to 14,000 vehicle trips per day can be
handled on the existing DePortola Road before exceeding LOS "D." As a result, project
impacts on the LOS for DePortola Road are less than significant.
Four mitigation measures are proposed to reduce traffic related impacts of this project and
are as follows:
T-1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen
Way with the following configuration:
Westbound: 1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide)
T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection
at 1-15.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
7
T -3. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the
following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative
impacts:
Highway 79 South//-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left-turn lane
Highway 79 South//-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert
westbound right lane to free right turn
Highway 79 South/La Paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and
one shared through/right lane
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway: Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound
and northbound free right-turn lanes
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country G/en Way: Signalize and provide dual
eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn
lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide southbound and eastbound
dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road
developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director.
B. Land Use and Planning
The proposed project, due to its proposed height, is not consistent with the existing General
Plan Land Use Element. To make the project consistent with the General Plan, an
Amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed. If approved, the General Plan
Amendment will remove eight parcels from an existing Specific Plan Overlay District, which
currently limits the height of buildings to two-stories. The proposed hospital bed-towers are
five- and six-stories.
All of the proposed uses for the project are permitted in the Professional Office Land Use
designation, and are permitted or conditionally permitted in the Professional Office Zone.
Therefore, there is no conflict with the underlying General Plan or Development Code related
to use. In fact, Land Use Policy 1.8 supports the development of a hospital. Land Use
policies 3.1 and 5.2 require that the proposed project incorporate suitable buffers to mitigate
impacts on surrounding residential properties. The residential properties to the north will be
buffered from the main hospital structures by approximately 210 feet of open space including
a horse trail and jogging path, as well as 350 feet of open parking area. A landscaped area,
approximately 228 feet deep is proposed immediately south of the jogging path and west of
the parking area on the north side of the hospital. As a result of the site layout, staff can
make the findings that this project is consistent with the General Plan. Impacts related to use
are less than significant.
The issue of height has been contested and continues to be an issue for surrounding
property owners. A Project Alternative with a two-story hospital was evaluated but rejected
because it would not have met either the City's or the Applicant's objectives for the project. A
key objective for the City is to facilitate the construction of a regional hospital facility designed
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
8
to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits.
Further objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with the surrounding
uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the
location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions.
Staff can make the findings to support the height of the proposed structures given the
distances between the hospital structures and the nearest residentially zoned parcel. The
buffers are adequate to protect residentially zoned properties and the project is consistent
with existing and proposed Professional Office development along Highway 79 South and
Margarita Road. As proposed and conditioned, the project is compatible with the existing
built environment and the proposed development standards are not considered to have any
significant impact.
C. Aesthetics
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated State scenic highway.
According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not contain any scenic
resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources.
The proposed project will be visible from residential parcels to the north, and the five- and
six-story hospital bed-towers will partially obstruct views from nearby locations. However,
the views of the local mountains are not protected by any City regulation or policy.
The proposed changes in land use regulations for this project will result in a height standard
for the site that is not allowed under current conditions. The proposed height of the bed-
towers will impact the visual character of the site. However, the hospital bed-towers will be
set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and
approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road.
The project site is currently vacant with no sources of light and glare. The proposed hospital
bed-towers do have the potential to emit light and glare from the upper floors.
Three mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the aesthetic impacts to a level of
insignificance. The following three mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the project
related impacts to a less than significant level:
A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric
plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project
site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to
mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use
and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light
impacts.
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office
buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows)
to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors.
A-3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as
necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around
the perimeter of the project site. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the
northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
9
D. Noise
Utilizing the discussion of thresholds for noise identified in the EIR, the following is a
summary of the noise impacts for the Temecula Regional Hospital project.
Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section
8.32.020 of the Municipal Code, which limits the hours of grading activities.
The proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels. Ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing
and grading phase of construction when this activity occurs near property lines. This is not
considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity.
The application for a private helipad, if approved by the State, will allow up to six helicopter
landings per month. Up to six flights per month may be considered by some residents near
the hospital to be a significant impact and annoyance. The EIR has determined that this is
an unavoidable significant impact that will require findings for a Statement of Overriding
Consideration (see Environmental Determination Section for Statement of Overriding
Consideration).
Noise associated with the mechanical yard equipment may expose persons to noise levels in
excess of the noise/land use compatibility standards established in the General Plan Noise
Element. Therefore, these impacts are potentially significant and will require mitigation.
Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than
significant.
Eight mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the operational noise impacts, with the
exception of helicopter noise, to a level of insignificance. The following eight mitigation
measures are proposed to reduce the project related impacts to a less than significant level:
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational
upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous,
24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a
certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility
threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria
that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to
achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be
limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed
appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented,
the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance.
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient
transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an
Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over
any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or
patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty
event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a
preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
10
N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between
the hours of 7:00 AM. and 6:00 P.M.
N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site
to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan.
N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other
restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise.
N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee shall stage all
stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding residential
properties.
E. Air Quality
The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant air quality impacts during
the project's construction and operational phases. During construction, compliance with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations will reduce Reactive
Organic Gas (ROG) emissions to levels below SCAQMD thresholds. However, Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will exceed daily thresholds set
by the SCAQMD, resulting in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact, for
which the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve the
project. The following seventeen mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the short-term
and long-term air quality impacts:
Pre-qradinq
AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for
a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site.
Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department.
AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as
during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include but not be
limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex
schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading
permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the operation of the medical offices.
AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for
medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California
regulations.
AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site
incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box
and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
11
beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce
the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be
installed at the applicant/permittee's expense.
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction
activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all
earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions.
In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction
equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and
highest energy efficiency reasonably possible.
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to
the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include
control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works
Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the
circumstances that present themselves during the project construction.
AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust
Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 -
Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include
applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403
during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below:
. Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials
shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days.
. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased.
. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion.
. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the
morning and at least once in the afternoon.
. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open
storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install
temporary coverings.
. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the
commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City
Gradinq and Construction
AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee
shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15
miles per hour or less.
AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging
areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved
parcel.
AQ-1 O. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
12
facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related
odors during construction and subsequent use.
AQ-11.AII trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to
fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in
trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with
special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended.
Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust
emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water,
which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the
trucks before they leave the construction area.
AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee
shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or
accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as
necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or
construction.
AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to
impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged
over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and
excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent
fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard,
either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion.
AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content
architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum
extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over
convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of
zero VOC content coatings:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM . pdf
http://www.delta-institute .org/publications/paints. pdf
AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the
morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce
dust.
Operations
AQ-16.AII refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to
the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed
structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including
directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to
promote alternative transportation.
Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, the estimated long-term daily
emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and ROG will exceed the operational thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. Even with the proposed Mitigation Measures, long-term air
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
13
quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable and, therefore, findings and a Statement
of Overriding Consideration must me made for this impact as well (see Environmental
Determination Section for Statement of Overriding Consideration).
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
The California Water Resources Control Board requires all development projects to prepare
a Storm Water and Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts
during storm events that occur during construction. The project will be conditioned to
prepare and comply with the SWPPP. In addition, the project is conditioned to prepare a
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), outlining how the project will minimize water
quality impacts during operation of the project. Compliance with these conditions will ensure
a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has prepared a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for this project, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10910-10915. According
to the results of the WSA, the RCWD Water Facilities Master Plan, and the RCWD Urban
Water Management Plan, sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Regional
Hospital project. Impacts related to water supply are less than significant. As a result, no
Mitigation Measures are required or proposed for this project.
G. Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the Draft EIR discuss the cumulative
impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes
resulting from the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project and 21 related projects
identified by the City and included in the Draft EIR. The following is a discussion of the
cumulative environmental impacts:
Aesthetics. The primary concerns are the potential for artificial lighting sources to interfere
with operations of the Mount Palomar Observatory. Standard Conditions of Approval are
expected to require projects to conform to Ordinance No. 655 to reduce the impacts of "sky
glow" to a level that is less than significant.
Air Qualitv. Short-term and long-term air quality impacts of the project alone will be
significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation proposed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
As a result, the cumulative impacts will also be significant and unavoidable.
Hvdroloqv and Groundwater. Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a
project-by-project basis due to required adherence to the requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, and project
specific Water Quality Management Plans. Continued implementation of these requirements
will reduce cumulative impacts to a level that is less than significant. Potential cumulative
impacts related to flooding will be minimized to a level that is less than significant through the
design and implementation of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District's Master Drainage Plan.
Land Use and Planninq. The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes
to existing land uses. However, the approval of these projects requires that the City and
County analyze the projects for conformance with Land Use designations and Zoning, and
both jurisdictions have determined that the uses are consistent with the General Plan and
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
14
appropriate for the area. Therefore, cumulative land use and planning impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
Noise. As noted in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic
noise will not be significant. Helicopter noise impacts have the potential to be significant and
unavoidable. With regard to stationary noise sources, the City will continue to ensure that
new buildings are constructed according to State acoustical standards. Furthermore,
implementation of Land Use and Noise Element policies aimed at avoiding compatibility
conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Transportation. The number of Average Daily Trips (ADT) projected for the proposed
hospital and 21 other cumulative projects is approximately 160,500. Adverse impacts to the
circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures were
not implemented. Mitigation Measures, discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, identifies
roadway improvements that will be pursued to alleviate the anticipated future traffic volumes.
The City will also continue to require development to pay traffic impact fees to fund
signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation improvements necessary to
maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. As summarized in Section 4.6,
the proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the
following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity:
D Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
D Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
D Margarita Road from DePortola Road to Dartolo Road
D Margarita Road from Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and
unavoidable. Some intersections near Interstate 15 will continue to experience LOS E and F
conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, will be
significant and unavoidable.
H. Growth-Inducing Impacts
The CEQA Guidelines require the Draft EIR to discuss "ways in which the project could foster
economic or population growth . . . in the surrounding environment" including the project's
potential to remove obstacles to population growth. The proposed project is located within
an area of Temecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure and is considered an infill
development site. Thus, the project does not have any components or features that could
induce further growth.
The proposed hospital project will provide new jobs and these new jobs could potentially
induce support development in the surrounding area. The surrounding community is nearly
built-out or entitled for residential uses, and surrounding land uses are zoned for commercial
and professional office use. The proposed project, therefore, is not anticipated to induce
population or job growth beyond that which is already planned for and anticipated by adopted
land use policies.
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes: Construction and day-to-day operation of
the proposed hospital project will consume nonrenewable resources. Building materials
(such as aggregate, sand, cement, steel and glass) and energy resources (gasoline, diesel
fuel and electricity) will be irretrievable.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
15
During the operational life span of the facility, employees and visitors will drive vehicles that
will consume fossil fuels, however, these activities are not considered wasteful. Water will be
consumed by the project, but the use of low-flow fixtures and other features will be applied to
the project to reduce consumption. Considering the long life span of the project, the non-
renewable resources consumed for this project are insignificant compared to the total annual
resources used regionally. Therefore, no short-term or long-term significant adverse impacts
on nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the project.
I. Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines require that a jurisdiction evaluate project alternatives capable of
either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing
them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives.
Alternative 1, No Project - No Build: This project alternative would leave the subject site
vacant in perpetuity. This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts
associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise
sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project - No Build
Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this
alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the
project objectives identified by the City and the Applicant. As a result, staff does not support
this alternative.
Alternative 2, No Project: This project alternative would not permit the proposed hospital and
eventual development would occur following the underlying Land Use and Zoning criteria.
Development pursuant to the current General Plan and Zoning for the site could result in
potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Aesthetic impacts related to land use and
planning (height) would be reduced compared to the proposed project, however, the total
amount of constructed floor space could be greatly expanded under this scenario. Noise
impacts associated with helicopter flights would be avoided. All other impacts would be
comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would
not attain the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital, or the
Applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
the surrounding communities. As a result, staff does not support this alternative.
Alternative 3, Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties: This alternative has the potential to
result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, land use compatibility and noise impacts.
This alternative would also require that a portion of the site be annexed into the City of
Temecula, which would delay the proposed timing for the project while annexation
proceedings take place. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to longer
helicopter flights over residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain,
as site-specific surveys have not been performed. All other impacts are comparable to the
proposed project. This alternative would meet the City's and the Applicant's objectives, but
cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic, agricultural resource, land use compatibility and
noise impacts could be greater at this location. As a result, staff does not support this
alternative.
Alternate 4 - Access from Dartolo Road (no DePortola Road access): This alternative is
likely to result in greater traffic and biological resource impacts than the proposed Hospital
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
16
project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact traffic flow at the intersection of
Highway 79 South and Margarita Road and would increase the delay for traffic on Margarita
Road because there will be no access to/from DePortola. The possible removal of the
signalized intersection at Dartolo Road and Margarita Road would help to improve the
queuing condition, but would also result in the removal of left-turn movements at this
intersection. To make the connection to Dartolo Road from the project site, a bridge would
need to be constructed over an existing drainage course, which has the potential to create
biological impacts on site. Also, the time required to obtain the necessary permits would
create a substantial project delay. All other impacts are comparable to the proposed project.
This alternative would meet the City's but not all of the Applicant's objectives, and the
cumulative impacts with respect to traffic and biology for this alternative could be greater
than those of the proposed hospital project. As a result, staff does not support this
alternative.
Alternate 5 - Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road: This alternative would not
avoid the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Hospital project. The extension of
Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from neither the
proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the DePortola Road secondary
entrance. Biological resource impacts (bridge across drainage channel to connect site to
Dartolo Road) associated with this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed
hospital project (bridge crossing in Phase II if Phase II constructed). This alternative would
not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with the construction
and operation of the project. This alternative would meet the City's and the Applicant's
objectives, but the cumulative impacts of this Alternative could be greater than those of the
proposed hospital project. As a result, staff does not support this alternative.
Alternate 6 - Construction of Hospital Only: Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts
relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the
total footprint of the development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the
project, and short-term and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated
with the proposed hospital project. Noise impacts associated with the mechanical equipment
could also be reduced, but noise related to the helicopter use would remain the same.
This alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage future development of a regional
hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. However,
Alternative 6 fails to meet the City's objective to support development of biomedical,
research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base.
Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet the Applicant's objective to provide a regional
hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, outpatient care, rehabilitation, and
medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital. This alternative has
fewer environmental impacts associated with the proposed uses, however it fails to meet the
City's and the Applicant's goals and objectives. As a result, staff does not support this
alternative.
Environmentally Superior Alternative: Section 15626.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines
requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis
contained in the Draft EIR, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, has been identified
as the environmentally superior Alternative.
J. Statement of Overriding Consideration
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
17
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines reguires the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) to
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the Lead Agency determines these
impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. Therefore, if the City of
Temecula approves the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project, the City Council, after
certifying the Final EIR, must adopt an SOC for the following unavoidable significant impacts
of the proposed project:
D Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
D Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency
helicopter flights
D Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
Staff has determined that the EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may
occur as a result of the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a less than
significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts cited above.
To the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR could not be incorporated,
such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the
Temecula Regional Hospital that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social,
and other benefits, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the City of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Temecula Regional
Hospital to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Temecula Regional
Hospital, and having weighed the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its
unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the following social, economic,
and environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
1. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical services to
the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer
medical care and physical rehabilitation services.
2. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new
employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers.
3. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification of
Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to biomedical,
research, and office facilities.
4. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access from a major
roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the region.
Staff believes that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval of the
Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
18
impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council further finds that each
of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be
acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the
City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
K. EIR Comment Letters
The following is a list of comment letters received on the Draft Focused EIR and a brief
description of the issues discussed in each letter. The public review and comment period
was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. The letters are grouped into two
categories; letters received prior to the close of the public review and comment period, and
letters received after the close of the public review and comment period. Copies of the
comment letters and responses to the comment letters can be found in the Technical
Appendix of the EIR.
Letters received prior to October 28, 2005:
a. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is concerned about the
implementation of mitigation measures to alleviate traffic concerns along Highway 79
South and 1-15, and the potential for preemption of signals for emergency vehicle
access. The RCTC is also concerned with traffic generated by the "draw" area for the
services provided, and impacts due to evacuation plans. The RCTC has expressed
concerns over parking, and the coordination with other development in the area
(dated October 4,2005 and received October 13, 2005).
b. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control is concerned about the
possibility of discovering contaminated soil on-site, and the possibility of uncovering
contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. Demolition of structures
should also be investigated to determine if asbestos, lead-based paint, or mercury
exists within the structures (dated October 14, 2005 and received October 20, 2005).
c. Pechanga Cultural Resources is concerned about the potential for the discovery of
human remains and/or artifacts of cultural significance during grading and excavation
activities. They are requesting additional mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval that will provide protection, proper disposition, and/or avoidance of any
culturally significant finds on the subject property (dated October 24, 2005 and
received via facsimile October 25, 2005).
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District responded that they
do not normally comment on projects within incorporated cities. However, there are
District facilities adjacent to the project, and if any work is proposed within the
District's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. If the project
connects to the District's Temecula Creek Line V Stage 2 Channel, impacts will need
to be identified (dated October 26, 2005 and received via facsimile October 26,
2005).
e. The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP requested an extension of the public review
period for the EIR on October 26, 2005 (received October 27, 2005). This request
was denied.
f. The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP submitted a second letter on October 28,
2005 expressing the following concerns: A lack of analysis concerning traffic impacts
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
19
to Pio Pico Road; there is no discussion of how noise impacts will be mitigated to less
than significant levels; the noise study does not determine the number of anticipated
helicopter flights to the hospital; adequate mitigation measures have not been
prepared for aesthetic impacts; deferral of mitigation measures for aesthetic impact is
illegal (dated October 28,2005, received via facsimile on October 28,2005).
g. The law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo submitted a letter, with
testimony from expert witnesses, expressing the following concerns: the City violated
CEQA's statutory public review period; The EIR fails to accurately describe the
project; the EIR lacks sufficient detail to analyze the Project's impacts; the EIR fails to
disclose or analyze all potentially significant impacts; the EI R fails to incorporate
effective measures to mitigate environmental impacts to less than significant;
Cumulative impacts are significant and unmitigated; the EIR must disclose all General
Plan inconsistencies (Dated October 28, 2005, received via electronic mail October
28, 2005, received hard copy November 1, 2005).
Letters received after October 28, 2005:
h. Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association is concerned that the height impacts
of the project have not been demonstrated on-site, and request that balloons or some
other object is placed to show the height of the of the proposed structures (dated
October 31, 2005, received November 3, 2005).
i. Trumark Companies is concerned over how the construction and operation of the
hospital project will impact aesthetics, air quality, land use and planning, and noise in
the vicinity of its proposed 112-unit senior residential development project adjacent to
and east of the proposed hospital project (dated November 3, 2005, received
November 7, 2005).
2. General Plan Amendment
The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the subject properties from the Future
Specific Plan Z overlay (previously shown as Future Specific Plan Z2 Overlay in the City's original
General Plan Land Use Element). The description and objectives of the Future Specific Plan Z
Overlay contains language that requires projects adjacent to single-family residents to be limited in
height to one or two stories. In order to accommodate the hospital, it is necessary to remove the
height restriction. Functionally, the hospital needs the two five- and six-story bed-towers. By
removing the properties from this Overlay, the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of
Professional Office will guide the development of these properties. The description of Professional
Office in the General Plan is as follows:
"Primarily single or multi-tenant offices, including legal, design, engineering, medical,
corporate, government, and community facilities."
The proposed hospital and associated medical offices are consistent with this General Plan
designation. Further, the proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General Plan Land Use
Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8
under the Land Use Element Goal 1 encourages "future development of a community hospital and
related services, as well as a community college, major college or university."
3. Zone Change
Planned Development Overlays (PDO) are mechanisms by which an applicant can create special
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
20
standards for the development of their property (i.e. setbacks, landscape requirements, height
restrictions, etc.). The Temecula Hospital PDO-9 (Attachment 4) was filed to allow flexibility with
respect to the height of the hospital. All other development standards for these properties will revert
back to the Development Code standards contained in the Professional Office Zone.
The Official Zoning Map for the City will also be amended to show the location and boundaries of
the proposed PDO-9.
4. Conditional Use Permit
The underlying PO zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for hospitals and helipads.
The proposed hospital will be a full service facility operating 24-hours a day, seven days a week.
Services provided at the hospital will include emergency treatment, outpatient surgical services,
inpatient surgical services, acute care inpatient services, intensive and cardiac care services
(ICU/CCU). In addition, comprehensive departments of radiology/imaging, cardiology, laboratory
and other outpatient services will be provided. The project will not include a trauma center. The
helipad is located on the north side of the hospital, on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant
has stated that the helipad will be used to transport patients to other facilities requiring specialized
treatment. The applicant expects there will be only one flight per month on average, but the permit to
be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to six
landings per month. As discussed on page 4-58 of the Draft Focused EIR, in the event of a mass
casualty event, these limits will not apply. (Section 3527, Title 21, California Code of Regulations.)
With the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration, EIR Mitigation Measures and
Conditions of Approval, the CUP will be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan and
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
5. Development Plan
The Development Plan consists of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot
fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres.
The Development Plan will be constructed in five phases. Phase IA will consist of site grading,
demolition of any remaining existing structures on site, construction of a three-story (60-foot high),
60,000 square foot medical office building, Highway 79 South access points and surface parking.
Phase IA is expected to take 10 months to complete.
Phase I B will consist of construction of the one-story main hospital building comprising
approximately 162,650 square feet, a six-story (106-foot high) bed-tower comprising approximately
122,755 square feet, DePortola Road access point and additional surface parking. Phase IB is
expected to take 14 months to complete.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of
a five-story (83.5 foot high) bed-tower comprising approximately 122,755 square feet, and construct
the access to Dartolo Road. Phase III will add a four-story (73-foot high), 80,000 square foot
medical office building. Phase IV will add a one-story (27-foot high), 10,000 square foot cancer
center and additional surface parking. Phase V will add a one-story (27-foot high), 8,000 square foot
physical therapy and fitness center. Phases II through V are expected to be constructed
concurrently and take approximately 12 months to complete.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
21
Access/Circulation
There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Highway 79 South. The
primary access point along Highway 79 South aligns with Country Glen Way and will require the
modification of the traffic signal to allow full turning movements (DP Condition No. 88a.) The other
access point along Highway 79 South is located further west and will be a right-in, right-out only
access point. A secondary driveway is located at the northeastern portion of the project site
connecting to DePortola Road and will be designed to prohibit left turns from the project site (right-
out only). The project site will also have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to
the west.
The original project proposal did not include an access point to/from DePortola. Staff required the
applicant to provide a secondary driveway access directly to DePortola. Staff believes that
alternative access points are necessary due to the potential for unforeseen closures along Highway
79 South, which have historically and may again in the future close down Highway 79 South.
Additional access points that are not located along Highway 79 South will allow the ingress and
egress of emergency vehicles to remain highly functional at all times. This DePortola access point is
a secondary driveway designed in a manner that will not permit left hand turns exiting the project
site. This will require all traffic leaving the project site onto DePortola Road to travel east towards
Margarita Road, away from the residential area. Staff has also included a Condition of Approval
requiring a bridge over the floodway connecting the site to Dartolo Road on the eastern portion of
the site (DP Condition No 138). The bridge will allow the future connection to Margarita Road.
The access and circulation of the project will not adversely impact the adjacent roadways. The
following improvements are required to be installed and operational prior to occupancy of any
building in Phase I: Installation of traffic signal at Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way,
including a dedicated right turn lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes and
turning lanes at this intersection; DePortola Road access point and roadway improvements;
Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) southbound and eastbound right turn
signal overlap; and improve Dona Lynora with half street improvements and restrict movements to
right in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to the certificate of any occupancy for any building in
Phase II, internal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo Road.
Based on the Development Code parking regulations, the site is required to provide a minimum of
633 parking spaces and 1,278 spaces have been provided. The parking lot will be constructed in
phases to coincide with the development of each building. The project is consistent with the parking
standards as set forth in the Development Code for hospital and office facilities.
Site Desiqn/Architecture
The hospital building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include the single- story
main hospital building and six-story tower housing approximately 170 beds. The second phase
includes the five-story tower housing the remaining 150 beds (320 beds total).
The project proposes a Spanish style architectural design for all buildings. The building design
features the use of earth-toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian Red tile at
the base. An octagon-roofed rotunda divides the hospital towers. The hospital, medical office
buildings and the cancer center each include a porte-cochere covered entry. The site design and
architecture, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
22
project site is designed in a manner that complies with the development standards. The colors and
materials are consistent with the Spanish architectural style proposed by the applicant. Each
building maintains the three components required for each building, including a tile base, stucco
body and Spanish roof. The applicant added a band below the fourth story windows of the towers to
break up the massing, which reduces the blank wall appearance. In addition, the abundance of
windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. A decorative rotunda between the
towers adds interest from Highway 79 South and reduces the massing by providing a separate
feature between the towers. The entry of the hospital, medical office buildings and cancer center all
include a decorative covered canopy. The covered entry defines the primary entry for each building
as a focal point. The applicant has also proposed a decorative boulder water feature at the main
entrance of the hospital to further accentuate the entry.
The hospital building is required to obtain building permits from the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and is exempt from City structural review and building
permits. The two medical office buildings and fitness rehabilitation center will be required to obtain
building permits from the City of Temecula Building Department. As a result of OSHPOD's
jurisdiction to review plans for this project, staff has tailored the timing thresholds for the Conditions
of Approval of the hospital building only to coincide with OSHPOD submittal requirements.
Buildinq Heiqht and Views
The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views, includes the two towers that
are five- and six-stories. The applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based
on internal functional relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the building must be
located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes nurse stations, care rooms, treatment facilities,
equipment as well as elevators, stairs and window placement. With the "form follows function"
concept in mind, the design of the building is severely limited in what can be changed in regard to
tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas.
Staff understands the concerns of the residents located to the north of the hospital properties with
respect to the height of the two hospital towers. However, given that the two towers must be this
height to allow the hospital to maintain it's functionality, and given that the nearest hospital tower is
set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property and approximately
630 feet from DePortola Road, and that a 238-foot wide landscape zone is provided along the
northern edge of the hospital property between the hospital and DePortola Road, staff believes that
the visual impacts of the towers have been adequately mitigated.
Landscapinq
Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot wide bermed landscape planter along Highway 79
South, consisting of 24-inch box and 15-gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and assorted
shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of a minimum 40-foot
wide landscape/equestrian trail buffer consisting of 24-inch box and 15-gallon Afghan Pines and Silk
Trees; a 50-foot wide planter along the western property line of assorted street trees; and a
minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer consisting of an informal planting of natural turf and
assorted trees along the eastern property line. The overall site will include 20% 36-inch box
(approximately 176 trees), 30% 24-inch box, and 50% 15-gallon trees.
The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design
Guidelines. The project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33% proposed). The
applicant has proposed and/or is conditioned to provide landscape berms adjacent to public streets
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
23
to screen the parking lots. Staff has included Conditions of Approval to further buffer the residential
area from the project by requiring berms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and
California Pepper trees between the project site and residential areas to the north (DP Condition No.
78).
6. Tentative Parcel Map
The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight parcels into one parcel. Included as part
of the map is a request to abandon the southern portion of Pio Pico Road. The portion requested to
be abandoned is not built at this time.
The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff originally prepared an Initial Environmental Study and recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the proposed project. However, based on responses from agencies and property
owners at Public Hearings held on April 6, 2005 and April 20, 2005, staff determined that an
Environmental Impact Report would be required for this project.
A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared by P & D Consulting and submitted to
the City on September 28, 2005. The City prepared a shortened CEQA review request that was
authorized by the State Clearinghouse on September 26, 2005. As a result, the public review period
for this project was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005.
The following impacts are identified in the Draft EIR as Unavoidable Significant Impacts:
D Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
D Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter
flights
D Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
The following have been identified in the Draft EIR as Potentially Significant Impacts that Can be
mitigated:
D Aesthetics - Light and Glare
D Noise - Operational Impacts
D Transportation - Project Impacts
Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends certification of the EIR for the ro'ect.
IMPACT AREA MITIGATION
Air Quality AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RT A) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out)
appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design
plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department.
AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during
construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TOM
techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and
vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going
operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and
a roved b the Plannin Director rior to the issuance of a radin ermit for
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
24
construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the operation of the medical offices.
AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards
appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by
State of California regulations.
AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project
site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon,
24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time
grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may
require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust
and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the
applicant/permittee's expense.
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of
construction activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the
Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large equipment are properly
tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled
vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected
and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy
efficiency reasonably possible.
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be
submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said
program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access
roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this
requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves
during the project construction.
AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive
Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in
Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the
following examples listed below:
. Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally
safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site inactive for over four days.
. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active
operations have ceased.
. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading
completion.
. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily,
at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon.
. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the
surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there
is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary
coverings.
. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
25
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation
operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be
subject to periodic site monitoring by the City
AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the
applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic
and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply
staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a
residentially improved parcel.
AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related
enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure
against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use.
AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use
tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114.
Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with
State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b)
(F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be
sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions
of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be
properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks
before they leave the construction area.
AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the
applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to
prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of
adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per
day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction.
AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per
hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing,
grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer,
to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and
operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as
determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion.
AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds
(VaG) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the
project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (RaG)
emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following
websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM. pdf
http://www.delta- institute. org/pu bl ications/pai nts. pdf
AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including
the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities
to reduce dust.
AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completelv enclosed and include a covered roof
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
26
subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be
maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during
pick-up times for off-site removal.
Noise
AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians,
including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and
Hiqhway 79 South) to promote alternative transportation.
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully
operational upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall
conduct continuous, 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such
monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise
levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of
Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the
time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds
or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, noise
attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate
by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the
acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance.
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for
critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use
Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in
the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport
Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an
average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except
to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that
response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed
of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast.
N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per
day, between the hours of 7:00 A. M. and 6:00 P. M.
N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings
on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the
General Plan.
N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and
other restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise.
Transportation
N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee
shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical
from surroundinq residential properties.
T -1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite
Country Glen Way with the following configuration:
Westbound:
1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
Eastbound:
2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared throuqh/riqht lane
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
27
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide)
T-2. The project applicant/perrnittee will pay Riverside County Transportation
Uniforrn Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to rnitigate curnulative irnpacts to the Highway 79
South intersection at 1-15.
T-3. The project applicant/perrnittee will contribute a fair share toward the
provision of the following roadway irnprovernents to address the project's
contribution toward curnulative irnpacts:
Highway 79 South/l-15 Southbound Ramps Additional southbound left-
turn lane
Highway 79 South/l-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through
lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn
Highway 79 South/La Paz Road: Widen southbound rnovernent to dual
left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway Additional northbound left-turn
lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way Signalize and
provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes
with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane
for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide
southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
Aesthetics
T-4. Irnprovernents on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola
Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director.
A-1. Prior to issuance of a building perrnit, City staff shall verify that a
photornetric plan has been subrnitted which details the proposed light levels for the
entire project site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light,
including rneans to rnitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses
and arnbulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include rneans
to rnitigate potential light irnpacts.
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or rnedical office
buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective
glass/windows) to reduce the arnount of glare ernitted frorn the upper floors.
A-3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as
necessary rnature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater)
around the perirneter of the project site. Enhanced landscaping rnay be required
along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
28
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In addition, an
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, which has identified potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff has included Conditions of Approval and has prepared a Mitigation
Monitoring Program that addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify
the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462,
PA05-0302, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the attached Conditions of
Approval.
The proposed project provides a multitude of benefits and services that are needed within the
community. The project is considered an economic benefit because the City will now have a
regional health care facility that will attract additional medical services, medical offices and related
uses and facilities. In addition, quality health care is a desired element that is sought after by
companies looking to establish and/or relocate to the City of Temecula.
FINDINGS
1. Statement of Overriding Consideration
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in the EIR but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant: short-term and long-term project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise
impacts associated with the potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and cumulative
traffic and circulation impacts.
a. All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital's
construction and operation have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation
of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant, except for those impacts cited above.
b. Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital that could feasibly
achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula Regional Hospital have been
considered and rejected in favor of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
c. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the Temecula Regional Hospital override and make
infeasible any alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation
measures beyond those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital.
2. General Plan Amendment
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General
Plan Land Use Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and
integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open
space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8 under the Land Use Element Goal 1
encourages "future development of a community hospital and related services, as
well as a community college, major college or university."
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
29
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area due to site design and extensive landscape screening.
3. Zone Change
a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan of
the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map.
The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment,
the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the
proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development
goals.
b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the
General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the
diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced community
with additional public services available to the community.
4. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a
helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and
land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City
of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected
and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "a City which is compatible
and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)." The proposed project provides
a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is
currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing
adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates
public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future
population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a State highway.
The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via
an EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Conditions of Approval in which
circulation, noise, light and glare, biological impacts and air quality has been reviewed
and conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area.
The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid-rise structures that
provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with
the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot
coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to
be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is
also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance,
including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and
conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures. An Initial Study and an EIR was prepared, which identified
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
30
potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was
adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise,
light and glare, and biology to a less than significant level. For example, access
points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site
towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary
access points along the State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are
included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The
tallest buildings were relocated closer to the State highway, away from the residential
area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the
emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and
construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place
requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the
State highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are
required to turn off sirens no less than Yo mile from the project site. The project is a
conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including
mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to
the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to respect the
surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code
and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the
use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-
bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31-acre site. The project has been reviewed and it
is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the
Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including
setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also
provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent
residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near
future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the Development Code.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-
bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental
to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed
project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has
been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general
welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute
to the long-term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional
medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and/or
the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the
construction plans for compliance with applicable building and fire codes.
e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of
Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad
facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the
City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
31
residentially zoned parcels.
5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 OF)
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula
and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan
for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements
of State law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has
been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the
project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State law and the General
Plan.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been
designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because
the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding
neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the
uniform building and fire codes.
6. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400
a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the
City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision
Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate Conditions of Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, an EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program has been prepared and is recommended for certification by the City Council
prior to action on the Application;
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are
substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
c:\ WINDOWS\apsdoc\nettemp\l 0076\$ASQpdf79164 7 .doc
32
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, April 20, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Mathewson thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
Commissioner Olhasso.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None at this time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 20, 2005.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 30, 2005.
3 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March, 2005.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Continued from March 2, 2005
4 Planninq Application No. PA04-0393. a Development Plan. submitted bv Currv Brandaw
Architects. to construct. establish. and operate a three-storv senior conqreqate care facilitv
consistinq of 115 units on 2.1 acres and an exception to the development standards to
reduce the onsite parkinq requirements bv 13 spaces. located on the southeast corner of
Villaqe Road and Township Road within the Harveston Specific Plan
Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as written).
In response to the Planning Commission's queries, Mr. Harris relayed the following:
. That if the three retail components listed in staff's report (Beauty Shop, Barber Shop,
and Home Health Care) were not to work out, other retail-type uses could be utilized in
the spaces
. That the proposed redesigned project and the apartment building would be comparable
in height.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and thorough
staff report. Mr. Alhadeff noted that the proposed project would be a permitted use and that the
concerns of massing and elevation, architecture, and the retail component have all been
addressed by the applicant.
Mr. Garth Brandau, representing the applicant, noted the following:
. That at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has eliminated the fourth
floor resulting in a substantial reduction in the overall height
. That the applicant has incorporated retail uses into the facility; noted that the intent of
the applicant would be to incorporate a Barber Shop, Beauty Shop, and Home Health
Care Center, but that if this were not possible, the applicant would have the ability to
acquire other tenants into the facility
. That in regard to the concern of architecture, the applicant created a more traditional
looking style that would emulate nearby buildings within the Village area
. That in addressing the massing issue, the roof lines have been further broken up and
lowered along both the Landings and Township Road elevations; and that the widths of
the columns have been reduced and four separate color schemes are proposed for the
elevations to further segment and break up the building mass.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
2
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the large hip roof and the view the residents on
the corner of Township Road and Harveston Drive would have.
Understanding Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern, Mr. Brandaw noted that it would be possible
to break up the hip roof.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a
condition requiring the breaking up the hip on the roof of the proposed project.
Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, representing Lennar Communities, spoke in favor of the proposed
project; advised that in regard to the lease of the four live/work units of the apartment building,
the owner has received interest from four specific uses; and noted that although the Welcome
Home Center will be utilized by Lennar Communities for another 18 months, it would be the
intent of Lennar that after that period of time, the facility would be used for retail uses.
For Ms. Rauschenburg, Chairman Mathewson noted that he would like to see the live/work units
come to fruition.
The following individuals spoke against the proposed facility for the following reasons:
. Mr. Anthony Reiter
. Mr. Jeffrey Duhaney
. Mr. Roger Logan
. Mr. Larry Bales
. Mr. Kenneth Ray
. Mr. Kristopher Williams
Mr. Spencer Simm
Ms. Shelley Moon
Mr. Mike Bender
Ms. Stormer Simm
. That the Isabel Barnet Elementary School will be completely overshadowed by the
proposed three-story senior apartment facility
. That three-story buildings or higher are not compatible in the Harveston Community,
they belong along commercial corridors with similar size buildings
. That the value of the homes in Harveston Community will depreciate if the proposed
project were allowed
. That the amount of emergency services that will be created due to the proposed project
will be a nuisance to the residents of Harveston
. That the applicant has only made minor changes to the proposed project
. That Lennar never advised that a four-story senior congregate care facility would be built
in the Harveston Community
. That the proposed retirement residence will not be favored by the residents
. That the residents of Harveston are desirous of what was originally promised by Lennar -
retail and small town Americana Main Street, U.S.A.
. That the proposed project is obtrusive, too tall, unsightly, and unwelcome.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
3
Clarifying for Mr. Bender, Commissioner Telesio noted that he had previously mentioned that if
the initially proposed project were not redesigned in a fashion that would be acceptable to the
Planning Commission, the applicant may not be the right applicant.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, noted the following:
. That the use is a permitted use under the Harveston Specific Plan
. That the proposed project will meet the Development standards in terms of lot coverage
and setbacks;
. That retail will be provided as spelled out in the Specific Plan
. That the applicant has made the requested changes as requested by the Planning
Commission
. That the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that would impose breaking up
the long ridge roofline as requested by the Planning Commission.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Guerriero thanked the applicant for their efforts in making the requested changes
and noted the following:
. That the proposed facility was part of the intent of the Harveston Specific Plan
. That there is a need within the Temecula area to house seniors
. That the applicant has addressed the issues that were a concern
. That the proposed project is a congregate care facility, not an assisted living facility; and
that, therefore, emergency response times would not be the same
. That staff will ensure that Lennar Homes will provide was originally proposed
. That the Planning Commission would request to change the rooflines.
Commissioner Chiniaeff offered the following comments:
. That the current four Planning Commissioners were a part of the development of the
Harveston Specific Plan and that at that time, it was the vision of Harveston to include
residents of all ages including seniors
. That the applicant has made great strides from the time that this project was originally
submitted.
In closing, Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he would be of the opinion that the applicant has met the
intent of the Specific Plan.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
4
Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that age, medical
conditions, race, color or creed are not factors on which housing choices could be based.
For the Planning Commission, staff and the public, Commissioner Telesio noted that he has
been a part of two ad-hoc committees and has also worked with the applicant and is of the
opinion that there have been significant changes from the original plan.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the retail
spaces would not be useable for any residential spaces and that the Specific Plan imposes a
number of different retail uses on the project.
Thanking the speakers for their comments and the applicant for all their revisions, Chairman
Mathewson relayed the following:
. That the building has been reduced in height
. That onsite parking will be provided
. That retail uses have been incorporated into the facility
. That as long as the retail uses are consistent with the permitted uses, the applicant
should be the one determining what the uses would be.
Mr. Mathewson commented on the applicant's efforts to address the massing and scale of the
proposed project and that based on what is being proposed to the Commission and subject to
additional modification to the rooflines, he would be in favor of supporting the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the proposed project subject to the
addition of a condition, imposing that additional roofline variations shall be incorporated into the
building design to reduce the mass and overall height of the ridge lines and that modifications
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning; that 1,650 square feet of
retail space within the facility shall be used exclusively for retail commercial purposes in
perpetuity; that the specific type uses shall be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan; and
that the applicant and the Fire Department shall jointly develop a lights and sirens protocol for
emergency response vehicle and that the protocol shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire
Chief and the Director of Planning. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
At this time, Planning Commission took a five-minute break.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-022
PC RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0393, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 115-UNIT
SENIOR CARE CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY WITH THREE
RETAIL SPACES ON 2.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VILLAGE ROAD AND TOWNSHIP
ROAD WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
ALSO KNOWN AS APN 916-170-027
Continued from April 6, 2005
5 Planninq Application No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment.
Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit. Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map
submitted bv Universal Health Svstems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hospital facilitv and
helipad. two medical office buildinqs totalinq approximatelv 140.000 square feet. a 10.000
square foot cancer center. and an 8.000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totalinq
approximatelv 566.160 square feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiqhwav 79
South and south of DePortola Road. approximatelv 700 feet west of Marqarita Road
Senior Planner Papp presented a brief staff report (of written record), noting that based on the
issues that were discussed and presented to staff via letters from Best, Best, and Krieger, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and area residents, it was staff's opinion that a focused Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project to address issues stated in
staff's report.
For the Planning Commission, staff, and the public, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that although
he was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2005, regarding the
proposed project, he has listened to the Planning Commission tape and has reviewed all
documents that have been presented and understands the concerns that have been raised.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that tonight's Planning Commission meeting will de dealing
with noise, aesthetics, traffic, and hydrology.
Chairman Mathewson also relayed that once the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is released, there
will be another opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of the NOP and that once the
focused EIR draft is released, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on that as
well.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Senior Planner Papp relayed that it would be
his opinion that the proposed hospital will not have any need for underground tanks but will
have above-ground oxygen tanks; that there may be underground storm drains; and that there
will be one large back up generator that will be located near the oxygen tanks (east elevation of
hospital) .
R:\MinutesPC\042005
6
For Senior Planner Papp, Chairman Mathewson relayed his desire for the scope of the
document to not address the source of the leaking tank in great detail.
Clarifying for the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that CEQA would address
the impact of a project on the environment, not the environment on the project.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
. Mr. Kenneth Ray
. Mr. Brad Stormon
Mr. Don Stowe
Mr. Raymond Bennett
. That the narrow residential roads of Santiago Ranchos cannot handle the delivery
trucks, trash trucks, ambulances, and patients with appointments
. That the Planning Commission consider the request of not approving any plan that
would contain any regular open ingress/egress for the hospital site on DePortola Road
and any building over three stories
. That the traffic impact report on Pio Pico Road must be prepared and should be
addressed with the EIR
. That a sound wall be installed to protect the residents of Pio Pico Road
. That impact to equestrian uses in the area be addressed
. That the Planning Commission ensure that the emergency room will not be upgraded to
a trauma center at any time.
. That the dead-end (southern) portion of Pio Pico Road has not been adequately
addressed; that it is the desire of the surrounding residents that the dead-end portion of
Pio Pico Road (southern end) be abandoned or sold to the adjacent neighbor.
Chairman Mathewson noted that the project description does not include a trauma center.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that an Environmental document assesses a project and
that although the concern of the dead-end (southern end) portion of Pio Pico Road would be
valid, at this time, circulation is not being planned, advising that this concern would be handled
in a different forum than in the EIR.
Clarifying for the public and Planning Commission, Commissioner Telesio noted that all of Pio
Pico Road south of DePortola Road will be addressed in the traffic/circulation portion of the
project.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
7
For the Planning Commission, Chairman Mathewson queried if staff's report was adequate or if
there were any other issues that the Commission would want addressed.
For Chairman Mathewson, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that it would be his opinion that staff's
report is adequate but requested that staff include the storm drain issue that would run through
the proposed property and the impacts if a trauma center were incorporated into the proposed
project.
Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and is of the opinion
that staff's report is adequate and does reflect the concerns previously mentioned.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that the Commission does not need to vote on this item;
that staff will move forward with the Commission's comments and that there will be many
opportunities for the public to comment.
It was the consensus of the four Planning Commissioner's to receive and file this report.
New Items
6 Planninq Application No. PA04-0561 a Development Plan. submitted bv STDR Architects. to
construct and operate a 7.380 square foot restaurant. located on 0.42 acres. qenerallv
located approximatelv 800 feet west of Marqarita Road. at the northeast intersection of the
Temecula Mall Loop Road and the Mall Access Road that is an extension of Verdes Lane
Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record) and recommended revisions of the
following Conditions of Approval:
That the language: As mav be due and pavable bv the Development Aqreement, be added
to the end of each of the following Conditions
. No. 45 DIF
. No. 46 TUMPF
. No. 50 TUMPF
. No. 90 Public Art Ordinance
That the cover sheet of Draft Conditions of Approval be revised to as such:
MSHCP: Per Development Agreement
TUMF: Per Development Agreement
R:\MinutesPC\042005
8
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the
architectural consultant has not reviewed the proposed project and that if it were the desire of
the Planning Commission, the proposed project could be forwarded to the architectural
consultant for review.
Responding to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Associate Planner Fisk noted that the tower
elements would be closed windows.
Commissioner Guerriero also noted his concern with the parking and queried if there would be
additional access to the restaurant's parking lot from the street or will patrons be forced to travel
to the access road and utilize the primary entry.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Fisk relayed that through a shared agreement
for the entire Power Center II, available for EI Torito as well as the other uses within the Power
Center II, there will be adequate parking for the entire center and that when the Power Center II
was initially approved, it allowed for a larger restaurant than was is currently being proposed.
Commissioner Guerriero stated that it would be his opinion that none of the restaurants in the
Promenade Mall and Power Center II have adequate parking and relayed a safety issue with the
pedestrian traffic crossing the loop road.
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the side of the building where the service
doors are located, advising that there is an open space with no landscaping and queried if there
would be landscaping incorporated.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Associate Planner Fisk noted that there is an
easement in that particular area on the side of the building and was not sure if it will be
landscaped.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Real Mex Restaurants and EI Torito, offered a 3-dimenstional
PowerPoint presentation, noting the following:
. That the proposed project will reflect Temecula's old style and new style
. That the proposed project will be vibrant and exciting
. That the Plaza area will be fun, exciting, and inviting
. That the proposed project will offer many angles
. That the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval as presented by staff
. That the Planning Commission consider the deletion or fulfillment of Condition of
Approval Nos. 17 and 18
. That the landscaping will be landscaped up the applicant's lease line.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
9
Mr. Mark Turpin, representing Real Mex Restaurants, offered the following comments:
. That the entire premise of the design of the proposed project is based upon the
company's commitment to authentic Mexican food; that the intent with the design would
be to create an image of a traditional Mexico or California surrounded by bold colorful
shapes that would be found in new construction within Mexico
. That the proposed architecture will combine elements of traditional and contemporary
Mexican architectural style.
Mr. Mike Chico, architect for the proposed project, noted that the applicant would only be
obligated to landscape to the easement line and that the proposed landscaping was designed
as a desert landscaping theme to tie along into the new architecture of the building.
In response to Commissioners' query, Mr. Chico noted that although staff would have preferred
that the building design be either traditional or contemporary, it was the opinion of the applicant
that combining traditional and contemporary elements surrounded by bold colorful shapes would
be new and exciting.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fagan relayed that he is unaware of whose responsibility it
would be to landscape the easement but would discuss his concern with the property owner.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the following:
. That it would be his desire that the back side of the proposed building be landscaped
before moving forward with the project
. That the east elevation (yellow wall) be dropped down to show some life and color to
the elevation which would allow a view into the patio area versus a long flat wall; and
expressed his support of the use of bricks and trellis
Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the bold colors and the overall contemporary
architecture and would prefer it be the traditional style.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed his enthusiasm with the EI Torito coming to the City of
Temecula and noted his appreciation for the 3-dimensitional PowerPoint Presentation.
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's change of the yellow wall (east elevation) but did
express his desire for the original architecture.
Nothing his appreciation for the 3-dimentional, Chairman Mathewson relayed that it would be his
opinion that the proposed project will be under parked and that the architectural consultant
should have reviewed the proposed project for direction.
Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Chairman Mathewson, expressed concern with pedestrian
traffic crossing the mall loop road as well as the lack of parking spaces.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
10
Commissioner Chiniaeff directed staff to have the landscape architect review the concern of
landscaping on the easement.
Understanding the concerns of the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Fagan noted that the applicant
would be agreeable to a condition that would require the applicant to work with the property
owner to address the landscaping easement issue.
For the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that if it were the desire of the
Planning Commission, he will forward the proposed project to the architectural consultant along
with the concerns of the Planning Commission.
For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Fisk requested from the applicant that the design
be either the traditional or contemporary but that the applicant expressed desire to combine
elements of traditional and contemporary Mexican architectural styles.
In response to Mr. Fisk's statement, Commissioner Telesio expressed his support of either one
style or the other, not a combination of both.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue the item to the May 18, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting; requested that the landscaping at the property line be addressed; that
parking be addressed; and that the design of the proposed project be forwarded to the
architectural review. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
7 Planninq Application No. PA05-0047. a Development Code Amendment. amendinq the
Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct weekend promotional
activities with an appropriate permit. increase the number of allowable minor temporarv use
permits from two to four per vear. and make a modification to the allowable size for
freestandinq tenant identification siqns
Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record).
In response to the Commissioner Guerriero's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that
the lumes of the proposed signs would be consistent with what is currently being used.
Clarifying for the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan noted that the signs would be internally
illuminated and that they would not be a spot light illumination.
For the Planning Commissioners, Associate Planner West relayed that if the applicant were to
exceed the number and size of the canopies and banners, that would be one way to determine
the program's effectiveness.
Giten the small scale of the program, Principal Planner Hogan was of the opinion that the event
would hardly be noticed.
Planning Director Ubnoske stated that the item will be forwarded to the City Council.
In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. West noted that the size of the banner would
be consistent with the current sign ordinance (32 square feet) and that the maximum height of
the banner would be 3 feet with a maximum height off the ground of 6 feet.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
11
Chairman Mathewson expressed concern with such activities becoming an every-weekend
event.
Addressing Chairman Mathewson's concern, Mr. West stated that the Sunset Provision will
provide an opportunity to evaluate the Ordinance; that the intent would be that each dealership
would need to apply for a Master Temporary Use Permit and indicate on itssite where each
canopy, banner, etc... would be located so that it could be enforced by Code Enforcement to
ensure that they are in compliance.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Isaac Lizarraga, representing Temecula Valley Auto Association, spoke in favor of the
Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct
weekend promotional activities.
For the Commission, Mr. West noted that the proposal would be for new car dealerships only.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff will work with the language to include two events
at the Mall and two events in area B.
Commissioner Guerriero noted that the dealerships in Temecula have been very supportive for
special events in town and would be supportive of the proposal, noting that after 18 months, he
would be willing to expand the time.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation and to allow for
two banners. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.28 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR WEEKEND
PROMOTIONAL EVENTS AND TO CHANGE THE MINOR
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE
AUTO MALL AREA, AND TO ALLOW LARGER
FREESTANDING TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR
AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS. (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA05-0047)"
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Commissioner Telesio requested that Code Enforcement explore the furniture store and noted
that there are quite a few banners on the two twin buildings that indicate "coming soon".
R:\MinutesPC\042005
12
In response to Commissioner Telesio's concerns, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she
will have Code Enforcement explore his concerns.
Commissioner Telesio also expressed concern with the home on the hill behind Old Town,
advising that they have a large for sale banner and could perhaps be in violation as well.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:30 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinq to be held on Wednesdav. Mav 4. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\042005
13
CITY OF TEMECUlA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner
April 20, 2005
Issues to be Analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report for the
Temecula Regional Hospital
SUBJECT:
A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District),
Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Plan were submitted for review by the Planning
Commission on April 6, 2005 to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed
hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately
140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot
fitness rehabilitation center totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The day of, but prior
to, the Planning Commission hearing for the hospital project, staff received comment letters
from the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger, representing Brad and Nicole Stormon who own a
home across the street from the proposed project, and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Stermon's do not object to the Hospital being located on the proposed site, they
feel that the following issues, as outlined in the attached letter from Best, Best and Krieger need
to be further analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report:
. Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico
. Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area
. Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed
. Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts
The letter from Best, Best and Krieger goes on to state that:
. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project
. A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared
. Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain
. There are analytical gaps in the MND
The letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (attached) states that while the subject
property is not located within a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Cell, MSCHP
policies still apply and the MND needs to include the following:
. A Determination of Biologically Equivaient or Superior Preservation for unavoidable
losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction
. Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective No.5, a focused survey must be conducted as
part of the project review process
. USFWS recommends a more thorough habitat analysis be conducted for the burrowing
owl, and depending on the results of the survey, on-site conservation measures may be
required
The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these and other letters from area residents and
stated the City's opinion that we agree that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared
for this project. The staff report of record was then presented and the public hearing was
opened. The following represents a combined view of issues identified by public speakers
during the hearing:
Traffic/Circulation Issues:
. Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
. DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide
. Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be
gated for emergency access only
. Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project
. All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated
. Emergency room should be relocated
Noise Issues:
. Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels
. Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
. Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise
Aesthetics:
. The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area, views will be lost
. Windows will reflect too much light and create glare
Hvdroloav and Groundwater:
. Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be
prepared
. Contamination from underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if the
contamination plume is moving. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track.
These and other issues will be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report that will be
prepared for this project. The EIR will include the full project scope, Alternatives to the
proposed project, discussion of impact areas, responses to all public comments received during
the public review period, Mitigation Measures, and supporting studies.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
AprilS, 2005
Dan Long
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
~'f,.O'FP~~
,l'~~~
I! * "
if Iii
\,'" ~
. -'
tl'f.,l!'OFCA\.W~f'(o..'"
Sean Walsh' .
Director
APR 1 1 2005
.,.........
Subject: Planning Applications Nos. P A04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PDQ-X):
P A04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and P A04-057I Tenta
SCH#: 2005031017
Dear Dan Long:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on April 4, 2005, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date.
Tills letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmeutal docwnents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghonse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above'-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
~~
Terry Roberts
Director, State Cleariughouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.g<>v
,
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
DocumentDetails Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
2005031017
Planning Applications Nos. PA04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PDO-X):
PA04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and PA04-0571 Tenta
Temecula, City of
Type
Description
Neg Negative Declaration
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change (PDO-X) Development Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to
eliminate the specific plan area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Hwy 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change)he zoning from Professional
Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed PDO-X allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof
areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Permit is a request to
construct approximately 565,260 sf of hospital. medical office. cancer center and a fitness
rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight
lots into one parcel.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Dan Long
Agency City of T emecula
Phone (951) 694-6400
email
Address
City
Fax
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula
State CA Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City Temecula
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
N. of Hwy. 79 South / De Portola Road / Margarita Road
920-100-001 through 013
Range
Section
Base
Proximity to:
Highways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S
Airports N/ A
Railways None
Waterways Temecula Creek
Schools Sparkman ES. Rancho Community (private school under construction
Land Use Vacant
Z: Professional Office and Planned Deveiopment Overlay (PDO-8)
GP: ,Professional Office
Project Issues
AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic: Flood Plain/Flooding: Geologic/Seismic: Landuse:
Noise: Other Issues; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services: Sewer Capacity: Soil
Erosion/Compaction/Grading: Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation: Water Quality
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and
Recreation: Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of
Emergency Services: Office of Historic Preservation: Department of Fish and Game, Region 6;
Department of Water Resources: California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8: Department of Toxic
Substances Control: Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics
Start of Review 03/04/2005
End of Review 04/04/2005
Date Received 03/04/2005
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
RECEIVED: , 41 BIOS 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 2
"
,
,.
'.
"
RPR-05-2005 14:05
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 582 1832
"
,
,
t
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
A CAl.IPQRNIA. WHITED lJA81Ltn' ,.1JIlTNB.","1P INCLUOINQ PROF'El!I:!lIO~ COIltPORA.110NB
LAWYERS
3750 UNlVER5rN AVENU~
POST OF'F1CE BOX I02S
RIVERSIDE, CALlF'ORNIA 1:12502-1 028
t9!5 1109$-1450
lSi511 68&3053 rl<<.
BBKlAW.COM
5.'.CFW1E;N1tl
(0 I 01 32504000
INDIAN WELLS
(7eo) 5015-2<5 I I
$AN CIImO
<eIQ) 525-1300
ONTARIO
(tilIOQJ gea-a!!5e4
ORANGE COUNT(
(949) 2$3-2000
I'
lSALVADOR M. s..LA:wI
!.SALVAOOR.SAl.AZAR@BBKLAW.COM
!.
i
~
(
April 6, 2005
i
{
j
(
Via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Dan Long
Associate Planner
City ofTemecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
!
~
1,
i
I,
,
i
~
\
..
i'
,
i'
IU::
COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA04-0462, PA04.1463, AND
PA04-0571 (UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES HOSPITAL
PROJECT)
,
,
\
l'
Dear Mr. Long:
This law firm represents Brad and Nicole Stonnon, owners of a single family residence
located on the northeast corner of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road directly across the street
from the northerly boundary of the proposed Universal Health Services Hospital development
project ("Project"). The Stonnon's are in receipt of the City of Temecula's Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and have retained us to assist them in
reviewing the potential impacts of this l'(Qject on the environment, their residence and
neighborhood,
:.
"
,
While the Stonnon's do not object to the construction of a hospital on the subject site,
they want to be assJll'ed that the proposed deviations from the existing general plan and zoning
designations necessitated by the increased intensity of the Project do not cause unmitigated
impacts to the environment. To that end, the Stonnon's have attended most of the neighborhood
meetings held by the City and/or developer of the Project. They have become quite familiar with
the Project and all of its components. In fact, the Stormon's have several times voiced their
concerns about the Project to City staff and representatives of the hospital. Although they were
infonned that their concerns would be addressed in the enviromnental docwnents for the Project,
they have reviewed the Initial Study and found it to contain significant gaps in information or
inadequate anll1ysis.
.
i
!'
~
i
,
,
!J
k
l
t
t.
~
'I
ltV~UB\SAl.v ADOR.SALAZAR\690!l47.3
P.02
RECEIVED:' 4/ 6/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 3
i
~
i'
i'
,
I
t,
-: . t
" f
,. .
... \' ,
,'...' ,
. ,
",1 '
APR-06-2005 14:07
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
"
"
,
, LAW ~cES OP
i BEST BEST & KRIEGER
i
1,
J
!
,
1
1
i
,
LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 2
l
I,
},
I
!
I:
l
While the Stonnon's believe that their specific concerns about the adverse traffic, noise,
air quality and aesthetic impacts from the Project may be alleviated with: (1) the construction of
solid fencing along their property frontage (to screen noise, block exhaust and screen light and
glare); and (2) the installation of traffic calming devices, signs or structures along Pio Pico Road
(to slow traffic coming south from Pio Pico Road to access the northerly portion of the Hospital
and minimize U-turn traffic by drivers who miss the single DePortola driveway entrance to the
hospital) none of these mitigation measures were identified or discussed in the hritial Study or
included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan prepared for the project. Failure to
discuss these feasible mitigation measures renders both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
mitigation monitoring and reporting plan deficient. We have set forth, the Stonnon's
conclusions in more detail below.
,
~'
.'
.i'
i' DEFICIENCIES IN THE INITIAL STUDY
J
f
:,
I
i
f
"
f
1. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO PIO PICoROAD.
I
"
The failure to discuss potential environmental impacts may result in an inadequate
enviromnental document. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water Dist.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396.) The Initial Study notes that the Project will generate 11,458
vehicle trips per day with 865 trips occurring during the A.M. peak period and 929 trips
occurring during the P.M. peak period. The hritial Study and Traffic Analysis assign 78% of the
vehicle trips to Highway 79 (South) and 22% of the trips to DePortola Road. (Initial Study at p.
33.) The Traffic Analysis also "evaluated all of the intersections on Highway 79 South between
the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road
and DePortola Road." (hritial Study at pp. 33.) Inexplicably, however, no vehicle trips were
assigned to Pio Pico Road and the intersection ofPio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one
of the intersections studied in the Traffic Analysis. (Sect. 15063 ["State CEQA Guidelines"].)
We understand tj)at the traffic engineer retained by the Project proponents1 believes that
no assignment of trips to Pio Pico Road is necessary because traffic will not use primarily
residential streets to access the hospital. However. there is already a significant amount of traffic
that comes from the residents in the northerly areas of the City of Temeculathat use Margarita
Road and then cut south to Pio Pico Road. These conditions will be exacerbated because persons
coming from the northerly portions of the City to the Hospital will find it easier to byPass most
of the traffic accessing the Hospital from Margarita Road and instead enter the Hospital complex
from the driveway located off DePortola Road. Indeed, it appears from looking at a map of the
City that a large portion of its population base is located north of the Hospital with easy access to
Margarita Road as a means to travel south in the City.
I
r
!'
i
.L
1 Additionally, we note that while the City may utilize infonnation prepared by the Project proponent, the City must
find that the environmental analysis reflects the City's independent judgment. (See, e.g., State CEQA Guidelines, S
15074.)
RVPUB\SALV AOOR.$AlAZAR.\Il!10947.'
P.03
, I">'~;~ !~'" ,
" ,l"..,v.,/:
, ''I..,,\,W~
~:'''~: ~~:'
" ;~,.' ~ t r~~
. . ,~,~,V\'\'~
, ;\:\r.~~~1
,"olj, t'. , ~
:.."'1.,/\ .
~' :~l,\':.\k\
, .l~.!\~';:!'~'
(I""",,:,
",.;.':. ~1i':I;.t~
" .'.,,>';,;;>:,
,f ~~' l
, : I~~.i i":f
" ~~'},,1,1
, ""::,'1',,
. : "(" ~ I,.'
, ,1 .' ,~t",~
.:.~:: r:tl~,!
~ .~ ;'1, ''':J'~'
,'0.:101, 'f-"
.. "';"'ll~;, f.
"''',1", ,;
'" ..:...t':::t.;.1
, . /I,,:~ ~,lt "i
," }I~ril~'
, ,'; ,~'~'~'"''
" \"'.: .', !~~
',(I: \ ,'. ~ rf~.
.~..." 'If'
. '~.r'<"/IV:'
. :!,' ..:~ ,.'t"
;"Id",
.1."It.l
" "',Ji~
. :!'
";; :
,,'
:. ::,~ i~,
, ~":,' ~~'.:
~, ./ i:~'~i p
" It .~,' ;'.1'
. .d.. '~'"
" ",I','?,
.1,,1, "
.','1':,"
, , I.!'~I, ,',
. ,~: ~It.:,\> w
.. ~ .~: ~ ,,' '"
,5 ,ll~ d:.
, "1:,' <\'::~
:: ': ~l . i ( ,
',.. ',"".:
,j._I....,.
;,:' ':~~::' i~~'
RECEIVED:' 4/ 6/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 4
.'
, ,
I
,
,
,
}
"
(
,
,
"
I
"
t
,.
"
I
.
..
J.
(
,
!,
,
l
II( ,
RPR-06-2005 14:07
BEST.BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
. LAW OffiCES Or
f .BEST BEST &. KRIEGER
,
1,
,
L.LP
i'
i
i
f
f
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 3
.'
,
Given these street conditions, the Stormon's request that the Traffic Analysis be amended
to: (1) include a study of the intersection of DePortola Road andPio Pico Road;. and (2) study the
reassignment of vehicle trips that would travel south beginning at the intersection Margarita
Road to Pio Pico Road. After the Traffic Analysis is revised, at a minimum, the City should
recirculate the Mitigated Negative Declaration for an additional comment period. (State CE<:!A
Guidelines, ~ 15073.5.)
..
~
.
i
(
),
THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING IMPACTS 10 THE EQUESTlUAN USES
PeRMmED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
2.
AB you know, the Los Ranchitos Property Owners Association maintains several
equestrian trail easements for the use of property owners in the area surrounding the proposed
project. These trails constitute an established land use that serves to connect communities which
may be adversely impacted by the Project's construction and operation, One of the trails is
located along De Portola Road. The De Portola trail is accessed by a north-south trail located on
the east side of the Stonnon's property. While these equestrian easements are not identified as
"equestrian trails" in the City of Temecula's General Plan, they exist through recorded easements
and are frequently used by local property owners. In addition, the City of Temecula has
implicitly recognized the importance of these trails by requiring the Project to construct a trail
along the westerly portion of the Project. The Initial Study, however, fails to identify the trail
access as an issue and lacks any discussion of impacts to the use of these equestrian trails from
Project-generated traffic, especially traffic using Pio. Pico Road to access the north side of the
Project.
3. THE INITIAL STUDY IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NOISE SOURCES
AssOCIA.TED WITH THE PROJECT, BUT OMITS DISCUSSION OF SOMe SOURCES AND DOES NOT
IDENTIFY MIUGAUONMEASURES TO REDUCE THE NOISE FROM OTHER SOURCES TO LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEveLS.
The Initial Study notes that the Project will include a heliport, (Initial Study pp. 26-27.)
The Initial Study also identifies development standards that are applicable to the installation of
heliports. However, none of these development standards include specific noise standards for
heliports. Further, the Initial Study does not discuss: (1) the anticipated frequency of use of the
heliport; (2) the anticipated noise levels associated with the heliport; or (2) the potential noise
impacts to surrounding properties.
In addition, the Initial Study notes that "there will be temporary noise levels in excess of
the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan dUring construction activities and dUring
peak traffic periods." (Initial Study at pp. 27) While the Initial Study notes that these noise
levels will be temporary in nature, there is no discussion concerning how the City can permit
noise levels in excess of those identified in the General Plan. CEQA defines a "significant effect
on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical
conditions within the area affected by the project including ... ambient noise...." Temporary
,.
1
1:
t
,
RVPUBISALV ADOR.SAl-AZ^RI690947.3
P.04
RECEIVED:' 4/ 6/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 5
','
APR-06-2005 14:08
909 682 1832
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
j' BEST
<<
LAW OFFlCI$ OF
BEST & KRIEGER LLP
I,
I
\
City ofTemecula,P]anning Department
Apri] 6, 2005
Page:4
i
l
i'
i
,
1
.,
r
impacts can be significant adverse impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR if mitigation is
not implemented. (No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68,85 ["Although the duration
of an environmental effect is one o{many facts which affect its significance, nothing in [CEQA]
suggests that short-term effects cannot be of such significance as to require an EIR."].)
Pennitting noise leve]s in excess ofthose authorized in the City's General Plan would constitute
a "significant effect on the environment".
~
"
.
~.'
,
Final]y, we note the discussion on page 27 of the Initial Study which appears to
suggest that because the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)
for noise as part o{the adoption of the EIR for the 1993 General Plan, the SOC can be used to
override any noise impacts from the current Project. [We note also that this same discussion
occurs with respect to significant air quality impacts.] First, the City cannot rely on a statement
of overriding considerations prepared for another project. The court in ComfflWlities [or a BettEr
Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) ]26 CaI.Rptr.2d. 44], clearly held that,
n[ e]ven though a prior ElR's analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being
incorporated in a later EIR {ora later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must
still go on the record and explain specificaIly why they are approving the later project despite its
significant unavoidable impacts." Thus, a public agency may prepare a negative declaration that
tiers off of a previous EIR; however, a negative declaration is inappropriate where any of the
project's impacts are significant and unavoidable. If any of the project's impacts are significant
and unavoidable the agency must preparc an ElR and adopt a statement of overriding
considerations specificaIiy (or that project.
Second, this afproach is inapplicable where, as here, the project is not consistent
with the 1993 Genera] Plan. Indeed, the Project requires a general plan amendment and zC)ne
change in order to develop the Project in the manner and intensity proposed. For your reference,
we point your attention to Section 15162(e) of the CEQA Guidelines which provides that
"[T]iering shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the !Zenetal D]an and
zoning of the city ... in which the project is located...." (CEQA Guidelines, ~ ]5152(e).)
Therefore, it is inappropriate for the City to use the SOC from the 1993 General Plan EIR to
simply ovenide the noise and air quality impacts identified for the Project.
4. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS TO
THEIR PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
. ;
"
.;
i'
!
i.
1
,
,.
,
~
,
"
The Initial Study notes that the proj ect will include various buildings and a hospital
structure that includes towers of five and six stories (]06' in height). It further notes that
"[W]hile the project will be visible from various residential lots, a less than significant impact is
'.
l The City is cUrrently in the process of significantly revising its General Plan yet it appears that this Initial
Study/Mitjgated Negative Declaration has been prepared tiering off of the 1993 General Plan BrR. The Stormon's
are very concerned about the City's use of that EIR as it would be inappropriate to tiei' off of an environmental
docuxnent that is no longer accurate. Additional analysis should be conducted to detelllline whether or not the
Project is consistent with the new General Plan.
,
,
',.
t
l
. RVPUBISAl,.VAPORcSALAZARIG90lU7.3
P.05
,'. \~I '.ll'~
, . l.~" ~ t!.J
, : ,; '; :,,'t,~
~.:,,; ';j.' I,
, "~\>'(;f'
, , -fl;~'\:1",
. ~~'';'' ~
, :--~,;:\l,.,.,
~ "jl
, >~, "
" "'~~ ,
"'l~'~,',
, ,\), -'('1
. ,," ."
. . "1 :-;-;,
, "~"
'):~~'lt:/~ ~
. :1,:,~,~:~;;1~
~ I,,,,L ~ 'l'1~
.' , '~,>i.',-,.' J'
, "~,';"t'.,;!.
, I t,,: ."I~,
'f.,It",\'"
, I '~'C'>>: ~t;!::l
". ."~\'Iv,',>t
1 ....'.., ~'1,
, ~'I (r,;.11.~
~ "'lll"
\,!.~,,: AJ"
: ),": >;~'~ .
, -:;j",:~ ~;it"
"^"\" 'f;.~
'. "~'l.'~'
, I :' "'\~:I~;"I~,~
, ~',: ',:r.tlr,:
;" V..:'::
, ,t,. '. ,~~;~
. "'''.
" ,4;,. ~'ll
'I'~~~,'h.
, . (I :,""'~:~=:
X /1' ~~:~{~
, '..,.z.~~'"
, ': "'l~ "1"
, \~,,\H~'$~
:':,t:,I,',
'f.t.
,I '~, '\:'tJ;f:
, ,~I" ':,>.
, """,
, '" J:~.j' 'II~
~\" "~ '
I ,!f,.'~~""l'"
I /, ~ ':;;,:: t~f
, .;" ~~j~}~
d, ~.r')':1
' ~ .- 'r\~t~
t . ~' J'~~'J'l
"",,,'JS;,
'l?'tt!~,
'\ . \~,~W
'. : . ~;':~'::'II.',
't l:'t!.~,'lr,.
. '~'l ..: lfil
''!;',e\"l
, ",., .'<
,..,,1/':1
'.:.,.;\, J/
'',., ~ . "'"
,,' '';!''':I,~
':\,',Ill' I,~~
. " '"I'''
.. '11. '~ "
" ,.'1''''
'~, ~~'~'o,ll,
",!.\'{\~" \
,;.,),1"
';' "I ~ I.',
...."~I.:'r
. ,',';r'rl:
,,','1' t'
.,: :~/' \ Il :I!
.., I'~'
.,."i.'l:......I'l,.
,.'" '.J'VI
"':-t"lf
'1',' ,i:1j,
r '~'4'1)'
~,,~,,'F
" :' ~':
. ":f'\'~
,I.y,.:"
',:'H.l',,';:
" ,l ,I,l'~.
. .":~ 7" :=r,'
" \' ';1"'~"
, .' \,~,\ t~[;.
, ~f p~~,r~.
I /h~ ,;'".
", ~
"",,,t,
" II!','
,.11 ~'611'
. ,," '}.:;f
' ~ ,.,{,'~
!':~' ,\
'~ " It ~~
. ,,',....,
, ,.~; " ,ll
." ',", I,"",
,:lU', ~'\:rJo
~I:,/(;;~.t~" "
~ ,:,,' .,,'
RECEIVED:. 41 6/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #614; PAGE e
"
;
I
" r
4
;
I
.,
f
i
;
.,
I
,
,.
.
"
I.
~
i
1:
;'
i
l
;
I
I
t
1.
,I
j
I
I
,
,
i
I, i
i'
t,
I
I
"
;;
I
"
i'
.. t
APR-06-2005 14:08
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
:
I
I LAW OFfICES OF'
\. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
'I
City ofTemecula, Planning Departtnent
April 6, 2005
Page 5
,
.
i
;
!
,
I,
,.
r
anticipated because views are considered private and are not considered to be of public benefit."
(Initial Study at p.3.) However, this statement does not absolve the City from analyzing the
aesthetic and visual impacts on sUITOunding residential properties of constructing a six-story
building. There can be no doubt that the visual character of the area will be significantly affected
with the construction of 106-foot tall structure in the immediate vicinity of a' residential
neighborhood. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass 'n v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116
Cal.App.4th 396 [concern of local residents regarding aesthetic impacts may establish substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that a project has a significant adverse impact on aesthetics);
The,Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 2004 Cal.App. LEXIS 2074 [lay opinion
may be substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts].) Dismissing the analysis simply because the
views are not legally protected does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. (State CEQA
Guidelines, ~ 15063; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4'" 1099 [stating that the lead agency must consider every fair argument that
can be made about a possible significant environmental effect, even if the project already meets
established thresholds].) The conclusions reached in the initial study must be based on some
evidence. (Ibid.) Entries on a checklist or o.ther fonn should be briefly explained to indicate the
basis for detenninations. (Citizens Ass 'n for Sensible Development v. County of lnyo (1985) 172
Cal.App. 3d 151, 171.)
.'
.
I
In addition, the discussion concerning the mitigation of glare impacts does not discuss
whether the purported mitigation measure requiring all windows above the second floor to be
glazed and/or tinted will in fact reduce the impacts of glare to less than significant levels.
RVPUB'$ALV AOOR.SAl..AZAR,\~90947.3
P.06
APR-06-2005 14:08
RECEIVED:' 41 B/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 7
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
,
i lAW OFl'lces OF"
i 6EST BEST 5. KRIEGER L.LP
!
i' City ofTemecula, Planning Department
1 April 6, 2005
~. Page 6
r
','
l: CONCLUSION
,
i We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study for this project. For the
I, reasons set forth above and additional reasons listed in the attachment to this letter, the Initial
~. Study does not adequately address the proposed impacts from the Project. In other cases, the
Initial Study is missing significant information required by law or identifies significant impacts
without mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, the
City of Temecula should consider preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the
Project.
i;
y
,
,
,
i
1
"
i
.::'
i
,L
,
11
,
,
I
\
,
:.
!
I
SMS:mxm
'(
. alazar, AICP
ST & KRIEGER LLP
Cc: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
Brad & Nicole Stormon
i
i
l'
"
,
l
t
/"-
,
I
,
i,
I
I
j,
~
i
I
.
!
,
I
,
t
~~
ii
,
I'
I'
I ._"~"
P.07
RECEIVED: 4/ 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 8
)
(
;'
i
. I'
!
~
,
I
f
-
:
1
,
,
,
,
"
,
.
,
!'
.' {,
, ,,:,' I
,i:...L .i,
'",', Ii, l
APR-06-2005 14:09
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
, LAW OFFICES OF
i BEST BEST & KRIEGER I.LP
f
i City of Temecula, Planning Department
~: April 6, Z005
,
; Page 7
I.
~ .
1
j'
EXHmIT TO LETTER TO CITY OF TEMECULA
,
,
I'
,
,
,
\
~
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT
,
i
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) generally requires preparation of anEIR
when it can be fairly argued, based on substantial evidence, in light of the whole record., that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal.Code of Regs. 1:itle 14, Division
6, Chapt. 3, Sect. 15064.) If substantial evidence of significant impacts is presented, the lead
agency must prepare an EIR, even though it may be presented with other substantial evidence
that a project would not have significant impacts. (Ibid.)
1. MND Not Annronriate For The Proiect
CEQA Section 15070 (a) states that
Decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration of CEQA
requires that an MND may be prepared when the initial study
shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record before the agency. that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
Section 15a-c of the City of Temecula Initial Study for this project indicates that the TIlIffic
Impact Analysis has identified several roadways and intersections improvements that' when
implemented could result in a Level of Service (LOS) of D or better in the study area
intersections. As stated in the Initial Study, a LOS ofD or better mayor may not be achievable.
However, the roadway intersections upon implementation of the mitigation measures may still
have a significant effect on the environment.
.'
,
,
;
2. Water Supolv Assessment Reauirement:
The Project does not comply with the water supply assessment requirements of California Water
Code section l0910(a). SectioIlI0910(a) provides:
Any city or county that determines that a project, as drifined in
Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act. . . under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall
comply with this part.
i
I
'.
i
,
California Water C()de section 10912(a)(Z) further provides:
lWPlJB'SAI,V ADOR.5ALAZAR\690947.3
P.08
";1 ,'<J 14~
,""":1"\
, ./,;~"",l~l
""t',-".',',
. ;.'. ,,~":':.I, 'Ii'
.' 'I~' ~,.4
'.' . ,,~,,::,J
. ...'t",
, ",)1'/\
'I : I, ~" . ':":~'"
: '" ',,~~~ ','I
,',' 'If r' .
." ',", 'I
,It' -.
" "~'
,,,,. "
" ....
',' \ ,~"" I if:
. ':I".~~"W
'","/,"'\'"
, "~'~
, >",~",'~'"
" ",.1,
, ....'...' ~
. ~. ,'.h I .~~.
; "',;('I~G:
,J.:",,-
~ ~ ~~,~~.;,
. ...~,.
" ,"I'l"
, . ",.,,"
, \ ~ il'l .Q<,.I,(
'"^,,,.,
: ' . , t~~;'
" ".;~, ~,1::
,~ )'\' ,\ ,',' .
, ~.'!.'f:J~' J
r,' : ,!?",'j"
..' "
.,.,,'1""
".','';<,,;:;'
, ' ~:" 'l:l :
",.,,"'1'
: ,Y"~I
, .',""
\ ,.y"I~~
, '",'11 ';~V"
\. ., ~I "I
.;: 1"" :.i'~' ,
" ,I'" 'U'
. " ~lIf'
..(,.J.....
.." .(,
, . ~~. ! f .""1' ~
\ ""bll\r'~l.
"'1 ''''i'
./. ~^:'.i I
. " '<~f '~l: ,
", "
, ' ,ii\ll~
..".~""....,~.
","~t' .) t' '
"'"Ip"'\",(I
, ", :,:~; \\ . I
" ,.tI.1
",1".,:,)':,
'u,:",', \
'J" .
. :':~f:,~~~'
, /tv..~.dll.
, ,; ~;r;4,'!r,
" "'1 Ij :6'~i
, """1
' , ,'I 'l~" "
, ,",' +l::'I,
:,' j'IY ,,'~
" ' ':1"~
.' ,""'''1
, " ~~,
,:':, "~""i'~!
;,~' ~.~",.:t~.
'. ': #~ ,.~r~~
fl,'}"""l",
.,' ~ ',' ~
Vl'r~~': t~'
. ' Y ,~(,;:\"
. '" '. ,"'l~
, 1""'I;~~
:' :': :,:,:;~1::~' ,~
)' ~},II""
""\,,,\.-
""(i .
:~::,:i, '~'"
.;\,,'//" ,
,~ ,~.~ '
, tl',,'..l",
. ,"11
\' :;'.'~ I
"',:..t1/'"
, ,"'\'"
, 't,
, ',::,1(;
, '.' '~' ;"
,::\ >>, ,~~.\
H''''''flP,1
, ': ~", ~ ~
, . ',>;~\fl
','I,;St'.i,
, ,'1.;"'/: 'I"
, , ~'.. .,,~'/ lit'
,,~h ~~.\ Ij.!;
, 'f: \"':'" ,~,
-' ,f ,',I, ~r
,"" "\~r'~'
, ,:":'i,:,;l'i:
) ," "., .
''''''t''''''I''
" r '~' J#~{'1.!~,
. .,., ,..~"
"""'1
, ) '",I' \. '
,l '1\",1",'lll
" ..';:~ l:\i",:;~;t~
RECEIVED: 4/ 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 9
APR-06-2005 14:09
~,
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
/ LAW OF'FlCts OF
l. BEST" BEST & KRIEGER
i
l:
,
I
l.
~
Ll..P
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 8
1;
.
..
.1'
,
"
I
1
i
:'
,
"
~,
f
I
.
j
\1
,.
,
I
,
I
l'
,
I'
,
"
.
r
,
,.
I
"Project" means .., A proposed. . . business establiShment
employing. . . having more than 500.000 square feet of floor
space. (emphasis added)
According to the Initial Study, the Project proposes the construction of approximately 568.000
square feet of hospital and office commercial land uses. Therefore, a water supply assessment
should be prepared for the Project. The Initial Study notes that a ''will serve letter" will be
submitted for the Project. However, such letters do not indicate whether there is sufficient water
supply to meet the long-term needs of the Project. Only a water supply assessment can provide
that infoxmation. Additionally, the water supply assessment must be included in the
environmental document. (Wat. Code, ~ 10911.)
3. Mitil!ation Measures Must be Definite and Certain To Reduce the Imuacts
California courts have consistently held that studies cannot be deferred. Moreover, standards
and criteria to be met in canying out mitigation must be articulated at the time of project
approval. (See generally, Sundstromv. County of Mendoncino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, and
Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal. App.3d 872.) Several
portions of the Initial Study indicate that future studies will be prepared to identify the mitigation
measures that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. However, the Initial Study does
not identify the criteria or perfoxmance standards that these future studies must meet. For
example, the Initial Study notes that future studies will be prepared on the following items:
;
i,
i
, ,
B.
{'
~
j'
t'
I
I C.
I
1
!,
I'
f.
i:
A.
Page 2 Section l.d. This section refers to outdoor ligbting and its impacts to the
adjoining residential properties. The Initial Study proposed as a mitigation
measure that a photometric plan be prepared in the future to determine the
adequate ligbting levels for the entire site. This photometric study must identify
means to mitigate light. However, in the event the mitigation measures cannot
mitigate the impacts identified it will be too late to redesign the project to reduce
the impacts because the project would have been substantially completed.
Page 2 Section l.d.e. This section is recommending, among other things, the
installation of a solid wall with acoustic attenuation in order to screen aesthetic
impacts. This acoustic solid walllllay have an even greater negative aesthetic
impact than impacts it seeks to mitigate because the height and location of the
solidwall could be as high as 10 or 15 feet in order to attenuate noise generated
by the project.
Page 9 Mitigation/Condition of approval letter J. This condition indicates that the
applicant shall verify in writing that all earth moving equipment are properly
tuned, However, the condition fails to indicate when and how often such
verification should occur. Additionally, this condition indicates that the
RVPUB'SALV ADOR.SALAZAR\690941.3
P.09
R; ~ l~l .
,l:~ I,i"r
, ,,",I\],\~.t
, I ~),1 ",I' :
, . '. ,I, hi
. ,\:II.~~ \ l
'. t. ::.,~,,~
,..f".:,,:'"
.,\", .
, .. 'h'~~~
'.1'"
t' ",'
'.,t,,11
: ~I~",
':, /~ ','..,':~ ,
"i,'{.h
. 1 :~~~~:
, ,'~
"':)'
, ,':: "l~
:, .,,".)
.~ ,(~l!,
1'/1,11
"
.' 1"I:,,!!lt
'I:',' ~:.. ,~,~
l' "'I'l'~-:'
, I"~,'.
, ' ~::'1~t,f," I
, ~~o'.> ~'lr~
,"f', I""
, ,~" ;;. {~l~~
, "d"~' :Jl
'\ ,10,' ~'l
. "I.~':: \'
, ,~ .4}, Il>j
<', ~ :~.:{."
. ',loll':' lit!
,', '1'(""1
, . '~; ~~.:,.\: ~ '
. . 1 ",~\~,. /....
, I, ." ~ ':.
", .)'f.,lf'
'.I",~\' 1:':-
.' ~r. il~i~~
, < -I":-,,~t
,'':l,''';,da'
. '1~.'< \, I
"1"";1-1' ,
, '.f';.l,...?,."1
" "":\"":',
. ",~, (, ;:h
. "'.1 Ii
, ... "Il~' \",f, ,
, . ~"~
,\'11'" A~'
" "V'-
: , '/,1., ..:., "
, ,'::,':/~i'.'
" ;;, ':".r ~t,
" ,~ I ;,1~':f':'
. ,I' '11~' 'III
: '/' '~'l,l:a
',/1 ,':It,..
A""'"
, ~:;~t:li;': ,J:\'
'~I",,:r).
, l.~,?~'
I' ?,/\,aJ
':' "~,' :~,.11';1'';
"'1'".," \"
""':~.'rJlr
',' . ,../r.~
: .:'t~ :::: hJrY
. .,,/\.,\,
, 't~, ':,~ :r~
,,'.,:'1
.' >>":,-,,,,
'''1,,1,'1',
. . ""1"
",' ,I
'\ ",,': .
0(, fl'"'~'
:'\~:"~~'"
\ ,~ ~
. " ,,', , it
:/ ',", .:"
:' 'II' I...w"l':!~
I \ ~"'~'~:;,
,. ',..l.
" ,....f'lJ,f,
" ....!"
. ,~, '::
, /',',
" ~I. '.l~;(
, \ " ,:~~ .;
, , ',;' ...~'I .
, .l ,,:}" "~l
'.:, '.;, ~r...
, , l~ ~)''J,Y
. /~'1, 'Af!'t
,'~\"~l,1jl~ :
.\""1'"
, II; 01,;1"
, ",Il"::'t!. >>~,
. '.1. ':" ,~~
; I 'l~ ':,-'1
''''r'
, ~"I.. I"
, '," \",~tl~ i
, :'~ :~\.' ,0;
, . .' ,'I> \ ~"
, ~; ':'~'~\;~
"J"
" <I"~
" ,
\ '.
APR-06-2005 14:09
REC~IVED: 41 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #614; PAGE 10
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
I. LAW OFFICES OF
!. BEST BEST & KRIEGER
"
1
~
i
,
i
f,
,
,
1
~
I'
~'
L.LP
City of Temecula, Planning Department
April 6, 200S
Page 9
\
.
;
~;
D.
"
1,
.'
,
,
.'
.\
I
"
.
,
,
'"
,
constroction equipment should be deployed considering the lowest emission
factor. This condition is vague and does not identify the appropriate party that
would decide what should be the lowest emission factor.
Page 13. Section 4 fc. This section requires a focused survey to determine
impacts to the Burrowing Owl. This study should be prepared prior to the
approval of the Project. However, in order to have a successful passive relocation
the owls must have an area where to relocate. Therefore, we recommend that the
focused study determine the areas where the owls would be relocated.
Furthermore, Page 12, sections 4.a.c.d. This section incorrectly refers to the
California Department of Fish and Game as the US Department of Fish and
Game. Further, this section indicates that a focused survey following standard
protocols shall be performed to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bells
Vireo. This requirement defers the survey until after Project approval and is
inappropriate because the Planning Commission and/or City Council will not be
able to make an informed decision concerning impacts to the Least Bell's Vireo.
The City should prepare and EIR and consult with the Depamnent of Fish and
Game as required in State CEQA Guidelines section 15086.
4. Analytical GallS in the MND
Page S, section 2(c), This section states that "the proposed project could, because of its regional
significant cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use." This
impact is significant unless mitigation is identified. (See, e.g., Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine
(2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261.) There is no explanation for the conclusion that "the conversion of
these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed project."
Page 7 Table 2. Weare unclear as to whether the air quality analysis also considers emissions
from helicopters?
Page 14. The Initial Study fails to discuss whether fue Project complies with S.B. 18. S,B 18
requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan, the City must conduct
consultations with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified
places, features, and objects that.are located within the City's jurisdiction.
Page 17, section 6(a)(vii). Mitigation measure vii should specific how the air quality impacts are
reduced. .
Page 18, section 6( e). The Initial Study fails to specify which sewer system will be used for the
Project. In addition, the Initial Study does not indicate the existing capacity of the sewer system.
There is no analysis to support the conclusion that the current sewer system and wastetrealment
facilities are adequate to acco~odate the Project.
Page 19, section 7 (a), (b) and (c:). This section indicates that the Project is J;lotanticipated to emit
RVPUBI$ALV AIlORSAl.AZAR\690947.3
P.W
, . J "~'l
',\ \~ 'k',"
',' ~~\~'11
\ ,',"',;';11
""~'J',
".j' "
"t,./' I
',I :,~~' . r
. -:,~~\?t~,.
.:.,ih?
"'~~ 'tf
/..,''!,:,
, I' ~nt'i!"
'1'; . "I ~ ....
I o"..",:'!/'t!
. " /.. I, ~t:\,
i "",,;1.'.1,1',
\ ,'.' '~,
1, I :,~;:~\ ,\
: < ;'".,~,r
" I '~~.~~ 1<'\:
"\""1'':'
:'i?i~~11
, "\1."/
\ ~';l' ,~.\, '<<'~'
, . ~ ' ,
. .:"..i,.m
<"\'f'~'
:' .,~ h~':~1':
:.\' ,~':',#I'
"1-.1.1':', N'
, '-'l~ ~"~~I~
:~ :'~~" ~'.
, /'"f;~:'t~
. ,.e., ~/
',' <", "~'
,~: ;:.:(~~
.1 I,::,;.:
",-",'.,,"f:
I, I.. ::J::~'.
:. I~ \.-:.~.;
,/,{.
....,1 '..
,I, l:,:~j,.i~'
.,," (,\:' ~'"
~ I' ~~: :
'"I,:,~,:.;:
""'''(1
, :1' ~.:"~".l"
, ,,' ,,~ ,It' .
''',1'0,,'.:
I," "l~
,,~!{, /"
" ',,1
':'i~\\
" ,'.
,> ", ~i',~ r t. t
I;"),~,,,'l'
.' ""::":-"1':1,
,1"':<,1
" ~.,,, \.
, ',," i l~
,', ",^ .~, lit'
'\"'I'~"'I,
), ,/",l':
1.'" ~ " ,
"" l",'
~( "\:".~,\
"'\'1""",
t, ~, (*1g.1~'
, ,..l~ 1'''''''11,1
, ,,~^'\::", lf~,
. '\~"I""~
, 1"I"ff.
, fl.],'....J
, ~ 1 1'1' ,~7
. , ' ""I "f!~
' ,'~ ~ ,~,,:/' (~I;
.1/h",lIt
J " .~ ^ ~ll'"
;", :~q:',
'.:""",,,
, ~''''I:u.I'': "
::: \,'f"l'~{'
. '~,: ') ~~' 1'1\
'. 1,,4
, " " ,~.
,'::i': lw.
\" '.:~' 1:\
, I,'ti""I'i
'~i :'i1i,,1:
.' '," 'j1
'"I,' \~~ M
I , .~' .:~ ;Jl,l
, " '~ll' II,
"".,,.~ "
,.1 ~.; ~fl"
"j" ~. ::I;~~
, '.." ~"'''''
. '~,o' ")~1'\
. '\/\,\t~l.rt\
, , ' : ' '~
to"'.,,~ '''l~
.'r.),v.:,I:"N'
': ,:, \ 'II ~ J1-:
, '.,',::,'"
: .:,,\/~II,~/.
~,I~: I .;t 1
,:. ~ 'W\fi~t::r.~
RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:05PMj ->CITY OF TEMECULAj #814j PAGE 11
.' '
.,
"
"
.'
. .
. ,
".,
''''1,''
" ,
'Jo,' , A,
t ,t,
l, "
:,~..' ~ :,
substantial emissions or have any impacts from the use of hazardous materials. However, the
discussion fails to indicate what are substantial emissions or whether the
storagelhandlingltransportation of hazardous materials is only for the hospital or whether the
hospital would become a regional facility for the disposal/storage of hazardous materials.
Additionally, the mitigation measure indicates that the applicant is required to submit to staff an
approved hazardous materials storage/transportation plan. The analysis does not identify which
staff member is the responsible party and whether they are qualified to make this determination.'
Page 24, secti!Jn 9(b). This section indicates that the proposed Project is consistent with the
General Plan because the site is designated for such uses as hospital and medical offices.
However, the analysis does not address the fact that the proposed project is 300% larger than the
hospital and medical facilities that are permitted under the current land use and zoning
designation. This analysis is inconsistent with the with the City's adopted and Draft General
Plan.
Goal 1 of the current and Draft General Plan states that the City wants a complete and
integrated mix of residential, commercial. . .land uses. The policy, which is the implementing
mechanism for this goal, requires the City to review all proposed development plans for
consistency with the community goals, policies and implementation programs of the City's
General Plan. Further, Table 2-9 which is the mechanism that guides the policy, currently notes
that to achieve compatible/complementary commercial and residential uses all projects in this
area shall be limited in height to one or two stories to be compatible with the existing Ranch
Style residential projects in.the area. Deleting the height restriction under Table 2-9 does not
make the project consistent with this General Plan policy.
Page 26, section 11 Noise generally. This section indicates' that noisewilI not be an issue
because the State Highway fonus a separation barrier between the Project site and the residences
to the south. However, the analysis does not indicate how the impacts to the residential
properties to the north would be mitigated.
Page 37, section 16(f). There is insufficient infonnation to support the conclusion that the
Project will have a less than significant impact. The Initial Study does not identify where fill and
construction materials will be disposed of, or which landfill will construction material be taken
to. The Initial Study does not identify the disposing landfill's current capacity or the Project's
anticipated capacity during construction and operation. Regarding the disposal the Initial Study
does not identify the routes that will be used to transport the material. To the extent these trucks
pass any residential areas, noise and air quality impacts will be significant.
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
APR-06-2005 14:10
j LAW OF1'1Cl:S OP
t BEST BEST & KRI!::GER
, f:
"
~
1
;
LLP
City of Temecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 10
(
t
\
<
,
,
i
"
,
!
,
"
1,
"
,.
"
,
"
f
I
I
I
I,
I
';
'.
l
,
'.
.
I
"
,
,
"
.
I
1
..
I
,
f,
"
!.
I
I'
,.
,r
~,
,
I'
I~
RVPUBISALV AOOR.SALAZAIt\690P47.3
"
909 682 1832
P.l1
r."':,':"\\I'
, ":..;-'" ~ j~ '
, , ' ,\1",~1o 4 I .
, ,". ,":"
"\,9,,,
"\,,,,:,~~)
, 'c~, :"~I~:
'.'~{~~L
" \,~'(,'J:,~
: ,\';~'~.i:lfI
,,' '..f.'ltloW
1 ~,\'~'II~".:im
.' ~., f"
~'::;ti~)\,~t,' , I
t','I,,';{
" " 1 :'~ ";~
",',....' :ij
, ",'.\"\~"'~
" ",l..,~.(~
;.,,,'1,::,1
, I' i~'j~ ~~(
':~, :"'~':rl..,
., '\'1 :~l .I',
, I,' 1',"1"
1,:;::"d:P
;.d:.,:'IIt',
~, I ". ~'
~' ::;11Ii~:
4":'
, , >':,)1,':i~f'.
~,~,f~~J~;;""
, ~l(.t:~i {
, "(/;'(" ~
, ,': :t{,;"4i:
, . 1':"~I~I'
'. .~"', '.'
','1'''(,
"', ,~'.~,f: I
r ','"
," ," .~t:,;;'1
",~: 1', "I~:'
, , ' "~to ,;,'~,.n:'
t 'I' ,'t:.. '~,I
"',t.:.s.::.~
"'.'::-:'
',"';,;'1.,tl.'
,t""")'
, "\,~>'l*1'
; :ii~j,"\'li
('I, I,.
'.,',;1', .~
. l.~ 1":,,lr~
' ':" ,.t~"'J
': :"~~,t'i;
:,'~Wtl';
\ " \ .~,f, .
" ',,,,,
. ,,', ~l,
.\ ,,;.,
" ~ltf,:
~ " I :,','t '
'~" I',,",'
Y :" .. ~,i,
",, l.,,~.'l.
, ~~, ~j~ ',~"
,\.,",l'l,111
I ' ," ..~ 1!6,
, ~.~:" /.' oJ
"'4'1;'."1'1
,1'","
, , I \ v~ '~'.l
:\~;::~~:'I, \'
'\:''','~l'
',<";"'...,
, : "'~"~tJ'b!1
I ,,' (, ',',n~
~:;~}"?'tl'%
.It~:~ ii" ~.
'" ,(1\.
, , \',''''
. " i,~
, ~' ; ,.1 ~I
" '",
"
, ,
, I"
, ~) ~';1,
, ' ;',~..
, : I'~
, l ,',l~'
/, ~ :,::
:, ~:''<,t.;
, ' :,~, ,:..lj'l.
" ",,',\'~/~~~
, .' '~, "~:~1"l
, " 1 ~t , ~.,'
. I 'r\"d::~'
;" \~,~~' ~~jr:
'" ,::..!.!l~l~~~
, '~', itt,'lll:~
, ,',1 ~r\",,'Ji
~. ~"'l
" '~,'.l \ \,j , ,
"'1'"
, I~,' 'It t'l~
",,' (,
,1"'1,,,,',
: 'I",~O,,, ~':,
',. ....~~n~II"I~.
, ',/) ,"":-l~'
''''r''.\I'} 1,
]1 {b~..',}!' j
~:I ~~::l1r~~ .
REC~IVED: 41 6/05 2:09PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #815; PAGE 2
04/06/2005 14:07 FAX 7609180638
US FISH AND WILDLIFE
141 002/003
United States Department of the Interior
"""I.~
FISH AND Wll.DLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carl.bad, Califomia 92009
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-WRN -4430.1
APR 0 6 2005 .
Dan Long
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Temecula Regional
Hospital, General Plan Amendmllnt/ Zone Change P A04-0462, Development Planl
Conditional Use Permit PA04-0463, Tentative Parcel Map 32468, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. Long:
We have reviewed the information provided in the above-reference Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) that we received on March 4, 2005. Implementation of the proposed project
would result in the development of approximately 35.31 acres into 565,260 square feet of
hospital, medical offices, cancer center, and fitness center. The proposed project site is located
north of Highway 79, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 f~et west of Margarita
Road, within the City of Temllcula, Riverside County, Caiifornia. We offer the following
comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (I6US.C. 1531 et
seq.), and in keeping with our agency's mission to work "with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people."
On June 22, 2Q04, we issued a section 10(a)(I)(B) permit for the Western-Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservatj.on Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP establishes a multiple
species conservation program to minimize and mitigate babitat loss and the incidentaltake of
covered species in association with activities covered wider the permit. We are providing the
following comments to assist you in your preparation of an MSHCP consistency finding and
adoption of a final MND for the proposed project.
Although the proposed project site is not located within,the MSHCP Criteria Area, other MSHCP
policies and procedures are applicable to the proposed project. Specifically, these include the
Protection of Species Associated with RiparianlRiverine Areas and Vernal Pools policy (MSHCP
section 6.1.2 pp 6-20) and the Additional Survey Needs ,and Procedures (MSHCP section 6.3.2,
figure 6-4).
i
TAKE PRIDE"~
INAMERICA~
RECEIVED: 41 6105 2:09PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #815; PAGE 3
04/06/2005 14:07 FAX 7609180638
US FISH AND WILDLIFE
@J003/003
Dan Long (FWS-WRN-4430.1)
2
The initial study states that the proposed project site co~tains riparian and riverine habitat that
will be disturbed by the proposed action. However, the:MND does not address how the proposed
project will comply with the MSHCP Protection of Spe!:ies Associated with Riparian! Riverine
Areas and Vernal Pools policy (MSHCP section 6.1.2).: We recommend that the applicant
submit a Detennination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation as described in
section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (pages 6-24 and 25) forreyiew.by the City and the Wildlife
Agencies for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due ~o bridge construction.
The proposed project site is located within the Burrowi~g Owl Survey Area (MSHCP section
6.3.2, figure 6-4). The initial study states that grassland.habitat which is potentially suitable for
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) occurs on the proposed project site and focused
pre-construction clearance surveys for this species shal~ be conducted one month prior to the
initiation of ground disturbing activities. The initial s~dy further states that if burrowing owls
are found during clearance surveys, they will be .relocat~d. However, MSHCP species-specific
objective # 5 for the burrowing owl requires that focusq;I surveys to detennine the presence of
burrowing owls be conducted as part of the project revi~w process and that the locations of this
species (detennined as a result of survey efforts) he con~erved in accordance with procedures
further described under this objective (MSHCP Volum~.II, pp B-65). (Please note that focused
surveys are required to detennineburrowing owl pres~~e and address consistency with the
Additional Survey Needs and Procedures and the speci~s-specific objectives; whereas, pre-
construction clearance surveys are intended to prevent !jirect mortality of owls.)
I
I.
I
We recommend that a more thorough habitat assessme* be conducted to detennine whether
potential habitat is indeed suitable for the burrowing owl. If it is determined that suitable habitat
occ~s o~ the site, focused ~urveys for burrowing owl ,m need to be conducted accor~ing to
California Department of FIsh and Game accepted protqeols and the results addressed In
accordance with the MSHCP species-specific objectivd~ Depending on the results of the survey,
the proposed project may need to incorpOrate onsite co#ervation measures for the burrowing
owl consistent with species-specific objective #5. Ther~fore, we recommend that surveys be
conducted prior to project approval. '
I
We recommend that the aforementioned MSHCl> consi~tency issues be fully addressed prior to
the City of Temecula's adoption of the MND or approv~ of the project. We appreciate the
opportunity to co1iJment on the subject MND. If you. haKre any questions or comments regarding
this letter, please Contact Heather Reading of this office ~t (760) 431-9440, extension 357.
Since !y,
{j.. ;54J~t
/u- K:::t'.GOebel
cc: 0 .As~~;ft Field Supervisor
. Leslie MacNair, California Department ofFish and Gmi~, Ontario, CA
.<
,
Officers 2004-2005
President, Larry Markham
Vice President, Neal Zift
Secretaryrrreasurer, Rebecca Weersing
Architectural & Environmental Control, Don Stowe
P.O.
Phone (951)
omegwn rs Associat~~'~-\ \\ \'\1
, \1'.'
593 'APR 0 6 2005 ,
otmail.com"" .....~ '
Directors 2004-2005
Jeffrey Tomaszewski
Dee Messing
Kathleen Stowe
Ray Bennett
April 5, 2005
Dan Long, Associate Planner
City ofTemecula Planning Dept.
Temecula, CA 92589
CC: All Members, City ofTemecula Planning Commission
The proposed hospital project has proved to be a moving larget with respect to ongoing reviews by our association. In our
initial meetings with hospital representatives, including an association sponsored community meeting, those representing the
hospital made it very clear that one of their priorities was to address concerns of homeowners within our community with
regards to any perceived negative impact that might be caused by the hospital project. While many residents of the Los
Ranchitos community questioned the proposed location of the hospital, they also appreciated the advantages of having an
acute care hospital located in Temecula. Based on the commiltnent of the hospital group to work with our local residents,
many retained an objective attitude as discussions continued.
The primary responsibility of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners board of directors is to monitor and protect properties
located within our association boundaries. To this end, our preliminary efforts were concentrated on the potential impact of
this project on the Los Ranchitos parcels that were purchased by the hospital group for inclusion in the project, additional
properties adjacent to or near the project, and any changes in traffic that would impact our community.
In our original meetings with the hospital representatives, as well as early discussions with representatives from the Planning
Commission, the plans presented and subjects discussed reflected the following positive results:
L The use of Los Ranchitos parcels purchased for use by the proposed hospital consisted of a green belt, walking paths and
single story structures to be used for cardiac rehabilitation. We felt this was an acceptable use of these parcels, subject to the
required association approval of an amendment to existing Los Ranchitos CC&R's.
2. Hospital representatives agreed that is was appropriate to buffer adjacent properties by creating raised landscaped berms
along the west and north boundaries of the hospital site, including the extensive use of mature trees. This effort would
contribute to the pteseIVation of the rural atmosphere of our community. They further agreed that this landscaping work
would be done at the outset of the project. Additionally, the hospital representatives agreed to provide the continuation of
existing equestrian trails along the west and north boundaries of their project.
3. Based on the hospital plans originally submitted, the ouly traffic access to the hospital were two entrances on Highway
79. We felt this would result in minimal traffic and noise impact to the Los Ranchitos community.
4. In subsequent meetings with the hospital group and city planners, there was agreemeut on the value of providing an
additional access to the hospital property by extending Dartola Rd, which would facilitate traffic approaching the hospital
from Margarita, thus reducing traffic on Highway 79 and providing an emergency entrance in the unlikely event that 79 was
blocked due to an major accident.
With regards to the proposed 5 and 6 story buildings to be located on property outside the boundaries of Los Ranchitos,
residents of Los Ranchitos expressed concerns regarding these high rise structures. However, based on the 45 foot height
limitation in the General Plan, and the Planning Commission's historical record of opposing exceptiJlOS to this limit (Le.
rejection of the four level parldng structure originally submitted by the Rancho Community Church for its new project
.
.
located on Highway 79 just a few hundred yards from the proposed hospital), we felt the Plaoning Commission would
reduce the height of these buildings to a reasonable level.
Since these early meetings, the following negative elements have developed, which have alienated local residents who were
inclined to work with the hospital group and city plaoners to see if their concerns could be mitigated:
I. The city has demanded access to the hospital property from De Portola, which will cause a significant increase in traffic,
noise and safety hazards on Ynez, De Portola and Pio Pico. This negative impact will affect the residents of Los Ranchitos,
Santiago Estates and Santiago Ranchos.
2. The Planning Commission has initiated no action to reduce the height of proposed buildings, which we believe would
result in the tallest structures in the city of Temecula. The height of these buildings would have an extremely negative
impact on the existing view of all residents near the proposed project, and change the prevailing rural atmosphere to that of
a high rise commercial environment.
3. The hospital group and city have indicated that they will require DartoIa access only if and when the second phase of the
project is undertaken. Despite the filct that this access would provide an alternative to Highway 79 access, the city continues
to demand access from De Portola, and Mr. Parks was recently quoted as saying that if the hospital project is approved, the
developer will be required to widen De Portola in front of the hospital site. There is no specific time frame for establishing
this critical DartoIa access point, and the negative traffic impacts to our community without this access point wonld be
significant. Additionally, the traffic patterns established without the Dartola access would likely continue even after it was
opened, if and when the second phase of the hospital project was completed.
Based on the transition from a positive attitude of compromise to the city's apparent rigid position with regards to many of
the negative aspects of the proposed project, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association felt compelled to make an in
depth review of the environmental study undertaken for the proposed hospital project. Our review has raised some very
serious concerns about deficiencies in the city's environmental study, and a summary of our findings is attached for your
review. We trust that you will give serious consideration to the elements addressed in this study, and we look fOlward to
your response.
In conclusion, many residents of our community feel it would be more appropriate to have the proposed hospital located in
an area not adjacent to one of the city's only remaining rural equestrian communities. However, we welcome the
opportunity to meet with the members of the hospital group and city planning personnel to explore potential changes that
might make this project mutually acceptable at the proposed location.
Re~~
D~W:
Director, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Associatinn
Encl.
. .
April 3. 2005
Mr_ Dan long, Associate Planner
CIty of Temecula, Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
temecula, CA 92589-9033
The City of Temecula prepared and circulated an Initial Study and proposed Negative
Declaration for the Universal HealthSelVices proposal to construct a new 1/2 million + square
foot hoSpitaL Theslteisfocated north of Highway 79 South and south of De Ponola Road,just
west of Margarita Road. This is a developing area with limited retail commercial and
plof<lWiooal office uses, bounded on the north of De Portola Road by high quality,low density
residential _. 1be referenced residential area Is one of the older elit8blished residential
communities In the City ofTemeeula and this comment letter is beingsubmitted on behalf of
the Los Rsnchltos Home Owners Association (lRHOA). Based on the current design and the
level of IntruSion that tile proposed hospital Imposes on our existing residential community.
LRHOA strongly opperses the current design of this hospital, The comments provided below
demonstrate that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required before the City of
Temecula can consider this project, and the LRHOA strongly believes that sUdl sn SR is
required because 8 detailed evaluation of alternatives, including altemstive locatiOns and
alternative designs is required to address unavoidable significant adverse environmental
eff.:lCb from imPlementing the proposed project.
Detailed comments onspeclflclleClions of the Initial Study are provided below, but there isone
fatal flaw that pervades this dOcument. In many sections, the analysis and substantiation In
the Initial Study rely upon ftncIlngs in the Temecula General Plan SR. There life two reasons
whyU1is is afatalflswforU1e proposed hospital project. rllSland moslegreglous, this project
Incorporates a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. It Is obvious that this project IS
a radical intensification of land use at the project site. As a result. none of the data In the
CeneI8I Plan SR can be relied upon tosub$tantiate the ftncIlngs in this Initial Study because
the adoptedGenel'al Plan EIR cIoesnotindudethe proposed land use u parlof its evaluation.
Therefore, 1II1 findings that cite the General Plan ElR analysis have no factual basis of support
and mll$l be evaluated on the propose project's Independent merits, Indudlng potential
Impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
, .
Second, and equally important, the Initial Study pul"J)OJts to rely upon a 12-15 year old General
Plan ElR. This ElR was certified In j,993. and much of the data were developed prior to this
date. When citing a previous fiR, the City must confonn with the reqUirements in Section
16j,62 of the State CEQA Guldelllles. Sectlon :1.5162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: (a)
When an ElR has been """ tilied0l'8 negat;redeclMation a(/Optedfora ptOjeCt. nosubsequent
ElR shall be prepared for that pmject unless th;tt lead agency detemr/nes, on the basis of
substantial evidfmce in the light of ~ whole record, one or mote of the followIng:
a. Substantial changes ate pmposed in the projed which will require m;Vor
revisions oftha previOu$ ElR or NegatIVe Declaration due to the Involvement of
new significant fmlllronmentel etfects or a substantial Increase in the severity
of previou$/y Identif"oed significant effects;
b. SUbstantial cIIanges occur with respect to the ciroumstances ullder which the
project is undertaken which will requile m;Vor revisions of the previous ElR or
N...~tllIe Declaration due to the iIJVOMtment of newslgnifleant enVIrOnmental
effects or a substantial increase In the severity of ptelliously identified
signJRcant effects; 01'
Co Newinformafionofsubstantial importance, which wasnotlmown and could not
have been known with the (ll(erc#se of ~ dilIgence at the time the
previous ElR was (1erfified as complete or the Negatwe Declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more slgnificanteffect& not discussed in the
prev/oll$ ElR or Negative Declaration;
b. Significanteffecls previousIy81UllRined will besubstantially moresewre
than shown In the previous ElR;
Co Mitigation measuRlS 01' altematiws previously found BOtto be feasible
would In tact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
$/gII/ffcant etfects of the project. IIut the pIqject proponentS decline to
adopt the mitigation meIl$ure or allernatilles; or
d. Mitigation tne8$lires 01' alternstiws previously which ate considerably
different Iinm hose analyzed In the prelllous ElR would substantially
reduce one 01' more significant effects on the em4rDnment, but the
pIqject proponenf;$ decline to adopt the mmgatfon measute or
aftematwe.
2
It should be obvious that dramatic changes in the background conditions have changed for
almost all the environmental issues contaIned In the Environmental Checklist Form. However,
the Initial Study does not provide iIDX detailed discussion of the changes that have occurred
over the intervening 12 year period since the General Plan E1R was c:ertifIed. Relying on 12
year old data Isa majorflaw In the project's Initial StudyfNegatlve Declaration because such
data are either clearly different In 2005. or require an analysis in the E1R to demonstrate that
such 12-15 year old data can be relied upon as "adequate" substantiation for findings In the
Initial StudY,
tgnOringthefollowlngdescribed inadequacies in this Initial Stucly. these two flaws in the Initial
study clearly demonstrate that at a minimum the Inftfal Study needS to be rewritten and
recirculated or, more reasonably, needs to be rewritten and an EIR, with possible focus on
certain iSSUe$, must be prepared. However, It Is the LRHOA's positlon. that a :1/2 mililon+
square foot hospital should be examined as part of a foU scope EIR because of the extent of
impacts that thIS project will have on the local neighborhood and the City as a whole.
Sneclfic Comments on the Initial studv
The following comments are focused on specjfic pages and Issues as presented In the Initial
Study.
PU$ L D rlDtion: This project desc:rlption, Uke much of the analysis, does not provide any
descriptIon of the hospitals operations or construction activltles. For example, how many
patients may vlsitthls faclIlty each day on average. How many of the patients will arrive daily
In ambulances? How many employees will work at this hospital and how many will be onsIte
dUrlngeachshlft, assuming that ttUs ftospltalwill operate 24-hours per day? Does the hospital
have emergency generatOlS that will require onslte storage of fuel? If so, how much fuel and
where and what kind of storage system Is proposed? What will be do,", with contaminated
medical wastes generated by the hospital? Will this hazardous material be transported
through ournelghbQrhood or will it be incinerated? Were emissions from an Incinerator orthe
emergency generators provkIed In the Initial study, we did not see these data? Will there be
a wastewater pretreatment unit on the hospital site? H so, where?
As you can see from these questions, the project descriptlon containedinthe inltiaiStudydoes
notprovJdeanyoftheessentlaldata required to makea comprehensiveimpactforecast based
on substantial evidence. Th_ are probably 50 more questiOIl$ that need to be address,
ranglngfromacJequacyofutllitlescurrenUyavallableattheprojectslte(forexampleadequacy
oftheexlstlngwatersupplyinfrastructureand adequacyofwaterpressure in the existing water
lines to support ftre fighting requirements for a 106-foot high stRicture when the approved
GMeraI Plan allows builclings of only 45 feet) to heflCOPter approaches to the hospital and
hlmIrds this may pose to surrounding land uses from an accident. The project description Is
3
clearly Inadequate to meet the requirements outlined in SectIon j,$j24(d) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. which states: A genera' d$$Criptlon of the project's technical, economlD, and
environmental characteristics. consider~ the principal engineering propoSals If any and
suppottlng public setVice facll/t1e$. The project description utilized In the Initial Studyd0e5 not
meet this minimum requirement and Is clearly inadequate,
Similarly, the Initial Study contains no Information regarding the construction of this project.
What equipment will be required onslte during the different phases of project construction?
Will pile driving be required for the foundation&? How long will c:onstructIon last? How many
con$truction employees wiN be required at any given time.? How many trucks will be required
todellvwequipmentand matedaltotheprojectslte? Acomprehenslw wnstruction scenario
must be Included In the project lis I CliptIon for a project of this complexity to ensure that all
potentiallmpadS are identified and to BUPPOrtthe impactforec:asts for all of the Issues In the
Environmental ChecklIst Fonn. The fundamental purpoSe of the California EnvIronmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Is to Infonn decIsIon-make<<s, the affected public and the general public.
The cutrent Initial Study woefuHy falls to meet this sfmple test of CEQA compliance.
p,...... 3. Aesthetl- The text discussion In tills section appears to be playing with words in all
effort to avoid acknowledging the adverse effeCt on thesc:eniC VISta from our homes along De
Portola. The text rllSt states tile project is not located near a scenic vista. This Is a fal$e
statement as acknowledged later In tile d1sct'$tloll "t'- views are private", There Is no
distlnc:tlon inCEQA between public and private views. Eilhera scenic viSta exlst$or It does not.
The text ac:knowIedges that views to the south fJom the existing residences will be adversely
lmpaeted. This view is a marrelOuS sc:enie vista of Palomar Mountain and the complex
topographytothesouth. Thenlf'ore. theanslysls In thissectlon isslmply not true. Scenlcviews
will be Impacted- The 2.06 foot structure will totally alterthescenk:viewto the soutbfor most
of the residences located to the north. Furthermore, views from tile south to the pastoral
Iandscapeinourneigtlborhoodwillalsobetotallyaltered. As the project is currently proposed,
there will Inevitably be a "substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista", This Is undeniable and
the City should not attempt to bidesuch an obvious Impact behind rationalizatio/lSthat are not
supported by fact.
thefaetthat our IIomes are somewhat higlterthan the base of the I~I does not mitigate
the Impact of this massive structures and Installatlon of landscaping wID not hide nor
atten.... the buildifJgs effect on sc:enIcvlstas. It would take 150 feet tall redwoods planted
like a forest to hide this sttucture and several hundred years for Utem to reach SUCh height.
To properly address the potential Impact on scenic vlslas and visual degradation of our
nel8hborhood, the City must prepare v1sualllmulationsfrum pertinent views In our erell. This
will property charac:tedZe the Issue, but it Is our position Utat tile structure's Impact on scentc
vistas and scenic resources wHI be unavoidable and slgnlftcant, as there is no NaI way to
mitigate tills structure's effects on our existing scenic views.
4
Pal&l 4. a-etillS: We have some concerns reg&rdlngthe hospital lighting. both because of
local visual degradation and posslbfe conflicts With Palomar. In the II'lItlaI Study It Is stated
that some of the Clty"s conditions may be$Uperceded bytheState regarding both engineering
anddeslgn IssUes. This raises the question regardlngwhetllertheState may require more and
dim..ent lighting than the City or COUnty would allow under Ordinance 655. This i&sue needs
to be clarified, like 80 many other Issues. For example, mitigation measure b_ requires future
submittal of a .photometric plan, Including evaluation of helicopter and ambulance lighting
requirements. However, there i&no perfonnance standard estabJi&hed for Ibisfaclllty, 80 this
measure actually defers mitigation to the future. This Is not acceptable under CEQA because
the mitigation measures themselves may have advet$e imP8Ct$ Ulat need to be considered
by declslolHn8ken; and the publiC- The photometric plan must be submitted and evaluated
as part of the Initial Study before the NegatIve DeeJaration Is adopted, or a set of specific,
performance stanclardsestabl/shed by the City to assurethat no adveJSe impec:twill occur, as
claimed In this analy.sls.
PRe 5_ Africulture: Two issue$ under this section are of concern to us. FIrst, the text states
that the property Is not considered "prime" fannland_ However, no attempt appears to have
been made to determine Whether the soils are considered to be prime agricultural solis. The
point Is these soils have been produc:tive for agriculture purposes In the past, and pert of the
information needed by the cJecIsIon.makers Is to undelstand the possible Iu&s of prime
agricultural soII&JIand. This document Jgnores the issue. The second Issue of concem is
confusion created by text under 2.c. Pleaseexplaln how "8 rapid period of growth... precluded
the proposed P")ject. This does not make sense.. What Is meant by this sentence?
Page 6. Air Oualitv: The air quality analysis for this project Indicates that it will result In a
project specifJc and cumulatively significant unavoldabfe air quality Impact. The Initial StUdy
attemptsto utllite the General Plan BR as the baslsfor concluding that it Is ok to aPJl/'OVe this
project based on a Negative Dedaratlon. This /sa grave error. F"1ISt, as the CIty is _re, this
prvjectillcludesaQ:meralPfanamendment, w11lch meansthat the potentiallmpaets_renot
addressed In the General Plan EIR. Second, there Is no effort to discuss the difference In
emissions associated with this proposed proJed- Third, there Is no evaluation of the change
In emissions within the CIty, Including potentlallocallzed air quality Impacts, relative tD the
forecast contained In the General Plan Bit As a result, the data in this sectfon i& clearly
fiawedand Inadequate. 11Ierearealsoonsltestatioftarysourcee-'- 'lh"lSthatmay haw been
ignored by the air quality evaluation. The air quality report indicateS Si8h1flcance. and there
IS morethatt a fair argument that the implementation of this project has 8 potential to cause
SIgnificant, unavOidable advet$e air quality impacts.
-12 and 1:<1 -- -- The biology iIIIlpBCt analysis Is fraught with 80 many
errors that It Is hard to know where to start. First, surveys for endangered species cannot be
defemld. Eitherthespecle$ are there or they are not. Such studies cannot be deferred until
s
O.
sometime after the proJect is approved. second, the discussion at the top of pelge :1.3, the
analysis IgnOres the loss of lIabltat. The wording selected In this analysis attempts to play
down the riparian values on the site but they cannot be Ignored. Further, there Is no
consistency analysis relative to the riparian habitat which is required iI$ part of the Clty's
commitments comply with the Multlplespec/es Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The text
under 4_b-e actually contradicts the previous dlsc:ussion and the mitigation required relative
to riparian habitat on the project site. As noted. Mure stlldies are required, a total failure to
present data to the public and declslolH1lakers. Mitigation measures a, b, C, f and g defer
mltlpt/on to the future which is unacceptable.. The CIty must define What Is ac;ceptable
mitigation from It's perspective now, not Iater_ ThIs allows the public and dec:lsJon-makel5 to
determine whether the mitigation Is suffic/ant to offset the Impacts.
Pao 11'1 Geolol!VandSoIls: One of the classic failures of environmental documents isa failure
to evaluate the potential /mpactsof mltlg.atlon measures that win be Imposed by a projec:tto
achieve a less than significant environmental impact. The text discusses and references the
geotechll/c8l impactsA~atedwlththeprojectand 1d8lltlfleslmp/ementlngthese measures
as a condition of llP/II'Oval (Me Blure 8.), However, consistent with the rest of the analysIS, the"
Initial Study does not evalWlte the impacts from Implementing these measures. A classic
example would be a requirement for pile driving to provide the building with sufficient
protection against earthquakes. Another is over excavation which results In a longer period
of construction nolseandcreaterfugitivedustemisslons. ~potentia/ Impadsare/,gnored
and the CIty must consider them before approving this proJect. These Impacts must be
evaluated.
Pa81.7.SoII Erosion: Without anyana/ysis or reference to specIfIcstanclards, the Initial Study
concludes "The project will not resu/t in substantial soli erosion or loss of topsoIL There is not
definition of the type of erosion control measures or their potential effectiveness. No
d~1on of City stlInclards, and as far as we undelStand, there are not NPDES standards.
The standard of comparison is that established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board. There is no discussIon of the Board's construotlon and post-constnJdlon
(occupancy) standards and the 1Ib/Jity of the best management practices to meet these
standards. The analysis of this Issue Is c'-Iy flawed and ineffective.
PMe 1.9. u.,""'rdr. This page contains the statement ~e applicant is required to submit to
staff anapprovadhazardousmaterialslorage andtransportatlon plan.... The CIty cannot defer
/dentifyIngancl evaluating the hazardous matellals, lranspoltandwaste Issues illSuclatlodwlth
the hospital, both construction and ~..tiOns. There are residences directly adjacent to the
I10spftat that have a right, no must have, these data to protect themselves. We do not .have
hazardous waste deliveries In our ne/gh~ at present. ThIs projec:t wiD bring these
materials. albeit in a managed manner. Into our nelghbOrIIood. We must know what these
materlalsare; we must understand how the hospital plansto malUlgethese material; and we
6
must know how to protect ourselves if an accIdentoceurs.. The City appears to be Ignoringthe
Imposition that allowing this hospital Into our neighborhood will create for existing residents,
either because the City tnI$tS the hospital or because it does not care for residents and
"lIpo$Ure to these new bazardous materials. The CIty Is required to provide a list of the
chemicals IJSed and other hazardous actiYities that may be allowed into our community; and
the City must evaluate the Impacts and public health riSks from these chemicals. The City
should be ashamed of Ignoring this critical issueandfallingto giveour neighborhood residents
sufficient Information to understand this issue; prepare comments on those Issues thlll cause
e major 4:OIlCem; and ensure that we are prepared to deal with accldents that may threaten
our health_ The City failed both CEQA and its existing residents with the cryptk: evaluation
contained In the Initial Study_ This is a critlcaI. peISOR8l issue for which the neighborhood
resldenfsdemandan adequate data basefortheCltyCOuncll and ourselves to make Informed
decisions.
PaI!"e20. 1fA7Ards:Thecomments regarding_tion routes and emergency response plans
igncNes the nature of the proposed project. The irony 18 that with a hospital nearbY, dealing
with emergencies could be easier. The negative side of this issue Is that the hospital will be
a key c:omponentof any emergency response plan in the City. The adjacent residents deserve
to understand how the City"s emergency response plan will be revised and exactly what role
the proposed hospital will play in this revised response plan. By definition an eml!flOncy
response plan involves the lI1CWement of people to a hOSpItal for treatment. What 4;8R we
anticipate? Could there be c:lR:Ul1lStances where we could not access our homes, such lIS in
a majorearttaquakeasa result ofcontrollingaH ace ! 5 5 routestothehospitaL Tbl$information
Is required to undeIStand the full consequences of piaCingthe hospital in our neighborhood.
Pee?1 HvdrolofvlWater 0ua1itY: The CIty seems confused, as there are no NPDES
$tandards, only e requirement to submit a Notice of Intent to the state Water Resources
COntrol Board. As Is the case with any mitigation, the CIty cannot defer identification of
mn!ure to comply with non-point souroe water quality discharge requirements without
Identlfyingthern and Identifying suffic;ient best management practices (BMPs) to fuIiIIthese
requirements. Simply referencingthern with no definition does not provide the reviewer with
sufficient Information to evafuate potential compliance. or the effects of implementing the
required BMPs. For example, what If the project lIS5UmeS that a detention basin with a filter
tJeab....nt syStem will be Installed on acU-d property. Without knowing this proJlOSlll. it Is
not possible to evalUate the impac:t$ of such facilities. Impacts may be minimal. bUt until
defined and evaluated this fact cannot be ~
The praject analysis does not identify potential operational pollutants; pretreatment
requirements; or any other$tatlonarysources of water pollution. However. a hOsPital clearly
get\elaw.. contaminated wastewater and it Is en .oal that the constituents of the waste
water Is defined. If a pretreatment system Is required, what happens to the residual
7
.
I~[E@[EDW~~
00 APR R 6 1"5 ~
April 5, 2005
Mr. Dan Long
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
RE: P A04-0462 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change, P A04-0463 Development
Plan/Conditional Use Permit & PA04-057I Tentative Parcel Map - Applicant:
Universal Health Services, Inc.
Dear Mr. Long:
I am an adjacent property owner. I have many concerns about the proposed zoning
change. Here are my three concerns for the record. I would like the opportunity to meet
with the City on these concerns.
My number one concern is about the eight (8) lots being made one parcel. The
City would be treating the Hospital development with preferential treatment, by allowing
PDO-8 to be divided up. This is a move by the hospital to build higher buildings but
they will stick out like a sore thumb if the lots to the east in PDO-8 are not afforded the
same zone change. The hospital's three (3) lots are closest to the ranch community of Los
Ranchitos. I can see no reason why all the existing lots in PDO-8 would not be changed
or none at all as there intended use is the same, office medical; they are all adjacent to the
hospital. If the City proceeds with segregating the existing PDO-8 lots any conformity in
the planning of the entire block from Margarita west will be lost and this is not in the best
interest ofthe community. The hospital's lots (3 in PDO-8) are the farthest removed
from Margarita Road. The balance ofthe current PDO-8 lots are adjacent to more
commercial development near Margarita Road and in my opinion they would blend in
just as easily. I am in favor of blocking any change to the PDO-8 that separates and/or
divides the six (6) lots that are currently under the PDO-8 zoning.
Secondly, tall buildings mean more parking requirements and better access to
those parking lots and buildings. I purpose parking lot access on the south through the
present DPO-8 lots (map attached). This would benefit all owners and future
development, which all have medical developments of some type planned. Pulling
everyone together for joint planning ideas may be in everyone best interest.
My third concern is we have a flood plain on DePortola Road and I have concerns
that the City along with the Hospital developers will abundant the flood issue only to pass
it on as someone else's problem. At the present time the drainage channel crosses the
natural drainage course across Deportola Road and is undersized, see map attached. This
drainage channel was put in place many years ago before city hood. Many developments
.
have been given the green light including Sparkman School, Paloma Del Sol and other
developments upward (north) from DePortola Road. Many other developments down
stream have also been approved as well before and after city hood. I believe it is time for
the city to act on necessary drainage channel improvement and upsize this culvert to an
acceptable size as was done under Margarita Road when Sparkman School was
developed. This negative impact in my opinion is not the responsibility of down steam
homeowners (like myself) or private party developers but is a tax payers/'public use'
issue and the city needs to act on it soon.
Regards,
Don L. Rhodes
31625 DePortola Road
Temecula, CA 92592
(951 )302-3554
o
" \
~ ............
..-
...."
~
;;; 1
'::J: i ~ .
Q I ; ~ t
f~~;! ll~ .~ \
'. I. I
. I I ,
- i i.
f . I
. i-.-......-.........T!
'.. ~ I! il
. IU J I I.
k: ':1
I!; r i I
r- I . .
i'V i i !
Nl I -;,.. . I
! i ~ Ii
I '. .......... ~...- t
: ........ '"" ,;.
!
;
r
~
IT"
, .
April 5, 2005
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Regarding April 6, 2005 Agenda Item 4. PA04-0462 HOSPITAL ON 79 SOUTH
Dear Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Olhasso, and
Telesio
, As Vice President of Santiago Ranchos Home O"lyners Association, I am bringing
, to your attention three problems with the current ~ite plan for the new hospital
and also requesting a change in the phasing of apcess construction. Santiago
. Ranchos is an equestrian association comprised lof 2 y" acre parcels on narrow
i rural residential roads immediately to the north o( the proposed hospital site.
Santiago RanchOs would also like to be on record as in support of Los Ranchitos
'.'. _ HOA in requesting a modified three lane arteriaJtoaddesignation for De Portola
Road.
Like Los Ranchitos, Santiago Ranchos has tried to be a good neighbor in
, accepting a proposed hospital in concept. Howeyer, three aspects of the plan
"l5efdre you threaten to severely and negativelyimp'actbothassociations.
1. Driveway on De Portola cannot be open to routine traffic: When the three lots
on De Portola were rezoned by this commission from rural residential to
commercialla~t year, the deal with Los Ranchitos Home Owners Association, in
, order to release the parcels from the association's CC&Rs, was that there would
be NO hospital access from De Portola. The City Engineer has since determined
that an emergency alternate entrance for ambulances is necessary should
gridlock completely block 79 S. Fine, make it a true alternate emergency
entrance by requiring it to be a left-in only, one lane entrance only, with a security
gate to which the Fire Department and the Temecula PO hold the keys.
Ambulances would always have access in a true dire emergency but daily routine
hospital traffic would not. Pio Pico is a narrow rural residential road without
sidewalks. It cannot handle the delivery trucks, trash trucks, employee, and
patient traffic that would inevitably use Pio Pico as a cut-through to any open
entrance on De Portola.
2. Emergency room is poorly sited: Locating the emergency entrance on the
NW corner of the building, thereby forcing an ambulance coming in the main
entrance on 79 S to circle a medical office building, then wind its way through the
parking lot, makes absolutely no sense. Place the emergency room on the south
side of the bui1ding, move the. office building further west, or realign the main
entrance, do whatever you have to do to make emergency room access a
straight shot. If you allow the ,current plan, the hospital will be coming back to
you at some point to request a new site entrance near the emergency room at
the intersection of Pio Pico at De Portola. You can avoid that future fight now by
simply requiring the emergency room be near to, and directly accessible from,
79 S.
3. Six story building violates Temecula zoning height limits: Our current zoning
restrictions are designed to protect the quality of life and general ambiance of our
residential neighborhoods. Three stories, as has'been approved elsewhere
along 79 S, might be acceptable, but a six-story building is totally incompatible
with nearby residences, especially horse properties. If you allow this exception, it
will irretrievably alter the character of southern Temecula. Also, once you have
. set this precedent, every future applicant with a financial incentive to do so, is
going to come up with absolutely compelling reasons why you must grant him a
special exemption, too. Once you let the horse dut of the barn, there's no going
back and the Planning Commission and City Gouncil will be hard pressed to
. prevent even higher rise buildings in the future. there is no compelling reason
for a six-story exemption on this site other than U.niversal Healthcare wants to
..._c~7_usflJhELsamebuiJdlngcdesignthat WQllss well forJhemirl~DQtbElLstat~~___ . ...
. Unfortunately, thepTannedbuilding will forever destroy the feel and character of
the adjacent residential neighborhoods and should not be allowed.
,;r--~~. . ~~_
.' Finally, I would also request that the order of access completion be changed. If
.. ....'thenospifal. co-nstruClronlspriase7,TnEin'tllele-fS'naneecr~1'1 alh31'l'l~T---~-
emergency ambulance access from De Portola until phase 2. Conversely, the
Dartolo entrance will be needed for patient access to the phase 1 medical
buildings. Therefore, whatever approvals you grant should be conditioned that
the Dartolo entrance be opened as part of phase 1 and that any De Portola
access be postponed until phase 2.
. . :~c~: ':"~I~~-"~~";,-';,;;,:4;,:;~'.
Thank you for your consideration in protecting the interests of Temecula
residents and the quality of our long established neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
~~-~
Kenneth G. Ray
Santiago Ranchos Home Owners Association
31647 Pio Pico Road
Temecula, CA 92592
951-302-1035
.'
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 6, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, April 6, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
Chiniaeff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None at this time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 6, 2005.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 2, 2005.
2.2 Approve the Minutes of March 16, 2005.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
R:\MinulesPCI040605
..
COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Items
3 Planninq Application No. PA04-0594. a Development Code Amendment for Supplemental
Alcoholic BeveraQe Sale Requirements recommendinq that the City Council adopt an
ordinance reQardinq supplemental requirements reQulatinQ the sale of alcoholic beveraqes
for certain types of businesses and to provide locallv appropriate criteria for State-requested
FindinQs of Public Convenience or Necessitv
Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of written material).
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's report, but requested the following modifications:
. That the requirement No beer or wine shall be displayed within 10 feet of cash register
or the front door be changed to 5 feet.
. That a requirement be added imposing that sales staff be trained by or through the
Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) prior to approval of a Conditional use Permit (CUP).
Principal Planner Hogan noted that a condition could be added that requires staff training by or
through the Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) prior to the opening of the business.
Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hogan offered the following
comments:
. That the proposed requirements as stated in staff's report would not be imposed on
existing facilities
. That if a temporary church and a business selling alcohol were located on a Commercial
or Industrial Zone, the 500 foot requirement would not be applied.
. That if the sale of hard liquor is the predominant product sold in a store (50% or more), it
would be classified as a liquor store; if not, it would be considered a convenience store
. That previously imposed requirements regarding the sale.of alcohol would be replaced
by the proposed four requirements in staff's report.
At this time, the public hearing was opened but due to no speakers it was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approves staff's recommendation subject to the
two following conditions: That no beer or wine shall de displayed within close proximity (no
closer than 5 feet) to the cash register and front door and that sales staff receive training by or
through Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) prior to the opening of a business. Commissioner
Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
R:IMinutesPCI040605
2
"
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.08, 17.10, AND 17.34
OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE
LIQUOR STORES AND SIMILAR USES AND TO FURTHER
CLARIFY OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESSES
SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (PLANNING
APPLICATION 04-0594)"
J
4 Planninq Application No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment.
Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit. Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map
submitted bv Universal Health Systems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hospital facilitv and
helipad. two medical office buildinqs totalinq approximatelv 140.000 square feet. a 10.000
square foot cancer center. and an 8.000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totalinq
approximate Iv 566.160 square feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiqhwav 79
South and south of DePortola Road. approximatelv 700 feet west of Marqarita Road
Assistant City Attorney Curley stated for the Planning Commission, staff, and the public that the
proposed project will be subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); that the public
hearing will be opened to collect specific concerns that would need to be addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and that as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
process, there would be another opportunity for public comment and review on the
environmental document at another time.
(Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of written material), noting that staff has
worked closely with the applicant, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association and City Council
sub-committee comprised of Councilman Naggar and Mayor Comerchero and that Condition of
Approval No. 11 should be modified to impose that the applicant shall work with the emergency
\ providers in local areas to reduce the use of sirens within the vicinity of the hospital and within
"--.@sidential areas. .
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to the Commission's query regarding Pio Pico Road, Director of Public Works
Hughes stated that the lower (southern) section of Pio Pico Road will be needed for the
proposed project advising that the City will be vacating the southern portion and that the City will
be retaining the upper (northern) portion of Pio Pi co Road, noting that it would not be the intent
of the City to develop the upper portion (northern) but that this portion will remain on paper as
an access.
It is the opinion of Director of Public Works Hughes that the horse trail on the southern end of
Pio Pico Road will still be useable.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Long noted that the applicant will be required to coordinate with
local emergency service providers to minimize the use of sirens near the hospital and residential
zones.
R:IMinutesPCI040605
3
)
."
Public Works Director Hughes commented on the need for the Dartolo Road extension, advising
that because of timing and cost of this extension, it was approved as a Condition of Approval for
Phase II; that the DePortola Road connection will be valuable to the hospital; and that the
Dartolo Road/Margarita Road signal is extremely close to SR 79 South and may hamper, at a
future time, the ability to move traffic through the Margarita Corridor.
It was also noted by Mr. Hughes that the DePortola Road driveway access will be full-turning
movements with the exception that the left-hand turn out would be restricted, noting that one
could turn left in but could not turn left out to go westbound.
For Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Long noted that the project has been designed to be compatible
with the rural residential character by including multi-use trails, split rail fencing, and landscaped
buffers as conditioned along DePortola Road.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Don Pyskacek, Vice President of design and construction from Universal Health Services,
representing the applicant, offered the following comments:
. That the hospital is vitally needed in the community
. That the project will not include a trauma center which would be a much higher level of
service
. That currently there is no definite timing between Phase I and Phase II; and that Phase II
of the project would be planned to accommodate future City needs.
The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
. Ms. Dee Messing Mr. Del Ross
. Ms. Rebecca Weersing Ms. Charlottte Gust
. Ms. Pauline Nelson Mr. James Gust
. Mr. George DiLeo Mr. Tim Nelson
. Mr. Brad Stormon Mr. Jerry Hizon
. Mr. Sal Salazar Ms. Angie Canales
. Mr. Neal Ziff Mr. Jeff Tomaszewski
. Mr. Don Stowe Ms. Theresa Hizon
. Mr. Jack Williams Ms. Dee Dee Polzin
. Mr. Raymond Bennett Mr. Kenneth Ray
. Ms. Kathleen Stowe Ms. Carol Charnock
. Mr. Gilbert Schultz Ms. Linda Doucet
. That increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
. That noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation has not been adequately
addressed
. That access from DePortola Road would not be desired by area residents, if required by
City, it should be gated for emergency access only
R:\MinutesPC\040605
4
,"
. That access from Dartolo Road should be included in Phase I of the proposed project
. That all of Pio Pico Road south of DePortola Road should be vacated
. That the hospital towers are too tall and not consistent with the area
. That the proposed site is not an appropriate site for the proposed project
. That a helipad and helicopter will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
. That due to increased runoff resulting from the proposed project, a storm water plan
should be prepared
. That the rural country atmosphere must be protected.
Mr. Dennis Grimes, Los Ranchitos resident, spoke in favor of the proposed project.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that it is his opinion that
the sub-committee assigned to the proposed project is in full support of the proposed project
and conditions as presented.
J Commissioner Telesio noted that it is his opinion that the use of five helicopters a month should
not create a significant amount of noise.
Commissioner Olhasso noted that until issues of litigation are resolved with the proposed
project, she will not be able to work with the Equestrian Preservation Group.
In regard to the focused Environmental Impact Report, Commissioner Olhasso stated that the
following issues must be further investigated
. That staff explore the construction timing of Dartolo Road improvements versus
DePortola Road improvements
. That staff analyze the impacts concerning equestrian uses in the area
. That staff study conflicts on DePortola Road
. That issues with the regard to height of the proposed project be addressed
. That emergency room relocation be considered
. That potential noise with regard to flight path be addressed.
Considering public testimony, Chairman Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission and
staff will be consolidating issues/concerns and will be returning to the Planning Commission with
a recommendation as to what the Environmental Impact Report should be addressing.
R:IMinutesPCI040605
5
, )
~
.,
MOTION: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the Item to the April
20, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she will be emailing her
a response as to whether or not the Code Enforcements Reports are in working order.
In response to the Commission's query regarding stone versus pre-cast concrete at the Bel
ViI/agio Center, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that she would need to explore the issue.
Chairman Mathewson expressed his concern with the Rebel Nail Salon at the Promenade Mall,
noting that on the weekends the Salon uses 40 to 50 advertising signs and requested that Code
Enforcement explore the issue.
For Chairman Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she has made phone calls
in regard to the mining issue on Rancho California Road but that no one has returned her calls,
but advised that she will continue to pursue the matter.
Director of Public Works Hughes noted that he will also explore the mining issue on Rancho
California Road.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern with bottom dump trucks traveling in the fast lanes
at high level of speed on Rancho California Road and queried on the possibility of restricting
bottom dump trucks from the fast lane.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that he
would explore his concern.
Commissioner Guerriero requested increased traffic officers to patrol the Rancho California
Road.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske reminded the Planning Commission of the luncheon with the
architectural consultant, telecommunication consultant, and landscape consultant being held on
Monday, April 11 , 2005, at 11 :30 a.m.
Ms. Ubnsoke also relayed that Associate Planner Long will be leaving the City to pursue a new
endeavor.
The Planning Commission wished Mr. Long best wishes.
A:\MinutesPC\040605
6
)
.<
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:10 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinq to be held on Wednesday. April 20. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:IMinutesPCI040605
7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: April 6, 2005
Prepared by: Dan Long
Title: Associate Planner
Application Type: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
File Number PA04-0462
PA04-0463
PA04-0571
Project Description: Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the
Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction; a
zone change to change the zoning of the project site from Professional
Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt section 17.22.200 through
17.22.206, including the PDO text and Development Standards; a
Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320 bed hospital facility and
helipad; a Development Plan to construct a 408,160 square foot
hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000
square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160
square feet on 35.31 acres; and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468)
to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel, also known as
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-
080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04-
0571).
Recommendation: D Approve with Conditions
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
[8] Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
CEQA:
D Categorically Exempt
(Class)
D Notice of Determination
(Section)
D Negative Declaration
[8] Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT. doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Universal Health Services, Inc.
General Plan Designation:
Current Zoning
Designation:
Proposed Zoning
Designation:
Professional Office (PO)
Professional Office (PO) and
Planned Development Overlay District 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8)
Planned Development Overlay District 9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Lot Area:
Vacant
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Highway 79 South, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial
(CC)
Professional Office (PO), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO-8
PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay)
35.31 Acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio .36
Hospital:
Medical Office Building NO.1:
Medical Office Building NO.2:
Cancer Center:
Fitness Rehabilitation Center:
408,160 square feet
80,000 square feet
60,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
8,000 square feet
566,160 square feet
TOTAL:
Landscape Area/Coverage 33.3%
Parking Required/Provided 633/1278
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. These
applications comprise a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two
story height restriction of the Z2 overlay from the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District
No. 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8) to a new Planned Development Overlay District No. 9
(Temecula Hospital PDO-9), including the new PDO-9 text and development standards,
construct a 320 bed hospital facility, a helipad, two medical office buildings, a cancer center
and a fitness rehabilitation center totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
2
On November 4,2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468) to consolidate
eight lots, including a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way (South of DePortola Road) into one
lot.
Staff prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the proposed project. The Initial Study was circulated for a 30-day public review
period beginning on March 4, 2005 and ending on April 6, 2005. Because the proposed
project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, Planning Commission
review and City Council approval of all applications is required.
The applicant has proposed the project in Temecula, citing rapid growth in population
throughout the region as creating a need for additional medical treatment facilities. The
applicant currently operates two facilities in the area; one in the City of Murrieta and one in
Wildomar, both of which are operating at, or near, maximum capacity. During the last four
months, the Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar has operated at 95% + of its capacity of
80 beds and Rancho Springs has operated at 88% + of its capacity of 86 beds. While both of
these hospitals have future expansion plans, the anticipated population growth in the region
will require additional hospital and emergency medical services beyond the capacity of these
existing hospital facilities. No other hospital facilities exist within the immediate area; the
nearest hospital facilities are located in Fallbrook, Riverside and Moreno Valley.
The proposed project is located adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Staff has worked
directly with the applicant, the surrounding property owners and representatives of the Los
Ranchitos and Santiago Estates Home Owners Associations to identify key issues of concern.
In addition, a City Council Subcommittee (Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar) was
formed to meet to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the
applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago
Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on
December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding home
owners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners
were in attendance.
The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the
public include the following:
. Traffic and circulation (access points)
. Building height and views
. Compatibility with residences
. Noise
. Helipad (location and number of flights)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment
The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the 22 overlay designation and
corresponding two-story height restriction from the Land Use Element for the project site
(Figure 2-5, page 2-36 and Table 2-9 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan). The
proposal will amend Figure 2-5 and page 2-36 and Table 2-9 to eliminate all references to the
Z2 area. The elimination of the Z2 overlay modifies the building height limit on this site and
would have reverted to the underlying PO zoning limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
3
submitted a PDO document with the zone change application, which will modify the height limit
to 115 feet.
Zone Chanqe
The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and
Planned Development Overlay District No. 8 (DePortola PDO-8) to Planned Development
Overlay District No.9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9). The PD~ document prepared with the
application effectively raises the building height limit for this site to 115 feet. However, the
PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height as follows:
'The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall
apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the total roof area
of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building height limit. The max/mum
build/ng height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed
115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof
above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines
the roof area';
Conditional Use Permit
The underlying PO zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for hospitals and
helipads. The proposed hospital will be a full service facility operating 24-hours a day, seven
days a week. Services provided at the hospital will include emergency treatment, outpatient
surgical services, inpatient surgical services, acute care inpatient services, intensive and
cardiac care services (ICU/CCU). In addition, comprehensive departments of radiology/
imaging, cardiology, laboratory and other outpatient services will be provided. The project will
not include a trauma center. The helipad is located on the north side of the hospital, on the
eastern portion of the site. The applicant has stated that the helipad will be used to transport
patients to other facilities requiring specialized treatment and they expect 5-6 flights per month.
Development Plan
The Development Plan consists of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two (2) medical
office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31
acres.
Access/Circulation
There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Highway 79 South. The
primary access point along Highway 79 South aligns with Country Glen Way and will require
the installation of a traffic signal (Condition No. 90 a.i). The other access point along Highway
79 South is located further west and will be a right in-right out only access point. A secondary
driveway is located at the northeastern portion of the project site connecting to DePortola Road
and will be designed to prohibit left turns from the project site (right-out only). Staff has
conditioned the project to provide another access point from the project site to Dartolo Road,
with a bridge to be constructed over a floodway (Condition No. 91a). The project site will also
have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to the west.
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT. doc
4
B~s.ed on the Deve!opment Code parking regulations, the site is required to provide a
minimum of 633 parking spaces and 1278 spaces have been provided. The parking lot will be
constructed in phases to coincide with the development of each building.
Site Design/Architecture
The hospital building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include a single
story structure and six (6) story tower housing approximately 170 beds. The second phase
includes a five (5) story tower housing the remaining 150 beds (320 beds total).
Medical office building No.1 (MOB #1) is four (4) stories, 80,000 square feet, and located
immediately to the west of the hospital. Medical Office Building No. 2 (MOB #2) is three (3)
stories, 60,000 square feet and located immediately west of MOB # 1. The cancer center is a
single story, 10,000 square foot building located immediately to the east of the hospital. The
fitness rehabilitation center is also a single story structure, approximately 8,000 square feet
and is located north of the hospital, along DePortola Road. The helipad is located on the
eastern portion of the site, north of the hospital building.
The project proposes a Spanish style architectural design for all buildings. The building design
features the use of earth toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian red
tile at the base. The hospital towers are divided by an octagon-roofed rotunda. The hospital,
medical office buildings and the cancer center each include a porte-cochere covered entry.
The hospital building is required to obtain building permits from the California Office of
Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and is exempt from City structural
review and building permits. The two medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness
rehabilitation center will be required to obtain building permits from the City of Temecula
Building Department. Therefore, staff has modified the timing thresholds of the hospital
building for the implementation of various conditions of approval to coincide with aSH POD
submittal requirements.
Landscaping
Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25 foot wide bermed landscape planter along Highway
79 South, consisting of 24" box and 15 gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and
assorted shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of 24"
box and 15 gallon Afghan Pines and Silk Trees; a 50 foot wide planter along the western
property line of assorted street trees; and an informal planting of natural turf and assorted trees
along the eastern property line. The overall site will include 20% 36-inch box (approximately
176 trees), 30% 24-inch box, and 50% 15 gallon trees.
Tentative Parcel Map
The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) legal lots into one contiguous
parcel. Included as part of the Tentative Parcel Map is a request to abandon the southern
portion of Pio Pico Road. The portion requested to be abandoned is not built and will not result
in any street closures.
Environmental Assessment
Staff determined the project could have potentially significant environmental impacts and an
Initial Study was prepared. The environmental factors that were studied were aesthetics/visual,
air quality, archaeological, flood plain, geological/seismic, noise, population/housing balance,
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT. doc
5
public services/facilities, sewer capacity, soils erosion/compaction/grading, toxic/hazardous
wastes, traffic/circulation, water quality, land use and light and glare. Staff required technical
studies be prepared to address each of the identified potential impacts.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Amendment to allow for increased building height is consistent with
the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
Goal 2 on page 2-10 of the Land Use Element:
'~ City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are
protected and co-exist with newer urban development':
Goal 1 on page 2-9 of the Land Use Element:
'~ well balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are
planned in desirable patterns and intensities. By providing for a balanced
mixture of land uses, the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a
range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents
and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities,
and adequate public facilities and services".
Goal 8 and Policy 8.1, respectively, on page 2-15 of the Land Use Element:
'~ City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns':
"Provide a pattern of land uses that maintain and enhance the viability of
neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and counties of Riverside
and San Diego though compatible uses and linkages".
The amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 Specific Plan overlay designation and
corresponding two-story height restriction as currently shown on Table 2-9. of the Land Use
Element. The current General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (PO) will not
change as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Through the Development Plan
review process, the project has been designed to be compatible with the rural residential
character by including multi-use trails, split rail fencing, landscaped buffers, and single story
buildings along DePortola Road.
Zone Chanqe
The proposed zone change to PDO-9 will not change the use matrix of permitted uses for the
project site. The proposed PDO-9 includes language allowing portions of hospital structure to
exceed the 75-foot height limit. The proposed PDO-9 text modifying the height limit for the site
is acceptable because it provides proper flexibility for the hospital building only (and only 30% of
the roof area is permitted to exceed the 75-foot height limit). The proposed PDO-9 will not allow
additional offices or other areas of the hospital beyond the proposal to exceed the 75-foot height
limitation.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT. doc
6
Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit is required for the hospital and helipad. The purpose and intent of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is intended to allow an establishment of uses, which have special
impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot be
determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. A CUP provides staff
and approval bodies the means to review the location, design, configuration of uses, potential
impacts and compatibility with the surrounding area.
In order to make the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, staff analyzed the following concerns
and identified conditions and mitigations that should be applied to the project.
Traffic and Circulation (access points)
The primary issues raised during the community meetings included traffic impacts upon the
adjacent residential streets such as DePortola Road and Pio Pico. The initial project did not
include an access point to/from DePortola. Staff required the applicant to provide secondary
driveway access directly to DePortola. Staff felt that alternative access points are necessary due
to unforeseen closures along Highway 79 South, which have historically and may again in the
future close down Highway 79 South. By having additional access points that are not located
along Highway 79 South, the ingress/egress of emergency vehicles remains functional. This
DePortola access point is a secondary driveway designed in a manner that will not permit left
hand turns from the project site. This will require all traffic leaving the project site onto DePortola
Road to travel east towards Margarita Road, away from the residential area. Staff has also
included a condition of approval requiring a bridge over the floodway connecting the site to
Dartolo Road on the eastern portion of the site (Condition No 91a). The bridge will allow the
future connection to Margarita Road.
Building Height and Views
The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views, include the two towers
that are five (5) and six (6) stories. The applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is
primarily based on internal function relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the
building must be located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes care rooms, treatment
facilities, equipment as well as elevators, stairs and window placement. With the form follows
function concept in mind, the design of the building is severely limited in what can be changed in
regard to tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas. Recognizing
that the nearest tower is setback approximately 210 from the nearest residentially zoned parcel
and approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road, and that extensive perimeter landscaping and
landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided, staff can make the findings of approval.
Noise
A noise study was prepared for the project to assess the potential impacts on adjacent
properties. Staff's analysis focused on short term construction noise, daily operation noise and
noise associated with the helipad. Staff determined that the noise study adequately addresses
all of the noise impacts associated with the project and mitigation measures have been added as
conditions of approval (see Mitigation Monitoring Program).
Short term construction noise will be mitigated by the implementation of measures such as
sound blankets (barriers that resemble a blanket draped over a fence to deflect noise) along the
R:\C U P\2004\04.Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
7
northern property line between the construction activities and residences, hours of operation and
properly tuned equipment.
Daily operational noise will be mitigated through the design of the project and conditions of
approval, which include landscaped berms, orientation of mechanical equipment and loading
areas away from residential areas. As a mitigation measure and condition of approval, The
applicant is required to coordinate with local emergency service providers to minimize the use of
sirens near the hospital and residential zones.
Helipad noise will be minimized because the sound levels will only occur for periods of 15-30
minutes for each flight; and the flight path is restricted to the Highway 79 South and commercial
corridors, unless environmental conditions do not allow for such path of travel (CUP Condition of
Approval No. 10).
Light and Glare
Staff required the applicant to locate all ground mounted lighting as far away as possible from
the residences. All free-standing lighting in the parking lot is consistent with the setbacks set
forth in the Development Code and Design Guidelines. All lighting is conditioned to comply with
Ordinance 655, which requires all exterior lighting to be shielded, directed down and utilize low
pressure sodium. In addition, staff has added a mitigation measure for all windows above the
second floor (medical offices and the towers) to include glazing or tinting to reduce the amount of
glare from the upper stories. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required
to submit a photometrics plan showing light levels for the project site and at property lines
(Development Plan Condition No. 36).
Hazardous Materials
Medical facilities typically dispose of hazardous wastes and low level radioactive materials. The
handling and disposal of this type of waste is regulated, monitored and enforced by the Riverside
County Environmental Health Department. Prior to occupancy of the hospital, a Hazardous
Materials Management Plan is required to be submitted and approved by Riverside County
Health Department (Condition NO.4 and 129). This plan is kept on file and is accessible by the
Fire Department.
Development Plan
Access/Circulation
The access and circulation of the project will not adversely impact the adjacent roadways. The
following improvements are required to be installed and operational prior occupancy of any
building in phase I: Installation of traffic signal at Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way,
including a dedicated right turn lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes
,md turning lanes at this intersection; DePortola Road access point and roadway improvements;
Highway 79 South and Redhwak Parkway (Margarita Road) southbound and eastbound right
turn signal overlap; and improve Dona Lynora with half street improvements and restrict
movements to rightin/right out vehicular movements. Prior to the certificate of any occupancy
for any building in phase II, internal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo
Road.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
8
The project is consistent with the parking standards as set forth in the Development Code for
hospital and office facilities. There are a total of 1,278 parking spaces proposed, only 663 are
required. There are also 3 bicycle racks providing a total of 40 spaces, 34 spaces are required.
Site Design/Architecture
The site design and architecture, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and
Design Guidelines. The project site is designed in a manner that complies with the development
standards. The architecture meets the intent of the design guidelines. The colors and materials
are consistent with the Spanish architectural style proposed by the applicant. Each building
maintains the three components required for each building, including a tile base, stucco body
and Spanish roof. The applicant added a band below the fourth story windows of the towers to
break up the massing, which reduces the blank wall appearance. In addition, the abundance of
windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. A decorative rotunda between
the towers, adds interest from Highway 79 South and reduces the massing by providing a
separate feature between the towers. The entry of the hospital, medical office buildings and
cancer center all include a decorative covered canopy. The covered entry defines the primary
entry for each building as a focal point. The applicant has also proposed a decorative boulder
water feature at the main entrance of the hospital to further accentuate the entry. As a condition
of approval, all roof mounted equipment is required to be screened as determined acceptable by
the Planning Director (Development Plan Condition No.8).
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and
Design Guidelines. The project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33%
proposed). The applicant has proposed and/or is conditioned to provide landscape berms
adjacent to public streets to screen the parking lots. Staff has included conditions of approval to
further buffer the residential area from the project by requiring berms and mature evergreen
trees such as Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees between the project site and residential
areas to the north (Condition No. 35 i, j, and k).
Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Development Standards and
Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes to consolidate eight lots into one legal lot. The
proposal is consistent the lot width, depth and lot area for the PDO 9 District. As a result of the
recordation of the final map, a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way extending into the project site
would be abandoned.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
[g/1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Aesthetics
Comply with Ordinance 655, Fully shielding of lighting fixtures,
directed down, landscaping with mature evergreen screen trees,
glazed/tinted windows above 2nd floor.
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC~STAFF REPORT.doc
9
Air Quality Comply with AQMD regulations, construct pedestrian paths of travel,
maintain waste related enclosures, comply with health department
hazardous waste regulations (Hazardous Materials Management
Plan), construct RTA stage area, plant native drought resistant
landscaping, watering down site during grading for dust control
(SCAQMD Rule 403), 15 MPH zone for on-site construction traffic,
Fuaitive Dust Control Plan is reauired.
Biological Resources U.S. Army Corps Permits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and
Game clearances, Focused Burrowing Owl study 3D-days prior to
grading, bridge construction shall utilize supports outside the flood
channel, focused studies for construction between April 15 and July
15 (Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Flvcatcher).
Cultural Resources Pre-excavation agreement with Pechanga, Monitoring for cultural and
oaleontoloqical resources.
Geology and Soils Over-excavation and 90% recompaction, grading shall comply with
1997 UBC.
Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required subject to
approval of Riverside County Health Department.
Noise Provide a 6-foot high (or higher) sound blanket between project site
and residences abutting project site, submit maintenance records of
construction equipment, staging and stockpiling areas shall be
located away from residential areas, muffling, screening and buffering
of mechanical equipment, emergency generators shall be used for
emergencies and servicing only, truck arrival/departure for loading
shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, sirens for emergency vehicles
shall be shut off no less than 14 mile from site, helicopter flight path is
limited to commercial corridors (weather/safety permitting), comply
with Section 21661.5 of State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation
Administration.
Transportation/Traffic Modify traffic signal at Country Glenn and Highway 79 South to 4-way
signal, install sidewalks and street lights along Highway 79 South,
install left turn pocket (dual left turn lane) at Margarita/Highway 79
South intersection, provide access driveway to DePortola, pay DIF
and TUMF, pay fair share contributions, connect Dartolo Road to
Margarita (including vehicular access bridge).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In
addition, staff has prepared an Initial Study, which has identified potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff has included conditions of approval and has prepared a Mitigation
Monitoring Program which addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the
attached Conditions of Approval.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
10
The proposed project provides a multitude of benefits and services that are needed within the
community. The project is considered an economic benefit because the City will now have a
regional health care facility that will attract additional medical services, medical offices and
related uses ang facilities. In addition, quality health care is a desired element that is sought
after by companies looking to establish themselves and/or relocate to the City of Temecula.
FINDINGS
1. General Plan Amendment
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan.
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of
the surrounding area.
2. Zone Change
a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General
Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land
Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan
Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in
this area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term
economic development goals.
b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of
the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide
the diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced
community with additional public services available to the community.
3. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320 bed hospital facility and a
helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan
and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the
Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix
of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)"
"a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are
protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City
which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)". The
proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and
surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facil.ities in the
community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary
for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated
adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed
to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an . environmental
assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality
has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the
surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
11
low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In
addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the
Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9),
including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The
site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable
for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent
with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and
conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent
uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which
identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring
program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic,
air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level.
For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic
leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options
and focusing the primary access points along the State highway. Additional
landscaping and berming are included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the
height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state
highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height;
this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets
are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving
and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor
rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens
no less than 14 from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use
as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner
that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood. The building and the site is designed to respect the surrounding
area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings
or structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development
Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to
integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a
request for a 320 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has
been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the
development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting,
lot coverage and height. The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use
trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will
extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting
the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
12
for a 320 bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because
the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and
region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including
health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed
project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the
community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the
issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and
Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and. Fire Department will review the construction plans for
compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3
of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section
17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from
parks, school and residentially zoned parcels.
4. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F)
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other
ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and
policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of
Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and
conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all
applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been
designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon
the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned
to comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
5. Tentative ParcellTract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400
a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and
the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code,
Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land
. is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT. doc
13
are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not
affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application;
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems;
f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which
are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be
provided;
h. The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions (Under Separate Cover) - Blue Page 15
2. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Mitigated Negative Declaration) - Blue Page 16
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
3. PC Resolution No. 2005- _ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 17
Exhibit A- City Council Resolution 05-_
4. PC Resolution No. 2005 _ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 18
Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance No. 05-_
5. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Blue Page 19
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
6. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 20
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
.R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
14
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
15
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC.STAFF REPORT.doc
16
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
FOR THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL," GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 AND PA05-0571)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462,
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, for the property consisting of
approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001
through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, which applications are hereby
incorporated by reference and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines (Project);
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was
prepared for the project as described in the Initial Study, including, in the time and manner
prescribed by State, local law and CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Program on April 6, 2005, at duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify
either in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council adoption Exhibit "A" a Resolution of
the Planning Commission recommending the City Council adopt the Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "A" subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hosplta~Draft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc
1
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2005
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula,
California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted b~
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6'
day of April 2005, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske,Secretary
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc
3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 AND PA05-0571)
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. Universal Health Services, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code and an initial study was prepared in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines; and,
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the application of the Project and environmental review, at
which time the City staff and interested persons has an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter; and,
D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_, recommending the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
E. On , 2005 and . 2005, the City Council of the
City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons
interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters.
F. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it
adopted Resolution No. 05-~;
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 TemecuJa Regional HospitallDraft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc
4
that there was no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial
Study, Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of
the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the
documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Planning
Department, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589.
C. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments
received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration were discussed at a public hearing of the City Council held on . 2005.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA.
E. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a
significant effect on the environment.
F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City Council.
G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared in accordance with law.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this _, day of
,2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, CMC
City Clerk
SEAL]
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC Reso Miligated Neg Dec.doc
5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 2005 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTAIN:
Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc
6
City of Temecula
Plannin2 Department
Notice of Completion
SCH # 2005031017
Project Title: Temecula Hospital Contact Person: Dan Long
P A04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan Title: Associate Planner
and Conditional Use Pennit and P A04-057I Tentative Parcel Map
Lead Agency: City ofTemecula Phone: (951) 694-6400
Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive
City: Temecula, CA Zio: 92590
Project Location Within 2 miles
City ofTemecula, Riverside County State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South, Airports: NI A
south of De Portola Road and west of Waterways: Temecula Creek
Margarita Road Railways: None
Assessor's Parcel No.: Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under
920-100-001 through 13 construction)
Total Acres: 35.31 .
CEQA Document Type
[ ]NOP [X]Negative Declaration []Supplement EIR [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #)
[ lEarlv Consultation i ]Draft EIR r lSubsequent EIR [ lOther
Local Action Type
[ ]General Plan Update [ ]Specific Plan [X]Rezone [ ]Annexation
[X]General Plan Amendment [ ]Master Plan [ ]Prezone [ ]Redevelopment
[ ]General Plan Element [ ]Planned Unit Development [X]Use Pennits [ ]Coastal Permit
[ ]Community Plan [X]Site PlanlPlot Plan [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]City Development Project
[ lOther
Development Type
[ ]Residential: Units _ Acres - [ ]Water Facilities: Type MGD
[X]Office: Sq.ft.140.000 Acres 35.31 Employees_ [ ]Transportation Type
[ ]Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres - Employees _ [ ]Mining: Mineral
[ ]Indnstrial: Sq.ft._ Acres Employees_ [ ]Power: Type
[ ]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment: Type
[ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type
[X]Other: HosoitaI 408 160 Sn. Ft.. Cancer Center 10 000 So Ft.. Fitness Center 8 000 So FI.
Project Issues Discussed in Document
[X]AestheticNisual [X]Flood PlainlFlooding [ ]Schools/Universities [X] Water Quality
[ ]Agricultnral Land [ ]Forest LandIFire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [ ]Water supply/groundwater
[X]Air Quality [X]Geologic/Seismic [X]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandlRiparian
[X]ArcheologicallHistorical [ ]Minerals [X]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife
[ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing
[ ]Drainage/ Absorption. [X]PopulationIHousing Balances[X]ToxiclHazardous [X]Land Use
[ ]Economic/Jobs [X]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [ ]Cumulative Effects
r lFiscal [ lRecreationlParks r ]Vegetation [Xl Other: Lil!ht & Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: Professioual Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
General Plan Use: Professional Office
Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-X)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a
request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office
and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eiqht (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
Mati to: State Clearmghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\NOTICE OF COMPLEfION-Hospital-1.doc
I
REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
KEY
S=Document sent by lead agency
X=Document sent by SCH
T=Suggested distribution
Resources Agency
BoatingfW aterways
Coastal Commission.
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
...I Fish and Game
Forestry
.J.. Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housiug
.J.. Aeronautics
l California Highway Patrol
l Caltrans District No. ~
.J.. Department of Transportation Plamllng (Headquarters)
Housing & Community Development
Other
State & Consumer Services
General Services
.J.. aLA (Schools)
Environmental Affairs
Air Resources Board
l APCD/AQMD
l California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
...I SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
.J.. Regional WQCB # 9 ( )
Youth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commission
L Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land Commission
Tahoe Regional Plamllng Agency
Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare
l Health Services
Public Review Period:
Starting Date: March 8, 2005
Ending Date: April 6, 2005
~~ ~
Signature c Date March 3, 2005
~
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): For SCH Use Ouly:
Date Received at SCH
City of Temecula Date Review Starts
43200 Business Park Drive Date to Agencies
Temecula, CA 92590 Date tQ SCH
Contact: Dan Long Clearance Date
Phone (951) 694-6400 Notes:
Applicant: Universal Health Services, me.
Address 367 South Gulph Road
King ofPrnssia, P A 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecul.Regional HospitallNOTICE OF COMPIEI10N-Hospital-1.doc
2
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
PA04-0462 General Plan AmendmentlZone Change
PA04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
Universal Health Services, Inc, 367 South Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406
North of Highway 79 South and south of De Portola Road, approximately 500 feet
west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 004 and
007 through 010.
PA04-0462 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: The project site is
located in an area identified as Z2 in the General Plan. The Z2 area is located
between De Portola Road, a residential area to the north, a state Highway to the
south and Professional Office (PO) and commercial uses to the west and east. The
current language restricts the height of buildings within the Z2 area. The proposed
project is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation. The zone change is a
request to change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and De Portola Road
Planned Development Overlay Zone-8 (PDO-8) to the Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay-9 (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115
feet for 30% of roof areas for hospitals.
PA04-0463 A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct
approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical offices, cancer center and
fitness center space on 35.31 acres.
PA04-0571 A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight (8) lo.ts into
one (1) parcel.
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above.
Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that this project
as mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning
Commission intends to recommend the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this
project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are
included in the project design, conditions of approval and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is
attached to this notice will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005. Written
comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the
following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at
43200 Business Park Drive.
The publiC notice of the intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided through:
X The Local Newspaper. X Posting the Site. X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions conceming this project, please contact Dan Long,
Associate Planner at (951) 694-6400.
~
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Prepared by:
Dan Lon Associate Planner.
(Name and Title)
(Signature)
R:\C U P\2004\04~63 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Notice oflntent-Hospita11.doc
I
Vicinity Map
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Notice of Intent-Hospita11.doc
2
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Agency Distribution List
PROJECT: Planning Application No. PA04-0462 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (PDO-9)
Planning Application No. PA04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Planning Application No. PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
DISTRIBUTION DATE: March 3, 2005
CASE PLANNER: Dan Long
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety .....................................( )
Fire Department.......................................( )
Police Department ...................................( )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD).....................( )
Planning, Advance...................................( )
Public Works............................................( )
.........( )
STATE:
Caltrans ...................................................( )
Fish & Game............................................( )
Mines & Geology......................................( )
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ..........( )
State Clearinghouse ................................( )
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)............ (X)
Water Resources.....................................( )
.......( )
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers........................ (X)
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................ (X)
.........( )
.........( )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ..............( )
Western Riverside COG ..........................( )
.......( )
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ........... ....................... .................( )
.......( )
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Notice of Intent-Hospita11.doc
3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Clerk and Recorder's Office ....................( )
Airport Land Use Commission................. ( )
Engineer .................................................. ( )
Flood Control...........................................(X)
Health Department ..................................(X)
Parks and Recreation ..............................( )
Planning Department.............................. .(X)
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ..(X)
Riverside Transit Agency.........................(X)
...... ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District .............(X)
Inland Valley Cablevision ........................(X)
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve .....(X)
Southern California Gas ............:.............(X)
Southern California Edison......................(X)
Temecula Valley School District ..............(X)
Metropolitan Water District ...................... ( )
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation .................(X)
Eastern Information Center .....................( )
Local Agency Formation Comm ..............( )
RCTC .....................................................( )
Homeowners' Association (2) .............. (X)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Proiect Title Temecula Reoional Hosoital
Lead Aoency Name and Address Citv of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Dan Lone, Associate Planner (951) 694-6400
Project Location North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and
aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maroarita Road
Project Sponsor's Name and Address UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA
19406
General Plan Desionation Professional Office (PO)
Zoning Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8)
Prooosed: Planned Develooment Overlay (PDO-9)
Description of Project The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative
Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request
to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The
Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories
within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the
zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for
30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to
construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical
office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad
space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a
request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the
hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall
project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning
Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are
under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the
extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation
Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits
are intended to aoolv onlv to the non-hospital facilities.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family
residences to the south, single-family residential to the north,
prOfessional office, commercial and educational to the west
(currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to
the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south
and Interstate 15 is located approximately 2 miles to the west.
Other public agencies whose approval Other public agencies which may require approval and/or
is required subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside
County Flood Control, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC),
California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health
Deoartment.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Agriculture Resources X Noise
X Air Qualitv X Population and Housing
X Biological Resources X Public Services
X Cultural Resources Recreation
X Geologv and Soils X TransportationlTraffic
X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Utilities and Service Svstems
X Hvdroloqv and Water Qualitv Mandatorv Findings of Significance
Land Use and Planning None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be-prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be oreoared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is reauired, but it must analvze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
X DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imoosed upon the proposed oroiect, nothina further is required.
Signature
Date
Dan Lonq. Associate Planner
Printed name
For
R:IC U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitiaJ Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
2
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: .
a.
b.
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
ualit of the site and its surround in s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area? .
x
c.
d.
x
Comments:
1. a. and b.: No Impact According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located
on or near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. The
surrounding residential areas of the project site maintain views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain.
The proposed project includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4
stories. It is anticipated that some private views will be impacted as a result of the project; however these views
are private and not considered a public impact to the community. The surrounding residential areas are higher
in elevation than the pad elevation of the proposed hospital (see Section 1.c. below for elevation analysis).
The difference in elevation will reduce the view impacts because the proposed buildings will not appear as tall.
In addition, the view of the surrounding areas from the project site will be impacted due to the proposed
structures on the site. The project site is a private site and does not include pUblic views that are considered a
public benefit.
The project site is not located on a' defined scenic highway. The project site is currently vacant with no
structures, significant trees or rock outcroppings on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not
substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Due to the fact
that the project site is vacant with no scenic vistas or known resources, the project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings. No impact is anticipated as
a result of the proposed project.
1. c: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project site is located between a State
Highway (79 South) to the south and very low. density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The
residential area is elevated above the project site. The elevation of the project at the nearest footprint of the
towers is approximately 1,053'; the elevation of DePortola Road is approximately 1,065'; the elevation of the
midpoint of Pio Pico Road is approximately 1,101 and the high point of the hilltop residences to the north of the
project site is approximately 1,223'. The proposed project includes a 60,000 square foot, three story medical
office building (60' height), 80,000 square foot four story medical office building (73' height), a 408,160 square
foot hospital structure including two towers of five and six stories (106' height), a 10,000 square foot single
story cancer center and an 8,000 square foot, single story fitness rehabilitation center. According to the City of
Temecula General Plan, the project site does not include any scenic resources and is not known for its visual
character. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is considered an in-fill development site.
There is no public viewing areas in the immediate vicinity that would be impacted as a result of the proposed
project. While the project will be visible from various residential lots, a less than significant impact is anticipated
because the views are considered private and are not considered to be of public benefit. The applicant is
proposing numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks and Silk Trees along the
perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilallinitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
3
buildings. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to the north is greater than the elevation
of the pad areas. The building height, therefore will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the
residences to the north.
1. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or
glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital
and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to
comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance
655. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code
and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one-
foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot
candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down
and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has
proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition,
the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded.
The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval,
all windows above the second floor will require glazing andlor tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing
and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires
all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655
requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of
glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00
P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 :00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late
evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar
Observatory.
The following are Mitigation Measures andlor Conditions of Approval and are required as a part of the
proposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is
mitigated to a less than significant level:
a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded,
directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be
shut-off by 11 :00 P.M.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the
proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive
light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance
light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate.
c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for
General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in
parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at
project boundaries.
d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall maintain
glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is
emitted from the upper floors.
e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or
greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include
berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the
project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any
walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern
property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospltalllnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
. 4
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-a ricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use?
x
b.
x
c.
x
Comments:
2. a. b.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15-20
years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for
agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech,
September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. However,
the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable
agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This
property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State
Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve
changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause
other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural
uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses
other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered
a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego
County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth
of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
5
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air ualit Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin or ro'ected air uali violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
3. a.-e.: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was
prepared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16,
200. The study identified two primary areas of concern that may cause potentially significant impacts;
construction emissions and operational emissions.
The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project.
Table 1 Dailv Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibs/day)
RaG NOx co PM10
Construction Emissions 42 266 353 363
Mitigated Construction 42 266 353 184
Emissions
SCAQMD Significance 75 100 550 150
Thresholds .
Exceed Thresholds? NO YES NO YES
The NOx and PM10 emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the
NOx and PM10 levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated
to a level much less than without mitigations.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitallln!l!al Sludy DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc
6
The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project.
T 2 D .
able allv ODerat.ona Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibs/day)
RaG NOx co PM10
Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01
Vehicular Source Emissions 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4
Total Unmitigated Emissions 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41
Unmitigated Area Source 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01
Emissions
Mitigated Vehicular Source 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01
Emissions
Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02
SCAQMD Significance 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0
Thresholds
Exceed Thresholds? YES YES YES NO
Table 2 above identifies RaG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. The
primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions such as
heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions.
The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project
would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the
exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for RaG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts
are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for RaG, co and PM1o.
The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental
Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as
either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The
primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an
"extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone
and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PM1o.
The State .standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is
0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the
Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) are
9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter (PM1o)
is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter
over 24 hours.
The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the
Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as a
reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December
16, 2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due
to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula
generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospltalllni!ial Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
7
The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative
modes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature
trees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to
the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the
proposed project andlor will be required as conditions of approval andlor mitigation measures. Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative
mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to
employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TDM practices are
designed into the proposed project andlor will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation
measures.
The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will
provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RTA and Caltrans
to finalize the location and design of the bus stop.
The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which
the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regards to the immediate
surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant gen'erator for the South Coast Air
Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as
having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the
Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located
within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants
considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of
Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below,
The City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General
Plan. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 93-90, a statement of overriding consideration for
these impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of
overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The
application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a
change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses allowed,
floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with land use designation
within the current General Plan and is also consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor
area ratio) in the Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor
Area Ratio 50%. The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot
Coverage of 15.7% (242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital
project was not proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site
would be 769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059
square feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio
permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies
within the General Plan.
The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors.
The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and
could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed
project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors,
dust andlor other pollutants.
The following Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures will be incorporated on the following
entitlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map):
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllni!ial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
8
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air
Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction
of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department.
b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the
state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and
subsequent use.
c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be
discarded in compliance with county, state andlor federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous
waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health
Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department.
d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of
'the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered
at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from
the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative
transportation.
f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for
the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City
of Temecula Planning Department.
g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the
hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car
and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the
facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital.
h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Tille 24 into the project.
The applicant shall comply with the latest Tille 24 standards.
i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-
resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100
days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula
may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to
be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense.
j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the
Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large
equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative c1ean-
fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and
deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably
possible.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
9
k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
I. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent
fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading and/or before construction begins and in
the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be
watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during
construction andlor grading activities to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best
management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading
and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel.
m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust
on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this
requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the
project construction.
n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the
load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or
from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with speCial attention to Sections
23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be
sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks,
including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent
runoff, to reduceleliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area.
o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a
ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the
contractor via incentives or other inducements.
p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site
limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500
feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast
corner of the project site).
r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active
portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to prevent
fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application
of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering
shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and
evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include
complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to
time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at it's sole cost.
s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant
at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and
roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or
excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish
and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to
prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the
Applicant.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
10
t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent
streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping
of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the
end of each day of grading and/or construction.
u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent
properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the
Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by
the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and
operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City
Engineer at his sole discretion.
v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of
Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement
of grading and excavation operations.
w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater
than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of
dust.
x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and
construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by
the City.
R:IC U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study PRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
11
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
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
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru tion, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
4. a. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: A habitat assessment study was
prepared for the project site (Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004).
The study identified a manmade flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site,
which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including
cattails and bulrushes have also been identified within the man made channel. The habitat within the channel is
likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a
condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road,
which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood
channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth &
Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any
streambed alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas.
However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the
habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of
the bridge. In addition, if activity within the channel (or for\preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to
occur between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided
to determine the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitaillni!ial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
12
construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow
the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the
project with Mitigation Measures.
4. b. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery
sites. The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan,
including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has
been grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord.
8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the
site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site.
4. f: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The proposed project is not located within a
criteria cell of the MSHCP. The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals,
or narrow endemic plants as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP
guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study
prepared by Amec (September 14, 2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential
habitat suitable for Burrowing Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading
permits.
The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project and enforceable pursuant to
the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned:
a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city
Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the
flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site.
b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are
required.
c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing
activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive
or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols.
d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel.
e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the
bridge across the channel.
f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place between April 15 through July 15,
the applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell's Vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event
either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules)
and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their
reproductive cycles.
g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is
imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further
environmental review.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilalllnilial StUdy DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc
13
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
x
b.
c.
x
d.
x
Comments:
5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (Historical/archaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital
Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not
identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for
historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact
that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not
known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within
close proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site
for paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required.
5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The
project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the
project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as
enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project:
a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation
agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and
disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site.
b. . The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,. including archaeological
artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment
and disposition to the extent authorized by law.
c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring
during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost.
d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided
and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the
Mitigation Measure a above.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnilial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
14
e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17,
2004 and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures.
i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga
Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall
each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow
for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of
sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be
identified and permanently preserved.
iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with
permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires
alternative treatment.
iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should
be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include
a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and
inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological
resources.
v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city
of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older
sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with
recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilalllnitial Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
15
6. GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvin :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
ii. Stron seismic round shakin ?
ili. Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
s read in ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or ro ert ?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
6. a. i-iv and c: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A Geotechnical Investigation has been
prepared for the proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI,
Inc., May 14, 2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake
Elsinore Fault. The proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the
boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to
produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe
shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition.
includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a
combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial
soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for
support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with
respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has
a moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs
should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and
seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater.
The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project and will be established as
enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration,
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitanlnitlal Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
16
i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be
removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a
minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical.
ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The
depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-
grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed.
The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a
heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly
above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached, This earthwork
should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical.
iii. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be
adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill
materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials,
have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of
less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill.
During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches)
may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill.
iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned
to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly
mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should be
tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent
lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior
to sloping.
v. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral
support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure
excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with
consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design.
vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified;
moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. the upper 12-inch densification
should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the
initial grading operation.
vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As
such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with
conventional earthmoving equipment.
viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
(Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards.
6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
17
control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate
to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not
located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies
the soils on the project site as "very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14,2004.
6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health andlor Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and
waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the
public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and
waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitalllniUal Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
18
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
dis osal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances,or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
uarter mile of an existin or pro osed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Comments:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project
consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The
proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed
project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated,
September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of
approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County
Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospltalllni!ial Study DRAFT-Hospltai-1.doc
19
7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to
the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
7. e.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project.
7. f.: No fmpact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include a
private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. As
a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and
safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency
response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project,
which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event
of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project:
a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials
storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling,
storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal
regulations.
R:\C U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
20
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
re uirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which ermits have been ranted?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in floodin on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
olluted runoff?
Otherwise substantiall de rade water ualit?
Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
ma ?
Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures
which would im ede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
8. a.: Less Than Significant fmpact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management
Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution
Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if
the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of
dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the
appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge overlacross the flood control
channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
21
8. b.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local development
standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water
recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water District (RCWD),
adjacent to the project site to the northeast. RCWD has been notified of the proposed project and no
comments of immediate concern have been received at this time. No impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project
8. c.: No fmpact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not
alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion
or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or SUbstantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because
the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and
maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the
proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works
Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on-
site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
8. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices
(BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. f.: No Impact: The proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality because the proposed .
project is not considered a significant pollutant generator and will not include excessive fertilizer application or
other similar materials that could degrade water quality. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown
in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements of Temecula Creek has resulted
in a new 100 and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. The Temecula Creek, which is the primary
drainage course in the immediate area was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of
Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and
dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance
Rate Mate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November 20,
1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
22
The proposed project site was is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of
Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail Lake Dam and has submitted to the City a
Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An additional
study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The
FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the
event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail Lake Dam. The proposed project will place
structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996).
The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to
impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow
and drainage facilities and proVide comments and/or recommendation concerning the failure of the Vail Lake
Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail Lake Dam
Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A revised
Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam Inundation
Area.
A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted
floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge
capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and
letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 1 DO-year flood energy grade lines and 1 DO-year
flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail Lake is a 51,000 acre-feet
facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top
and 15 feet thick at the lowest pOint of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation of
1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in partial
flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss,
however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of
structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from
Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of
additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood
insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula
Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the
updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of
T emecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. j.: No fmpact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
23
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Ph sicall divide an established communit ?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
x
c.
x
Comments:
9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use
is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding
commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an
established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is
planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the
community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation
plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The
proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to
exceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General
Plan Amendment is approved.
9. b.:: Less Than Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations.
There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will
change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDO-8, to Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan because the project
site is designated for uses such as hospital and medical office facilities.
All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary
change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof
area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO
as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The
project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be
impacted as a result of the project. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospl!alllni!ial Sludy PRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc
24
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
eneral lan, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian?
x
b.
x
Comments:
10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are
considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally-
important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain
such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
25
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
b.
Exposure of persons' to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
round borne vibration or round borne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro'ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro'ect?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
x
c.
x
d.
x
e.
x
f.
x
Comments:
11. a,-c..: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project site is located north of
Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office
uses between the project site and Margarit? Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De
Portola Road. The state highway forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the
south.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities
in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following:
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or
designated public or private primary, secondary or high school.
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured
property line to property line).
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future
assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with
hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance
shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot
setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study PRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
26
Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and
constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor
blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or
inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter.
Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences.'
The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction).
Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is
approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol park, which is
approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho
Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The
helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet
away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding
lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11.
The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling
approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the
medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story.
The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site.
The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior
areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal
commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this
area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the nearest
proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79
South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South.
The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which
will buffer some of the noise.
The noise. analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the
hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows
per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double
paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will
mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be
temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during
construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated
with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's
noise element in the General Plan will be enforced.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General
Plan in 1993 when they approved Resolution 93-90 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of
Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and adopting a statement of
overriding considerations for the General Plan for the City of Temecula". Resolution 93-90 included a
statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library,
noise and transportation and circulation. The information within the current General Plan (adopted in 1993) is
considered valid information, which forms the basis of this initial study. The City of Temecula has been
consistent with land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is
deemed reliable. The Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial
study and the approval of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall be
binding requirements of the project approval.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospllal-1.doc
27
11.d: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The General Plan noise element identifies
the project site as an area that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level
of 65 CNEL is permitted for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial
and offices uses. The primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed
project is required to construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the
noise impacts on-site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from
generators and equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a
residence and includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level
at adjacent property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above
the maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities.
The following Mitigation Measures will be incorporated as enforceable conditions of approval as a part of the
proposed projects entitlements as stated in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2, 2004)
and the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR: .
a. All construction equipment fixed andlor mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes,
bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained
mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to
issuance of grading permit.
b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous
barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound
blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties
abutting the project site.
c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the
Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going).
d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors,
including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units,
ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In
addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, andlor
structures such as walls for acoustical shielding.
f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for
service and maintenance.
g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from
residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to
the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM.
h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within Y. mile of the hospital site unless
required to allow for emergency access.
i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless
required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel.
j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation
Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies
detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for the helipad.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospllai\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospltal-1.doc
28
k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of
construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically
Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an
occupied residence.
Monday-Friday
Saturday
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Federal/State Government Holidays
11. e.-f.: No Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and there is not an airport,
public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. There for the project will not have a negative impact
on surrounding persons or airports because of noise. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospltal\lnltlal Study DRAFT-Hospltal-1.doc
29
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
x
b.
c.
x
Comments:
12. a.: Less Than Significant fmpact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional
medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in the
surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth
(residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding
community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to
induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20
years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
12. b.-C.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential
uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or
remove/replace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
30
13. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
x
Fire rotection?
Police rotection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other ublic facilities?
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or
result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide
additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better
emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies.
The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide
pUblic facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to
the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities.
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made
aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to
obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the
surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal
Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and
the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge
volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all
hospital flow is diSCharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital
flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is
responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated
connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of
$3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU I.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development
fee is approximately $120,000.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitiai Study DRAFT-Hospitai-1.doc
31
14. RECREATION.
a.
b.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facilit would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
x
Comments:
14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project
will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes.
The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result
of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project.
Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnltial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
32
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads, or con estion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safet risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incom atible uses e. ., farm e ui ment?
Result in inade uate emer enc access?
Result in inade uate arkin ca acit .
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bic cle racks?
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
Comments:
15. a.-c: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip
generation information have been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula
Medical Center, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill
Hughes, November 23,2004).
The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road. Highway 79 South is currently subject to Caltrans jurisdiction. The proposed
project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260 square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000
square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness
rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will generally be constructed in two phases
and will generate a total of 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 vehicle trips during the AM. peak hour and
929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the
intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the
intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase one includes approximately 150 beds for the
hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. Phase one is anticipated to generate approximately
6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak AM. hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M.
hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were
assigned to De Portola Road.
As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study.
The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in
several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA The TIA has identified several roadway and
intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study area
intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in the Dartolo Road connection, which should
reduce the impacts to each road and intersection.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Sludy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
33
The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project:
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I:
1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a
three way signal t6 a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from
Highway 79 South.
2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South,
3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional
eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been
completed.
4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road.
5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (D1F) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees
(TUMF).
6. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the
study area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II:
1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road.
2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the
study area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
3. Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees
(TUMF).
4. It should be noted that if the project's DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact
fees of the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair
share fees for mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17
cumulative projects.
The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned
above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of
the state CEQA Guidelines
15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or
modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish
incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve
intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or
traffic patterns.
15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has
been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius
templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles.
15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking spaces
are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:le U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc
34
15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop
facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RT A. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllni!ial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
35
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a Iicable Re ional Water Quali Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the .
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or ex anded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
x
x
x
x
x
x
16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project
will have an incremental effect upon existing systems.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is
required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if
any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from
EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to
provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems
are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater.
16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The
project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground
storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or
expansion of existing facilities are required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control RCWD
has reviewed the proposed plan and have not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District
Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water
entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided "water
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnilial Study DRAFT.Hospital-1.doc
36
available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the
applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a water well near that project site,
owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not
notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is also
consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies.
Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
RIG U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
37
a.
b.
c.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo or rehisto ?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indirectl ?
x
x
x
Comments:
17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not degrade the quality of
the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable
State and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps. of
Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis
has been completed and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming
devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan.
17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant
with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as
potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the
South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the
City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 93-90, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air
quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution
93-90 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of
the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures
in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code,
and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact.
17. c.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not have environmental
effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be
designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures
are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
38
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro"ect.
Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified
technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result
of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were
made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and
inspection.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Sludy ORAFT-Hospital-1.doc
39
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4, 2004
5. Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004
6. HistoricallArchaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17,
2004.
7. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004
8. Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14,2004.
9. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC
Company), November 2004.
10. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16,
2004.
11. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004.
12. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996.
13. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John
W. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Region IX, dated January 25, 1996
14. Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975.
15. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc.,
December 16,2004
16. City of T emecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of T emecula Certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the General Plan for the City of T emecula, Adopted November 5, 1993
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilalllnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc
40
DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnilial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
41
....
.....
II)
E 9
ctJ.. II)
C'l a:
0_0..
&:J!'!'tl
-- I:
~~ctJ
-0: 0 (Y')
oJ:co
:!::ctJ~
1:-0
o ::::l I
""'u~
O::GlO
I:E<(
OGlo..
;;....N
ctJ co
-~ ~
== 0
:E ..!-
a:
0..
~
c
Us.!
j III
... .-
.19=
(/).5
'0 '"
<:: E
ro Q)
g>OlE
.- <:: t::
c.- ro
~ ~ a.
_:::IQ)
c..lllO
'0 '"
<:: E
ro Q)
g>OlE
.- <:: t::
c.- co
ffi~ a.
_:::IQ)
c..lllO
'0 '"
<:: E
ro Q)
g>OlE
.- <:: t::
c: -- co:
ffi ~ a.
_:::IQ)
c..lllO
....
o
'OQ)
<:: 0
ro <::
'" ro
<:: :::I
..m~:!:
0.-- E
00....
.- ...... Q)
l:::;,,-a.
Q) 0
E-C g>
o 0.__
_<::'0
Oro=
..c:_:::I
0. 0..0
:!: 0>1;)
E.~~
.n.:cQ)
:::I Ol..c:
(f):'=+J
<::
III
0._
hOle!
C:.5 if::
ro-Q)
o...c: ..c:
Ol_
,,'-
~-....
'C""C 0
(j)cQ)
Emu......
0<:: lij-E
.....ro:::::JL...
O"C.(I)ID
-5.- .~ a.
""l'log>
E.c...... .-
15"-""0
.oQ)o=
='_'C ::J
C/) Q) 0..0
~-E 0
Li..rooO
ur""C ""C ...... a..
c:c:ces:c
J2 co jg "i:: en
0. '" '" 0.0
OCOlCl)
'E:~.5Q)..8
CD c...1::E U)
E Ol Ol= <::
oc~oro
......+:;Q)~c..
o..c:_
.J:'Cl(O"OO>
0..=....... co C
U) a..-
:t:'"'O,,-=:t::
E ro 0 Q)--
.0 o.-..c E
=""0 ..a
::J Q) C "- ::J
(I)..cro.Em
>.
'0
:::I
ii5
ro
:;::;
'1:
>.
'0
:::I
ii5
ro
:;::;
-1:
>.
'0
:::I
ii5
III
:;::;
'1:
-g ~
ro ai
g>OlE
.- <:: t::
~:aco
ro=o.
_:::IQ)
c..lllO
o
-
....
<:: 0
.2 'o.c Ol
- <::
0(/)._
2=:2
...... ro'-
",_ :::I
<::Q).o
0'0_
o :> ~
'f-;>i.j::
o.gQ)
>'<::..c:
0..- ......
o~....
O..c: 0
CIJ:!: Q)
:!:::s:g..;
E '" ro-E
..cC::::ir.....
::::i co: U) Q)
C/) 0._!!2
>.
'0
:::I
-
C/)
ro
E
<::
-g ~ ...... g> IDC)af
"-""Ow= m Q)~c...... ~CQ) ""C
~Q)..a~ E .b~8ro ,,-~E 2~
o :E = (I) c..::J a. co 0> .e 0>= C 0
CijVJ]gc> .2rog-c:::l.5 5=~ ::.ero
a..~(I)C Q)"-L..'-eE ~~U) 0.-
= +:i > O>..c;w'-cn Q.Q)...... -..-g Q5
c..2 g'..c Q) C () Q) () ::: C>"O C 0> -g N ......
::JQ)+:i'~ OW'->c CQ)CO:c: row<<J
o..a..cQ) ro~iQ).~-g +:i~~+:i~ ""C~E
2-0l> :::I.... CJl:::;ro ..c""CCi...c:Q) Q) Q)
~=.- 'Q)'~"'-_Q)"'''' Clca.C>.- Q)>
~~......~ ~~""C~ Q) =ro<=~ N>._
cwQ,,- EWL....c""C'- coIDQ)ETI ~oo
5 0> en 8 Q) ~ .{g .2> ~ -E :!::: ro..c :J ~ ~~ c&
0-5.5oQ) 1-'0; <:: E -Q) E1i)1- E'O ro '" Q)
......~ ~~ro (l)0l ..a ~ro -0>7
Q)~~.~ o'~~::JroQ)c ::J~~~ wc:e
:2=o.E",: >.:::1 E'- '" 'OE= -5:;:;0
~ ="'C :J a. ~ CJ g>.x Co~ u:i co ~ ~ Q) ~ ro::: I::
Q)><(~~o UC~-CJ:JQ) ~ ~ ..c:.o:::lQ)
~..... ,v..o ..c:'_"Q;+-,lo... ..c
.- . co 00 <D Ol..c: E c: "i:: en::> ..c: ..... ,9 (/)
o:::L!) '" ..c:--Ol -->.ro ,. ~~ -
~c ~ -~~"'C"'CL."'C ~~lo...Q)(J) c~ro
~~~~~ ..c:Oroc~roc roocS~c mc..c:
i~~i.o i'O~roE~~g ~-",xQ) 00'"
~<::'O"''''' ~<::Q5 "'0..0 o.ro"EQ)E -0..1212
.::::'(tJQ)~'+-0 .::::>roE:::IQ)CIJ +-' Q.""Oro......Q) 0.>0"
c.c--a., O-Q) EL.,ufu <(co-cg.!::: <(0""0
~E:;:;i~s~E'OE~IllIll~~Q)~<:: :::I~Q)'O<::
I Olo...lo...>..c:IOOO-__IDO ..c:~ros ..c:c.-
COO:;:;O",<(OOOEo~""~I-..c:1i).o!~I-J~
o
o
-0
t:'-<
~
o
E
f!
0>
"
ll.
0>
~
-"
B
"c
o
:;;
~
_2
1;;
g
~
]j
-5.
'"
o
I
"iii
~
o
-0,
Q)
0:
'"
"5
o
Q)
E
~
'"
'"
...
o
""
o
<if
o
o
~
ll.
:J
9
it.
III
'la
c
UiVl
::::1m
.. ,-
ra:!:::
"c
1/)_
~
III
II..
GI
:c
'iii
c
o
Q.
VI
GI
II::
-
C
<ll
E
t
ro
0.
w
C
0>
c
'2
c
ro
ll...
GI
:;
"
GI
.:::
o
I/)
c
o
~
..
C
GI
E
GI
ii
.E
.0>
W C C
tJ) cc:"-
.__'0
oo.ro
~Q)5>
o.o.ro
"'C~\f-
CVlO
ro'o w
.:::co
o>roc
:J~ro
o ~ :J
~c",
co co.5!2
:!: t>>c 0_
E -.-
..o'6~E
ro 0 ~
::J r...;."t:: Q)
C/) 0>0.0.
GI
~
::::I
o
I/)
>-
'0
:J
en
ro
:;::
'2
l!!
::::I
VI
III
GI
:l!;
C
o
~
Cl
E
:l!;
~o
Q) -.~
~ '" 0
.a .0 5. Q)
<\32 .c:
E.cw=-
(I).c: co 0
""C -- --
c""CCi"'O+-'
_t: cu
WCtl'-(UG>
E-c"*Q>:c'o
ID2E~2Et5
..c cc:.-....... ~ Q)
ml1){j)C)w.=
= 0, c...92,.g? Q
ro~wot
-0 L..Q)c:
fIJ ~ 0..0.._
C.c "'Oc
.- 0 C ...... L.. C
ro.s;o=a.ro
.c:~-c-c"'Ca..
(/)C\lQ)Q)Q)Q)
---ro~5.c:
cWQ)+::;N+-'
row~w ....
owO> -0
= ..oro
~.bo"'O:gro
<(fjj5lii~e
u;Q)~=Q)'-
,.co--'"
<(I- w"-w
cnc>ws...
..
c
w
E~
t~
ro 0
g-~ ..
CloC
"- w
0>:0 E
.~ :J t
C ll... ro
c'o 0.
.!!1c<ll
ll...roCl
..
c
w
E
t
ro
0.
w
Cl
0>
"~
C
C
ro
c:
0..
==c
..ow
:JE
ll...t
.,..;-ro
co.
w w
g'ECl
"- t '"
Cro-"
c 0. ~
.!!1w~
ll...Cl>
c~
o"~
"- 0
t)~
:Jo.
~ w
1il.c
c"
0....
00
_w
-....
ro=
o>w
C .c
wi::: -I-'
:J'O
'oC
o>ro
c '"
.- w
o '"
O>ro
C.c
00.
I.....S2=4!? ()'
a>-c m== C
_gl-c:nQ) ~
~ m "':.5= ::J
tt=O,!B::;"O g
Q) ~c:-o c 0
.c .'" ~ >- ro >-
-oJ -UJ 0=
oo~8:~ 0)0
Q):2cD<<Jro --~
0... C-.c: ~-
co-::::m c.. . __ co
co E LL ~ ""0 ~-:!::::
::J l.... ....... C ~ c..
(JJ Q) ""C tJJ 0.0> Q) tJ)
tfJC,.CC+:lO'Oo
.- rooo..... I
o C)L..:j::i::J a. 0
......5 Q) m.b "'~... Q)
'-"0-0)(1)....... L...-C
0- C._ c.c: 0......
'c":; Q):!: o::'e I....
ll.....oOE0 0ll....8
>-
'0
:J
en
ro
:;::
"2
>-
'0
:J
en
ro
:;::
'2
- .>. -0 Q) ..c: ..... "'0 ,,~.= Q) co Q) tJ) (]) 0
roue w:!:~c ~m"" .c:::J",o....
::::1m m~.ffica cn.c:So-o'~.c:
+-' :S:>.cnc co(J)rJ)Q) _""CL..+-,
.cOO:- _'C..ro.2 $tJ) -oCIJffi~ro.;
..... 0 ...... W >"c:!: No-IDe
"jbE mEQ)o !~~ca~m~IQ)
- 0'-2 oro:J:Jo-w-E
mID cO::J.... ",o~ocn"'_~_..ro..
::::10 ~"'O~~ L.._o'--~~cffi
>-oc cCwo roro ow> <ll
a.~ ~ca 0 NL..=-.c:oEEG>
EL..a E"'..oc> ~~'jL..o-5.ecQ
O<:(E Q) c oQ) .-1....0.\+-0
o 0 ~E,_w.~ ._mQ)ll...l....o~c.~c
() :J.c 0 \+- > .-
Q) . ~~e~ ~c. crocc
=~c~ a.ro~w wffi.~~~roa.wffi
ro 00 O~cl.... '" o.Oc~~\+-,-
~c~N I....~Oo .~Q) '-ro.-co~
w._ro ~ 0.50-00 ~c;;E(iia.EQ)_
:JW Wc ~ O-:J.cE~~
~~: ~~gi ~~0~8~&ia
~o~w "'~"'''<ll wE!O_ro~wE
ro.- .c ~~.~row WO _ -Cl....
R~>-E liio~!:J :J~'O~~~ro!W
~~.c~ 00 Q)c ~Q)~Q) wEQ)~
a.Q)-oQ) ~~2~Q) rowroi2cwoo
roEwCl 0. :J N-O~ro _
lo... ~ .m.....o C" '" ro w I.... 0 ro .~ >......
E-~ row", Q) ,vo'-o~OI....""'co-
W ..., Q) w ~ .- ~ .- == Q)
Oa.Q)NQ)(ii '-.c~ ~ ~ta.""':J
o~ro 1~-Q)e:J J=Q)Q)cQ)a.rooQ)
!o.'Oml-!~o.",m<(EnroO<(EO~
"
"
~<'l
;;;
Cl
E
I!!
0>
e
n.
0>
c
."
.s
"E
"
:;;
c
o
'"
'"
g
~
]i
"a
'"
o
I
rn
c
o
"",
"
a::
'"
:;
"
"
E
~
'"
'"
.,.
o
,j.
o
"
o
o
!)I
n.
:J
9
it'
<II
:i
"C
<II
"c
o
I/)
C
o
i
-
C
<II
E
<II
ii.
E
<II
l:!
::l
o
I/)
III
1a
c
Ui.!!!
::llll
-.-
ca=
-C
1/)-
~
III
0-
<II
:c
'(jj
c
o
c.
I/)
~
-
C
<J)
E
1::
<Il
a.
<J)
o
Ol
c
'2
c
<Il
0..
-
c
<J)
E
1::
<Il
a.
<J)
o
Ol
c
'2
c
<Il
0..
'"
-c
o
$: Ol",
OC-
'-.- c
:ccQ)
:J C E
0..J!!1::
_0.. <Il
~ "C a.
a::~~
E _'0
es COQ)
o)'+- +:; .J:: <.>
cc:ro-rnc:
'-oc:coU)(tJ
"'O.___I::Q)::I
~Cii"E[[<,>(I)
0l.2 0 .'~.!!!
,+-:t::: 8 0.0) 0
OQ5 .9w+-"
<<>>0>(/)'+-0
U Q).5"+:J 0._......
~32;;:gc5..E
::s>.,gc.Q'Ul....
~eU)l....roQ)~
.- 0.<( .a c: 32
o ~ (/)"->0>
+--:t:~::I E e.!:
(; E .0 Q) 0.."0
._l....Q)L..+-' ==
k-Q).coQ)Q)::J
...... a.......loj..;;.. 'U.c..c
C
<Il
0..
l'1
<J)
c
<J)
Cl
o '"
.--
-c
..D<J)
~E
"01::
c <Il
<Ilo.
<J)
g>o
.- '"
c-"
c ~
<Il 0
o..$:
-
'E Ol'"
C)..Q.5 co .5,+-
c::l;;:Ol :so
--woc: .........-c:
"O="c'i5.. 0;;:0
~ctJrnco C +:l
O)J:: <.> en 25 Q)
",c"'~<Il'-o.
co +-' Jg ""C L- Q) t5
'+-ca.c:el....::IE
Oca co:ottlL..O
Q).~ ~= a. L.. 1;) (.) en
g'i5..<Il c E.8 c <J).!!!
_a.ocowm8:5:'!:
\V '" tJ) I... +-' ,... >
:J""-oQ) .=,,-'+-+:;
en Q) c: 0 ~"C 0 0 <.>
.!;Q.c co- co Q)'+- U) co
--..... O>""C>......
.9+-'~co..c (J) tJ) Q) co-t:
~'-E c o>ca 0 c:""C.-
o ._::J--uco'U
'e Q:;LL e Q) >.roo ~
0.. a. <Il "0 ;;: -'= o.~ a
C
<Il
0..
l'1
<J)
c
<J)
Cl
'UQ)U)Q)Q. <J)(/)Q)o ~ c: ~
Q)..c co l....::s CO""" - I ~
tJ)+-'Q)::::J I >0) ro ~ co+-'c :!:
o l.... t5 -5 ~"oo _.-::. .2 c: II) "O...c ttI () c: 1;)
ooco::So_ ...... 'UJ:: a..Q c Q)~..c IDO::!
c+-'Q)....a. '+- co..... co.....- co a......... .cO-""C
Q)_wtnrn o~o~ <~~~ o.~ coe~.~-~,+-
>.0<J)2'Uc :5c~oo Q)c~o c:~ ~'UoO>~.~~
- Q)Q)"C caO ,-CO_lema> mEeo....,...
Q)E~U)::I a.+:lO =l...cocQ)-- "'0> .-._._~
- -0- 0-- 1--,... l..........rn E c'_'+-'U-o~:J
Q)::::l ._~ l... o~ . J .~::I:'!:Q) co"""-ca L-O
-WI.... 0_ co~.t:::""""'c ._Q)......-'-""CQ) _co o'-2coE
~ Oc~ Q).-ro E""Cro'-~ ~ _cw~_'-
E '5 t) Q) Q) "0 ""C 0 ~~ Q;.w '- ~ . -g '5 ~ ~ m Q) ~ 8.. co
o Q)_O _rom o.'-O-Q)> .-c'-E <J)
oO,-~x ro~ ~t Q)......\U_ ~ ......~- oE~c
'-5roQ) Q)cw~o ~.~w~'w~~ roeQ)=ow-.Q
Q) .5. ~. ""C .- +-' ~ 9 .5 a::: c co ..... a.() :!:: 0 :; Q) '5 - Q) W
~ ~ g>:5 ,~ co .5 -g ~ I ~ ~ Q) -jg :g,.~ g- ~ .?5 e- co:5 ~.~ g e
roQ)~~.~~ eg~ e ~:5roroero-~ ~8EE.5~-gQ)
~ E; c ..... E 0.._ ""C - ..0 ~ () 1i5 a.c 0 c W c ~ 0 c: <J)O" ~ "0
W m""C_ - Oc<J)......- '--<J) .-c.~c OC
O-Q)-Q) - .-co O.-""C......Q)...... = O-._~ m
W a.. c: co '- m ~ ::c.~ ~ c 0 ~ ""C ""C E m 2.- w ~ ~ - _
m ro Q)'co co 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ro ~2 m ~-: ffi~i ~'wE ~~ E g>~
'- :5 C 'w c.~ a.~ E ffi co ~~.E c E Q c 13 Q) a.""C .0."'C
:~~~~~ .~~~&~ i~~,~2~~~ .~.~~:ffi~~~
"'- Q). -~- wo- co-w_ _'- "'<J)O >
0- >- a...... Q).- CO'i::N ~ a.a.-~_Q)"'C
2 .5 ~ ~ 8.E g- ~ E ~ 15 .9 8 ~ c: a.'r: ~ .5 a. Q) ffi co <D E ffi ~
~ e- w oOE '-_c~eo_c co~1i5"'Ca.<D-~
~ ""Ca.m"'CQ)~Q) ~to00coQ).wa.:5roc~<D-.-oE~"'C"'C
I = c: a.~ c E I ~ 0 <5 0 =- I.;:: ~ ~ Q) a. ~ ..c ~ I ..c 0 ~ 0 0...... c c:
OO<(<Il<ll"'<Il=OOI--....~o..uooO""'<("O<Il<ll"'O"OOI--....~~OO<ll<ll
~
::l
I/)
III
<II
:5
c
o
:;:l
<Il
Cl
:e
:5
<J)
--'=
",-
~ ....
<;::0
~~
--
....<J)
0-,=
<J)-
0"0
C <:
<Il <Il
=>-
",'-
",E
.- ~
<J) <J)
..co..
-
Ol
.9.5 '0
~ "0 <J)
0-'-
.-.50
0: CO a.
c
_ Ol
"'.-
~ '" <J)
i.i=-..c
<J)<Il-
-,=co
_0_
'01:5""C
<J)<J)_
Q)'-:t::c:
o:O'-Q)
cOlE E
~ ~ ~ t:::
w:!:: 00 co
"'E a.
.- '- Q), Q)
<J)<J)..Do
..c 0.=
- <IlOl
o ~..c c:
-.500'2
o"'Ccc
"-'- <Il <Il
a: .5 0.. 0.
>.
"0
:J
Ci5
<Il
=
'2
>'l'1
"O<J)
.ac
C/)<J)
-Cl
'~"'C c:
~cm
E<Ilo..
o
o
"0
ti:'""
~
n
E
l'!
0)
E!
D-
O)
"
."
.9
'E
o
:;;
"
o
~
g
~
]j
"0.
'"
o
I
ro
"
o
'60
"
a::
'"
"3
o
"
E
"
I-
M
'"
..-
o
...
o
"
o
o
5:'1
D-
:>
9
Ii
~
o
Uilll
::Jili
-.-
S~
en':
~
01
0..
Gl
:c
'0
c
o
c.
III
II::
-
C
Q)
E
1::
co
0.
Q)
D
Ol
C
'c
C
co
a..
-
C
Q)
E
1::
co
0.
Q)
D
Ol
C
"c
C
co
0::
oS!
:J
"C
Gl
.c
U
en
c
o
!
c
Gl
E
Gl
ii
.5
Ol ,
.Sts co55_
"0 ctIi '+- -'+- co
e Q) 0 0 0)"'0 "0 :!::
+-' CQ)Ca.
elL.. (JJ Q)--:t;::: co tJ)
coJ2 C:a;~'E- Q) 0
.......-ctJC,,)::1 fIJ-C:
O:!::' a.u::.c.c co Q)
~ E e>t..c: ~-5.:5
cQ)cQ)uQ) ....
.- () co C 0
coo.:I:: Q)..oo
::> Ol'E- co L..=:+::i c:
(J)c: "OornoO
.~:c.g c: e..c: ::l:;:l
Q)=(f)ctJ~C1Jl:oe
.c:::J ~oc')cU)Q)
--..0- croCa.
o - OlO co 0.. 8 0 .
.....:!::' co.. a. ~
... E 'O:r: ::>:2.c g'=
.g :V"5cn 80 ~'o'o
a.. 0...0 0 0 f- Q) Ol.@
Ol
c.c co
:a ~ .......-.
ea>O-Oo)ID
Ol ... -en Q).5 .c
o +-'''0-
COo.p.. c m=ro"O Cl m.c:
'+-';:::~~-:J..c:c.5 .......0
0._ o..-..c C/J CtI c: 0 <<Ii
Q)EOl1::Q).cE""c Q)Q)
(.) '- C (.) ~ co (.) '-
c<D._ocoro<Da.. c,E
co 0.= ro Q) Ol'- oS; co_
:J'- Q) :J
cnClE"O.....OL..Q) en:!::'
f/).5..cc~a.L..:5 wE
--"C:::Jm- 0 ..."-s...
(]) == tJ) ~ >- c>'+-:' >. C '0) Q)
..c::::J ~-oc""C..cQ).c:o..
+-' ..0 _L...I c"L: Q) - E - ~
o - OlO co CO:l:: ~ 0 Ol Ol
+-' :::: c a.. c...c:'- 0 1:: ......5 c
"'E'O:r:::>enE...Sl1"'-o'O
.2 '-=(J) (.) 0>.0 a.Q)~.Q.:::;=
'-Q):J 0"'0::10. '--':J
a.. 0...0 0 0 .;:: en co D a.. III ..0
Gl
l:!
:J
o
en
c
co
a..
~
Q)
c
Q)
Cl
c
co
a..
~
Q)
C
Q)
Cl
l!
:J
1Il
01
Gl
:ii:
c
o
~
Cl
:;:l
:E
O)+-' :;: >'. L..
~ "0 Q) .f:~ Q)..c~
Q) +-' 0> C :5 "'0+-,'-"0-
~- B .~cco~c....... =c:oQ)o
10...20) ....... h:::J Q) 0..... 0 0 ~.Qco1::
::>~C ~O)"o+-'+-'o~ C - 0
o~.- <Dc ::::"0-0 0 ro"- L..
o~~ ::::~(/J~Q)L..::J._ "'Ounc.o
c';:::->.~EoQ)>=o~co+-' c~:::Ja.
Q)c"O'-~~o:::J .._.L:w.......e co'L:b~
-oQ)en~DQ)o.-o~Eo.coQ) OlQ)en en
cE~ f-..ocQ)=..o...oQ)o. c>cQ)Q)
coQ)~Q) ._~..c:'o:::JSooo --_0..0>
:5bo oco(/JoL..cQ) "'O'~o_~
<DOlO) ~c"'O(JJ.......Q)Q)oco..c: ~~~=c
~~.2crn'B_5Q)x~~.~~~-. rn~~~~o
... .c --- .c--"-W~- en-
om ~~~~~_-~Eworo rn_~~c5
n~ID~_~ro~~rorn~'-~= 0
o -0 ~ -0 Jg cD 0 ~ 0 ~.~ 2i ID ~"g 15 ~~ ro
occwn-orn-ocEc ~co ~wE-Oro
cro.-orow~cco crnoco.c o-coQ)>
= E ~= 0 o.c>ro.~ ~12.~- n-o c ~ rn"-
ro~-o~~"~~w~rn~-oo~c ~~g~
~O~~~=~~IDe~~"~oro ~._~~~
wC~~~.cmoo_no~~rn~ow ~~~OS
- o~ o~ - ID "-~rnoo.
c.Q~c15wc ~~~ro""O~o Q)cocQ)c~_en
co- Q)X o..o,+-co.- _
orowoww ID.~~ Om ~ ~~.C _c
=tID~c~"~ow-o 20 _~mcCID
~o~oo~rn rn'+-ID~Q)Wro~ o-~ID8E
~~~~~.~.~~IO>C._O~ _JWQ) ID
..ro~.c~~~.cco~"c~15em~~.- ~.~~~ u
ooQ)- c~ ~ ~~.-t-o~o~"-W ~
I ~ ~ 0 0 a.O=~ ID e a.wt) Q) Q)~".c Q) '- ro 1])-0
m~~2oo2Eo~a.ro~roUEm~nro~~~
-
c
Q)
E
1::
co
0.
Q)
D
Ol
c
'0
'5
III
c
co
a..
~
Q)
c
Q)
Cl
>....... ~
OON
c Q)
Q) '- Q)
.- 0 +:i
o ~.-
iE 0. f-
Q)Q)1i)
>.~ 2
~oro
ID-ca;
c._~
Q)'<!"-
Q)N.c
- -
co Q)'-
~ +:i ~
0'-
0. f- >>
...>>0.
0..0 E
o 0
.~ -0 0
-Q)
-c=
co._ co
~'Q5.!::
en -0 en
- -
cwe
co co co
o O'
.- en._ tJ)
c.. "E c.. "E
0. co 0. co
..CO-oCO-o
oQ)cQ)c
~.!::m~ro
m~1i)I-t)
.
"
o
~.q-
lL
~
o
E
~
OJ
e
"-
OJ
c:
0"
.s
"2
o
:2
c:
o
1ij
g
~
]i
05-
'"
o
:I:
10
c:
o
"0,
"
'"
..
s
"
"
E
"
f-
'"
~
o
..;.
o
'"
o
o
Sl
"-
::>
9
Ii
~
C
cnllJ
:nii
... .-
J9~
(1).5
~
ell
0-
Q)
:is
'w
C
o
Q.
IIJ
Q)
II::
- -
c c
Q) Q)
E E I/)
t t-l!:
ro roo
0. ar:;: _
Q)
C Cloc
.- Q)
0) 0):0 E
C .f: '" t
'c ca.ro
c c'Oo.
ro rocQ)
a. a.roCl
0) 0)
C C
'0 '0
~ ~
0) 0)
ro ro
- '0
0
Q) Q)
0 u::::
C cE
ro ro ~
'" '" Q)
I/) 1/)0.
.!!l .!!l 0)
Q) Q) C
.c .c'-
- _ '0
..8:!::: 0=
-'"
~ E ~.o
o ~ 0'0
"i:: Q) ";::: C
0.0. a.ro
c c
ro ro
a. a.
~ ~
Q) Q)
c c
Q) Q)
CJ CJ
Q)
:i
'tl
Q)
.t:
U
(I)
c
o
~
...
c
Q)
E
Q)
ii
E
Q)
~
'"
o
(I)
l!!
'"
IIJ
ell
Q)
:e:
c
o
1i
Cl
:;::
~
"'0 ~Q)"U"'O ~""C"'O+-'>.
SIC >.~ c~~_cCocQ)3~~
~-o ::::.~-I/) CO rom w ~-
c...!: = () a. en .. E E ::::J.co ,. Q)
Q)C>COID Q)co::::JE ->00)"'0 0--
o."'otnc ..cOUro '~tieC"'O"'OQ)W-~
- LO _w_u ~_ "5a>COD_ID-Q)
~~ co "0 c.- Q)~ Oc c5
o"'O~.!:.~ccQ)a. a.-9E::::Jc=a>_
WID-- 0->0. ~- +-' roEO)~
'O>I/)Q)O)_~Q)<( 0- - 0)
c+:Ja>l.....E:t5':>..'- C):.i;;l:!:..c .!:a.Cl,;.
roroGlo'02~o.Gl 5U~t>-~l/)sjQ)
=c~Ero_~"'O..c "'02 ro~cr.nrr"'OcQ)
ro ~I/)O--. 00- Q)Q)QIDQ)-
.-ClQ)~C) .....-- '-we: 0.'- I/)
~..c_~~Q)oca.rom rnc.-- r.no c-
-.- ...J~~ E 0 co:ow.-C:o(/)
co:~~xEoQ)~"'O co:o~_~~i.Qo~
-~EE=~-~~ ~=';:::co: m>ouc>
"E e--c J:: Q) C) ~...... :J 0 co ~ 5 Q) "0 2 Q):E
Doco5c'~o"'O ...... 1-0)0)->'
:J c ...J C 0)00 ~coo-r.ng"'O
cngro'TE'~rrEo =c :JQ)Ca.c'
-OCIDO~~:JO Sc:rna> "'020Q)ro~
-Q) ~'-~ 0 \Uo..cE-Q) IOU D
~-~\.I-~>'EQ) :J~cn c'-c 00--
..c'-co"OcnIDCO D Weo to) co 0"'01-00
cncn_cQ)DECO ~,-_roEoQ)~c..8~
-oQ)rowu IDEa> :Jcc.a.+-'uncouc.
~Q)C)xc.cro..cccn 0)"'0000).- ~"Oco:
o'~~ococoS-oc ..cQ).2C:J"'OQ)roQ)-~
=e_..cQ)(])oQ)'I/)-~ --.co.. 0"Q)>a>.......c
c.c. ......0>0 0....... O)O>c:,-,+-oC:ro
c. c:~wO>E~~x ...... 0..5 .ffi~ ~.Qc:
~ro~~g~~o>~Q)Q)N~g~C:Q)cE~Q)~O
Q)--_cE~Q)'OQ)o~ cO)-Q)Q)I/)-1/)
~~~w~oo ~c:~~.~~Q)ro~ro......~~Ero
m~~~NEo'OErol/)ma.'OEa.roEro5:.oQ)~
-
c
Q)
E~
t~
ro 0
ar:;: _
Cloc
.- Q)
0).0 E
.f: '" t
ca.ro
c'Oo.
J2c:Q)
a.roCl
0) _
.5 0
'0 I/)Q)
~ 0> ~~
O).c '"''0-
ro ...... +.0" c: 0
-roGlro
'Q:t:Q)'!: (])
E~......~ 0
0> ~.- 0) 0> .92
oQ)>ocl/)o.
c C. ~ +:i ::J.!:
~O)o.roa>o
UJ.5=.5:2.c ro
UJ~ro"OoQ)
._==.!:c......~
(])~UJ=......o......
.!:.c......cc'+-c
......~cQ)Q)(])Q)
~ ~.~ ffi.~~.~
.Q ~ a. ~ ::J Q5 2'"
~ c a.~ 0-
a.ro<(I/)Q)~Gl
c
ro
a.
~
Q)
c
Q)
CJ
'OGl
Gl ~
N Q)
== .!:
""5:
'"
Gll/)
.oQ)
"0.5
- 0)
'" c
.,ga>
I/)
- '0
C Q)
Q) ~
E Q)
0.5:
.- 0
"'0.
cr ,
Q) Q)
c
~ ==
Gl 0
~ I/)
~~
o
0._
-0
rs Q)
.. _.r: ~.c
('t) 0 (])'(j)
T"""Q)==ro
mW.5~
"
o
~lJ")
LL
~
Cl
E
!'!
co
e
0..
co
.2
.9
'E
o
:;;
"
02
1<1
co
'"
~
""
;9
05.
'"
o
I
n;
"
o
'0,
"
n:
'"
1l
"
E
"
I-
M
co
"
o
.j.
o
"
o
o
~
0..
='
Sl
a:
l'll
1ii
c
en,!!
::l l'll
....-
ca=
in.5
~
l'll
II..
GI
:ti
'iij
c
o
C.
III
~
u
=1:
.0(1)
~E
'0"1:
c: ro
roo.
(I)
g>Cl
.- III
c:-"
c: ~
ro 0
a.. $
GI
"5
"C
GI
-=
u
rn
c
o
:;::
l'll
...
C
GI
E
GI
'1i.
E
g>ro
:a~
e E <D
Ol(l).o
ro 0.= '0
,+-C)ClJc:
Os:::J::ro:
(I) 'is III ~
U = c: (I)
C::::J CO._
ro.o->
::J 0. (I)
(J) >. c: L..
1IlC:,.~
.-ro'" 0
<D ""0 O'+-
.s:: '0'0
......CC)Q)-
Oroc:~ro
...... .......-.- ~
Ci"E Q) E L..
a.."C Q> ~.g ~
Q.;:>cnco
o
o
~\O
u.
~
o
E
l'l
Cl
e
0.
Cl
c
."
.E
'2
o
:;<
c
.Q
1ij
g
~
:s
'a
'"
o
J:
ro
c
o
'0,
..
'"
'"
a
..
E
..
f-
'"
'"
"
o
..;.
~
o
o
1i:
=>
y
ir:
~
::l
o
rn
>.~
'0(1)
Ec:
C/)(I)
-eJ
.~ ""0 c:
:=:cC'Oi
.sroa..
l!!
::l
III
l'll
GI
::i!i
c
o
i
OJ
:;::
:i
(J)......Q)CCf)Q)C)C)Q) ~""C......(])=Q)
.s::. c L..--'-.o c c uM c C/).c. ro..o--=
....... Q) 0.""0 C) '-'-::J 0 ro Q) ...... Q)
~ a;1D c c:=-g :;""O~ ..oJ:: c:= C
~,-..oco:ajgo"O~Q)(J)"O:t::ocag
Cf)a.C>U)~U)C:_o'5~.!B3: ~t/)
rooc:C --c n;'::::J...... ~ L..
.s:: . .-0>(1)_ ......u..I'V~Q)...... (I)
.......-0) :> u..Q)......(J)
0. c:(I)s....~O;:>(J)J:: uO......""CO'
~L.. oweD..... c.....c......
0> C 0 .c - --0 .~ .- 0 0 "5 co .c
5~Ec:~n~~~~~roce 0
'0 '0 (I).Q ro .!!1., E $:;::: >'0 ~...-:. 0. ~ >.
Ole""C=Qce~~ga.E~~~(I)ro.o
(I) <:: 0 0.", () ::J a.. 0. Ol
- s.:.. C+-'+:i o>oU)"'O~.c c:
ro.!B._~~ g~ 5 g'.~ 0 .f;cc_ c.oc
((scoL..l-w.-"'O=Q) -0
"0':>0 ...... ..ccCOCO Cf)-CO;:!::,
C;:>__UC/J .......(])L....c:5coU)..coc
roQ)~Q)5>.(f.l>0>(J) mU):Jo
c:.o ID~ o~ ~ Q) 51:: E Q)~ c~ E
._Q-"P"O Q) <D Q) 0-0::;:' co e s: ~ 0 1'::0.2
-........00 c:.....O'+-~:.;::: ""C
OCOc c..cCcoC= cnQ.ttiOo
2 ~ co 0 0...... c co o..t:: co s:: "i::
...... . -.. L..3:c> 0.'" .......t::""OQ)
~ 2 1;) -g g>~ o.~ :5 ro 8 ~ ~ ~ c: a.
UO';n~ CO'-c: (1)"'0 c+:; Q) 0 E c ro 0
....,..... L..O...c ._(1)"-......
0)..... Q) OJ~Q)--g O::Jt- ~ro CJ) 0)-0
~cu(l).~.5IDa~(I)E~ .~sro>ID5ID
.......- -""0 E V#_.-CJ)C "C.......
~~~.5roID romCWCJ)mroOroD
cO 0 5.2 o,f; 8 3: f; 8 ~ ~ a:: E ~ 0, ~
l'll
'lii
C
en.!'!
::ll'll
....-
s=
Ul..!:
~
l'll
II..
Gl
:g
'0
c
o
c.
Ul
Gl
i:t::
-
C
<D
E~
t~
Olo
ar$ _
CuC
.- <D
0>:E E
.!: ::l 1::
co.. Ol
c"o.
.J!!c<D
o..OlCl
Gl
:i
"C
Gl
.c
U
Ul
c
o
:;::l
l'll
...
C
Gl
E
Gl
ii..
E
0>
.!:
~Ol
~<D
0>>
Ol Ol <D
....J::-
0-.!11
- ~
<DOlo.
U J:: 0
C Ul ~
OlCllo.
::lCo.
CIl Ol Ol
.!a a. <1>
<D<DJ::c
.J::.,..........O
.....-.c.-
---
o -'- ro
-=>:E
L.. E Q) L..
.g wo~
0.. 0. c._
.
"
o
~r--.
u.
~
o
E
~
co
e
"-
co
C
'C
.s
'2
o
:;;
c
.>2
1ij
g
~
'"
.l1!
'15.
'"
o
I
(ij
c
o
'5>
"
'"
'"
"5
"
"
E
"
I-
'"
CO
.,.
o
...
o
'"
o
o
Ii:
::J
Sl
0::
Gl
~
::l
o
Ul
>-e!
"<D
.;3c
CI)<D
-c.'J
.!11" c
:!::::c:CO
Eroo..
E
::l
Ul
l'll
Gl
:!1
c
o
~
Cl
:;::l
~
92 0== L..
......-.-0(/)000 .9-
=ro-gwcococ: 2"2 co
= :=, C ro.J::"i:: Q) c: c: ~ ~ 0 cD...
Ol0.QJ::CIl<D....0<D>- o.EEc
w.... (/)_ a.ro+:l~ co co
u)'Uowc C/)oo'U .L..E_+:lo
Q)Q)2~Q)E.9~roCll~0>>Q)oroo.0.-
+:lw......co =0. me: o..c:-
'50:!! >:1ilal.l!l E ro o..;:::g <D CIl <D~
+:l 0..0"'0 (1)+-' coco en <D Q)'U- E
~ ~ () co L.."E Q) 0 :5 Q) 1O.c: ::J ~ +:l Q)
_<D el-:= E...:'O E >: >:'0 c Efi
.~ .~ :5 2 U; Q) :5 e Q) +:i O>"'O.s ~ 0 >.
'UL..~.-::J~.L..L..noo.5Q)=L..~~
m2 0 <r-o >.5Q= c: c<D ~~ ~>.'E
L.ctScnc :=c""CroctJ COG>
O>EcO~ro<DCJ::J::><DCIl>-EE
= O-o+:i-w.....cow+-'<l>..aC):!::::
ctJ'Ut;: Q)"o,(J) 0 en 0)~'U=.5()-om
e>>Q)o>::::JIDc:-cQ)cctJl- 'C(l)
em Q.CO..... () O.~.c- co..c.$ Q) co..=.
.- > a....... Q) :.;::; J.... Q) 0 0) en co :!::::
;:ro~c:ccro2C5ccQ:;$(/)~ro
.Q ux:;:::; :J <I)> -0 .2 CO > ...... ";:: ...... ""'-- Q) 0 c
- u - E> :J .... CO ..........c.- 0
OW_O)Q)Co.. ..aL..0~=-:!::::='
~ \UC"'-......a.c:. ;>ro......"'O.-1ii
'U~'U~a.:Jcoo2~E'UOoc~o
ffi CO r:: ::J.e..c 01+:;.~ CO 0><<> . Q) 8 CO ()
0) -0 n: g' 'U of.5 ~ a. rn .5 .~ ~ g Q) CD ~
"cQ)(/)._Q)"'OL..:=o(/)"'Oco._L..:!::::~o
L().-'U CO h~:J 0).0 L... Q):J13 en Q) (/):J (/)
~~roQ)Q)\Uo~rono- (/)>Icr
1~~~~~cro~nQ)gQ)oocQ)~
mO~roen~._~enroc._~nuo~~
~
Q
UlUl
::::Jiij
-.-
Jll:'!::
(/).5
~
III
a..
Q)
:c
'w
c
o
Q.
:l
D::
-
C
Q)
E~
1::~
ro 0
5rs: _
Quc
.- Q)
0>:0 E
,5 ::::J 1::
C 0.. ro
C"'C a.
JQcQ)
o..roQ
oS!
::::J
"0
Q)
.c:
I.)
(/)
c
o
E
C
Q)
E
Q)
Q.
E
0)=2
.5: ~.~
"'C"'a.
~ c e
o>roa.
oo.g.
Q) Q) Q)
o~.J::
cc-
roo.c
::::J _
~ JB .~
.- 0
Q)c"'Cc
.c Q)o
........ co "'0.-
.--
Qcn>m
-:!::::oE
.... E c.. '-
o ~ 0
'cQ)(])'E
0.. a..n._
Q)
I.)
~
::::J
o
(/)
>.m
"'C~
::l Q)
_c
(/)Q)
-Cl
.~ "'C C
:!:::cco
croo..
~
::::J
l3
Q)
:E
c
o
~
Cl
E
:E
Q) Q)+-' U) >.>>+-' s........""o '- Q) 0).....
..c: ..c ~ co: = = co Q).9 Q) 0 '+- > 0
__.... ctliro..c..c"""'"" (0--
'U..c........ 0+-'1:::"'0 ID ~(I):!:::'c
...... ,.. C.- ..... Q) +-' ..c c> 0
0>' ......Q)"'CQ),.J co: ::J+:i
.o"O:JEO:!::::'+-c~~~,+-o
~. Q)VJc.cU)o~ oroQ)~
Q>'"C:JrnOQ)cc-'UI....+-'>a>
s.... CD.5"O '- 0..0 c..c c>c'(i)
roocO.5Q):+:i~Q)m EQ)cn~
""""o..cc..co """"Cw Q)--
~'coQ)Q) :J .ctlQ)VJco,+-
'-0 E =J::;~(J)"'O~oxo..;
t) E "'0 ~ ~ co C Q) 0)'5 CD "'C C
ro ~cffirno"O.QQ) c"'EQ)ct1
.5Q)~.Q ~o'-mU)cQ)Q).~.Q
"O.ccro5lQQ):J(u~:s ~i;8:
Q) Q)N:;:;.~..cJ2a. C~l.:..ro.A'
rooo =OQ:;- oco.(ij.jQ..Q).......
>..co.oCO+-roQ5c..cE o.oQ)
ro(J)+-'~c..ro >ou> -_E
~ ",EE",o""ro aloim>.
Q) Q) >._ 0 _ c co "0 +-' ........ ..c .a
........ 32 '-0 () 0 0 '- > lD c m c::: '"
.- L..'-O ro-co CD co cD
o (/) IDQ) (/) = +-' 1::..... () ro L.. en ~"O
_ ace XQ) +-'cncoro
"'CcS:cs....8o..Q)Q)..c..c CV-E
co 0"0 .=::,-_.~~L..U)
m:+:i+-"- c-.9- 0 ~..c-;;:; c..>,+-,
o c"'" (J) 0 co \U 0.._ C
"O:J m ~ CO:::l-o co 0><DJ9.2::J(3 Q)
.. Q) J::; ,2 ::: .1...., "'0 Q).f: .5 L.. en -0 CJ) E
CD "0 U) -a. ';:::: Q) Q) == ...... CIJ Q) 0 +-' -' .....
~COc........... a....... "CWfJ) <0
.L.oa.Scott;a.~~Q) Q.)~~Q)
fll(!) 0<( 00 s: 00 co co 0>:6.9 a."'C"'C,l:::;
g'-Q)
=o~:-ffi
~ooa.
0>",0
coca
_roo.
oo.ro
Q) Q) Q)
u.c:.c:
c__
roc.c
~O:!::
'" Q) ~
.- -
Q)o"'Cc
..ccQ)o
__ "'C.-
co .- --
o >ro
--:!::oE
L.E5.L.
o ~ 0
'~Q)Q)'1=
0.. a..n._
>,~
"'CQ)
.ac
(/)Q)
-Cl
.~ "'C C
:!:::'cco
Eroo..
~ ~
Q)Q)O Q) '" Q)
E>"O~ -.... c ..cco
000 0"OQ) 0 O--Q)
1... 01''\.$ Q) -- c:!:: :.j::i -- E ~
!:!:::: '-"-~Clftoo 1...Q)...... co
o>'Q)oo~owIOO.C:""O
--"313~cn:.j::iNC-- 0._~.J= 5
="+-.- 0 C-....O"O L.(ij co==+:;
'i=o..c 'f;Q)-"'OQ)Q) coo
0)-- Q)~--t: Q) Q):S s:~ co 00 ~
c",>u~ro~1::uO EQ)~
t c: Q) ::J >,-...-::. 0 Q) --IlQ -- 1;)
o==-,l:::; a..mu.. a.oo . Q) >,<0 c
a.::lro Eo-""oolo-ooQ)'i::CO
E roa.(/)- _5 Q) - c 0 c:..c Q) -E- u
o a..n ro 0" a.
.- L...c"O {) OO-""Io-"'C'-:> 0== Q)
L..S:!::Q)=..c...-::.::::~~Q)L..~:6
Q Q) ~1:: ro:!:u. ro Q)'-.c a.Q)
"'C 00 O..c $: -....'C -- E -- "'C 0 Q)
c::JQ)a.oo -Q)<OQ)O)c~fO
co = g ~ _-q-~ ~ m $ __.5 co "OQ) Q)
0)<0 co co.$!T-_OO:::::: >,00-0 L.. 10--
C .r=.'- L..'- T- .c ..:::::; ;;::; ::J ~ Q). .~
-- en a. -- 00 M -.... . C "0 13 -- 0(1)
1:: EroQ)N'<t"'CQ)Q)cro-.c
02 '-..c T-(I)-o>.-3:~-
~'w 8 ID-~C;;-gEE ui..c 0 ~
CD 1:) c m EON CD ::J ~t5 ~ 5.e
"'Q)'-:2eU",E"'-::l ~Q)
~ .~"'C "+- (I) C ro Q) -- L.."O __.c
.:.' g oa.L.. ~-.::i 013.2 oo.c~; ~~ ~
.- L.. - T- _ -- -- CO = > ..c ro >--
T---(I)Q)T-"O..co_COCD_L..(I)o
,J......,...r::...cCf) c>Q)(/)Q)-q-.r::. L..,,+- a.s... 2
I.I.I.......__C\(CO -....00 a.oooa.__
o
o
"!oo
ti:
~
o
E
I!!
'"
e
a.
'"
C
'C
.9
'c
o
:;;;
c
.2
15
g
~
]i
'i5.
'"
o
I
iij
c
o
'Co
"
C<:
"
"5
o
"
E
"
f-
'"
'"
""
o
.,.
~
o
o
l[
=>
y
a::
III
1ii
C
en.!!!
:l III
... .-
ca~
"'c
1/)-
~
III
0-
Gl
:c
'ijj
c
o
C.
III
~
-
<:
0)
E Ul
'I::-C
rn 0
lIT-:S _
CO<:
.- 0)
Ol.o E
.~ :> 'I::
<: c.. rn
<:""0 0.
rn <: 0)
c..rnO
-
<:
0)
E
'I::
rn
0.
0)
a
Ol
<:
'c
<:
rn
c..
-
<:
0)
E~
'1::....
rno
lIT-:S _
00<:
.- 0)
0lj5 E
.~ :> 'I::
<: c.. rn
<: ""0 0.
.!'Qc:Q)
c..rnO
0>- WO> 0>
.555 C:C OJ c:.c
~ ~~ co .~wQ).5 ~ ~
co O"Q) c."'O(tlm.cm ~ >-
~ CD ~.~ g> Q) ~ tn::;:;--;S L... Q) 0> UJ c
ro.5~E'25~m~~(/)E~ mm~~
o~~~CCOoL...Q)m"'O~ o.ca.m
:J .....(tIiO~ Q)(6Z'a>.o_ wInE
Q)..c >. Q) a.. Q) L.i Q) 0.._ C ~ - c: Q) __ ...., '-
o_~"'O _Q)OO>~Q)'~gQ)OC.co
~'~Ol~~g..c~~e~..ce~~.~~o~
:::1-- ...... ro:J""'c......:Ja.L..:J-
tn Q).5:!:::: >. co.c en .:::; a. CO (f) a. ~ U) ~ (]) 2
Ul.s::""O E..o ~ C/J en -' CO Co. _ ~ C/) --- CO
---:::1,- ~ .-..0 Q)Q)~Q).-mo~
Q)"'OoID2C(f)Q)"'O"'OQ..c"'OOG>Q)Cc.
.s::<:<:o.rnO)-.s::<:O) =<:_.s::.s::rnO
-00'- '-Em-mCOlmm~-_ L..
O_~~~t~O_'~.5.c~.50'JQ)a.
+-' .- '-.= 0 "'0"""'- t: c (JJ :> C ..... .- "'0 a.
~EE"'O~~.c~EQ)cc.~c~E~m
'~~~'5c.Q):!::::'~~~~m~m'c~e.s::0)
c.. 0. 0..0 rn a ;: c.. 0.""0 c.. 0..... c.. c.. 0. 0._
Gl
:;
'tl
Gl
.c
u
I/)
c
o
i
...
C
Gl
E
Gl
C.
E
Gl
f::!
:l
o
I/)
>-
""0
:>
(;)
ro
:;::;
.c
l!!
:l
III
III
Gl
==
C
o
~
Cl
:sa
==
"'Oem
@ 0
""0
OlUl<:
<: <: rn
.- 0) en
"'O"w U (J)
~....dE~
O>~~l...
_o.+-,o
o ....
0)-""0:>
"O'ro .$ 0
L.....s:: ca..c
a. (1)- "-
0) 0)
Q) ""E L.. a.
..crocCJ)
-OOG>
,+-'-'--
o 0. tq~
0.:>
(])COl:;LO
Ul Ul~
5<Dco
o..co_
o+-'uo
0) r: 0llE:
..c:.Q.5 e
.....t);!::::+-'
Ol:>Ero
"c.b:="-
OO._Ul 0)
'l:""""5cQ>c
CO'OO;!:::::ID
OUlOl
>-
""0
:>
(;)
rn
:;::;
'c
rn
--
rno
""00)0)
2c:.c
em:.::-
.Q g >- ~
o_t..o
:J CJ) ~ ~ .
t5~e~2
5ffia.s..."w
,.. .... 0._
...... C) (f)-"-O
..cCQ)..."Q)
CI)'- J... ....,.~
__0)0000
..ocaQ)L...~
.....c::coa.
rnUl 0.0)
1;) >'~"'C.1::
Q) a...... a>:::
=o.E>O
rn:> 0
.cCl)O~~
(/) ~a.a>
""O-E<:
1:: c:: Q)'- 0
rnrnO)>-o
u.....~=
.- ceo"'"
0. 0) 0 .- Ul
0. E :iP= Sl
..<(0. O).s::
C>>Q)'::i1;):2S
~.1::o-~~O
COI-O)_....Ul
>-
""0
:>
(;)
rn
:;::;
'c
o
o
~O\
Ci
o
Eo
~
0)
e
"-
0)
c
~
"E
o
:;;
c
.Q
1ii
g
~
]j
"0.
'"
o
I
ro
c
o
-a,
Q)
0::
'"
s
16
E
Q)
I-
M
co
...
o
.,j-
o
'"
o
o
1[1
::J
9
Ii
"'C.....~\f--r.n(J)
cc::ooco:.c .
CO (J)..... 0> ..... c::
ucc::a>.....o
O).~ (J).- c:: co:+:;
<:""OEo.o -0
.-co,,,(J)"'C>'::::I
"'C 0(J) COL...~a.co?:(J)"'C1i)
C) (J) - (I)..c ..... c::
(J)a. (1)0
..... ~ (1) >,- a. u
~(/).1::com(1)~
.="'=..... ?:.c u 0
ecoE"'C(/)C:::O
a..1:: (1) ro 0 c
(/) > 0 (/) c:: CO
(J).....(J)~"'Cro
.cCL..(1)co.cg'
.....coa..ce......_
,+-.20- (/)"'C
oa.-.~"'CrJ)~
a.0 cQ)C)
a><(r.n$;co.....'+-
~ (/)"0 00
:::I(])"O'+-~c>.
o;5coO(1)Sro
u ~ec::~.n"'C
CO..... .c::
(]) 0"'C:+::; (/) - u
.s:::;::;<:rn C:-rn
-uco"5"EroQ)
C)2(/)EO)Ul_
..c.......... u(/)o
o._(/)(1)::::IroQ)
C'\JSC(1)o._o"'C
CO'OO.,bo"oQ)c
or.nrococ::a>
III
'IV
C
Ullll
:liij
-.-
.e~
(/).5
~
III
0..
Gl
:c
'w
c
o
C.
III
&!
-
C
Gl
E 00
t::-c
010
~5: _
OOC
.- Gl
O1j5 E
.5 :l t::
C Il. 01
c'Oc.
.!!lcGl
1l.0l0
-
c
Q)
E
t::
010
~:2
O<t:
010
.5 ()
C(/)
C'O
.!!lc
1l.0l
Gl
'5
'0
Gl
.c
o
(/)
c
o
~
III
1:
Gl
E
Gl
'is.
E
2
'001
0) Q) "C
c'Oc.
:.a "5 e
mea.
....c.c.
01 01
01 Q) Gl
.......o.c
0=__
GlOl.c
o~==
lij Q) ;;:
::J"O ~ C
tnc:mo
U) _._
'0 co a. 15
-:t:'wE
s...E.c:.....
o.....+-"o
't:: Q) C '+'-
Il. c. 0.5
""
E
01..0 Q)
c:Jc..c
'-u>co--
'0--0
e:!caQ..--
O1.c - 0
('Owe""=:::......
---oo::::::c
'OccOQ)
Olo<t:E
~.2()()t::
c~U)cn~
<<Sco:::J>'a>
ijlGlO..oo
en..c Q) ""C
.- --.~ Q) g>
.8..:-:=:>--
.- 01 0 C
oE:::Jo..c
.C CD u.. a.~
1l.C.0l0l1l.
Gl.
l::!
:l
o
(/)
>-~
'OQ)
2c
(/)Q)
-CD
.~ "C C
===cm
.E0l1l.
>-~
'OQ)
2c
C/)Q)
-CD
.~"U C
:!:c:co
.E0l1l.
-
c
Q)
E 00
t::""
01 ....
c.0
Q)5:_
Ooc
.- Q)
O1j5 E
.5 :l t::
c Il. 01
c'Oc.
i2cID
1l.0l0
01
.5
'0
~
01
.....
o
Q)
o
C
01
::J
00
.!!!
B=:
....0 E
....
"t:: CD
Il.c.
"
o
"'<0
I- _
IL
~
o
E
[!!
0>
e
0-
0>
"E
.9
'E
o
:2
"
,2
1ii
g
~
]i
'5.
'"
o
I
n;
"
o
'0,
m
cr:
'"
"5
"
m
E
~
'"
co
...
o
"
o
"
o
o
5:
:::J
>1
Ii
>-
'0
::J
-
C/)
Iii
""
'c
>. - COQ)""CQ)C
o .c:..o C/)Gl""CCD .,Ca>"Co
C\I 1::"0 ._~:5 -+-"S;:-:+::;
i 0) COa>S==N>, '~OQ) co ..co
Q)-CQ)Q)-o~'~ca~ ..o-c~.s~ 1::c s...
o.C'-.c.. L..:-O.c Q) 0 01 0
tnQ)~......O)~cacas..."C ~i2s...0X Q)~
"C~Q)~.5:.aiQ)O~ Q..Q)"CID O>c= ~
C'-O:::J~tnQ)=Q).- "C~..oa. --co U)
'siXQ)os...caotnOcE cs..._ ""C "C..c-om
~_ ..cO)wQ)cco~c COcroOc COU>Q)ID
:-ou)c: -ccoU)-o oJ::::Eco o,U).~o
.~ ~~ m g>.Q $ >"5~ti ~() mo .. c e.~
-EQ)w~ro.......ocU)b ca-c:<O) O).Qa._~
m._a.>coQ)....Q)O>"Ccacaw Q.::Jooco".5 ~roo""cQ)m::J
'0 000 GlQ) Q) -~_ ~.....~
o - a. .... .- . 0 0.C/) :;: W Gl ~ > '0
c-..""C 0 "01;::0>0""C -- W Q) >'(1)
's_c""C_oQ)Q)~c Q) a. ""C..... _a.~......~
~tn._Q)coc..cs...~~- ~._Q)O) OOcaa.O
..c:::JS;:C> o......o~_o _._ro~ ~cwow
rn~~ro.ffi~O_ ~w ro~OO-~ ~ow_~
~~=~~ro-wE~.~ ~~.~o ~~~OO~
~.~~>~~~~eo~ w~ro~ ~~~roo
o~~rouo~ ~~- ~ - ~roCoE
m01::Jc~=x~c>~woro -cQ)>o'OcGl 0 00-
Q) c.... Q) ~x.~ ~
~'+- ~ro~._._ Q)Q) ro.- IDE ~ _~
.g~~~i~~~~~~ .Q~~~Q)~ ~~~~~.
Gl 00 00 .... - 01 LlI ::J ~..!..= 0..cQ) I- a. 0 c 01 O.c E 00
a.~.!!!Q)5 ::Q)~Y, a. Co ~- rJ')
rnm~a.~rn~ca.Oc ~~~~Q)~ ~rn~~Q)
"coQ)m~~CQ)~""Q)iLllN" 0.0 E~~0l~2Q)0Q)
~N'~-a.~a.> > Q)E>- E ~'Gl>Ol
,::JOlO....=o.OQ)Q)~~_N _~ ~N on>>c
~c~.- I~O'-CO~ I~ ~Q)C
~O~o.E<t:E~o.OlQ)()~I-O()OlOO~I-E01'O::J
l!!
:l
III
III
G>
:!:
c
o
:;
01
E
:!:
-
<:
Q)
EJ2
1::~
a:l 0
~$-
00<:
.- Q)
Cl- E
<:.0
.- :> 1::
<: Cl.. a:l
<: -0 0.
~cQ)
Cl..a:l0
-
<:
Q)
EJ2
1::~
a:l 0
~$-
00<:
.- Q)
Cl:E E
.5::: :> 1::
<: Cl.. a:l
<: -0 0.
a:l<:Q)
Cl..a:l0
Q)
.r:
-
.s
2l
<:-
a:l Q)
.0<:
~ <:
:>a:l
1i).s:::
13~
>.e
<:-
a:l <:
.88
~-o
.20
~ 0
Cl..ii=
Q)
.s:::
-
.s
Q)
o
<:-
a:l Q)
.0<:
~ <:
:> a:l
1i).s:::
=00
>'2
<:-
a:l <:
o R
- ~
~-o
.20
~ 0
Cl..ii=
>.
-0
:>
-
(f)
(ij
E
<:
>.
-0
:>
Ci5
(ij
:;::
'c
-c"OcD -g~
E ~8:zi coO>~
g~'5tj::u 60>.5 co
'-0"0>1"" E<:'"
C(.)Q)..c.~;; '-Q)
OQ)L..+-' 0 mcoEo
+:l~ en en L.. .Q(!) ~ c
CO+-,:!:::WQ. t:"'C~~
5i.8Eg~ ~ffi~m
E~~ro~ c.c8u
~ Q) Q) 2 W._ L..
oQ)oC>c 1:i.i:(:o
.gos,a>=g.Q ~\+-Q)C/)
_ <: 0..0 1:: 0 (f) Q)
'EW~a; 8. ~c~:g
..Q'+-Q)-c .eQ):::+-,
;:JO.c::J1- ::JE::2(/)
C/)w-.QQ> oot:--ro
= e- g>.s; 1i5 = co S (,)
a:l 0'= >~ a:l a:l 0. .-
.s:::u""'" Q) ..c0>""C0>
'" a:lQ) ",olijoo
..... >,.2..c Q) +-'
<:E""C.....:5 c '.co-
m t:_ _cn(/)..o
(,) L..._ (,) C ~ ._ L..
:.= <( L..- 2 0 .2 ::) LL Q)
0. .Q).......- Q.a> ...c-ci
0.(f)Q)"'Q) 0..s:::(f)1::Q)
<C:::i.5CC ro.....=i.2.!:::
';":Q)Q)Cl8lijNQ)EQ)>'5-
Ur=:5JJ.9-5o~,g:5ffi~
-
<:
Q)
E
1::
a:l
0.
Q)
o
Cl
<:
'c
<:
a:l
Cl..
>.
<:
a:l
0'"
-Q)
~ .-
o~
.~.~
0.0
'" a:l
>'Q)
a:lo
-0<:
Oa:l
<') .0
~
<: :>
a:l-
..c .~
--0
"'-0
'" <:
Q) :>
o e
2Cl
>.
-0
:>
Ci5
(ij
:;::
'c
Q) "0 >. ""C en
=C:Q.Q)O-
loU:J:J~(J)
00'-- .
l-oo$:J!2
~Clo<:08
o >.J!2 Q) Q) .9
<:",.o.s:::o
(O;>_.....s...
Cl O(ij.... 0.
C ..co-
.- 0 0> VJ ~
:;; .5::: 5 Q)
e..c:S:ca+:;"O
~+-,O::JCO~
..... C L.. (,) 0
I1l05a>Q-C
E a:l E CD lij
~ Q) ~
o ....1- Q)
"1-0)- 0).....
cwo.2:J9
woo> OW
>" ;;>.coo>
Q)C"5:!:::L..C
i:: :<:13 u 0 .~
:J:t:::COQ>Q).Q
"':;; .s:::>-
C)+-' "00 .E
~"'O.5a>~"O
U) ~-e:!::: a.~
.. :J"5 ::J (/) "S
('l')Orr1i)Q)"Oo-
U. 0 Q)'-..c C Q)
LLL..'U+-'CO'-
-
<:
Q)
E
1::
a:l
0.
Q)
o
Cl
<:
'c
<:
a:l
Cl..
ClQ)
<:Cl
.- -0
-0.-
- ~
"5..0
.A'"
....'"
o Q)
Q) 0
00
<: a:l
a:lQ)
:>.s:::
",-
"'~
.- 0
0....
-:!:::
~E
o ~
'c cD
Cl..o.
>.
-0
:>
Ci5
a:l
:;::
'c
Cl
<:
'w
:>
Q)
Cl
-0
';::
.0
a:l
no:;
:> <:
~ <:
1i)a:l
6"5
o Q)
_.s:::
a:l-
.s::: Q)
"'-0
c$
a:l :>
o 0
=1./)
0.1::
~o
.. 0.
"'<tQ)0.
U' .s:::1- :>
'"
o
o
"0_
,..:-
L1.
~
Q
E
l'!
0>
e
0..
0>
<=
.<=
.s
'c
o
::;:
<=
o
1ii
0>
'"
:::1
"'"
ill
'0.
'"
o
I
16
<=
o
'0,
GO
0:
'"
ri
GO
E
GO
I-
'"
to
"
o
...
~
o
o
'"
a:
=>
y
~
III
1ii
c
Uirn
::1m
.....-
co:!:
cnC
~
III
D..
Gl
:is
'0
c
o
a.
rn
~
-
<:
Q)
E
t::
ro
0.
-+-imo>...Q)
<:0.<:<:0
Gl Q)'- Q)
g>EO~ E g>
.- t:: '" ::I t::.-
<:ro-",Ill~<:
Ca.L.. ~c:
.!!lQ)g-gQ).!!l
0.0> roO a.
U_
=c
.oQ)
::I E
a.t::
Gl
"5
"C
Gl
.c
lJ
II)
C
o
i
....
C
Gl
E
Gl
C.
E
Ol
<: <: Q)
0'- Ol
+:;"0"'0
CO'-"L:;
....::1.0
ro.o
o.ro'"
~.....o ~
0. U
Q) Q) U
_uro
"w C Q)
>.ro.<:
<:::1-
- '" ....
W '" 0
0'- ....
+-'o:!:
....- E
0'0 ....
";:: C Q)
a.roo.
Gl
l:!
::I
o
II)
>.
'0
::I
-
II)
ti:i
""
'2
l!!
::I
rn
III
Gl
==
C
o
~
Cl
E
==
Q)
.<:
-
.....
Q) 0
:!:::c
If 0
c:+:i
o ~
Q) ro
.00.
o ~
- 0.
'OQ)
Q)-
.... .-
,- '"
::I .
c-cQ5
Q).....2 c
-<:
'" U ro
.- 2..c
w(j)u
'0, C (])
00.<:
-u-
.2 ch U)
.0....'"
"0 a. e
Q)=U
t;::coco
'(;j Ol Q)
.. ::J C Q)
u;> O"'~:g
0<('0.0
....
.E
-
Ol'E
<: ....
.- Q)
160.
....Ol
Ol<:
..... .-
0'0
Q)=Q)
u::IOl
c.o:-g
ro........
:::IQ..Q
'" '0 '"
'" <: '"
.- ca Q)
.8:!:::8
.... E ro
o .... Q)
"E:: Q)
a.. 0.-:;
>.
'0
::I
U5
ti:i
""
:s
<: '0
Q) ~ }1J2 5 0);
0lL() -Q)C/)a>J2 ..0......
""C ~ Q)..c ~
'i::>.C/)OOs:--~ -:0
..o-Q)+-'..c.Ero \U
O):::I._(/)-.. ..cO)
-'''''0 co ::J....-:..cn (J)..c
:5..c:::J a> 0 CI)"OQ) w+-'
'- C)t)---1(f) =:3.!:::: C>Q) S:
0::1 Q)Q)E.o'O.-oui
""o"O..c '-"'O"i::=5=a>
c L.. Q)+-':5~ 0)..0.- ro U
0.<:"'.... Q).... -u
---:J0"O Q)G> ""0>'
10 L() U Lf- c:::::: [J).!: co C ()
l....T"""~_ca~c::"oroQ)
roo.== +-' Cu ~CJ) ~ ~ 0.$ en .2:
L.. .- 'Io;i.... ro +-' +-'
Q) o.E o~ >< <: <:._ U U
a. <( ..a e ~ co Q) g g" ~-s
Q)<:iilo.::>C::oQ)u"'EO
:!::: Q) - Q.~ (/) 2 en._ a.
(J) (])(ij"E:::::._~+-' co "0 Q)
>'~..c ro:::::: ct..... C/) ""C.- L..
EO Q) ",-gJllJ..iE'Q 51ij ~.!::
\VD_ 0 CO<D
+-' erno_1-. --- ..c
<: Q)u co1i)!3> L.. Q) Q) (/J 0........
Q) 0 ;':'Q)..c..cQ)+-'Q)
> l'IJ:.= Q)::;:..c:.:!:+-''"5''''C........
Q) 0. 2:.~ -.s Q) 0>'O.~ ~
Q)(J)cos:omc:!:::Q)~a.
<o:5~Q)o~~Q)cr-5-gE
, <:ro,<:o'--><:"'Eo
()-+-'.....~>'LL.Q)o_ (,)
-
<:
Q)
E
t::
ro
0.
Q)
o
Ol
<:
'2
<:
ro
a.
Ol
<:
'0
Ol
<:
o
u
o
"t:!<'l
t;:-
<2
o
E
l!!
Ol
e
a.
Ol
"E
.s
'c
o
:;;
c
o
1ii
g
~
]j
'5.
'"
o
J:
rn
c
o
'0,
&.
'"
'3
u
"
E
'"
I-
'"
co
...
o
,J.
o
'"
o
o
5)1
a.
:::>
9
it.
>.
'0
::I
U5
ti:i
E
<:
c en 5 l....
0._._ Q)
:.j::i--o..c:
ro<:.-t::
0> ()) "0 ::J
E E.!!2....
EQ):S~
..... '--..-
~.- :J
(/)::J..c c::r
c u:t::: Q)
.2 ~ 3: L..
:!::: >,>'>.
"0 L-U CO
<:O<:E
8- Q)
roOl>.
'-::I co:!:::
~lil'Q;O";
t'-..cIDQ)
.a Q; (5 ~ .5
>.~ >'t5~ e:?
ffio5Q)(ij
'- \V,--,,,,,
o>.ec
(1).0 a.Q)
~'OQ) E
::IQ)..cC
(1)(1)....0
CO 0 s....!::::
Q)0.Q)>
E > <:
E._ 0 Q)
-
<:
~
Q)
Q)
...<:
r--_
UE
III
1ti
c
-
II) II)
::l'iV
.... .-
cu=
....c
1Il_
- -
~ c c
(]) (])
E E
III 1:: 1::
a. Ol ~
Q) a.
:a (]) (])
'W Cl Cl
c Ol Ol
0 C c
a. "E "E
II) c c
Q) Ol Ol
It: a. a.
Ol Ol
...-Cg' (f.l~~Q) _"Og> (/)~~Q)
~ WroIDCO Q)~>~ 0 mCOIDro Q)~>~
C ~~C~ OQ)O~ C ~~C~ (0)0-
.- _-0l0 ~>~~ .- _-00 ~>~~
~ = 0 C)"en Q) 0 0 a.J2 u) ~ = 0 C)"W Q) 0 0 CoJ2 U)
~~-.~c~(/)U)~~"'C"O~!-.5c~U)U)~~"'C"'C
rn c~Q)"'CcQ).- m~t>>(f.lc~Q)"'CcQ).- Q)~
ro2.Q~Q)c.~~"'Cu=8ro_.Q'~Q)c.m~"'C"'C=o
~c~Q)~ro"'CroU)~'-EQ)~c~Q)~ro"'CroU)~'-E~
Oro->U)~E~.5t>> ~Oro->(/)~5~.5t>> ~
Q).QcmroQ)o~ro'-~roQ).QcroroQ)o=m.-~ro
'-'c~E(])S~~c,-,~E~II)S'-'c~(])E~~~c~,-,EII)~S
a. U->O) IDeo 0 Co 0->(1) woo U
CO CO ~ Q) c 0 U) 0 ~ c Q) Q) CO CO ~ Q) (])c 0 U) 0 ~ c Q) Q)
~ '-'E(]) --c-DE~ '-'E --c-DE
~(])O(])E~30lOl~=(])~(])O(])E~30lOl~=(])
._~"'C~Q)ro~.5E~~~.-5"'C~~ro~.5E~!~
E~~~~Q)Oc~Q)(/)~B~~~~Q)Oc~Q)(f.l~
~'~._ot>>~"'C'ffi~~~O~'~._or::>>~"'C~~=~o
o~~~ro-ct"'C~a. o~~~ro-ct"'C~a.~
'~Q)~=c~roQ)cco=~Q)~=c~roQ)cco=
a. a. a.U Ol D al a. Ol 0 '-' U a. a. a.U Ol D al a. Ol 0 '-' U
"
o
"!m
1;::-
~
Cl
E
I!!
0>
e
0-
0>
"
""
.9
"c
o
:2
"
"2
1'ii
g
::E
""
J9
"5.
.,
o
I
..
"
o
"5
"
0::
'"
[j
"
E
~
'"
co
"
o
"
o
"
o
o
~
0-
::>
y
Ii
>-
""0
~
-
(f)
(ij
E
c
>-
""0
~
i'i5
(ij
""
'E
"Dce
c <1> CO I
(]) Ol E E l5
..c: CO+-':::::J
..... CO ttl..c "'0
:'::! Ol~_~
E,C-Wa>
l....~roQ)Q)'-'>
Q)a.J::..cL..O
a. 0-+-';:)0
OlCa.(])enO"!!2
cQ) Q)C/J"O
.- '*" (]) II) (]) en
"'C"t:..cWL..c
ro~+-,~-._
o,co..c"C ~ coE
CO :!:::,"O:::J
......8:;:Ol-;~
o.!:ccouc:
Q)L..Q).c-co
u2E;roE
ffi53~ffioE
:::J _ L...- c:
V) V) 0)"0 0"'0
.~:::JcoC::j::iC:
(])Ec~'iii~
;5c.QC:~tD
ococotDV)u
_u>V)._L..
., L..:= co '5"0 :::J _
~.Qo.u--.J"OgQ)
oll:g.~offi~~
..........IDL..-
ou.cIDC:
0..- +-' 0. Q)
.- Ol ex
.cOOQ.Q)
~O+-'
Q) (]) ...
~OlcV.E(])
;>.c+-, .c
OO.-V)+-'
... en c
~Ol Ol
-~ 0) t5 :0 .s
:::J c: Q) t:
g-:o .0'-
-- :::J L.. 0 c:
Q5_a.c.Q
L.. g Q):!:::'
0-- ID V) V)
+-' .c -- 0
V) ~+-,:::Ja.
Q)V) --.JV)
~~C:'5:O
O):::J 0 -
Ol0 ""0 :;:
L..V)"Oc:-g~
Q)~C:(Ij(lj>'
~_ i5al D
o~"""(Ij+-,~
-g.3J!3 g>ffi_~
CO:::JUCOEo
..a;O~-5co.c
"iI.c=tQ)Q)'5
ClI-OlOla.J::;Ol
~
l'Il
0-
CI)
:g
'iij
C
o
Co
III
II::
oS!
:l
"C
CI)
.c
u
III
C
o
E
C
CI)
E
CI)
1i.
E
CI)
~
:l
o
III
~
:l
Ul
l'Il
CI)
:!:
C
o
~
C)
E
:!:
l'Il
'IV
c
UlUl
:li\j
-.-
S:t::
1Il.5
-
C
Q)
g'E
.-t
C ro
Co.
..!!lQ)
0..0
-
C
Q)
E
t
ro
0.
Q)
o
0>
C
'c
C
ro
a..
-
C
Q)
E
t
ro
0.
Q)
o
0>
C
"c
C
ro
a..
-
C
Q)
g'E
.-t
C ro
Co.
ro Q)
0..0
g><o~ -fie ~
os; CD+-' :::::J >. os:
oC-c w.... 0
ro C 0> 0'-
E..c: ro E
~o .5;0).J::
~Q)~+-,,-ro.J:: 1::
roa..co:CO:a>+-'+-' co:
<1>Q)o-=5 t>>tn 0 Q)
_ "0 C '- +-'
"'ffi=5.E~..Q:m"'O 16
0)== 0 L.. Q) Q) C)
c:'Ec:C)g-~ c:
';:::lQ)roUl<l:E .;::
:::::J'-.~=5.-..c :J
""OO:loo>';':l .""0
C).~...J..c C L..:rnJg C) .
c:(f)'+-'-'~COQ)::JC'"
"- Q) 0 0 0 "'.0 " "- Q)
0'- U) .....0.-
0>=5 "0 ;!: :!::: Q) = Q) e>:S;
.o-cc:coroE 1.-
ct)caOOCD..cQ)ct)
o rooo E E C "'1--0 ro
0>
C
.;;
o
E"
..c:
t
ro
Q)
1ii
0>
C
";::
::J
""0
0>",
.f: Q)
Q+:i
'i" :2:
Co
Oro
0>
C
";;
o
E
..c:
t
ro
Q)
ro
0>
C
";::
::J
""0
0>",
.f: Q)
O+:i
9>:~
Co
Oro
"
o
"t:!'<t
t-
~
o
E
I!!
0>
Ie
ll.
0>
-2
.13
'E
o
:2'
co
.Q
1;;
g
~
]j
"a
'"
o
I
rn
co
o
"5>
&!
'"
s
"
"
E
"
I-
M
co
..,.
o
+
~
o
o
S:l
ll.
::>
9
0:'
>>
""0
::J
U5
ro
""
'c
>>
""0
::J
U5
ro
""
'c
>>
""0
::J
U5
ro
""
'c
>>
""0
::J
-
en
1ii
""
'c
Q) 0> Q)
:!:::c..c
U) .~ +-'
cEca
0'-
C '"
o Q)
cEE
ro .2:
--
ro tl
tl ro
Q)"-
""00>0>
._ 0 C
> 0"-
0_>
.... C 0
o.oE
Q)..c:
_rot
-o.ro
ro Q)
..c: .
U)"O'+-+-'
C 0 ~
ro '" tl
- Q)
C-U)Q)
rororoo
,2.S:;!..c (/)
c..0>Q.U)
0..2 = ...
rooroc
Q) 0> ro
co c ,2
(0 Q)-C'i:: 0.
,..!. ..c:1-- ~___:::::J 0.
...... ro""O ro
.
~.~-~ ~~ ~
CJ)=S:.~ J::Q) "0 C
~U ~ a>.E: rJ15 ffi ~
rn_o..c ~- _ CO:~
\Va"'" ::>.00) ..... >c
"00) "0 Q)~..c"O $1:000>
Q)c"'O"O~ .00>"01:: ~Q)oE
b--IDee: =>3CO: :::::Jc~-
ro~~roQ) ~"'Oo"O UrolCO
(/):::!Q) Q; (J)C..cw -E~~
LW~Q)~ +-,roU)~ "OQ)Q)o.-Q)
o'-L..:;Q)E' c",,,,- 0.
""00."'.... Q)Q)cc tt= 0)>
.- .J::'-
00-0 ro ro E+-'Q)Q) 'E=5-ro
:m c -g Q)E~. 2 :p:o ~ E:2 Q)'- en c:
U)::Jro ~.~ ~.o'BQ). "O~U)'-
_ e C c "'.@ Q).o""O .- c:-.!!2.$
Co>~cQ),.., ......Q)a.c;g? ~.95ro
ro ""OoE! O>"'ro~ _ '"
~0>'-+:iQ).- wc"OOCD mCIJW(()
"2.5 ~ ~ ~ .8 ~ = ~ >. ~ ..c ~ g.:
C) lo... co.- 0).- a. co (]) (]):- en Q) l- ::J
.cn-5Q)Ecu5 EE~=~ ~~~~
~ D E menoO- Q)OQ)-
-~- c l-Q)enc E~_c
1ii!1ii~~~ il~""OQ)Q) -C.oQ)
~Q)~=~= ~o. C Q)o.-coE
~>en >co 0 enl...cu ~>Q)
o .2 Q)tl-roE 0.Q)Q)
..::J ~ ro .. Q)'",-o. .."'" Q)
~Oi~~OxE~ol...enQ)l...ID ~.~l-
~--..c:~ E~OOO""~"'!'=..!!l~o>
L..I::!::~~:> Q) L..I ~~ Q.u L-I<( a.l... co
-m
Q
UsUl
:liij
-.-
.s==
(/).5
~
ell
D-
III
:c
'iii
c
o
l:1.
Ul
III
0::
-
C
Q)
E
t:
ell
0.
Q)
o
Ol
C
"c
C
'"
0..
III
:;
"C
III
.c
(.)
(/)
C
o
i
-
C
III
E
III
C.
.E
Ol
C
'S;
o
E
.c
t:
'"
Q)
'"
Ol
C
"C
::l
"0
Ol",
.S; Q)
O+:i
9':~
Co
0",
III
l:
:I
o
(/)
>,
"0
::l
U5
Oi
""
"c
l!!
:I
Ul
ell
III
:E
c
o
i
Cl
:E
:E
Ol E~
c Q) ~.Q-ci
'c ...c: o)+-' (])
::'I +-' o~..c
"U c l....._ t::
"0....... Q.:!::::: ro:
2?0:>. ",EQ)
g!~.l!l -cal5
cO.S!;! Q; ~"U-
uQ)"O""C(J)c.e
.!;!2...cQ)->Q)Q)
"O-EoOE{)
Q)"OEo~E5
....c.- --00
coco"OQ)""Ouw
w+-,Q)O>Q)Q)a>
C:.~i.i=ros...l....l....
.- '-'CO Q)
(tJO>oQ) J::..c
EOc:C(/):!:::::....
~.9Q)~~:S:o
-c l....'O+-'
a>o.o.9:::JQ)(f)
a;~ro'~~rou
l....co..c~Q)a.co
~a.(/)a...!::::(J)c.
1:: m CO >,$ a.5
Q) ~"'5ccQ)"'O
> Ol () '" Q).o'-
>,.!: Q) - E 0
C"O E c"_ = >
r--."''''Q)Q)"o''''''
6 ~ c,t- ib ~ ~ .9
-
C
Q)
E
t:
'"
0.
Q)
o
Ol
C
'c
C
'"
0..
...
Olg!
.!: Q)
"O.c
'" ()
... .-
Ol.c
....:>:
o _
cOl
.Q "E
-0
Q)-
0."2 +-'
E 0 ~
oE<o=
() ... '"
Co'"
0- ::l
0. "0 ()
~C{)
~"'O
>,
"0
::l
U5
Oi
""
'c
....Q)"O 0
""C O..c ctJ +-'
Q)cl-Q) ",w
cO -' -Q)
0>._._ . Q) 0 ~
.c +:i en (/)..c m""-
"O""C:::J u) C.... >,Q.:J
Q)-O::lQ)o....Eo
N :::J w ~ E ""'"2-- (f)
"E- 0 0.'- '0"'C 0> Q) ~
..cQ)"U(])Q)o_"'"
Q) w__ co Q.+-' U) rom
:!:::::(/)tn w:!::::: "0.2' 0
cCQ>Q) E-""'-
'" Q).c"O"O.o ::l'E- Ol
E+-':::J~::'Io ..Q
Ol"_....O () Q) '" :>: 0 0
co c> -+-'O)
:g ~5:O 8 53roE~
13(J)+:i"5Q)..c::J~~
c"O..910"':>:~Ol'"
'--2?E o.~ro ~E e"O
(J)Q) ....... Q)Q.c
OlO> ot: oBI- Q) '"
.~()()oQ)c.........c:o
"0 Q) C arC,) ~ 0""00,
~L..O,-cc>'Oo
u:::.......a. co._+-'-
,+-o:JQ)o-c0cO
o ~"O ~!-E c _.Q 'E
t:oa> cCO:>'+-'Q)Q)
o l..... 0) (,) -
a.c m ~'(ij~ ci5..~
co 2? g! fro Q) 8.~E Q)
0, <( C ....o.c Q)<( O.c
._o-cc......... 0....
()-
_C
.oQ)
::l E
o..t:
+-'~ co 0>_
co.cC
Q) Q)'- Q)
g'EO~E
.-t:","'t:
C "'"'" C/J '"
aia.5-oQ.
-Q):>cQ)
0..0:>",0
Ol
C
"S;
o
E '"
.cQ)
t::+:i
""S;
Q)+:;
-()
Oi'"
OlC
c.Q
'C ts
::l ::l
"0...
-
Ol'"
C C
"- 0
o ()
Ol
'"0
C C
0",
"
o
"10()
I- _
LL
~
o
E
~
'"
e
0..
'"
"
""
.9
""
o
::;:
"
"2
16
g
~
'"
.l!I
"15.
"'
o
I
(ij
"
o
"0,
"
'"
'"
a
"
E
"
I-
M
'"
"
o
"
o
'"
o
o
N
0:
'"
Y
li::
.f
~
>,
'"
",:2:
.2 "'C
Q)c2
.c.c",
-()"O
-Q)
-- -
co 0 0
.cQ)c
""0-
:>:Q)CI)
>,.c 0..
a.~>.
E'- .0
o.c
o:!:::::"'O
:>: 2?
C5cncu
.cco.
cn.Q ~
C 15 c..
","0 -
() C C
= Q).Q
o.E-
0. ~
"'Eo_
o-~
~<D{)c..o
1..c(])XO
WI-...WN
tV
1U
c
Us.!!
::s tV
.....-
ca~
-c
0_
~
tV
11.
Gl
:is
'(ij
c
o
c.
I/)
~
I/)
~-
... c
0Q)
$:E
ot::
='"
.00.
:::J Q)
0..0
'"
~-
... c
o Q)
$:E
ot::
='"
.00.
:::J Q)
0..0
Q)
Gl 0lJ::
"5 c-
'5 c
'C '" 0
Gl ... Q)
= Ol_
() .......02
0 o c '"
C (]) co"i::
0 oQ)g.
~ C'C ...
"'"- a.
- :::J>o.
C ~ e ro
Gl .- a. en
E o - '"
Gl +-,;t:
ii. ... E '"
0... c
.5 "t: Q) co
0.. a. a.
>-
'0
:::J
Gl -
CJ)
l:! '"
::s :;:l
0 '2
0
g'Q)
"_ J::
'0-
~ C
010
Q)
"'-Q)
....0_
o c '"
Cl> co"i::
oQ)g-
C'O ...
ro._ a.
:::J>o.
~ e ro
.- a. en
o - '"
+-,;t:
... E '"
o c
.- L.. co:
0..... Q)-
a. a.
<.>
o
"'l'"
....-
u..
~
o
E
11
0>
e
a.
0>
"
."
.s
"'"
o
:2
"
o
'"
'"
0)
'"
~
]i
"5.
'"
o
:r:
0;
"
o
"~
'"
'"
"5
<.>
..
E
..
....
'"
<0
.,-
'"
.,-
~
o
o
S)l
a.
::>
9
Ii
>-
'0
:::J
-
CJ)
rn
E
c
~
::s
I/)
tV
Gl
~
C
o
ti
Cl
E
~
""C"UC>1D~ "O,+-tn ':>.. Q)
5Q)>~Q)Q) COG> ~~ L" E ...-
w 0 0.""- J:: '" ~ '" ~ 0 0 '" '"
- 0.0:> J:: ~ ~ Q) Q) - :::J 0):2 '" '"
cE"i:: ~ "Uag"Uicn~~ E-~Q)Q)
0Q)CJ)-~ ~Q)'-CL..~""C~ ~cnOO""C=
~L.. ~~ o""CNctJC>x~'5Q)a.m<~roL..
- Q) C:'- E Q) ~ Q) Ol Q) 0 >-.0 0 - 0l'O ~
~~.QE:::J'~ Q)~~i.5Q)~>~Q)~g~c~
Q) +-' - L..~roL..w~cnro~> cnQ)Q)
>~g.~c> Q)~~~'~~S~o~S~'2~~
~oL..C_ ~~_cQ)~a. ~ro"Ucn~Q)~
U) +-'.-..... = CO 0 ..., Q) ro (]) CO c"'O ~
.~~!E~ ~i""C~~~""Cc>.~~nB.~S~
+-' oeo'S cn-oc~~~~.5o~co_cnoE
~cno 'D cnro$~~b~rncn.~a.5Q)~~
~roL..""C ~a.xcn cno~""CcnE~"Ucn
~'53J2 C"O 0 E Q) '- ~ c: E-c <J) 0 0 o:E-c: g>
m- SQ) cno""CJ2~o(])~>_ococo'-
cCO""OXcn Q)oS(])OOL..~o""C""Ca.~~""C
Q)E~Q)o ~>-o'O~!Q)~EQ)cE~J::S
~cno~~ t~~~~roS(])~g28~ffiD
>~a.~a ~a.c:C>Ncn~""CQ)~c(])~(])""C
ro.Qe~ ~ooc>,-co""C~~S>Ocng
a.~a.cnQ) ~~=co.Q~c~cc=""C._~
c>~cn",~ (]) CO=ooroDro~OO~O~I-Q)
c~ro - cW>.~-~ -IDOOID~ D
'-IDIDc ~ roroxccID~-IDID~-' .
$~rog~~ ~IDOIDID~~2o~~_ID~mro
x. -c._- .~o~~Eo~ro~~~!C~_ID.Q
ID- \Va -ro~>ID~~~Eww ~~-
~ ~E~~~~.~~~~>-D~ .-.- ~o~o
1==O~ID~IX~>IDroro~ro2oo~IDro~~
W~o~o.oaww!o.oo.E",,,,'OEEo.l-!~o.
S
III
Q
UlJQ
:s III
... .-
ca:!::
1n.5
~
III
D..
Gl
:E
'iij
c
o
l:I.
Ul
Gl
0::
Ul
-"'-
~ c::
o Q)
$:E
ot::
=lll
.00.
:s Q)
0..0
Gl
'3
'tl
Gl
..c
U
U)
C
o
:;:l
S
C
Gl
E
Gl
ii
E
Ol
c::
:;:;
(:! Ul
Ollll
lll2
.....0
oc::
Q) III
o Q)
C::1:J
lll._
=> > Q)
we....
.~ o..~
O"","",n
-.- 0
~ E ~
O~o.
"S:: Q) 0.
0.. 0. III
e
:s
o
U)
>-
1:J
=>
en
III
:;:::>
'c
l!!
:s
Ul
III
Gl
:i5
c
o
i
Cl
E
:i5
CQ)"C='QCO-cCC5CDcaQ)"O
:;..a~i.i: Q) Q) ffiJg CD ~'i::..o Q)
Q)"J:: (1)> -~52>.~
~~~.~~~~~moEClJa.
lilllUlgJg _2Q)..'!l~ EJg
Q)"O .!!2 1.,.......... 0- ....
..o~ c: Q)32 co 0 0 en 0l"O"-0
_m ::J"t: !::a>tJ)c
"0 _"'OOQ)CIlXQ)jB"i::NID
- ..... co ..c -- Q) .- -- ..c 'U
5S ~c,(/) co-5-g <?5 ~ gs
..c c:: o..o..'!l E c:: ,- c:: . Q).- 0
WO"i:::J.- .-c:o=>..c
ro .~ en U) g ~ (Y').Q Q) q:: 0 (Y') ~
"t: 0 <D -1::: .Q ....... ~ -E ~ . co
2..c~ ~ 0 Q; 0 CO.......::J CC.i::....:
co ..c 0.__ Q) a.O~ 0 co 0)==
EEooEQ)Nx .......-..c....-
l....+-' c.-05'- Q)U) 2m+-' CO"t:)
-= O'~,- 0)"0 U) c: 0 (;) Q) L.. E 2
::~"CN'~ L.. Q) ca~ (/) Q.Q) Q) ~
O:J ~~"C tV.2 w..-:,.ctl om V) 0.
s.... Q) :3:51::: (J)C\1 Q) a>1? E
~ >.~ 1i5 g 0 ~ m cO:C en 0,1- 0
roQ)~ca'-~L... WT"""cc.5 .0
:: .2:: 2 ~ U) 0 E 8.0 ~ -0 (f) ~ Q)
(/)+-'ca cao:J Q)ctlQ>+-'.!:
.=J!l :::1........5::.- E"Cal '- 00 ~+-'
~ '; ~ g co 2. ~ 'x 5 2. 2 t ~ ~
l..c "OOCO~(IJ..co .......COQ):!:::
Wl-llllll~EoEUlN.8o.e,Ol:S:
Ul
-"'-
~c::
o Q)
$:E
ot::
=lll
.00.
=> Q)
0..0
Ol
.5
1:J
(:!Ul
Ollll
lll2
.....0
o c::
Q) III
o Q)
C::1:J
lll._
=> > Q)
UlO_
Ul ~ III
.- o.,c
o -0.
+-':!::o
~ E ~
.2 '- 0.
~Q)o.
0.. 0. III
"
o
''It--
1;:-
~
Cl
E
l!
co
e
"-
co
C
'C
.9
'c
o
::;;
c
,2
'Iii
g
::E
$
"i5..
"'
o
I
ro
c
o
'0,
"
et:
'"
'5
"
"
E
~
'"
"'
..,.
o
..;.
~
o
o
fil
=>
y
Ii
>-
1:J
=>
en
ro
:;:::>
'c
co ""C ..c"OI.,...(f.)
....... ~ (.) 2 ~ ~"C
00 COU>c:"OC
(/)+-'"E:!::: Wa>'-Q)Q
.:r=:"OQ)Q) ~~ .+-'O') >.
.- Q)_..c"O..c 0>(1) eQ) ~ Q)
-Q)cc:......<DO)c:"O I-~.o
o 0....... "C :J .s;....... - _
(/):;:::OO""Co,+-~ctIi .Q) .
0.- -L.'c::JO(/)Q)Ol
O""C(1)_W .-_ C
_C::L.cC1>orooc~~._
0::J (1).c..c o..c.c-o a.
Eo1iio -(/)(/)OET'""O
E::J (1)'0 a;1ii-g 0=2 Q)""C w
.- :; E c. E ro 0>; g g. 53 .s
x_ 0 ""CCQ)OlQ)T-lL.
ro.~EO)L.Q):s2L. WXO
E 0 ::J......2~ VJ Q) Q).c Q)'e
c:: E E Ul <Il 0.:;:; Q):5 =>1:J 0.
.- .-m;::c. .5,+-w::JVJ
""C Q) 15..-..... ro >. Ol 0 '+- 00l
Q).o 0...... -~.c c <D O.c.5
032 Q) ctIi >-E= q>.~c W""C
J2::J..c0:l:::::L.0""C-Q)==
C.O_-WoVJQ)ro t;=::J
Q)..cQ)""Ct::t::lDt)'EE""C..c
.oVJ><DC1>c..crocD<DQ)'+-
""C ot)"O::J......c.VJ 0_0
1:Jc::.o<llEQ).8E~.!!!gUl
::J ro ro c.:J.o c:: 0 c.c.c.<D
,gUl~gE::!2:;O~.8E.g>
,. VJ~..c o.x::J Q)e ro L. 0 cD
LO_ Ol mOX OOQ)
1= 0._ (1) w..c'-4:;:: >'.C,+-
WLL.5 Ul.o E Ul E=.o 0.0:5
-m
o
U1U1
::siij
-.-
J!l~
(/).5
~
III
ll.
&
j5
'iij
c
o
C-
UI
&
0::
'"
-""-
~ C
o CD
$E
ot::
=00
.00.
::lCD
lLCl
&
:;
'tl
&
..c
U
(/)
C
o
~
&
E
&
ii.
E
Ol
C
'6
f!'"
Oloo
oo~
_0
OC
CD 00
o CD
C"
00__
::l > CD
"'0_
'" ~ 00
.- c...t:
o - 0.
--~O
~ E ~
O~o.
"S:: Q) Co
lL 0. 00
~
::s
o
(/)
>>
"
::l
en
00
:;:::
'r:
2!
::s
UI
III
&
:ii!
c
o
~
01
=
~
~t-g g?~ ~O~~
..J 0 CIJi.-J--.....--
00. U) 0) '-C'
..J:: 0.""0 en ..0 ~O
(f.)::::IIDQ)Q. .o~C)
=U)U~.QO C"w
ti=_lQa>gz+-'-oOG>
(iiea. (])+-,Q)+:;"O
'-Q)Q)Q)""OCt)~=
.aro.o:s--~.!BcD~
U-..... Om "'0:>
2 Q) tJ) ~ c=o>."w CD
....."O:::Ja>QCO""L:cJ::
~'5E" ~8~
.....ocnQQ)""Co .-
...... 0..=- L... Q) L....c""O
C COi :J 0 a.:!:::: Q)
CDo~CDl:l.!!! ~'"
0...... L..Q)Q.Q>s....:::l
.~c g>m '-_-0 Q) Q)
""0 0.-0 a.ro 11)'-
CCI/)""O -.s::......C::l
._=.... m Q) cn"Ol- '"
=c:J....L.......::J (J)
ti=:::I.o:!::::2coEcQ)
rocOl~.!!!E ~5.
s"-c "'O_!!l.m.c.
""'''0 0"0 a>==(ij.2t
uQ>m.!Bo......::::.cro:
2o_ucl+-:>..ca>
-",ro==comO 0_
-:l;20.- CDCDoo
.. t: 0.0 Ejg 0)"0(5 l....
CfoQ)mocg;~Q)~
W Z .0 aJ 0 ::l _ Ol Ol-'"
'"
-t-
o c
$~
ot::
=00
.00.
::l CD
lLCl
Ol
c
'6
f! '"
Oloo
oo~
_0
o c
CD 00
o CD
c"
00._
::l > (j)
"'0_
.~ 5..S2
o kQ.
......:!:::o
~ E ~
O~o.
.C Q) 0..
lL 0. 00
>>
"
::l
en
00
:;:::
'r:
..J::Q)Q)Q)Q)""CQ)O')
cnl....L..>.cQ)CI)C
'c..a.a+:l+-'Eco:c
'.-UJenCO 01...-0_
-.----t-o w
ooo~I..O't::......6,
EE_LOCDO
~.~ c~c.. -
.c~~~ClQ)cJg
g!E E ~ "0 .0 ECD -r:
.- L..._ a. ""0 .-
N~o.. :5"50)
~(J)OIOQ)O~~
(v:OQ)c:n~~a.+-'
a.Q)>.........
a.~~rJ~5Q)g>
:J E ro..92I-+:i:5"i::
CD CD OO::l
.c L.. >.~ c Q 0 ""0
- _,uo<>=_
~ Q) .r::. "en
(1).00>0-0 (: L..+-'o
ro ::.....(1) 0
Q)""Ocn cn~'_c
lr...::; "0(0.....0..
ctJo.82..c.c "'C
........J:: () 0 c:
cCD 00"0 co C c >._
CD 0.0"" Q) W .
ECDcE:;:::C\l1ii c
CD" 0 0 O~._ ro.Q
> co.- ro "0.-_
co c,:a (,) a. Q> CD (j) ~
r:..: Q...a c: ""0 E a. E 10 cD
'c::::lococ..EEo.
W-"'OOOO::l__ 0
'"
-""-
~ c
o CD
$E
ot::
=00
.0 0.
::l CD
lLCl
Ol
c
'6
f! '"
OlOO
oo~
_0
o c
CD 00
o CD
c"
00._
::l > CD
"'0_
'" ~ 00
-- c..-i::
o -0.
-+-':!:::o
~ E ~
O~o.
-i:: 0) c..
lL 0. 00
"
o
""100
I:i:-
;i
o
Eo
~
OJ
e
"-
OJ
C
.C
$l
."
o
:;;
C
o
~
'"
g
~
]j
.0.
'"
o
:I:
0;
C
o
-0,
"
'"
'"
"5
"
"
E
"
f-
'"
'"
...
o
...
:jj'
o
o
~
"-
:;)
9
0::
>>
"
::l
en
00
:;:::
'r:
c E"--"
-- L..w
~ 00
-cJ2"'O
0)-- c x
E c .-
L..::J~-g
o CD U) CD
t- 0.
0);:; (I) a.
0._ ::.... <{
oU)~
CD",lL
.0_ '"
C -.
-c 0)'2~~
::'I E 0'--' L..
oO)+:lEco
..c:-!::::oa.-g
en :J 0) co
C" Ol-
(I) 0) c (I)
C L..,......._ ro
OCDOl"-
:;:; (j)CO:J
ro..c: T""" L.. 0
~--(!) CD
CD.!: E
a.:!::: 0) ~
0~'8.E~
g>~()",'O
.- c CD
;;l 00 Ol.!: ~
.v-c c -.-
L.. ~._ CD ()
__ OlO""
co 0=--"'0
.=o:J:Jc
W<{ooaJCDoo
J!l
11l
o
Uill)
::::I'ilj
... .-
.e=
CI)..E
>.
t::
11l
II.
Gl
:g
'iii
c
o
Co
II)
Gl
0::
-
c:
W
E
1::
ctl
0.
W
o
Cl
c:
"c
c:
ctl
0..
.8
II)
c:
ctl
0.
Cl
c:
E
'E
.0
=>0
"'0
.80..
oI
.-CI)
0:0
>.
"0
=>
ii5
tii
E
c:
'" 2:-
=> c:
o =>
""0 ~ 0 ~
~ m ffi c0 .::
.....N_ctJtDC
O. ctl 0.0.."0 W
.s:::: c: "w E
0'0 o'E L..t
a..a>+:JG>g!ca
I> ctl E'- 0.
Cl)2"EwO::w
Oo.o.ClWO
Og-(lJ~:5~
.....caica'+-u
~rol:;~O~
ro:!:-o (/) ~ O>..c
o.EC:tiio<l::!:
..0 ro.-t......c CO
tp::1 C1> Q5 a.:: Q)
.- tJ) 0)...... a. CO :c
:I:'-ctlctlctlW_
'Etii0:2: WI.l9
..c.c: __ CI)..c ~ c
:::::J tJ) UJ :::J ..... ~. Q)
w1:cnO.9C:E
omm"E.....::Jc
......u.i::mOEo
L..'- Q) N Q) E '-
.. 00.- :is' ":;;
~'i::a..roro Dc:
LLo..<l:Eb5low
-
c:
W
E
1::
ctl
0.
W
o
Cl
c:
"c
c:
ctl
0:
W c:
0> go
.5 co "'0
"O-aiW
~ n;..... ~
O>~.~ Q)
m+-'E.c
'Offi'+-.8
0)00......
C)'nUlC,
Cc.."O<DQ)
cti L.. E~
:::::JCOOa.W
en Q) 0._ .....
en..c ~ :J U
.-..... 0-<1>
o .WW"O'
.....:!::::"'O_L...
OE"5coo..
";:: ij; E! L.. Q)
a.. c..a..E:5
"
o
'<0\
f- _
u.
~
o
10
l'l
0>
Ie
a.
0>
"
""
B
""
o
:;;
"
"Q
10
g
~
'"
J!I
"5.
'"
o
:r:
ro
"
o
"5>
'"
'"
'"
S
"
'"
E
'"
f-
'"
'"
.,.
o
.;.
o
q:
o
o
'"
0:
::::J
Y
Ii
h hQ)O)'-.......'+-
Q)(f.l..aCQOO
:o~ :0:0
Oro=:::JC Q)
E'-uCOoCOcO
..cc aC
L..(/fCl).-.....~CO
Q~ hCr3~
'"OOW>,CO._(/)
c :::::J.::t::."'C .21:.-
roJ::;ga.>c..a>
-oL..L..o..a.> 0
<D.$+-'e<t: .....
x co: "'0 a. L..
-=;;:c: wWo
coco "0 ..c :'2 'C
0)- .ml->a.
E~oo~ E
Q,__L..Q) .Q.U)
'S'E ~ a. ~ "E
0'"== co 0 Q) _ 8
CD_t; :t:(OQ)
c 0 en 'U :::::J..c L-
OC CEw :t:::
.-..... co E
t)::Jcn ~L...
:J.Cl L... "0 "'0 Q)
_'- .WNww'-050.
"'ClOCC.....~
CC .-.-0.....0>
O=-M"02l9m2c
0:5 ccJ::;c'-
~ - - .- .- c .- "'0
I-OSCOrooco~
<.9 <I: "~.o E E u E Cl
ca
1ii
o
Uim
:l'ia
.... .-
J9~
cn.:
~
ca
Il..
Gl
:is
'ijj
c
o
Q.
m
~
-
c
Q)
E
t::
III
0.
Q)
Cl
Ol
C
'C
C
III
a..
-
C
(])
E~
t::~
III 0
g.$ -
Cloc
.- Q)
Ol..c E
.!:; :l t::
co.. III
cuo.
.!!lc(])
a.. III 0
- -
c c
(]) (])
E~ E
t::~ t::
III 0 III
g.$ - 0.
(])
Cl C Cl
.2 Q)
Ol- E Ol
c..c c
._ :l t:: 'c
c a.. III
cuo. c
J!!cQ) III
o..lllCl a..
Ol
c Ol
'i5 c
e1 'i5
Ol "S
III ..c
.....Ol '0
o.!:;
(]) 0 (])
0 Ol 0
C , C
III C III
:l 0 :l
"'u '"
.~ c .!Q
o III ..8~
-:!:::::
~ E ~ E
0 ~ 0 ~
"i: (]) 'i: (])
a.. 0. a.. 0.
>> >>
U U
:l :l
- -
cn cn
Iii Iii
"" E
"c c
"
"
"t!o
I;:N
&
Cl
E
!'!
Ol
e
a.
Ol
"
""
.8
""
"
:;;
"
"
~
'"
g
~
]j
"a
'"
"
I
ro
"
"
"g>
'"
'"
s
"
w
E
i=!
'"
'"
..-
o
.J-
~
o
o
5)l
a.
:l
y
Ii:
Gl
:i
"C
Gl
.c
()
cn
c
o
!
c
Gl
E
Gl
C.
.5
,
~ c 0
>oW 0 c.
:t::"E '- "'C ""C
e>cc:oOQ) Q) 0>
.5a>..Qw.5oE c:
~:2"'CroScQ)Q) =0
t--C-=>COW..L: ~
Cleo ::) :> .-:;:; "C ..... C)
.........c:OQ;EroQ)==~ .......E'
ou)w.c 0.1: 0.::
(])"'~~(])E:l~O(])OlO
Ot:ww..cOl-ro-O
C:JQo.o=ooU)~cc
~a. "'CCOQ)C(/)'-~O
VJ Q) 5 5~:5.Q ~5 rJ)"'C
.!a-f;+=i 0 0:=0 co g.~ 5
o hro(f)__~C:co\V
......-OO)c"-L...-....._
--0 "":::':::::)+-'0)1:: .-
aE-wc (J)QlCC5E
-- '- Q) ro co: Q) C c CtI ._ L-
0:. 8.:5 $::0 ~ 8.Q a.. n: 8.
Gl
l:!
::I
o
cn
>>
U
:l
ii5
Iii
""
'c
l!!
::I
m
ca
Gl
:i:
c
o
~
Cl
E
::E
(])
..c"'u
_:l(])
u) g.5
.'l1cE1!! _
~~Q;::JE.~
+=io+-'OQ)"E
oO~U)..cQ)
c:a('fJ(J)"i:"~32
CcmOOWa.i
0._ oem_
:+:::iCO.....(])U)"-.-
O.........c:t..........Q)'"
:J CC).- 0 +-'
L.."-'-OQ)..co
.......COG) ._.......Q)
~ E..c OlO=B
o""Cco.5 c..CO I....
OC"-CQ)O>Q.
"OCOOC..c:CQ)
c -CU_O.r;
ro~.ca...cro-
C)co.2>a>o"C C>
c c....c..c..c c.5
.- ........... co t
~ co 8..c>'g'oo.E
'-..c'+- OIDro
Ol"'COQ)~c
=..... '+-::C ~...:.:: ~
III C 0 III '" >>._
0>r3s........1i)t:t:
c.- (]) 0."" (]) (])
N "I:: a.'c Q) c a. a.
1::Ja.m8Jgee
ClCl<(..c Ill..c 0.0.
>>
U
:l
ii5
III
""
"c
>. "'C uf"O-ci u) 0)('0
co ~ 2~cQ)'-co
~(]) (]) ~~ ~51ll=&~~
CO..c ..c COG) - u):J:J"-:J
+-' ro"'C- 1'9 co o.~ :: 0)'- E..c Q) 0
I::c2..8..8 ..c(])~o-C ~.5S~WDM
W.-o ~c ~-coo~
c....... w.....o 0.- m>co.... "'O~_._ ~
-~~ 0 mE~c .....cw"'O>-
\U w.- w'i::;:: co m a.._ ::J co C C 0 Q) J2
E 0"'0 Eo... 'i' w c m c ..c..c: w co s.:....5
m~m::J~c ~wmc Q) a.a.m
a.a.'a; en 0 0 m rn _J2 0).= "'0_ co=
Q)en -t5"'O Q)Q)eno... .5men-wcoo~
"'O..c'-~Q)c .5.~BQ) "'0 ~c..c:en>
~=gS.~m Q)Oc..c: 2~s~en~rn
cm~c.Q~ 2c~= gQ)~5crom
Q~2B9~ enE'~o .-ca.enco
-__(])~(]) (])oen- .....oE 0 ..co
~~~Q)-~'~~ TI~!~ ~~8~~ii
-E "'Ill" :i:>>Ol~e Ec _0.0
~.~~.6~~ ~~~ a.8..c:~<cen
Oo:l..cc(])m "'Oco::Jm S~rn..c:w~!
0"..... ~ C - 0"-- ~ en..c: c ::J
~w-fi.~:56 ro~g~ wm.....rn.....wt5
m~ ::J:!::'Qo Q). .-:..... ~ ui -fO'c- 2
cocrn~_Q) .5~~S .Qm~o..coQ)~~
Oc roo .-.......0_ c-_OlE~ ~
~.- w> a.~_o com- "'O'~~'~
~~.Qrnoc ""(])a.(]) ..c(])~C~~ou
~w~roEa~~oorow~~o..c:~TIro::J~~
1=a.()Oc.en '.....oo(])::J I W WCO TIc'-
Cl<(og~Ill$ClOOO~"'Cl~S>gEEllli
~
c
en.!!
;'Ill
... .-
J!~
en'::
>.
1::
III
II..
Gl
:E
'w
c
o
c.
VI
Gl
IX:
-
e:
<D
E
1:
Cll
0.
<D
Cl
Ol
e:
'c
e:
Cll
0..
Gl
'S
'tl
Gl
.c
U
en
c
o
:;:
III
...
C
Gl
E
Gl
C.
.5
"0
<D'
:l:<e:_
0>._ 0 C,)
.5E"O<D
::2.oc"o
'-~ro'-
:> '" 0.
.oIDJ2Q)
CO..c :J.c
..... 0_
O=a>,+-
Cll E 0
<D.c <D <D
OWL-'+-
Cr-r-::::
CO (]) '+- Q)
:J::=o..c
~ ~ $--
.- co'- L..
o u.2
_:t::'Q)
'""E.cg'
0............_
'C Q) 0
a.. 0..8 0>
~
;,
o
en
>>
"0
:>
en
Cll
~
'C
E
;,
VI
III
Gl
==
C
o
~
Cl
E
==
<D ....
:5.8
....
.5.Q
"0"0
<D e:
'" Cll
:> <D
<DOl
..cCll
>>"5
e: 0
o Q;
lii$
.c:8."
'" <D
>>0
~oc:
o e: Cll
-Q)e:
~O)Q)
Q)"-E
c: <0.-
<DECll
Ol<DE
>>e:"O
OClle:
e:..... Cll
<DO<D
2l...... 0
.. CD c.-
<0 E <DC:
c!>W~3l
-
e:
<D
E
1:
Cll
0.
<D
Cl
Ol
e:
'c
e:
Cll
0..
<D
.c:
-
'0
~
<D
.c
-
....
.2
Ol
e:
'0 U
0l<D
, "-
e: e
00.
>>
"0
:>
en
lii
~
'c' .-'
uf E ~"'C
Q)o:J2
:2.t:: t::"E
tn CIJ._
>> 0.-
<DCll<DQ)
~$"O..c
J::co'U_
~ Q) c-rn
ooro~.
"O.l!!- :2:
<D ~ Olo..
en ""C";::.5 0
QC'I...'Uo
13comco..
e: 01'--
Q)ffi~-ncl
Q)>2::J~
..cgf--g<(
ms.....uimo
..coQ)0)9
VJ oct--..
~bro:ao
oeo.~(I)
o _ ....
""Omcos....:J
.- 0 0
g>Q)c~..c:
.- 'U Q) en Q)
.. "0 ::J 'U '- ..c:
f'-.. co ()'w :J ......
,:.. 0 c Q) 0 0
v-1._'-..c:.......
-
e:
<D
E
1:
Cll
0.
<D
Cl
Ol
e:
'c
e:
Cll
c::
<D
.c:
-
'0
~
<D
.c:
-
....
.2
Ol
e:
.- -
o 0
0l<D
~ "0'
oa
>>
"0
:>
en
Cll
~
'c
ll='"
0'"
_..!!1
:> e:
.c::>
'" <D
Q):!:::'
..ocncn
co.m8
-55"5. 0
'" Cll
"'0>>
.,ga..co
.2 <D a5
~:5c>
> E Q;
>>oE
g.J:: Q)
<DO) L..
Ol= .E
Q; E $
~~ 0
E e: Cll
o~.s
.:::........'U
'" '" <D
c: ~.=
cx:>Q>_:J
,"" 0-
,n'- 0 <D
vU)e:....
-
e:
<D
E
1:
Cll
0.
<D
C
Ol
e:
'c
e:
Cll
0..
-
e:
Q)
E
1:
Cll
0.
<D
Cl
Ol
e:
"c
e:
Cll
0..
Q)
.c:
-
.....
o
~
<D
.c:
-
....
.2
Ol
e:
'00
0lQ)
, '-
e: e
00.
"0 Ol
<D e:
"'0'- Q)
.- 'U ..c
>Cll -
0"" ....
.....0) Q) 0
o.Cll -<("'"
Q),+- S<("U
.00 'U)LL~
Q)"O <D .-
m 0 ~..c -g 5-
~c=-co!1>......
coa>.J::.....-o
c:J..c::!:::{)Q)Q)
.2 ~ cD S: ca L..~
.......-..cQ)U)coe
.!JQ>-oocnQ,
C..c'-C:+:::iC
Q)-.E co :J.Q~
E 0.....:'= ro__
......-o.cCO.......
BesEEe30
O-;;::Q)O(])OlQ)
Cl 0. o.U <( ~ ~
"
o
-0......
tL:N
~
o
E
~
co
E'
a.
co
c
.s
"c
o
:0
c
o
.,
co
'"
~
""
.l!!
"5.
'"
o
I
ro
c
o
"a'
"
<r
'"
"5
"
"
E
"
....
M
<D
.".
o
.;-
~
o
o
S>I
a.
=>
9
0:
>>
"0
:>
en
lii
~
"c
>>
"0
:>
-
U)
lii
:E
e:
LD-= <D"O 0
Q) . ~ ctl..c c..... .
:0 T"""Q)..c-cos....""C
CD "0 CI) '0 ro:
.00....... (0 CI)"co.
(J).- T"""O) ......a..-
OOL.. C\ILL-Ec 0)
;~~ C ffie~~.s::
O)CC. o"Oo'+-Q).oQ)
:!:::::: 0) 0 -;:;:; +:; C:.= L.. .s::
Ex+:;> ocoa. ._c_
:.=""COCll 0) a.0):J0)L..
\U :J (j) _ co 0 0'" O).E
0)............J::i 0 c~co_
.c t.n.- '+- .s::.-' II..
<D"'o "".....<D-u0l2.E
coro{)-(J) ;=: .s::cc:coL..
.s::O)c.s:: (J)1-0=.i::Q)
(J) 0 O).ro ~ ~.~ a..m a. a.
0) a.s,..:.(J)~eO)
= 0) L.. E m 0 ~ -0 a..S;
co .s:: Q) ~ 0 c.- L.. a.-o
a."""Eco OOroOO"'CllCll
.:cEO)(J) _L..L.. 0) L..
~(J)CL.. co91i5 .(0)0)
"><,Cll._<D .c:......- e:.c:Cll
'+=0)""C.s:: C/) .S:~O)""'E"'"
L..L..CDO ......O)E~O) 0
2co.=0 c(5""C=EmeQ)
a.m:Jc r5U).....<(:=2......0
0.00":.= m(J)c
.~L..~~ a. c .i::m~
O)CDwco Q.O) 0"'" a.> (J)
.c:E", ""<(..c:~'E-oo",
':"::II\E<D~oQ)""'m L..L..._
VI\U _Q)T""" .-..aa.a.CD
I .s:: 0 C.s:: f'~ E '+- ~ :J a. a..s::
(9l-o:J......vr-o'""""-.(J)coco:.....
~
e
0t/l
::In;
... .-
S=
CIl.::
~
C1l
ll.
Gl
:E
'jjj
c
o
C.
t/l
/}.
-
C
0>
E
1::
C1l
a.
0> Ol_
e.55j
g>~ E
-- :J 1::
COO",
c",o.
J2r::Q)
o..",e
Gl
:i
"C
Gl
.c
CJ
CIl
c
o
!
c
Gl
E
Gl
a.
oS
-
C
0>>'
:J..c
g> C"Q)coQ)
--OlO>- .c
"U UJCO'-::"-
ro.!:..o"i::-C:
"-"U:J o.r::: 0
0)= w 0 Q) "C
"':J>,....Eo>
..c C 0.1::
01i)ca~co~
~ ~ g>-c g. e
C 0>.-0>0 a.
"'.c'gEOlo>
:J+-'-Q)c..o
II> ""0 f.) Q) ._
en c c 'U C -00
'0 coc.UJC..c:
+-' :!::::: :!::::::!::: CO U) ..
oEEEo..o>~
'i::~Q;mQ)oJ2
a.. 0.0.0.:5 C 0.
Gl
CJ
...
::I
o
CIl
n;
a.
:2 Q)
c'"
:J 0
:20
~
::I
t/l
C1l
Gl
:i!!
c
o
:;:::
C1l
tll
E
:i!!
O>'5O>'<f~cb
:5(/):5occ
"- I::::J 0
-- ::::J >.0 0
"'o..cO>Oc
..c: I .-
>- ""C 0 ..c:
(J)CDQ) Q):!:::
:J.c,. .:2;;:.
0+-':>0(1) Q)
::::Joo.Qzl....20
.5:?2co ~.u;c
0. CO .- Q)
",u",o>O:::>,:2
c.-roO c U)
8~ _~om~
-3:._"--"-0'"
"CroO"U"(-~Q)
2 :5 <D 0"- - ~"5.
C/J _..0 ,n(Y)::::J
00 \.Jr--..o
o.cDc '0
"0-" "'CI'--o
"....O>::::JOLO
\1,,1 0. 0 -- -..:::t C
..0 .c:Q)U CO
-Q)"'EQ)o.....
tii:5 -Q)CIlZO
.c CI- Q)
w.9.Q >OQ)::
Q)t1>Olo+-rogE
O::JOO So...
2'Cl..., tj::COQ)
_\u....._'" ";:;:c_
, C \V .......- .....
~ OJ~ C~Q)"E m
dJ <i5 5j 8 G ~o g.
E
ci.
o
~
<0
I
E
<ti
o
'"
<0
>,
'"
'"
"i::
U.
>.
'"
'"
C
o
:2
....
o
E
ci.
o
'"
<0
I
E
<ti
o
o
~
'"
>,
'"
'"
C
:J
en
~
'"
c'"
0=
o
:c
'" -
Q) C
:i::<Q)
Eg
Q) ....
o.~
o
",<9
.- Q)
-
'"
~U5
0:::,
;;: ~
Q)
oal
zu.
>,
'"
'E
:J
-
'"
en
~~
.... C
o Q)
:S:E
u1::
= '"
..co.
:J Q)
0..0
o~
'"
....
0> 0
u.....
C>,
'" U
:J C
'" '"
.~ 0-
:J _
U
Q)uQ)
.cO~
-......c
00..
.92.5
rlOl
ti=.5
I... -- ""C
01::-
.- Q) '-
o:oE
>,>,Q)
-ccoCii
.2 S:"'O ..
U)Q)o:5
'" Q) E ::l
Q) .... E 0
(1):5 oC/)
:5(000)
_ U I'--
"'E"'>,
(ijeoco
c'+-"'" 3:
Ol~ .c
.- c co: 0>
"'Q)cI
.2'" Ol E
!I:: v '(jj
"',., 0
.L... L.: ""'-- L..
__ ........1+-
"Uem_
., :J ;;: U
~ 0 Q)
en () '- '0'
0_:J1....
g-(I)OO-
L... !/) ~ Q)
o.Q)ca..c
Q)u _
..cuoo
_co....._
co- ~
..:O.92..~CD
~ooO>o
:c' "" .....- U
..:::: 0. en CO
'" '"
-><-
.... C
o Q)
:S:E
u1::
='"
..co.
:J 0>
0..0
.....>,
o C
'"
Q) ....
uoE
c>,
"'u
:J C
lZ '"
._ a.
::l_
u
Q) U Q)
.cO~
-......c
00..
02.5
-rlOl
tj:: .5
l.....- "0
0'1:-
"i:: Q) "5
o..O..c
"
o
"iN
l;:N
~
o
E
I!!
0>
e
ll.
0>
c::
-c::
S
'c
o
~
c::
o
1ij
g
~
]i
'0.
"'
o
J:
0;
c::
o
"g>
n::
'"
"3
"
"
E
"
I-
'"
<0
...
o
"
~
o
o
Sl
ll.
:J
Y
it:
C
'"
0..
~
0>
C
0>
<9
.c
Q)'S
.cO
-en
Olo>
CI'--
0>,
'" '"
'" ;;:
-.c
.cOl
Ol._
=:c
-
Q)C
~O
--
'" U
"O.~
C e
"'a.
~Q)
~:5
0>'5
:2Q)
"'Ol
=",
.. CO +-'
N-C
, '" 0
J:.E~
ell
1ii
C
0111
;:,iij
... .-
ca~
"'c
l/l_
€'
ell
0-
Ql
:c
'w
c
o
Co
III
Ql
a::
III
-"'-
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
='"
.<:>e.
;:, (])
0.0
....:>,
o c
'"
Ql
"5
.'C
Ql
.c
u
l/l
c
o
:0:=
III
...
C
Ql
E
Ql
is..
E
....
(])o
u.....
C:>,
'" U
::J C
"''''
.!a a.
::J_
u (])
(]) u '"
.co",
-.....c
00.
o .$ .f:
-",
uo>
t;:: .f:
L..'- ""0
Ot::_
(])--
'C ,:j
a.u.<:>
Ql
l::!
::s
o
l/l
:>,
-0
::J
-
(/)
Oi
""
'c
l!!
::s
III
ell
Ql
==
C
o
~
tll
:e
==
15 rom .
J::5~~
"5:e-1D
O""C +-' a.
(/)-o~E
Ol"'UO
,.... Ou
>.cc.c
roCOco>
:;: .... (])
..c: .a..c
0><1>'>.
---0<1::-0
J: -s; (]) '"
'+-e"'C~
oo.c-
C ::JCO
o 0-
+::;0..00
U _ C
(]) .c '"
~ "0 t co
(])",o.c
c;oc-c:
-- 0:: 0 0
(]) -:;:
.;;co"O(/)
+-' C._
Q)'-::::lJ::
>'-0"'"
o ~.o ~
cV:i B-s....(j)--
6E~81~
'"
-"'-
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
='"
.<:>e.
::J (])
0.0
o~
'"
(]) ....0
u.....
C:>,
"'u
::J C
'" '"
.~ a.
::J_
u
(]) U (])
.cogJ
-.....c
00.
02.5
-",
uO>
t;::.5
otJ2
-- (])'-
!tUB
:>,
-0
::J
i'i5
'"
""
'c
ts
(])
"e-
e.
(])
.c
-
E
.g
c
o
""
u
(])
c
C
0-0
U ro
~&
~ '"
u 0
tIlt::
o
co.
'" (])
tso
(]) 0
c_
.. c
'"102
J: U -w
'" '"
-"'-
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
=ro
.<:>e.
::J (])
0.0
.c
u
'"
(])
15
(])
u
C
ro
::J
UJ;=::
.!!! E
....
(])
oe.
-0>
c
'-=c
0=
"C ::J
0..<:>
~
o
,
C')
o
o
0::
o
LL
o
~
",--'-
(])LL
(]):2
LL:J
-I-
u~
'" '"
e.(])
E (])
-LL
-c
al-Q
Ero
e..!2>
Q:!:::'
(]):2
[; E
00
Q)~
-c
-al:J
u u
=lE
~'"
~....
"'I-
":>,
10",-0
r.a.ffi
~jB
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
='"
.<:>e.
::J (])
0.0
.c
u
'"
(])
15
(])
u
c
'"
::J
w:!::::
_!!! E
....
(])
oe.
-0>
c
l...=C
0-
'c"5
0..<:>
:>,
-0
::J
i'i5
'"
""
'c
'Crow
(])'"
~rot>
C .>, Q)
(])E -0 "5'
::J ....
g? en c-
o (]) (])
a....c :5
E-....
'-.50
(]) '" '"
~ >''0
'" '" '"
-o:;:e.
.... -0 E
'" "'.-
:;:0_
o ....
+-' "0 Q) .
"'c"'<c
(])",ro_
(]) .cl-
If- en a. Q)
Q)cQ).c
L..,o..c......
",...u-- C
.c ._
(/)Wc"'O
.!:::: ~ 0 Q)
~2"O~
cO >,.5 ~ c(])
I CO-co
J:a.Oi.<:>:!2
~jg
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
.- '"
25e.
::J (])
0.0
o~
'"
....
(])o
u....
c:>,
ro u
::Jc
"''''
.!iQ a...
::J=
u(])
(]) U '"
.cO",
-.....c
00.
0.$.5
-ro
uO>
1.;::.5
ot"O
"I:: Q)"5
a.U.<:>
:>,
-0
::J
-
(/)
Oi
""
'2
.8
.$
'w
-
u
(])
.~
e.
(])
.c
-
E
.g
-0
'"
&
o .
- -0
0",
t::o
"'0::
0",
--
u--
(]) ....
c '"
..c~
~oro
J:U:2
~j9
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
.- '"
25e.
::J (])
0.0
:>,
c
'"
....
.E
....ii'
o c
(]) '"
u e._
c::J-
'" u (])
::J U '"
",0 '"
"'.....c
.- 0 a.
(]) (]) C
..c +-,._
-",
ouO>
......t;::.5::
L..:e""C
-Q (])'-
!tUB
:>,
-0
::J
-
(/)
Oi
:E
C
'0001:5
~ (])
JB co '0'
c :>,....
(]) -0 e.
E ::J (])
g?1i5:5
e<J)'+-
e..c 0
E- '"
.- .50
(]) '" '"
.c :>, e.
-",E
{l :;:.-
L..""C=
ro '"
:;: P", (]) <C-
o -
......""Cm}::
",c.c
a>mc-Q)
2 (I) w:5
Q)c:5c
I.... 0 .-
ro+::;c""C
.cOca>
(/J Q) C-tt=
1....~:J+::;
.- (]) C
~.....""OQ)
"""",-CQ)"O
co ........- C1J--
I CO=ClJw
J:a.ro.<:>ro
'" '"
-"'-
.... c
o (])
$:E
ut::
='"
.<:>e.
::J (])
0.0
:>,
.c
'"
....
.E
....ii'
o c
(]) '"
u e._
c::J-
ro u (])
::J U '"
",0'"
'" .c
--'00..
(]) (]) C
..c ___
-;;~O>
-:: t;::.5
0'E:2
.- (])--
C:U..5
~
o
,
'"
o
ci
0::
o
~
LL
o
~
",--'-
(])LL
(]):2
LL:J
-I-
u~
ro '"
e.(])
E (])
_LL
-c
al-Q
Ero
0..2'
O:t:::
<ii:2
[; E
00
Q)~
-c
-al:J
u u
-a.lE
e.~
rol-
":>,
Olro-o
:i:a..ffi
o
o
"!<"'l
t::N
~
o
E
l!!
'"
e
!L
'"
C
:s
.c
o
:;;
c
o
n;
g
~
]j
.0.
"'
o
:I:
ro
c
o
.5>
ID
'"
ro
S
o
ID
E
ID
>-
M
'"
"
o
,J-
o
"
o
o
S:l
!L
:J
<,1
0::
ca
'l;
c
-
III III
=iii
... .-
CO~
cn.E
~
ca
Q.
GI ~$
:E ... r:::
'(jj 0(1)
r::: $':E
0 ot::
CI. =ro
III .00.
&! :J (I)
ll.O
>.
r:::
ro
GI ...
'S .E
'tl .... i>'
GI 0 r:::
~ (I) ro
0 0 0._
f/) r::: :J-
C ro 0 (I)
0 :J 0 III
",0 ro
~ "'.....<:
.- 0 ll.
... (I) (I) r:::
c
GI ..c +--0_
E ~~O>
GI -- tt=.5
C. ot32
E .~ (l)"5
ll.O.o
>.
"0
:J
GI -
l:! (J)
ro
= +>
0 '2
f/)
... Q) C 'O"'C l])
'0.8 >0 0)-
CO+:i:s:;!:j9
"CwO) . .<:ro(l)E'"
cQ)1il....Q)C/) - .2":;; =
(0 Q).-.EL..t) (5:!:::<J)(f)Q)
LL~C/) coG) ..cEl....co=
-1) c ~..c'~ '" -
Oro8.(I).2~ l....Q)ctI"O.....
en 0. (I) '+- ..c Q) ceo
..c.- ctI
t>E~~~Q) (1)_....
.0>"0; Q) co <If:E; r.:: co$
'a,~ 0 :::: c
O'co.n~cro c.-o.oID
... 0- w"O:J(I)E
Q...c (5.: +:i :::J
(I) '" r::: ro 0 E o<1>:Q'Q)
..c:.!::_:=a.>;:) ~E > :::J.!::
-m=co~o .- 0 (f) ::::I
~~S:C:Q)""" 00.0_0"
as Q) t5 .2 "E -- ro-co.~~
..c f; Q):!:::'- L.. - "0'"
l!! -- "0 "0'''''0 Q) Q) agQ)~c
= ""C(J)L...'U:!:;5 (1).- r::: ro 0 '"
-- 0 C'-
III Q)Q)o.cocro E~.+:iro"5Q)
ca 00 Q) >'11': (I) Q>ocu;;.5
GI
:z cX...cco..c I- '" (1)._ '" (I)
o>_mo....... ....'6E1ij.o"o
c 2C/).....o-~ o ::J'-
0 Q) (,) c..c _Ull:::;(I,)::J
""OQ)Q)""""o ~~~ro (!)
~ - ~ "0' c ._ "C
:::J Q).......Q) O,.:::J r::: (1)<(
Cl ..oLLl....Eco..... ""-'<:0
0.<:::;; 0. 0>0 Q) ro lot- .....
:E ~ (J)::> Q) ~;e ~ .<: (I) (I) (I) >.w
:z J:==I-::5a.Ero I-::5E::5.o0
o
o
"!"'"
I:i:N
Ii
o
E
e
0)
E!
D-
O)
c:
'c:
$l
'c
o
:;;
c:
o
'"
'"
g
~
]i
"Q.
'"
o
:J:
n;
c:
o
.~
<<
'"
"5
o
"
E
"
f--
'"
'"
...
o
.t
~
o
o
N
0::
:J
Y
Ii::
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC.STAFF REPORT. doc
17
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT TO ELIMINATE THE Z2 OVERLAY DESIGNATION
AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,"
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development
Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of
Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel
No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project");
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental
Quality Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-
recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution Amending the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for a
site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita
Road, also known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-
080-007 through 959-080-010, attached as Exhibit "A",
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
1
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
Application makes the following findings:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of
the surrounding area.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Application to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to eliminate the Z2 Overlay designation and corresponding height
restriction for a site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west
of Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "A"
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of April 2005 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~Draft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE Z2 OVERLAY
DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT
RESTRICTION FROM THE GENERAL PLAN FOR A SITE
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
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. Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgment of the City, bears a relationship to its planning;
and
B. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located north of
Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel
No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project");
C. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act;
D. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either
in support or opposition to this matter;
E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_ , recommending City Council approval of an Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment; and,
G.
The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
, 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
,2005
and
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draf1 PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
4
H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
General Plan Amendment for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- .
Section 2.
following findings:
Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of
the surrounding area.
Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby amends
the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate Z2 overlay designation and
corresponding two-story height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010.
Section 4. Severabilitv. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 5.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
lh day of
2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaiIDraft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of
, 2005 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
6
aTY OF TEMECULA
Land Use Element
Existing:
Table 2-9
Direction for Future Specific Plan Areas
Proposed . . Approximate
SDecific Plan Location KevObiectives Anticioated Land Uses Acre..e
CITYofTEMECULA
Specific Plan Along Highway 79 To achieve a comprehensively planned mixed.use Mixed. Use including Office, 2, 55.0
Area South, betweeo development with cDmpatible/ complementaIy mixtures of Support o,mmercial, 2, 35.0
21,Z2,23 Jedediah Smith Road office, support co.mmerciaJ, residential, -and services. The Residential, and Services; Open 2, 35.0
and Margarita Road project shall be limited in height to one or two stories and Space/Recreation.
designed to be compatible with existing ranch style
resideotial. The project should take advantage of the
unique opportunity to incOlporate open space resources
into the design, scale, orientation of the development. The
Clty recognizes that given the site configuration and
location that certain commercial recreation uses may be
desitable including, but not limited to, bowling all"}',
. . es, and health clohs.
Proposed:
Table 2-9
Direction for Future Soecific Plan Areas
s~~r,sed Approximate
S . icPIan Location Kev Obiectives Anticipated Land Uses Ac=e
CITY of TE ME CULA
Specific Plan Along Highway 79 To achieve a comprehensively planned mixed.use Mixed- Use including Office, 21 55.0
Area South, betweeo development with compatible/complementary mixtures of Support o,mmercial, 23 35.0
21 and 23 Jedediah Smith Road office, support commercial, residential, and sernces. 1he Residential, and Services; Open
and Margatita Road project shall be limited in height to one or two stories_and Space/Recreation.
design to be compatible with existing ranch style resideotial
The project should take advantage of the unique
opportunity to incorporate open space resources into the
design, scale, orientation of the development. The Clty
recognizes that given the site configuration and location
that certain commercial recreation uses may be desirable
including, but not limited to, bowling all"}', driving =ges,
and health clohs.
aTY OF TEMECUlA
Land Use Element
,;,.~~. ";',-'
',"'"
. .
Legend for Specific pbui.m:erlay,
~ 2-5 (Continued) ...
APPROVED SPECIFlCPLAN AREAS
. A Winchester Mesa ., . .
B.Rancho Spa llild (;oootry Club
..' .C. Warm Springs.. ...
D. Silverhawk
E. Mountain View
F. Margarita Village.."
G. Rancho Highlands
H. Paloma del Sol .
I. Vail Ranch . ..
..h, ~:~ti'~,Hilis ....;.::........,i,i'~K;<
FuTuRE SPECIFIC,tLANAREAsI : ..
K.. Winch~~r 1800 . .,
'".,', .
L Quinta ~4go
M. Murrie~ Sprli:ig$t(l. .
N. Borel A'1rnark. ... .
O. Cro~V:lleyViltll.ge
P. Hot'~Springs Village,
.'Q. JobnsonRanch .
R; Roripaugh 800
.., "...
:LOCATION. .. . . . ..
.Environmental SiUCly. Area
'Environmental Study Area
;EnviroDIilental Study Area
Sphere of InfluenCe
Sphere of Influence
Qity of Temecula
'.. .Gity 9f TCIIlccula
. . ... ;CAty ofTcmecula
-;, :,.Sphere. o[;jInflu\IDCC . /,
, ,,'i./i.,,> :" '~~~~ ~e:~face.
LOCATION
." . . .Spl1~of Influence .
.... .. ..... .'. ...Sph~'gfInflliei1ce
'. .j';' .,:"",';liiph~;of Influence
......:'I~'ii~it.i~,.
. Siflie~6fjIilfluenCe
. .. ~ph~ Q!Influence!'
.. !;ityo(Tepecula
, . City.qf'Tem~la
. ... CityofTemeci1Ja.
~~'df Temcciila.;'.,'
CilycifTeliieeulalJ "
'gi~H=I;":,:;t#'::"'
.,:<ZityofTemeeula.ilf,>;'. . .
.'...;.....Ciiy..(lfiTeri1~ta"
.
::.<.~~~-:g~: .
...."...
~-" .- .
,- .,",]
S. Winchester Hills '.. '......
T. Winchester Meadows BusiiilissPl1rk:
U. TeIilecula Regional Center · ..,..
V. CamposVerdes" .
W. Old Town"
-'.'
X. Unnanied Specific Plan". ...
Y. . Unnamed Specific Pl~ .
Zt.~~. Unnamed Specqib Plan. ...
AA Murdy Ranch, ."
'''.' .
"
."...
...~.;".;;'"
.-".'.
-.;
...
....'.,
1 The lUllMs 01 the Future SpecijlC Plan Areas are subject to dumC/I',
,
!
p...e2,o36;
CITY OF TEMECULA
Land Use Element
:', . ..". ,~,.~ ";".' ~"'." ",
..
. .-
Legend for Specific phuiOterl!ly:;
Figure 2-5 (Continued) ..", .....
APPROVED SPECIFlCPIAN AltE:A.S
A. Winchester Mesa, . .
B. Rancho Spa llbdGolfutry Oub
..' .C. Warm Springs .' .'.'.. ......, q.
D. Silverhawk
E. Mountain View
F. Margarita Village .'." .
G. Rancho Highlands,
H. Paloma del SQI
I. Vail Ranch .
" --
..h, ~::ti~,HiIIs.'. '.'.... ..",;ji{g';C\2\::!<'{.' ...
FUTURE SPECIFlC,j>LAN'A.n::EAS1~. ..'
:K.. Winche$~i- 180<( .. .....";','
L Quinta Q<),M!&O . .. . ,.'" .
M. Murrie~ SpriJlg$fti...
N.Borel.&-park.. .
O. Crown VaneY'Vll~ec'\
P. Hot~Springs Villa~
"Q. JohnsonRllbch ,.
R: Roripaugh 800
. . ". - "., .~::~..:.
.S. Winchester Hills ,'. <.
T. Winchester Meadows Busihess]'ark
U. TeIilecula Regional Center .. ,;'"
-\,. .
V. CamposVerdes:..,.
W. Old Town. ,~
X. Ul1I1linied Specific Pli!ri., .
Y. Unnamed Specific PI~ ..
~. .'4. Unnamed S~6 Plan...
AA. Murdy Ranch . ,c,..,.' . ..
-.'-' .
.:LOCATION,.,,' .
. Environmental StUoy..Area
':Environmental Study Area
:EnvironIi1ental StudyAiea
Sphere of InfluenCe
Sphere of InfIuerice
. Gity of Tem~la
" . ..City c;>f TCIl1ecula
. ':tllitjr ofTemecula .
_, .}\. .". ,. ,Sphere of,InfIuence "".
.,V '.' S here of Influerice
':,:'.:,: ': .,-,t~ty:ofTemecula .,
.......LOCATION
" ,.. .... .Spl1~of Irifluence ..
.-". ...
~ph~ o.JInfluencel .
.'. ~tyof..Temecula
,g~~~ri=~~;
~iif';of TemecUla">,:
.. City rr: . I \ ..
.. ....~!Sd~~
. , . Bitt ofTCIl1eGUlil;'c,<, .. .
.. /::/City.;ot?r~~ll".
'. + '.,~;;::j;':'
.
. .: .
.;......
;0:
;.
.7, .
..:-.......,.,.:
~:"
. >,.'~ .
, :, - ~ -
- -"'-
,,\.'
.';
;..
" ;-.
1 The ruyna oltke ~rt: SpecifIC Plan Areas are subject to dlange-,
.. .
Pa~ 2-36 .'. .
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY
". . '": ............... ....-.-
~
. :"" :':;:".
........~.::;:-::.
~liil
..;~:~~
Approved Specific Plan
Areas
Proposed Specific Plan
Areas . ... ...
N...:Sce...... dspoOir.. PIoo
Areas an f~.~Og pal~'
, ".c;,J '
.~.:", .
......" ,">..;'.;:"-
'~~:~~~~~!"
".\"
'.
.
J.' h e C i t Y 0 f
TEMECULA
General Plan Pr()gtam
....
!
.~
')
j
)
i
...nIR .0
!
.
.
z
. ' ;
i.'
i....c;-......
'.:,'.."
'<e.
-""',
,:.\"
.,"
:~
.1"
". .... ! - ~
::)i'.-:
.
;
;
;
i. .
i'
;
!
~..
~I . , . . .
i0.. ..~...THE..
it . ..
IE.. . .... ,PlANNING
-f .. ......... CENTER
..
FIGURE 2-5.
--.
L' h e C i t Y 0 f
TEMECULA
General Plan Program
,.
~_-M
,.:;;;. .
..:.:..... .
~.t'~LU'lC l'LAN OVERLAY
~1'
.:~' .
:"-.f
Approvcd Spccific Plan
Arcas
Proposcd Spccific Plan
Areas . . ..
NoI<:Scc _ ol~lioPlin
^""' on follO-Mlic ...,.,
", . ..:................ ...'....__.
i
.....-..
e
~.
.
~
.'""l
~
j
/
.
.
.....Utl RO
.j.,':."", ::,
. ~',,'
.. .
..
:..~,..,.. :
" "",."
. ..
......,...
,'.';.
~.: .
.:-....
....;...
:', ;':,,~
,",."
-'.
'~:.- >!p. .,." ,~~
h;"!"
,.
.~:i ;:f...
.1.'
,"'.
:',.,
~~~~-;.o.
~:~. ;.~A/~~';,
" .;.:......
. ?\
..;.,,:
;':.-
.~ "7
~ .,"
~ \. .
.. .
..,
i +.
.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i. .
I'
i
i
...;.,.
II[J. . .
i~ THE
If. . . ~.~:NG
FIGURE 2-5 .
t....,
<; "",u"'_'
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC.STAFF REPORT. doc
18
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SITE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD"
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by
reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as
Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-
010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ("Project").
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental
Quality Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as. prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program; and Resolution No. 2005- recommending the City Council approve a General Plan
Amendment;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended the City Council approve the Project subject to
and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-
recommending the City Council approve a zone change and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through
17.22.230, including the PDO-9 text and development standards;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
approve the Project, and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted the Mitigation
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospltallDraft pc ZC RESOLUTION.doc
1
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOllOWS:
Section 1. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA04-0462 hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General
Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The
proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment, the site is
physica/ly suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the proposed zone
change would further the City's long-term economic development goals.
B. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General
Plan. The proposed change of zone a/lows for a use that will provide the diversity of uses
desired in the General plan and will create a balanced community with additional public services
available to the community.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 05-_ changing the zoning
designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206
including the PD~ text and development standards in the form attached to this resolution as
Exhibit A.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby that the
PC Resolution No. 2005- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of April 2005, by the following
vote of the Commission:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
AYES:
NOES:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 05_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
4
ORDINANCE NO. 05-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-B) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH
17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS (PA04-0462).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of T emecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0264, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit;
and PA04-0571; Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres
generally located north of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road,
known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080c001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through
959-080-010 (" Project"); .
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City
Council approval of a General Plan Amendment;
. E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-, recommending that the City Council approve a zone change to amend
the land use designation from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206,
including the PDO text and development standards for property generally located north of
Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel
No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010;
F. On ,2005 and 2005, the City
Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time
all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on
these matters;
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hosplta~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
5
G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it
adopted Resolution No. 05-_;
H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
General Plan Amendment for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05-
I. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecuia approved a
Zone Change for the Project when it approved Ordinance No. 05- . as described in
attachment A;
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following
findings.
A. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designation
for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The PDO text, as proposed
is also consistent with the General Plan and related General Plan Amendment
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that the
provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City
Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated
in said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
_ day of _,2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 05-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of , 2005 and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _
day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
7
"'
Existing Zoning
300
.
o
. . .
'" ^ ... ... ...
... ... ... "" '" ^ ... ...
.... ^ .... .... ^ .... .... ^ ^ .... ^
.... .... .... .... ^ ^ .... .... ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ... ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
300
(l)
600 Feet
r:\gis\kellilarcviewprojectslhospital zoningJld09 exist.apr
Proposed Zoning
.
. . .
... ... ... ... ...
... '^......... "'......
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
300
,
o
300
600 Feet
(l)
r.\gis\kelli\arcviewprojects\hospital zonin9..j)do9.apr
DRAFT
Proposed
T emecula Hospital Planned
Overlay District
(PD0-9)
Submitted to the City of T emecula
By:
Universal Health Setvices, Inc.
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia P A 19406-0958
Contacts:
Pat Brietigam (UHS, Inc.) 702- 562-8542
David Prusha (HKS, Inc.) 214-969-5599
April 6, 2005
TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
DRAFT
17.22.200 Title
Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as "PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital Planned
Overlay District).
17.22.202
PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for design
flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects of this PDO will be
consistent with the land use designations that are described in the land use element of the
Temecula general plan.
17.22.204
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE DESIGN
GUIDELINES.
Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and regulations shall
apply to all planning applications in this area:
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any development
in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed
complete.
2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is deemed
complete.
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect at the time
the application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the application is
deemed complete.
17.22.206
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the exception of the
following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum allowable building heights, as
defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the T emecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited
as follows: No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot
building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within
the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that
portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall
that defines the roof area.
Chapter 17.22
ATTACHMENT NO.5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\PC-STAFFREPORT.doc
19
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE
FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE
FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700
FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-
080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH
959-080-010
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by
reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as
Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-
010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ("Project").
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) on April 6, 2005, at
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending
the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; and Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending the City Council approve a Zone Change;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the
City Council approve PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan);
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
1
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is
consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in
the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and '~ City
which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns; (Goal 8)" The proposed project
provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is
currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate
medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical
facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated
adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation,
noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows
low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot
coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will
. not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed conditional use is
compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings .or structures because there was an initial study prepared,
which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring
program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality,
noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points
have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state
highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to
screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state
highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
2
reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial
grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place
requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state
highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off
sirens no less than J4 from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has
been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is
designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping
and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 316 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31
acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance
with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the
adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near
future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities
without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any
adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community.
The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the
community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of
any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development
(OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will
review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3
of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is
consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula
Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.05.010.F of the City ofTemecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City
of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other
ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed
R:\C U NOO4\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
3
and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning
ordinances, state law and the General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for
the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been
designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project
has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit to
establish a 316 bed hospital facility and a helipad; and a Development Plan to construct a for to
construct a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000
square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation
center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79
South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The Conditions of Approval are
contained in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of April 2005, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Draft PC CUP & Dr Reso w CofA.doc
5
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELIPAD; AND A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE
FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE
FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES,"
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND
959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010
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. Universal Health Services, Inc, filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462,
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit; PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by ~eference
and an Initial Study was prepared in accord with CEQA Guidelines for the property consisting of
approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001
through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either
in support or opposition to this matter;
D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005- recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City
Council approval of a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the
City Council approval of a Zone Change;
E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan;
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
6
F. On , 2005 and 2005, the City
Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time
all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on
these matters.
G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it
adopted Resolution No. 05-_; approving a General Plan Amendment, and Resolution No.
05-_; approving a Zone Change,
H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project when it approved Resolution No.
05-
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-04133 hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is
consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in
the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
encourage '~ complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and '~ City
which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project
provides a regional use that needed in the community and. surrounding region. There is
currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate
medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical
facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated
adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation,
noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows
low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot
coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed conditional use is
compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared,
which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring
program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality,
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
7
noise, light and glare; and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points
have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state
highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to
screen the height and reduce noise. The tal1est buildings were relocated closer to the state
highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also
reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial
grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place
requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state
highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off
sirens no less than )Ii from the project site. The project is a conditional1y permitted use as has
been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potential1y significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is
designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, wal1s, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping
and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31
acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance
with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the
adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near
future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities
without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320 bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any
adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community.
The proposed project wil1 actual1y contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the
community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of
any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development
(OSHPOD) as wel1 as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will
review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3
of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is
consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula
Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residential1y zoned parcels.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula'Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
8
Section 3. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a
Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
T emecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City
ofTemecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other
ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed
and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning
ordinances, state law and the General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for
the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been
designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project
has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application
for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad; and
Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres,
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road,
known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through
959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
Section 5.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
th day of
,2005
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting held on the lh day of ,2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04.0463 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed
hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet and
a helipad within a related Development Plan (PA04-
0463) located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known
as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through
959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010
DIF: Office
TUMF: Service
MSHCP: Commercial
Approval Date: April 6, 2005
Expiration Date: April 6, 2007
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
1. The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money
order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand
Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the
City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicanVdeveloper has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the
project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)].
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
11
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest .
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. This approval shall. be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
5. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
6. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004,
(attached) on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions
of approval.
7. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
8. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the Aviation Division of Caltrans and the
Federal Aviation Administration, if required, to operate the proposed helipad.
All construction and operational requirements of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation
Administration shall be complied with. The applicant shall provide a copy of
these agencies approval documents to the Planning Director within 30 days of
their approval action.
9. The applicant shall submit to the City of Temecula Planning Department an approved
hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management
Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency,
Department of Environmental Health.
10. The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be
limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
12
unsafe due to weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the
greatest extent possible.
11. All emergency vehicles shall turn off sirens no less than one quarter of a mile from the
project site.
12. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Temecula Hospital and the approved Mitigation Monitoring
Program as attached.
Police Department
13. All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized
after 11 :00 PM to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore,
all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements.
14. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
15. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware
shall be commercial or institution grade.
16. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within
twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department
immediately so a report can be taken.
17. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
18. Any public telephones located on the exterior of this facility should be placed in a well-
lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering.
This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of this
facility.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
Date
Applicant Printed Name
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
13
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 320-bed hospital
facility, approximately 408,160 square feet in size, two
medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a
10,000 square foof cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling
approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
MSHCP:
DIF:
Commercial
Office
TUMF:
Service
Expiration Date:
April 6, 2005
April 6, 2007
Approval Date:
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
review and revision.
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money
order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand
Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the
City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the
project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)].
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
14
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE OF THE PROJECT, THE
APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
3. The applicant shall submit seven (7) complete sets of final approved plans to the
Planning Department with the following revisions shown on the plans. Planning staff will
stamp these plans as approved for distribution to each department and the applicant.
4. The Landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide vines on the screening wall at the loading dock area,
subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
b. The landscape plan shall provide shrubs, vines and/or other acceptable
screening methods to screen the oxygen storage container in the loading dock
area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show final color and finish details
for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape
shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas
(including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness
rehabilitation center).
d. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per every 4 parking
spaces. The tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it is
to shade.
e. One landscape finger shall be provided per 10 parking spaces. The interior
finger planting width shall be a minimum of 5' wide with the length equal to the
adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5'
width. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree with surrounding
groundcover or shrubs or both. The grading plans shall be revised as necessary
to reflect this requirement.
5. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are
screened from the public view of Highway 79 South.
6. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing
details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance.
7. The applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing of the water and boulder feature
at the main entrance, near the porte-cochere. Said feature shall be subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning.
8. The applicant shall submit cross section verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be
screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning.
9. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and
structures, excluding trash enclosures.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc
15
10. Trash enclosures shall be shown the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall
comply with the following:
a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the
site.
b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and
include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide
shrubs and wall vines on 3 sides of enclosures as required to provide screening.
11. The elevations shall be revised to show decorative lighting fixtures at the primary entry
of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Details of
all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting shall be
provided on the plans.
12. The Applicant shall revise the site plan and provide a detailed elevation drawing to show
a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that
deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all
FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per
Section 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
13. The grading plan shall include the following notes:
a. "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be
evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property
owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all
further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease.
The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to
deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the
site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find.
Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeologicaVcultural
resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such
determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that
the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning
shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may
take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been
approved by the Director of Planning."
b. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources,
including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This
mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 TemecuIa Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
16
c. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will
be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated
monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered
on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as
a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
d. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing
activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the
County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians will be
contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure
shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
14. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/
archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall
provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and
paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving
activities.
15. The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an
opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions
regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit
correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been
made prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
16. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets
forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native
American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for
the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that
may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the
presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The
applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to
the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
17. The grading plan shall be revised to include the following:
a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79
South as discussed in these conditions of approval.
b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within 100
days shall be tufted, seeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion.
c. Show the 5-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the Hoot
concrete landing strip (7 feet total width). One parking island is required per ten
(10) parking spaces.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
17
Public Works Department
18. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or
property owner.
19. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit.
20. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their right-of-way.
21. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
22. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
23. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
24. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction.
25. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to
protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
26. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post-
construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction-
phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the
City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for
Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction
Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development
Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include
a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs
to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff
year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc
18
BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the
approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project
proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term
maintenance of all structural post-construction BMP's.
27. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
28. The Deveioper shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
29. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
30. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
32. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Developer shall design the following features
into the approved construction plans, or submit the appropriate information as required below.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Planning Department
33. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the
colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and
Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
, 19
34. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved conceptual landscape plans, or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Consistency Check fee shall be paid (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at
time of submittal of construction plans).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. One (1) copy of an agronomic soils report.
d. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
e. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
f. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
35. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following:
a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall
be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that
minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the
specific zone requirements.
b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate
proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally
mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department.
d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30' of
street frontage.
e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six
months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted,
seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan
and landscape plan shall be provided.
f. A minimum 5' width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking
rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter
length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a
minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers.
g. Accent trees (minimum 36" box size) shall be provided at entries to parking areas
in order to define the entry and provide a focal point.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Dmft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc
20
h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle.
i. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building
MOB #2.
j. A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California
Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern
perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved
by the Director of Planning.
k. A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent
to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box)
screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare
from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross
section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer
area.
I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering berm
with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant
shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3' around all parking areas to screen parking
from off-site views.
m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features
shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area
along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be
landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed.
36. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot-candle
illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel, building
entrances and at property lines. A minimum of one-footcandle illumination shall be
maintained throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be
provided at primary building entrances.
37. The final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with
Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting
onto adjacent properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible.
38. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the
primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details .of all light fixtures, including
decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting.
39. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility.
40. The split rail fencing for the equestrian trail proposed along the northern property lines,
adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western
edge of the property line. Said fence shall a continuous fence beginning from the
secondary driveway at DePortola to the western property line.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
21
41. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined
acceptable by the Director of Planning.
42. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they
are not visible from Highway 79 South.
Public Works Department
43. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public
Works. The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401 and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
44. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
45. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
46. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the T emecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
47. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08.
Building Department
The Conditions of Approval herein (Building Department) are not applicable to the projects that
fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California (OSHPOD). These conditions are applicable
to the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are
within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department.
R:\C U N004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
22
48. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
49. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for
the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside
lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property
or public rights-of-way.
50. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
51. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
52. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1,1998)
53. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
54. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
55. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of. the California Building Code Appendix 29.
56. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
57. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
58. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
59. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
60. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Community Services Department
61. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
62. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting whichever
occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an
R;\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
23
approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the
transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program
Fire Department
63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which
are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
64. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil
engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are
signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants
shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National
Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE I - (A HO-bed
hospital with 80,000 square feet of medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
Public Works Department
65. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of
Public Works.
66. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include
installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
i. Westbound
a. Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
b. Provide three (3) thru lanes
c. Provide one(1) left turn lane
ii. Eastbound
a. Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b. Provide two (2) thru lanes and
c. Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
iii. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
24
iv. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country
Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection.
b. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive
aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
c. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88'
R/W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street
lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap.
67. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private
streets:
a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
i. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road
to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan.
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING
SHALL BE COMPLETED
Fire Department
68. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
69. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE II - (Expand to a
320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space), THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
25
Public Works Department
70. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow
for two through lanes and a center turn lane.
b. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include
paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities.
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER
Planning Department
71. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of each building for Planning
Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
Building Department
72. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Planning Department
73. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
74. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning
Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
75. Performance securities (Maintenance bond), in amounts to be determined by the
Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private
common areas and the Right-of-Way for a period of one year, in accordance with the
approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning
Department for one year from 'final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
76. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural
resources. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered
specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of
Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the
palentologic and archaeological resources.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
26
Police Department
77. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
78. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall
be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code.
Fire Department
79. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or
aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or
any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire
Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
80. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format
must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be
acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval.
81. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
82. This development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
83. Blue Reflective Markers shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3)
84. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in
such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial,
multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches
numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a
minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4).
85. Based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer
shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
86. Based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the
developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10).
87. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department
vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an
exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC
sec 902).
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
27
88. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6)
feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser door (CFC 902.4).
89. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF PHASE I
PHASE I - a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space
Public Works Department
90. The following improvements shall be constructed and operational:
a. Highway 79 South
i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and
Country Glen Way.
a) Roadway improvements
b) Westbound
i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet
long .
ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes
iii) Provide one( 1) left turn lane
c) Eastbound
I) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
91. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South
a. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle
b. Southbound (exiting site)
i. Provide two (2) left turn lanes
Ii. Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
c. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
92. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88' R/W)
along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer).
a. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
R:\C U N004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
28
93. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private
streets:
a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
i. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road
to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF PHASE II
PHASE II - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office
space.
Public Works Department
94. The following improvements shall be constructed and operational:
a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow
for two through lanes and a center turn lane.
b. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include
paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities.
95. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written .clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
96. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
97. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
98. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CafA.doc
29
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense (Planning Department).
99. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this development plan.
100. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as
attached.
101. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
102. The Director of Pianning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
103. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan,
contained on file with the Planning Department.
104. This development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's
Development Code.
105. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan
elevations and landscape plans contained on file with the Planning Department.
106. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent
of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
Material
Stucco Color No.1:
Stucco Color No.2:
Tile Base:
Aluminum Panel:
Ceramic Roof Tile:
Tinted Glass:
Window Frame:
Color
Senergy, Parchment, # 342
Senergy, Walden, # 3104
Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51
Centria, 9910 LT Seawolf
Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta Flashed
Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M
Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 Fluorocarbon
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Teroecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
30
107. The condition of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staff prior to approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish, technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of
that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
108. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be
provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting
the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of
utilities shall not look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around
utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall
insure that there are no conflicts with trees. .
109. The applicant shall insure that mature plantingswill not interfere with utilities, adjacent
site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines (Planning Department).
110. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be
submitted for review and approval for the project site.
111. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
112. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan)
contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project
shall be continuously maintained to the. reasonable satisfaction of the Director of
Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of
Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping
into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in
interest.
113. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape
Design) are required to be met.
Police Department
114. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police
Department immediately so a report can be taken.
115. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can
contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department.
116. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should
be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature
to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the
interior of the building.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
31
117. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at
a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants,
hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from
breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows.
a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
118. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and
minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting
Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting
Requirements.
119. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
Building Department
120. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
121. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays
Community Services Department
122. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
123. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a
regular solid waste container.
124. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways,
perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting.
125. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
Fire Department
126. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM
for a total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be
adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
32
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire
Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2,
Appendix III-A).
127. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site
and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire
access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart,
at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow
shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing
fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
128. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying
the required fire flow shall be provided. On site fire hydrants are required for this
project (CFC 903.2).
129. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
130. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
131. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. This condition only applies if
any manual or electronic gate is proposed or conditioned (CFC 902.4).
132. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should
any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce
any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
133. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 7, 2004 from the Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health.
134. . The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 24, 2004 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
135. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 21, 2004 from the
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA).
136. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 12, 2004 from the Rancho
California Water District.
R:\C U P\2004\D4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
33
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
34
~~
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
July 7, 2004
ffi[C \ E Ii \,~ ~..!. i
U 1\ \
.. '.'"04'"
JL v" u' ,,;
.- U
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Dan Long
By
~-="'--?
~ ----- -
RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463
Dear Mr. Long:
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to
construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be
available in this area, although we have not in receipt of any information concerning those services.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330.
c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the
Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955-
5055)
Sincerely,
Sam Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
00: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
Local Enforcement Asency . P.O. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
Land Use and Water Englneerins . P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd floor, Riverside, CA 92501
WARREND. WILLIAMS
General Manager~ChiefEngineer
City of T emecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: DM-l \...",.Jf:t
51180.1
~~~~Rcg~~~~ii~~~gNcg~~ @- ~ 0 ill [E ~
UU JUL 2 8 2004 1IJ
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
By
ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
.tA 0'1 ~C>'l'" 2.
,$.. pI><- t>t-o~~
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
.cities. The District also does not plan check ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distnct commentslrecommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific Interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componenlor extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safet}ror any other such issue:
. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
-X- This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required. .
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
conSidered regional in nature andlor a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such faCilities on written requesf
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the District's Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's
check or money order only to tile Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the .actua
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined thatthe project has been granted a permit or is. shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMAl mapped fl.ood plain, then the City should
require tile applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and of her Information reCjuired to meet FEMA
reCluirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional letter of Map Revision (ClOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a letter of Map Revision (lOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Califomia Department OT Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or. written correspondence from these agencies
indicating the project is exempt from these reqUirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
may be required from the local Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of tfle Corps 404
permit.
)( ,.tol ~r;.J1 "PlS"l4-\IT 51\7l-l,L JI~
- /If>rJ'r-I.J€:t> fO(2.. />+Jy "Jotz..l'- Wlill-\N r~
l:>1S1jt-I c.:r l4~m-()f'- w',..'t l p.- vJ 1T\-t
DI€.~ c..r FA<-ll../ 11 F:S.
-rt:M.&e&,^~ ~L. L--lt-l~.,f
c:..........
Very truly yours,
~4
ARTURO DIAZ
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: i 7!;/,Y .2-1 .:Ja:J.f
:~
-
,-
July 21, 2004
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517-1968.
Phone: (909) 565-5000
Fax: (909) 565-5001
Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner
Planning Dept., City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: P04-0462 and PA04-D463 - Temecula Hospital- Comments from RTA
Dear Mr: Long:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical
complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal
Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in
support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project.
To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the
site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features:
. A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong turnout configura-
. tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR
79, just west of the primary hospital entrance_ The bus stop should incorporate a paved
passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters.
.. Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this turnout without
significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and
with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations.
· RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional speCified clear
path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building.
· RT A staff also advises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new
passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design
and architectural themes.
RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and
PA04-0463. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at
(909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccoy@riversidetransit.com.
Si?::w9nc
Michael McCoy
Senior Planner
F:ldataIPlanning\MikeM\WordIDev ReviewlTemecula\20041RTA Ltrhd - Temec Hosp.doc
i)... lIrA
-
-
Riverside Transit AgOllCJ
July 21,2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
To:
From:
Anne Palatino, Director of Planning
Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~
City of Temecula, Cases PA04-0462 & -0463: Plot Plan review and CUP for
535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79
and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments
Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes
Subject:
Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use
permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35
now vacant acres Y. mile west of the SR79-Margarita Rd intersection in a rapidly expanding
commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full-facility medical institution in
Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging
planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to it. The
project includes the following components:
. 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, including Emergency admittance
. A 5-story expansion of the hospital
. Two multi-story medical office buildings
. Cancer center
. Fitness center
. 1280 parking spaces
The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary
access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The
hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive-thru loop suitable for van-
pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of-travel are specified
on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways.
RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop
at this site. RTA is currently studying a general reconfiguration of bus routes in South-
west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita
Rd in the relatively near future since it is an important arterial that would serve many
commercial generators of bus traffic.
In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital
site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some
cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is important enough to be the route terminus or
name of the line as identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often
serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page.
It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building,
to drop off and pick up passengers if the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside
F :ldatalPlanninglMikeMIWordlDev Reviewl T emecula\20041T emeculaHosp.doc
County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like
Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby
street. Some examples of transit service and stops are:
· Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having
multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc;
. Loma Linda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter
of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital;
· Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very
close and convenient to main building;
· Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property;
· Corona Regional Med Ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main St, off the property;
· St. Bernardine Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts
Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical
Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full
build-out. RT A staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would
be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the
former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access
road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site.
To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital,
RTA is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be
amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at:
· North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized
intersection with Country Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's
taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the
intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked
buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer-
cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth
(i.e. width) of the turnout is 10ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa-
ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79.
· Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the
main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location.
· RT A staff also requests that the project proponents consider investing in some
additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, its benches and shelters by
perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in
the. interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this
facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places in the city, its bus stop
is deserving of a high-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and
complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect
or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details.
RT A staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above
be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 04-0463. RT A staff will work with
future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is
comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital.
INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004.
F:ldata\PlanningIMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlT emecula\20041T emeculaHosp.doc
@
RaI1cha
later
Board of DirectorS
John E. Hoagland
President
Csaba F. Ko
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H. Dally
Ben R. Drake
Lisa D. Herman
John V. Rossi
Officers:
Brian J. Brady
General Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Director of Finance-Treasurer
E.P. "Bob" Lemons
Director of Engineering
Perry R. Louck
Controller
Linda M. Fregoso
District Secretary! Administrative
Services Manager
C. Michael CoweU
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
July 12, 2004
"/''\.,.
.~(-"-" " .
/if;.>:.'".
.,/':..:./"' - "
(;>:,. 'Cb..., "\.
--0/. r; ~ -"
/) '...... ,...
,. - #- ..,
<t/ /> -r '\,\
/.' , ...
v. >, /" ",,,'
{:v.>.....-:. \ho
~/ ~ '"
@
~~
WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONAL HOSPITAL;
PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043;
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2,
NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001
THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH
APN 959-080-010; PA04-0462 AND PA04-0463
Dan Long, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033
SUBJECT:
Dear IVlr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner
signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD_ The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline
and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be
contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that
no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The project
proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these
requirements.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
7Ytlllti .
~c~e;erpeter,p.
Development Engineering Manager
04\MM;mc018\FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones, Engineering Project Coordinalor
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 . TemecuIa, California 92589-9017 . (909) 296.6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860
ATTACHMENT NO.6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC.STAFF REPORT.doc
20
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING -
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT
LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-
004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571)
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware,lnc, filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and
PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, forthe
property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the north side of Highway 79
South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-
001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 and an Initial Study was prepared
in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Project);
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0571 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA04-0571 on April 6, 2005 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending
that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending
the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the
City Council approve a Zone Change; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council
approve a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_, recommending
the City Council approve a Tentative Parcel Map;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve
the Project, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolutlon.DOC
1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFTEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Findinos. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code I?ecause the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the
development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General
Plan Amendment.
8. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Ad contract;
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or
habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In
addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the
Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the altemate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided;
H. The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves the
Project (Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468) to consolidate eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one
parcel for all of the foregoing reasons and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other
necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospltal\Draft PC TPM Resolutlon.DOC
2
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of April, 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No.2005- _ was duly and regularly adorted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6' day of April, 2005, by the following vote of
the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospltallDraft PC TPM Resolullon.DOC
3
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolutlon.DOC
4
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468,
TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1
PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-
080-010 (P A04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
declare that:
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
A. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and
PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres
generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita
Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010 ("Project");
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was
conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act;
C. The Planning Commission of the City ofT emecula held a duly noticed public hearing
on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time
the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or
opposition to this matter;
D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval
of a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval
of a Zone Change; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan;
E. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public
hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Tentative Parcel Map;
F. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed
public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity
and did address the City Council on these matters.
G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City ofTemecula approved a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospltallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
5
Resolution No. 05-_; approving a General Plan Amendment, Resolution No. 05-_; approving a
Zone Change, Ordinance No. 05-_ ; approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan;
H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Tentative
Parcel Map for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- .
Section 2.
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards
within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment
B. The Tentative Map does not proposed to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965 or the land is is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract.
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
ter)tative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or
habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In
addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the
Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided.
H. The subdivision is a commercial project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Tentative Parcel
Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571, consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1
parcel, for the property generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospltallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
6
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
,2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
7
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map 32468)
Project Description:
A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight
parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel located on
the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
DIF:
Office
TUMF:
Service
MSHCP:
Commercial
Expiration Date:
April 6, 2005
April 6, 2008
Approval Date:
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed
easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may
require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
Planning Department
1. The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money order
made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred
Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty
Dollar ($1 ,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty
Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code
Section 211 08(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicanVdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
8
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
2. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
4. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures hflve been approved by the
Director of Planning."
5. A qualified paleontologisVarchaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologisV archaeologist, Planning
Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations
and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologisVarchaeologist or representative
shall have the authority to ternporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery
of fossils.
6. The Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity
to monitor ground-disturbing activities a.nd participate in the decisions regarding collection
and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the
Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of
a. grading permit.
7. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth
and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American
cultural resources. The agreemenVtreatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment
of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered
during the project. The agreemenVtreatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga
tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed
copy of the pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan to the Planning Department prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolutlon.DOC
9
8. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all
archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio
Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the
grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
9. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present
and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the
significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation
measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
10. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office
and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of
such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
Public Works Department
11. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
12. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
13. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP
14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
ii. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and is on file
at the City of T emecula Planning Department.
iii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
iv. This property is located within an area identified by the City of Temecula
General Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to archeological and
paleontological resources.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospltal\Draft PC TPM Resolution.OOC
10
Public Works Department
15. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or the
property owner.
16. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable TV Franchise
i. Community Services District
j. Verizon
k. Southern California Edison Company
I. Southern California Gas Company
17. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: .
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
i. The dedicated rightturn lane into the main entry (Country Glen Way) shall be
12 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum.
ii. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
b. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country
Glen Way.
c. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88'
R/W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street
lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer).
d. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow for
two through lanes and a center turn lane.
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include
paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and
utilities.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
11
e. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and
eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
18. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66'R/W) to include the installation of
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road to
include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan.
19. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
g. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
h. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
20. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
21. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with
the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
22. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from De Portola Road on the Parcel Map with
the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
23. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
12
24. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
25. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map.
26. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
27.. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
28. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of
any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
. is required for work within their right-of-way.
29. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
30. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
31. A 28 foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for
all private streets and drives.
32. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions. "
Fire Department
33. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" Qutlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospltallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
13
34. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a
4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into
account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
35. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI
Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format. prior to satisfaction of this condition.
36. This parcel shall maintain reciprocal access to all parcels.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
37. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
38. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
. 39. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project, as
attached.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
40. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolutlon.DOC
14
41. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
42. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
50. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated November 19, 2004 from the
Rancho California Water District.
51. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 19, 2005 from the
Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
15
@
Rancho
w*
Board of Directors
John E. Hoagland
President
Csaba F. Ko
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H. Daily
Ben R. Drake
Lisa D. Herman
Michael R. McMillan
Officers:
Brian J. Brady
General Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
Director of Finance- 'I'real3urer
E.P. ''Bob" Lemons
Director of Engineering
Perry R. Louck
Director of Planning
Jeff D. Armstrong
Controller
November 19,2004
1m [E ag [E 0 \!l [E m
1m NOV 2 2 2004 ~i
Dan Long, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6813
PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP NO.
13043; PARCELS NO.1, NO.. 2, NO.3, AND NO.4 OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 13734; APN 959-080-001, APN 959-080-
002, APN 959-080-003, APN 959-080-004, APN 959-080- 007,
APN 959-080-008, APN 959-080-009, AND APN 959~080-010
CITY PROJECT NO. P A04-0571
[UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES]
Dear Mr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
Linda M. Fregoso
DistrictSecretary/Admin.i.strative
&-.leo, M='g" If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
c. Micha,l Cowett requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner
Best Best & Krieger LLP
o.n"," ""=,' signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you should l1awanyqlJestio!lS-, pl\lase . contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Mi ael G.Meyerpeter, P.
Development Engineering Manager
04\MM:at2I1\FCP
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road . P05t Office Box 9017 . Temecula, California 92589-9017 . (951) 296-6900 . FAX (951)296-6860
o COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
lrn).~lif(f~-[I Din! n'i.-l.,.
'I' -. j li, ~ 'tin
I . L, 1
/UU JAN 2 1 2005 ~l
,By ____ J
January 19, 2005
ATTN: Dan Long
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468 (1 LOT)
Dear Mr. Long:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map 32468 and
. recommends:
a A water system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as
. approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Department.
Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate;
with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the
internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint
specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1,
Chapter 7 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code, California Administrative
Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following
certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Parcel
Map 32468 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho
California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to such ''Tentative Parcel Map".
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such
Tentative Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose. A responsible official of the water company shall
sign this certification. The plans must be submitted to the County Survevor's
Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of
the final map.
2. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of
the final map.
local Enforcement Agency' P.O. Box 1280. Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street. 9th Floor, Riverside. CA 92501
land Use aod Water Engineeriog . P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside. CA 92501
Page Two
Attn: Dan Long
January 19,2005
3. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to
the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed in accordance with plans
and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor's Office and the
Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted
in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints
shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and
joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be singed by a registered
engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the sewer system in Tentative Parcel Map 32468is in accordance with the sewer system
expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at
least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
2. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of
the final map.
Sincerely,
-t~&>inm_'W"",hhSP"'i"'''
(909) 955-8980
ITEM NO. 22
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
9C
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
January 24, 2006
Economic Development Department Report - November & December 2005
PREPARED BY:
Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 24,2006
SUBJECT: Economic Development Monthly Departmental Reports
Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator
The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for
the months of November and December 2005.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Leads and Inquiries
In the months of November and December, the City responded to the following
leads/inquiries:
On November 15'h, staff met with a hotel developer and his group that represents the
Holiday Inn, Marriott, and Hilton groups to discuss the DCH property. The developer
would like to develop a 140 unit hotel that would include 15,000 to 20,000 square feet of
conference space, plus a restaurant.
Chris Trimble, a local business owner in Temecula, contacted the City in November and
is interested in opening a new upscale Sports Bar and Grill in the Redhawk area.
Staff provided Mr. Trimble with a list of local commercial brokers and SBA Lenders.
On November 10'h, staff provided a tour of available properties for Ramona Walker,
CEO of San Diego Blood Bank and Jackie Vella, Executive Director of the Blood
Bank Foundation. They hope to have their blood donor center in Temecula open early
2006. Staff attended the Valley Blood Services Meeting that evening at Re Max office
on Jefferson.
Staff continues to assist a specialized tea business looking to open up a retail store in
Temecula with potential locations and contacts.
Business Retention & Appreciation
As a member of the EDC Business Relations Committee, staff met with Jeanne
McClellan of University of Redlands in their new facility at ETCO Plaza. Their
classrooms are larger and hold 100 to 200 people. As a follow-up to the meeting, staff
provided information regarding traffic signal plans in their area. Staff attended their
Grand Opening Celebration of their Temecula Campus on December 1 ".
On November 21", Diane Sessions of the EDC and staff held a site visit with KTM.
They met with Selvaraj Narayana to learn more about KTM and talk about EDC
services and assistance.
Media/Outreach Materials
Staff wrote the City articles for the December and January Chamber of Commerce
Newsletters. The December article, "Spotlight on Old Town Temecula" highlighted
some of the successful examples of public/private partnerships and investments, which
have pioneered the revitalization of Old Town Temecula. The article also mentioned the
procurement and installation of a new Wi-Fi network in Old Town. The Old Town article
was also published in The Valley Business Journal. The January article highlighted
the 2006 Temecula City Council.
Staff met with Dave Downey of the Californian on November 2,d and provided
information on the French Valley Parkway project for a future article.
Staff is finalizing the high-end retail insert with the graphic designer which will be
included in the City's business kit.
Staff provided the editorial and contact information for the 2006 Temecula Murrieta
Community Directory which will be distributed to Temecula and Murrieta residents.
MeetinQs
Staff attended the Economic Development Corporation of SW California Business
Relations Committee Meeting on November 3'd at MuniFinancial. Brian Jewett of
MuniFinancial provided a brief history of the company. MuniFinancial is a public finance
consulting firm that works with local governments specializing in revenue enhancement
and generation. They have been in business 17 years and employ over 70 people.
Follow-up action reports included Sunset Metal Works, Paulson Manufacturing and
Genotek. The EDC has conducted 5 visits in their fiscal year.
Staff attended the Murrieta-Temecula Group Meeting at Callaway Vineyard & Winery
on November 4'h The topic covered was on "Gangs in Southwest Riverside County."
Staff met with Dennis Frank on November 7'h to discuss issues regarding the planned
Temecula Higher Education Center.
Staff attended the Partners in Education Committee Meeting on November 7'h Items
discussed included a work plan for 2006, and a web-based job and career resource
section for the TVUSD website.
Staff met several times in November and December to discuss the Temecula Higher
Education Project.
Staff met several times in November to prepare for the proposed hospital
presentation for the December 7'h Planning Commission Meeting.
Web Steering Committee meetings were held with the City webmaster on November
28'h and December 15'h to discuss the design and content of the intra net. As a result,
2
the 'CityWeb' was created which streamlines displaying City Hall information to its
employees.
Staff met on November 17th and 18th with architect MN & R on the new proposed
civic center in Old Town.
Staff attended the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest California
Board of Directors Meeting on November 17th. The committee ratified the letter of
support for the proposed hospital on SR-79 South. It was reported that the Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) would delay decisions regarding increased
T.U.M.F. fees until further study could be accomplished. There was discussion on
proposed development in Wine Country. There was discussion on hosting a special
EDC luncheon on transportation/infrastructure issues in February. Jim O'Grady reported
on the Temecula Education Center progress and an ongoing issue related to road
improvements around the campus. The City of Temecula will meet with Rancho Water
District to negotiate. Roger Ziemer reported on Southern California Gas Company's
program that would assist low-income households. Melanie Nieman reported that
EMWD's rates would be going up effective January 1, 2006. Jim O'Grady reported that
on December 13, the Council would consider approving a 2% tourism assessment used
for promotion of local tourism. Mayor Pro Tem Washington announced that he had been
appointed to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.
Southwest California Economic Alliance Partner's met with GIS Planning on
November 8th to go over the sublicense agreement between GIS Planning Inc. and the
Alliance as well as changes to the Alliance GIS site.
On November 30th, staff met with Steve Ludwig and Steve Vliss regarding the High
Point Communities project.
Staff attended the Southwest California Economic Alliance Partner's Meeting on
November 30'h Prior to the Partner's Meeting the group met to discuss the business
license category listing to the Alliance GIS Sitefinder site. The partners discussed the
Southwest Airlines Destination offer that features various travel destination travel
specials and recommended that the Alliance make a presentation to the local Chambers,
Temecula CVB and Winegrowers Association to get their feedback on the program.
Suggested Alliance activities planned for 2006 were discussed including: the NAIOP
Bus Tour in April, 4 commercial broker breakfasts, ERISS survey, and the Taste of
California site selector event. The partners discussed the Business Facilities
LiveXchange opportunity which is a free two-day event for corporate executives who are
responsible for choosing a new location for their company's next facility. The forum
consists of pre-scheduled meetings between sponsors and delegates, as well as a
conference program that includes keynotes, workshops and think tanks. Prior to the
event, personal schedules are created for all participants according to their individual
interests and requirements. The partners also discussed the content for the upcoming
Alliance on-line quarterly newsletter, which will be sent via Constant Contact, a leading
web-based e-mail marketing service used by over 50,000 small business and
associations.
Staff attended the EDC Business Relations Committee Meeting on December 1st at
KZSW Television Inc. John Roberts gave a comprehensive overview and tour of the
station. The Menifee Sun City Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the EDD will
3
host the State of the 3rd District Economic Development Forum which will be held on
January 12'h at Pechanga Resort & Casino. Supervisor Jeff Stone will speak on his
vision for the 3rd District future as well as the Riverside County Economic Development
Agency. Diane Sessions will e-mail the committee members with a new detailed list of
companies in SW CA. We were asked to select 10 companies to focus on. The EDC
distributed their Committee Resource Book which staff will incorporate some of the
materials in the City's Business Retention Kit. Staff reported on Jim O'Grady's visit with
Jeanne McClellan, University of Redlands as well as their Open House they held that
day.
On December 6'h, staff met with RBF representatives and Fred Grimes regarding auto
mall purchases.
On December 13th, staff met with John Roberts to discuss plans for future growth of
television station KZSW.
Staff met with the Economic Development/Old Town Steering Committee on
December 14th to discuss the type of future projects that the City and RDA should
consider to fund.
On December 15'h, staff met with representatives of Winco Foods to discuss noise
issues associated with deliveries and cleaning of the Winco parking lot.
On December 15'h, Councilmember Naggar and staff met with Greg Briggs and other
project team members to discuss a proposed water park development.
Staff met with Joe Winkleman on December 22,d to discuss some auto property for a
high-end auto dealership interested in the Temecula area.
On December 16'h, the 1-15 Interregional Partnership Economic Technical Working
Group Meeting was held at Temecula City Hall. Jim O'Grady and representatives from
Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, San Jacinto, Supervisor Stone's office, Supervisor
Buster's office and Supervisor Ashley's office, Gregory Lee from the Economic Alliance
and Dr. John Husing. Several years ago, WRCOG and SANDAG conducted a study of
the 1-15 area in San Diego and Riverside County regarding jobs/housing balance. The
study did identify several transportation, housing, and economic development strategies
intended to achieve a better jobs/housing balance in both of our counties.
SANDAG and WRCOG were successful in obtaining a grant to continue some of these
efforts. Specifically, they will be conducting a study of employment clusters in Riverside
County. These clusters are groupings of related businesses that sell to each other or
rely on one another for their mutual benefit to a great extent. The purpose of this study
will be to identify existing and emerging clusters in Riverside County. This could lead to
collaborative efforts with San Diego County and could also be beneficial to economic
development efforts within Riverside County.
WRCOG and SANDAG have created a Technical Working Group to work with the
economists doing this work. The lead economist will be Marney Cox, the well-regarded
economist for SANDAG, Mr. Cox conducted a similar study for San Diego County
recently. The group discussed the scope of work for the study, which should finish in
October.
4
Mayor Comerchero was co-chair of the policy group for the previous study. WRCOG
plans to re-convene the policy group to provide direction at a couple of key points during
the study. The overall study is expected to conclude in October.
TOURISM
Special Events
On November 7'h, staff from various departments and Melody Brunsting of Melody's Ad
Works met with Jon and Jane Laskin to discuss the 2006 International Jazz Festival.
The Laskins provided staff with their concept of the Festival and draft budget. The
proposed Festival will be held at the Temecula Community Theater and other locations
in Old Town and will tie in with the opening of Old Town Hot Summer Nights program.
As a result of the meeting, the Laskins was asked to prepare a final overview of the
event and budget. Once staff received the information, staff would forward to the
Economic Development Subcommittee members to review.
On December 8th, staff met with Ruth Hobbs and Charlie Arrojo of the Temecula
Arts Council to discuss changes to the Arts in the Country Festival event and share the
Arts Council's new goals. Their signature event will be shortened and called The
Temecula Valley Arts Festival and will be held at Bel Villagio in October 2006.
This past August, the Lake Elsinore Storm sponsored a "Temecula Night".
Temecula residents got a reduced admission price, a portion of the proceeds went to
charity and the Mayor threw out the first pitch, and attending Councilmembers were
introduced. There were also clips from the State of the City video shown. Dave Endress
of the Storm called in December and asked if the City would be interested in having a
Temecula night again in 2006. Temecula Night is scheduled for Friday, August 11, as
there will be fireworks that night and it is about the same date as the 2005 event.
Advertisinq & Media
Staff worked with Laura Patterson Design and the Inland Empire Tourism Council on the
final design for the co-op ad to appear in the 2006 State of California Official Guide.
City continues to advertise in Westways magazine and receives a great response.
Staff worked with the graphic designer on updating the city's ad for the Anaheim
Orange County Visitor Guide. The ad includes the Temecula Valley CVB information
and ties in with all the new tourism marketing materials.
Staff provided comprehensive economic development information to be included in the
2006 Inland Empire Visitor & Relocation Guide.
On December 19'h, Jim O'Grady was interviewed on camera by Kristin of KZSW on the
new Tourism Improvement District that was recently approved by the City Council.
Meetinqs
The City Council held a Public Workshop regarding the proposed Tourism
Improvement District and approved formation of the District at their meeting of
5
December 13th. Staff worked with the CONVIS and their consultant to prepare the
necessary materials for Council consideration.
On November 2nd, staff attended the Inland Empire Tourism Council Board Meeting
at the IETC office to discuss work plan models, TOT funding opportunities, the creation
of a Business Improvement District for Hospitality and the lodging tax for each county
and city.
On November 3'd, various city departments met with the webmaster to discuss the
creation of a "master calendar" for the City's website. The master calendar will serve
as a resource for those that are interested in scheduling events as well as for the public
to view.
Staff attended the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau Marketing and
Membership Meeting on November 10'h The TVCVB provided an update on the new
Visitors Guide, Meeting Planners Guide and an update on the development of the
Temecula Tourism Improvement District.
As part of the IETC Board, staff met with Dr. John Husing at the Mission Inn on
November 15'h to discuss creating a research document on Tourism and the
Economic Impact for the region.
Staff attended the Inland Empire Tourism Council Board Meeting that was held on
December 12'h at the Old Town Temecula Community Theatre. Cami Mattson of the
North County Convention & Visitors Bureau spoke to the Board regarding restructuring
and ways to fund the IETC.
ATTACHMENTS
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Reports
Economic Development Corporation of Southwest California
Activities Reports
Southwest California Economic Alliance Activities Reports
6
I L'!~
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
December 8, 2005
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Shawn,
Attached piease find lhe November Monthly Activity Report as per our contract with the City of
Temecula.
This is the month of November at a giance:
Business Inquiry Highlights: In the month of November, 5 businesses requested information on
starting or relocating their business to Temecula. They received a business packet, which included a
copy of the City of Temecula demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations, elc.
Board of Directors Highlights:
SWCLC: Southwest Legisiative Council and Chamber is supporting SB288 (Batten) Gaming -
SUPPORT, which would restore a $20 million appropriation to local governments from the Indian
Gaming Speciai Distribution Fund (SDF) for the 2005-2006 Fiscal year. A e-Alert bulletin was sent to
the TVCC's member for letters of support on December 7,2005.
Education Committee: The committee is beginning to coordinate the 2006 Youth Job Fair, which
will be held on Saturday, April 22, 2006 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The education committee has
begun meeting quarterly with the next meeting set for December 8, 2005.
Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau: Visitor Center: (Please refer to new
performance graph) Served over 1,068 people at our walk-in visitor's center and 1,062 Tourism
Phone calls. Filled requests for 1,159 Visitor Guides, from e-mail inquiries and AAA-West way
members. Reaional Meetinas/Convention Business/Larae Groups: Provided assistance and
information for 9 current and future groups. Business names included The Cat Club, The Fitness
Club, The Lion's Club, Tour and Travel Magazine, Soccer Team, Gwin Nowrick "Jousting Event" and
an Automotive Group. Assisted two families with upcoming weddings in the Temecula Valley. Trade
Shows/FAM Tours/Communitv Partnership: Registered for the LA Times Travel Show partnering
with Pechanga Resort and Casino for January 28'h and 29th Scheduled FAM trip with Pechanga for
Monday January 30th. Scheduled to attend the 2006 Caiifornia Travel Market Show in San Francisco
and Sacramento in February. Marketinll/Communitv Partnership: Staff met with Jo Multon from
the Temecula Valley International Film Festival to review the TVCVB's role for 2006. We will partner
in the event marketing effort, in addition to assisting with all out-of-town travelers. Media/Marketina:
The TVCVB received five media hits for local press in November with regards to new lodging
establishments and Travel Trends for lodging. Stories were covered in the Press Enterprise.
Interviewed with Association Meetings Story: 'Temecula as a destination for Conventions and
regional meetings." Website Marketina: (Please refer to new performance graph). During the
month of November the TVCVB website received over 4,200 users and 165,287 website hits.
California Travel Updates: Winter and Spring travel forecast for California, up 3 percent-
Travel volume to and through California during the winter and spring months is expected to be 3
percent above the previous year. An estimated 71.7 million person-trips will be generated by
26790 Ynez Court. Temecula, CA 92591
Phone: (951) 676-5090. Fax: (951) 694-0201
www.temecula.org . e-mail: info@temecula.org
California residents;14.3 million by non-residents, 10.5 and 29.7 percent, respectively, above pre 9-11
levels (see attachments). California Hotel Occupancy and Room Rates (September and October
2005) - California hotel occupancy was up 6.1 % percent for the month of September, then settled
back in October to just about match the prior year rate. Year-to-date average occupancy of 70.6% for
California compares well to 64.7% for the US overall (see attachments). Source: Smith Travel
Research, CA Lodging Industry Performance, September, October 2005. 2006 Southern California
Lodging Forecast - PKF Consulting estimates that LA area hotel occupancy for 2005 will come in at
an average 76 percent, Orange County at 71.6 perCent, and San Diego 73.9 percent. Looking to
2006, with relatively little expected change in room supply, continued growth in room rates and
revenues is forecast, even if growth in demand should level off (see attachments).
Southwest California Legislative Council: The Council is coordinating a strategic planning session
on December 9th to determine the focus for 2006 and to discuss future plans for the SWCLC. Dave
Kilby, Senior Vice President of the California Chamber of Commerce will facilitate the meeting.
Committee continues to review S. 1504 following a presentation from Jason Goldman of the United
States Chamber of Commerce. Committee requested additional time to review this item. Committee
opposed SB 459, which addresses emissions of air contaminants from locomotives.
Business Development Resource Committee: The Businesses of the Month for December,
chosen by the Southwest California Legislative Council are Key, Freeman, & Kenney and Rancho
Ford Lincoln Mercury. The Chamber Spotlight winner for December is Kadance International. The
Roundtable Discussion was held on Tuesday, November 8th and the topic was Marketing for 2006.
Membership & Marketing Committee: 24 businesses joined the Chamber in November 2005. Staff
and Ambassadors attended 13 Ribbon Cutting events. The Membership Networking Breakfast was
dark for the month of November. 18 members enjoyed the Power Networking Workshop heid in the
Chamber Boardroom. The monthly workshop is held the first Tuesday of every month from 12:00pm-
1 :30pm. Members are invited to bring their lunch and learn valuable networking and etiquette skills.
The Mixer was hosted by DreamWorks Custom Catering, and partnering businesses. Over 250
guests attended the mixer, enjoying the opportunity to network and experience the different themes
presented by DreamWorks Custom Catering.
Special Events Committee: The Speciai Events committee is working on the 40th Annual Awards
Gala on February 19th, 2006 at Pechanga Resort & Casino, which is sure to be more spectacular than
ever! The event will honor and recognize over 57 nominees in six different categories. The State of
the City committee has begun meeting to plan the 2006 event with the honorable Mayor Ron Roberts
presenting. The committee has also begun planning the 2006 Golf Classic and Economic Outlook
Conference.
Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distributors)
Activity Report:
. 192 Visitor Guide requests were processed from the City of Temecula's Westway's advertising
marketing piece.
. 108 Visitor Guides were distributed to convention sales at Pechanga Resort & Casino for clients.
. 216 Visitor Guides, 175 Winery Brochures, 100 Tourism Maps were distributed to Newsom
Century 21 Real Estate for relocating clients.
. 216 Visitor Guides were distributed to conference & catering at Temecula Creek Inn for clients.
. 50 Visitor Guides were distributed to Alex's Red Barn for visiting guests.
. 25 Visitor Guides were distributed to Bel Villagio Center for guests at their grand opening.
. 50 Tourism Maps were distributed to Laurie Sims and Pam Petras of Rancon Real Estate for
relocating clients.
. 108 Visitor Guides and 100 Tourism Maps were distributed to Barbara with the Pechanga RV
Resort.
. 108 Visitor Guides were distributed to Coldwell Banker for relocating clients.
Activity Report:
. Tourism calls for the month of November - 1,062
. Phone calls for the month of November - 1,909
. Walk-ins for the month of November - 1,635
. Web Page User Sessions for the month of November - 5,999
Also, attached are the meeting minutes for the Southwest California Legislative Council, Business
Development Resource, Education, Membership and Marketing and Special Events committees. If
you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (951) 676-5090 or e-mail
asullivan@temecula.ora. Thank you.
Sincerely, -
~U SJJ1~V?lC)
Alice Sullivan
President/CEO
cc: Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Councilman Mike Naggar
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
Gloria Walnick, Marketing Coordinator
Mayor Pro Tern Ron Roberts
Councilman Chuck Washington
Councilwoman Maryann Edwards
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
TVCC Board of Directors
TEMECULA
VALLEY
-
---
Convention and Visitors Bureau
Marketing & Membership Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, November 10th, 2005 @ 11 :30 a.m.
Location: TVee
Chairpersons: Jeff Brown (not present), Steve Mallory (not present)
TVCVB Co-Chair: Ginny Mulhern (present)
Board Liaisons: Melody Brunsting (present), Kelly Daniels (not present)
Committee Present: Valarie Skovron, Cherise Manning, Jirn Miley, Jeannie Miley, Dave Endress,
Rudy Adame, Laurie Albright, Sandi Hargraves, Gloria Wolnick, Megan Franks, Jann Gentry
Staff Present: Kirnberly Adams
Call to Order and Introductions
The rneeting was called to order at 11 :30 a.m. Self-introductions were made around the group.
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made to approve the September 8, 2005 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded,
which carried.
MeetinCl Planner's Guide
Mulhern commented on the success of the City Council presentation on October 27th. She thanked
Kimberly Adams and Pamela Voit for their efforts.
Adams said that the guide should be complete in January and available to take to our scheduled
tradeshow. The guide will help us communicate to the comrnunity and the meeting planners that our
core audience is primarily from California. We will focus heavily on what we have to offer in the region
and the many opportunities there are. Adams reviewed the sections that will be included in the guide.
Ads are still available for purchase through the end of November. The guide will be used for two
years.
Statistical Graphs
Adams introduced the new graphs that will be used by the CVB to track monthly activity and statistics.
The graphs should make it easier to identify our ability to increase midweek business,
accomplishments, successes and possible areas for improvernent. The graphs will also be available
on the website in the "members only" section where members can view and download as needed.
The visitor guides have been so popular that we rnay have to order more to keep up with the demand.
TID Presentation Handout
Adams explained the TID and the process for the new members at the meeting. The TID will allow us
to be more involved with community events and have a presence within the comrnunity. We are still
working with the county of Riverside to determine if it will be feasible to include the wine country
lodging facilities in the TID. We will have a restricted budget and a non-restricted budget to work with.
The restricted budget will be used to promote lodging and activities through marketing and
advertising. The non-restricted budget will be used for other areas of operations, but will also be
contributed to the marketing and branding effort. We will hold a creative/brainstorming session to
identify campaigns needed for specific market segments and specific member business needs. The
TVCVB strategic plan should be complete in February.
Action Steps for Next MeetinCl
. Review Taste of California Final Product.
. GovernmentlPR Committee Meeting on Thursday, December 15th at 2prn at the chamber.
Guest Speaker, Mayor Pro-Tern Ron Roberts, will speak on tourism traffic and transportation
specifically relating to wine country.
Adiournment
Thank you for attending!!
Next Meeting: Thursday, December 8th, 2005 @ 11 :30am
Location: TVCC
Temecula Valley ehamber of eommerce
Membership and Marketing Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. ehamber eonference Room
Sponsored by eommunity Little Book
Mission Statement: Develop programs to maintain and build a membership commensurate
with the growth of the Temecula business community and simultaneous growth of the
Chamber. Serve as goodwill representatives and strive to enhance the value of
membership encouraging ongoing dialogue between members.
Committee Chair: Dan Brunell
Co-Chair: Jann Gentry
Board Liaisons: Melody Brunsting & Bill Seltzer
Committee Present: Harry Shank, Jann Gentry, Jack Harlan, Dan Brunell, Bill Seltzer, LaVonna
Lacy, RJ Hagel, Dave Bush, Carole Crocker, Melody Brunsting, Darryl DiRuscio, Susan Hetrick,
Fred Latuperissa, Scott Crane, Dan Peart, Robert Scutero, Teresa Kosycarz, Dawn Prather,
Garrie Aspengren, Ginny Mulhern, Richard Erk Jr, Angela Roberts, Nickey Estrada,
Tawnya Jones, John Kelliher
Board Liaisons Present: Bill Seltzer & Melody Brunsting
Staff Present: Kimberly Freize-Uhler, Susan Parris, Michelle Knowles, Alice Sullivan
Subcommittee Breakout Session
Committee broke into groups to talk about goals for the Membership committee and
subcommittees. Dan requested chamber staff collect and document results for next membership
meeting.
Minutes
Committee Chair Dan Brunell called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. The minutes of the
previous meeting were reviewed and motioned for approval by Carole Crocker and seconded by
Dave Bush, which carried.
Membership Report
The committee reviewed the Membership packet. Currently there are 1420 members
(reflects 23 new members, 64 renewals, 15 drops).
Retention
Brunell asked if anyone would be willing to chair or help with retention. Harry Shank volunteered
to head up the retention committee, he advised he would call people on the drop list and talk with
them.
Networkina Breakfast
By Dave Bush
Bush discussed overview of Networking Breakfast, how it has been working and the need to give
coffee sponsors more for their money. Committee would like to keep two spotlight speakers for
$100.00 each and two coffee sponsors for $100.00 each.
Committee would like to talk more about a networking luncheon.
Marketina
By Carole Crocker - Committee Chair:
Crocker advised the marketing committee goal and focus is to establish protocols to be used as a
guideline by Chamber staff and committees when developing flyers, invitations, press releases,
power point displays or any other type of printed materials to enhance the professionalism,
accuracy and branding of the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. Develop marketing
materials and campaign focused on member retention and new member growth.
Committee will be focusing on ideas for The Shop Temecula first program.
The committee feels they can help grow membership and increase retention with the right
marketing materials.
Power Networkina Workshop
By Bill Seltzer- Committee Co-Chair
Committee would like to increase attendance. Market the workshop more affectively with
marketing committee. Talk more about the workshop and its benefits at chamber function such as
Networking Breakfast. One of the goals for the workshop is make new members feel comfortable
about going to a mixer or networking breakfast for the first time, using the Power Networking
Workshop as a warm up or first step.
Mixer
By Dan Brunell
Mixer committee chair or co chair is not present. The mixers are going great.
Membership Committee and chamber staff will check with Chair and Co-chair to see if they are
interested in staying on in their position.
Ambassador Proaram
By Jann Gentry-Chair
One of the goals is to recruit new ambassadors to the program. Need to use Ambassadors to
communicate the value of the TVCC to help with new members and retention. Ambassador
calendar for training and quarterly meetings will be adjusted and distributed. Gentry would like
ambassadors to attend at least 2 ribbon cuttings a month. Gentry stressed the importance of
having a good turn out for new member ribbon cutting for show of support.
Board Report
By: Alice Sullivan
Alice announced Keith Wood will be facilitating the January Board retreat and planning
conference. The Southwest Legislative Council planning conference will be held December 9,
2005, 7:30am at South Coast Winery.
Meeting adjourned:
Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Chamber Boardroom
Sponsored By: Community Little Book
II~~I
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Business Development Resource Committee
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, November 16, 2005, @ 8:00am
TVee Conference Room Sponsored by Community Little Book
Committee Chair: Bob Hagel (present) Co-Chair: (vacant)
Board Liaisons: Tom Paradis (not present), Bill WIlson (not present)
Members Present: Lloyd Bradshaw, Carole G-ocker, Chad Hensley, Priscilla MOntgomery,
Ginny Mulhern, Keith Randall, Rosie Vanderhack, and Paul Villamil
Staff Present: Michelle Knowles
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made to approve the October 16, 2005 meeting minutes as written. The
motion was seconded and carried.
Business Resource Development
No Report.
. Member Recognition Program
Mystery Shopper Program
Hagel reported that the Board of Directors approved the Mystery Shopper Intern Program
and hopes for it to begin by January. G-ocker will submit the finalized proposal to Donna
Wllder with Mt. San Jacinto College for review. The committee will continue to conduct the
Mystery Shopping until the internship program begins with the college. The Mystery Shopper
winner for December was Colonial Benefits.
Volunteer Business of the Month
Hagel informed the committee that as of January 2006, KMYT 94.5 FM would no longer be
providing the radio time for the volunteer business of the month. In place of the radio
recognition, Mike Martinez with the television station KZSW is willing to give the TVCC an
opportunity to publicize the businesses chosen. Staff will check with Alice on the matter and
report back to the committee for further action. Hagel also offered to meet with the Gty of
Temecula regarding the one-hour Temecula slot shown on Adelphia Channel 3 from 6:00pm
-7:00pm. The Volunteer Businesses of the Month decided by the Southwest Legislative
Council for December are Rancho Ford Lincoln Mercury and Key, Freeman & Kenney.
Chamber Spotlight
November's Chamber Spotlight was Affordable Wmdow Coverings who recently opened a
new branch office in Murrieta. December's selected Chamber Spotlight is the company
Inergy. They are a retail establishment located at 28690 Old Town Front Street, Ste 300.
Roundtable Discussion
Mulhern reponed that the October Roundtable was successful with the topic :Marketing for
2006. Mulhern announced that the Roundtable would no longer be held at the European
Deli starting January 2006. Its new location will be at the TYCC conference room
sponsored by Community Little Book from 12:00pm-1:00pm on the second Tuesday of
every month until the library is built. Mulhern also discussed the need for a name change
and format. The committee agreed upon "Power Strategy Forum - Success Tips For Your
Business". The committee and staff will schedule a meeting in the beginning of December
to discuss topics for the 2006 year. The new format and goals will be presented at the
January planning session. The committee also suggested that a lunch sponsor would
improve the attendance. The committee suggested contacting Joan with Costco to provide
lunch for the monthly meetings.
Resource LibraJ:y
Hensley stated that he had contacted the local universities and businesses asking them to
participate in a program where they would buy books from the library and then directly
donate them back to generate monies for the library itself. He reponed that he has not heard
back from any of his initial contacts. Vanderhack announced that a new program called
njererKEUSA is available at the Library. It is an internet-based reference service from the
Library Division injOUSA, which is a provider of business and consumer information, as well
as a database marketing service. The site is designed for use as a reference tool in libraries
and is continually enhanced based upon suggestions from librarians and library patrons. The
building of the library is on schedule and a web camera is now available off of the Gty of
Temecula's website and updated every five minutes.
Board Update
The Chamber mixer is being held tonight at Dreamakers Catering from 5:30pm - 7:30pm.
Member Appreciation Night will be held on Wednesday, December 14th, 2005 from 5:30pm
- 8:30pm at Temecula Oeek Inn. The next Roundtable Discussion will be on Tuesday,
January 10th, 2006 from 12:00pm - 1:00pm here at the TYCC conference room.
Committee Updates
No Repon.
Adjournment
Thank you for attending!
NEXT MEETING: January 18th, 2006 at 8:00am
Location: TVee Conference Room Sponsored by Community Little Book
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Special Events Committee
Meeting Minutes
November 15, 2005
Chairperson: (Vacant)
Board Liaisons: Kelly Daniels and Bette Endresen
Co-Chair: (Vacant)
Members Present: Lalli Guerriero, Julie-Ann Forcum, Terri Daniel, Florin Diumea
Board Present: Bette Endresen
Staff Present: Jennifer Malek and Melissa Hayer
Approval of Minutes
The approval of minutes was tabled until the next meeting.
Business Expo
The 14th Annual Autumn Fest Business Expo took place Wednesday, October 26th at Temeku
Hills. The event overall was a success. The net income was $15,057.00, which was just under
what was budgeted. The shortfall came from the lack of exhibitors. Staff was not able to market
the event due to the fact our computer server was unable to send bulk emails or fax blasts. Staff
will schedule a recap meeting. Next year the event maybe be held in a larger facility to
accommodate more exhibitors.
40th Annual Awards Gala
No update was given.
16th Annual Chamber Golf Classic
The committee has begun planning the 2006 event. Paradise Chevrolet Cadillac has been
secured as the events Title Sponsor. Bill Seltzer is the event Chair and Tomi Arbogast is the Co-
Chair. The committee wants to streamline the event and get the sponsors to interact more with
the golfers.
2006 Economic Outlook Conference
The 2006 event is scheduled for June 220d at South Coast Winery Resort & Spa. Michael
Bazdarich is the keynote speaker. He will begin with International Economics and work his way
down to our local economy. The next meeting will be Wednesday, November 16th at 10:30 a.m.
Board Update
. Mixer will take place on November 16, 2005 at Dreamakers Custom Catering from 5:30
p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
. Planning Commission Meeting on November 16, 2005.
. Board Ballots have been mailed.
Committee Updates
. Membership Appreciation Night on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at
Temecula Creek Inn.
Next Meetinl!: Date
Tuesday, January 17,2005 at 11 :30 a.m. at the TVCC
Southwest California Legislative Couucil
A Joint Committee of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore Chambers of Commerce
Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 21,2005
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Committee Chair:
Gene Wunderlich (Absent)
Chamber Advocacy: Shaun Lumachi (Present)
Directors Present: Dr. Billie Blair, Glen Daigle, Dennis Frank, Tom Kenney, Isaac
Lizarraga, Paul O'Neal, Joan Sparkman, Amber Wiens, Roger
Ziemer
Directors Absent: Tim Kuzelka, Scott Crane, Carl Johnson, Greg Morrison, Craig
Schleuniger, Karen Wikert
Staff Absent: Rex Oliver - Murrieta
Members Present: Joseph Turner, Ashley Jones, Karie Strawn, Debra Reed
Staff: Kim Cousins - Lake Elsinore; Alice Sullivan and Laura Turnbow-
Temecula
Guests: Anthony Miranda and Amy Minnear, Pechanga Development
Corporation
I. Meeting was called to order by Sparkman at 12:10pm
II. Guest Presentation
Miranda and Minnear offered an overview on Pechanga's community support in
light of Pechanga's recent $1.5 million donation to the Boys & Girls Club.
Miranda spoke on legislation that is pending, which will impact the gaming tribes.
Under the 1999 Compact two funds were created. The Revenue Sharing Trust
Fund provides $1.1 million to non-gaming tribes. The Special Distribution Fund
was set up to mitigate local impacts of gaming facilities within that area. Miranda
reported that Governor Schwarzenegger is renegotiating compacts where funds
would be placed in the general fund rather then distributed to local government.
As the Chairman of California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Miranda
stated that over $100 million of the Special Distribution Fund is being held in
reserve. Miranda, along with Senator Batten and Assemblywomen Garcia
requested reducing the reserve by $50 million. SB288 would restore the $20
million appropriation that Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed. Miranda provided
directors with a packet that includes sample letters supporting SB288 to forward
to legislators. Minnear stressed the importance of forwarding these letters to
legislators. Adams stressed the importance of the SDF in benefiting Temecula
through transportation and police personnel benefits. The motion was made to
support SB288. The motion was seconded and carried. Lumachi stated this
item would be added to the SWCLC website.
III. Approval of 10/17/2005 Minutes
A motion was made to approve the October 17, 2005 meeting minutes as written.
The motion was seconded, and carried.
IV. TUMF Fee Extension of Public Comment Period
Ziemer stated that discussion regarding the TUMF fees have been extended until
February, 2006. Committee reviewed the current and proposed TUMF fee
schedules. The impact of the proposed fee schedules has a greater impact on
undeveloped areas and could make it difficult for new businesses to locate in this
area. Sparkman requested a comparison of TUMF fees in other counties.
Adams stated that the TUMF is critical to the development of this area, as they
relate to traffic improvements.
V. SWCLC Strateoic Plannino Session
A planning session has been scheduled for December 9th. Dave Kilby, Senior
Vice President of the California Chamber of Commerce will facilitate the session.
Lumachi reported that a survey would be sent to all directors, requesting input on
priorities for next year as well as our strengths and weaknesses. Lumachi
encouraged all present to review the Councils' accomplishments for 2005.
Committee will be discussing plans for Shaun Lumachi as his contract is up for
review in less then 30 days. The 2006 Chair for the SWCLC will be selected at
the Planning session.
VI. Leoislative Reports
Senator Dennis Hollingsworth - Strawn reported that the senate is currently out of
session so now is a good time to make appointments to meet with Sen.
Hollingsworth. A Sex Offender workshop was held on November 1 yth and over
200 residents attended.
Assemblyman Ray Haynes - Turner reported that the levee system in the San
Joaquin Delta has been deteriorating and is in need of improvements. In its
current state, repairs would cost billions of dollars to repair.
VII. Chamber Reports
Temecula- Sullivan stated that many attended the planning commission meeting
to offer support of the proposed hospital on Hwy 79S. Opponents are using
environmental issues as a fa9ade for unionizing the nursing staff. The Planning
Commission will meet again on December yth to discuss this issue before the
December 13th City Council meeting.
RCTC/OCTC - Analysis of transportation options continues.
VIII. Adjourn - There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15
p.m.
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Monthly Activity Report
November 2005
Chamber Vis. Center Year-To-Date
PHONE CALLS This Month This Month Total
TOURISM
Tourism Referrals 196 3,452
Calendar of Events 121 2,027
Special Events 129 2,671
General Information 616 9,463
TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,062 17,613
Relocation 114 1,871
Demographics 97 1,391
Chamber 385 7,751
Miscellaneous 251 4,190
TOTAL PHONE CALLS 1,909 32,816
WALK-INS
Tourism 110 41 2,061
Calendar of Events 121 2 1,500
Special Events 87 1,152
General Information 594 55 8,003
Relocation 105 1 1,624
Demographics 89 1,205
Chamber 328 5,355
Miscellaneous 201 3,158
TOTAL WALK-INS 1,635 99 24,058
MAILINGS
Tourism 1,107 7,109
Relocation 24 411
Demographics 21 438
TOTAL MAILINGS 1,152 7,958
E-MAIL
Tourism 87 1,019
Relocation 76 855
Miscellaneous 153 1,997
TOTAL E-MAIL 316 3,871
WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS 5,999 58,645
GRAND TOTALS This Month Year- To-Date
PHONE CALLS 1,909 32,816
WALK-INS 1,635 24,058
MAILINGS 1,152 7,958
E-MAIL 316 3,871
WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS 5,999 58,645
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Monthly Activity Report
November 2005
3,256
1,906
2,542
8,847
16,551
1,757
1,294
7,366
3,939
30,907
1,951
1,379
1,065
7,409
1,519
1,116
5,027
2,957
22,423
6,002
387
417
6,806
932
779
1,844
3,555
52,646
Annual Volume Comparisons
Chamber Chamber Percentage
November 2004 November 2005
PHONE CALLS
TOURISM
Tourism Referrals 305 196 -36%
Calendar of Events 240 121 -50%
Special Events 138 129 -7%
Qenerallnformation 1,047 616 -41%
TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,730 1,062 -39%
Relocation 162 114 -30%
Demographics 132 97 -27%
Chamber 785 385 -51%
Miscellaneous 331 251 -24%
TOTAL PHONE CALLS 3,140 1,909 -39%
WALK-INS
Tourism 190 110 -42%
Calendar of Events 161 121 -25%
Special Events 101 87 -14%
General Information 717 594 -17%
Relocation 118 105 -11%
Demographics 103 89 -14%
Chamber 491 328 -33%
Miscellaneous 240 201 -16%
Visitor Center Walk-Ins 120 99 -18%
TOTAL WALK-INS 2,241 1,734 -23%
MAILINGS
Tourism 438 1,107 153%
Relocation 34 24 -29%
Demographics 27 21 -22%
TOTAL MAILINGS 499 1,152 131%
E-MAIL
Tourism 81 87 7%
Relocation 71 76 7%
Miscellaneous 164 153 -7%
TOTAL E-MAIL 316 316 0%
WEBSITE USER SESSIONS 3,298 5,999 82%
. Chamber referrals reflect faxes, walk-ins and phone calls
(109)
(119)
(9)
(431)
(668)
(48)
(35)
(400)
(80)
(1,231)
(80)
(40)
(14)
(123)
(13)
(14)
(163)
(39)
(21)
(507)
669
(10)
(6)
653
6
5
(11)
2,701
r.n
~
r.n
0)
& lr)
0) 0
~ 0
C"-l
0) ~
"'0 0)
..n
· 1'"""'l S
~
d 0)
;>
~ 0
Z
0
~
· 1'"""'l
r.n
· 1'"""'l
>
'"
...
!
=
<Il
=
,
=
~
'"
...
!
= lfl
~ Q
Q
N
.
..,.
'" Q
i Q
N
l1li
'"
<Il
~
~~
ull
~~
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
'" 00 " \C lfl ..,. '" N ...
~
;..
o
bJ.)
~
......
=
U
;..
~
~
l'I.l
......
"-l
~
=
~
~
~
-
.. '" Q\
.... In 00
Q "'" ....
""' .... ....
'"
..
..
,.Q
, a
= '" Q\
Q ..
Z :;;: .... In
'= ....
'"
..
..
,.Q
a 0 '=
..
:;;: ..... 0
"'" 00
'"
...
..
~
'"
.. 0 N
~ ..... Q\
'" ....
=:I ..
....
;;;- .~
'"
u ,.Q ~
;;;- ..
~ N
""' '"
"'" In
0 0
0 0
N N
0
.~
>
.~ l.r)
~
u 0
< 0
N
Q) ~
OJ
~ ..D
.~
rn 8
,.D OJ
Q) >
~ 0
Z
CO I
OJ
> d
~
U ~
>
~
...cl
......
==
o
~
'""
~
~
rI.l
......
....
==
.l3qW<JAO N
.l<JqopO
.IaqwaJdas
Js~ny
.\fnr
annr
=> => => => => => => => => => =>
=> => => => => => => => => =>
=> => => => => => => => => =>
=> => => => => => => => => =>
=> 00 \0 ~ N => 00 \0 ~ N
N .... .... .... .... ....
...cl
...... .IaqwaAoN
==
0
~ .IaqoJ3O
'""
~ .IaqwaJdas
~
rI.l Jsnl'lny
'""
~
rI.l
~ .\fnr
~
=
0'" aunr
....
== => => => => => => => => => =>
~ => => => => => => => => =>
III => III => III => III => III
~ ~ .... .... N N .... ....
rn
""0
<
~
Q)
0
0 l.r)
c\J 0
~ 0
C"l
Q) ~
~ Q)
.~ .,.0
rn 8
~
Q) Q)
:>
~ 0
Z
~
>
U
>
~
IOOq3SJlO:) AI.
.soll ~U!lJ.IS ..
""
..
~
8
nuw .pun.mOJd .;:
.ll
..!l
III
u~nuq3.d ..
""
..
~
e
.P!A',uIUUO:J ~
III
. .dU3SlI.duJ:) V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" "" ..... '" OIl ... '" ... ...
r'-l
r'-l
~
=
.....
rIJ.
=
=
..
~
~
rIJ.
.......
.....
==
...
Q Q
" = ~
> -=
~ ...
.... rL> '"
""
.5
'i: .. ~
~
.. = =0
- i>:
rL> ...
..
'"
=
=
..
8 OJ ~
=
... :0 0 ;;0-:
... ...
=
..
=
=
-= ~
~
.. ... ;;0-:
... ..
..
'"
'i
t:
-
=
=
= on
U ... ...
..
Cl. ..
= Cl.
... = ~
" ~
-< ~ ~ ;;0-:
"I ...
...
.. =
5 g>" .;: ..
.. ..
= = - ..
=
... ~ ...
t::
0
~
(])
~ l.r)
c 0
0
C"l
· 1'"""'l
> ~
· 1'"""'l (])
~ .,.n
u S
< (])
>
s 0
z
00
· 1'"""'l
~
~
0
~
'S
.. .:l
.g =
]~
'"
t:I.l U
- M
-
= \C
=
U ~
.....
~ ..
~
-
= -
~
= u
..= ~
~ =
C
= oS ..=
..!l ~
> -
Ol '" Ol ~
U "Cj =: .. ....
" c
!~ =
~ C Eo-<
C"-l
~
~
-
~
~
U
~
0;
.. .:l
.g =
]~
"
U
QCI
\C
=
~
.....
..
~
=
....
~
-
~
~
-
~
....
c
Eo-<
Ol
..
"
=
C
~ ~ eo
...... f"l
~ ..
u
0
~ on
~ """
=
Q) f'-l
~ eJ) eo
= """
..
~
b1J 0 on
0
0 =
.~ lr) ...... eo
~ 0 ~ J. ell ell t: Q
~ ~ "0 ~ ~
.. ~
..cl :;: ell <7.t ~
0 0 ..
.. J. ~ ~
eJ) -= .. .a ~
~
0 C"l .. ~ = e =
= ~ ell ell
00. - 00.
~ ell
~ ~
Q)
J:;J
Q)
8 ~
0 ......
Q) ~ eo
.~ :> ...... 0
~ 00 N
0 0 ~
Z = 0
0 on
....
f'-l
eJ)
= 0
~ eo
.. ....
~
> 0
0 0
= on
U
......
~
> ~ 0
..cl = Q Q = =
"0 -= "0 = ..
eJ) = = f Q E
~ ;.. "0 .~ oS
.. ~ .... Q
= Z - -< ..
0 -
u =
u
=
~
Q '!t
lfl
~ =
lfl
~ l'l
I '!t
t =
'!t ..
~
0 ....
0
~I.r) :=
(1)0 = lot
~~ ~ ~
~
"0
bJJ ~ ~
,:;c:
~ CI) = 0
~ l'l 0
.~ ~
~ 'IJ
0 ....
CI) = -=
0 ~
> l'- ... ...
Z
~ 0
e
Z
(1) 0
= 0
~ I ~
.~ = ~ II
~ II ...
~ >> II 0 '" '" ... ,S 0 ::l
~ ~ = t' II IllI = '" QI ::l 0
,S Q,) ::: ~
QI ~ = ." ~ ~ ..
.. ::l QI
0 ~ = II '" QI .. QI ,.Q
QI II II i:. rJJ a
~ ," ,.Q a ::l QI ...
~ "Cl "Cl ~ ...
QI II ~ U f;l;1 >> QI ~ U II QI
~ 0 r.. E--
... a QI II '"
~ ~ p., ... = E-- = =
u '" II ,S '" = ,S ~ =
II II II .. ..
:> II 0 ~ p., >> ,.Q ,s t : QI QI
... a ... ...
::l U II ... II '" '"
U ~ "Cl f;l;1 .. ~ U QI QI
,.Q ." 0 ~ ~
QI ... ... ... a
a ::l 0
:> = a 0 ... ...
0
QI 0 U '" '"
E-- rJJ QI
~ U QI
= =
.laqmaAoN
Q) .IaqoJ3()
~
~ .Iaqm;JJdas
Q)
;> lr)
Q)
~ 0
0
bJ)('l
~ ~
.~ Q)
~
.,.n = =
0 = = = = =
S = = = = = = fA
0 = = = = = =
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\C In "1' ~ M ,..;
~ Q) fA fA fA fA fA fA
;>
Q)
0
~ Z t--
t--
.~ .. t--
~ ..= ..,
~ I ..... tn
= ~
0 ~ 0
~
~ ~ ~ t--
;:E ~ tn 'C
= t-- ~
> .., ..,
tn tn
Q,) ~ ~
U =
=
> ~
> = =
Q,) ~ ~
~ ~ tn ~
~ ..,
tn
~
II)
z
o
i=
CJ
w
...,
o
It:
Il.
W
z
:::::i
Il.
o
I-
CQ
C>
C>
<eN
- tlI
Z c
It: .-
o li
UoII)
:::::ioll
<I:
CJ ...
Gl
-
c
i
It)
C>
C>
N
tlI
C
.;:
Q.
II)
011
...
Gl
-
c
i
.....
.!e
c...
3:8
...
=!2
.....
):'......
.J 0
~
...
'"
c
..
.c:
u
:.!1
o
..
"'...
Ee
E'"
,,'"
",0
c'"
'I:~
o
"''''
.....
S",
co
.- 0
::'"
.~e
~'I...
",8
'#.'#.~
co......
N~M
?fl.'#-#-
...........
""':"":..0
?ft-::.e.?ft
Lqoo""':
~ciC";J
?ftr:f.?fl.
........'"
.....:.q:d
...."'N
cicici
"'0'"
....N'"
~co'"
N"":d
"'....'"
....~'"
~
..
~'"
ui~~
:j.~ ~
- :J"W:
.l!!<DI.J
~
?ft?ft?ft
"''''....
N"":M
?fi?ft?ft
00'"
('I"j"":M
?f.?fl.rfl.
"'co....
"":...tci
rf!.rft.;:fl.
...."'0
('I)"":"":
co coco
eci"":cci
co",co
oco'"
..0"":",,
....N'"
<(
()
.c:
"
E!
.c:
I-
'C
c:
Cll
E
Oi '"
> ~ ~
~.~ ~
~ ~-Q)
~laJ -J
?ft?ft
",co
NM
'::R.'#.
~~
'N
"',
?fl.'#.
....0
MN
"''''
~...,.:
....~
........
oq:ci
co~
!l
c:
"
U)3:!
- '"
c: "
~or
'" c:
" 0
a:z
';:/!!,'#.
~~
M9
?fl.'#.
....0
ON
, ,
';:/f!,?ft
o '"
"'.
ci~
>f!.'#,
o N
o.
.....:C?
?ft?fl.
....co
d"":
. ,
....
o .
.'"
N co
.,.
'"
o .
.co
N co
.,.
:0-
0-
S
.
'"
'" l!!
Cll.a
"'0:0
c:
J9~
CJ)X
_w
o "
.c:0l
- Cll
..
c: "
~~
?fl.?ft?f!.
~co'"
NciC\i
?ft?ft?ft
~"''''
N"":C\i
rfl.?fl.?ft
...."''''
"":C\i""':
'#.?fl.'$.
....00
MM~
~o~
'" '0
","'",
Oro"!
N 'V
"'....'"
('i
.c:
"
E!
;;
'C
c:
Cll
.s
Oi
>
~
:E
"E m
~ ~ ~
o "en .~
-""
Cll<D.J
~
(fl.'#.
N....
-.:iN
N....
aid
N~
~~
'" .
NCO
'"
1:
"
00:2
- '"
c: "
~a:
"w C:
" 0
a:z
?ft?ft
"'0
t'\i....:
?fl.efl.
....'"
cici
?ft?fl
........
"":crj
tfl.?ft
"'N
C\i"":
?fl.'#.
"'~
NO
?ft?fl.
co ~
"":0
. ,
'#'#.
"'co
"":C'\i
, .
",<>q
"'co
. co
"'.,.
"'~
coco
. co
"'.,.
:0-
0-
S
.
'"
'" l!!
Cll.a
"'C:c
c:
s~
CJ) x
_w
~i
13
...,
'"
~
'S
o
~
~
<<:
~
:E
'"
>d
<=i
oS
.~
ui
l!!
.a
'5
c:
"
0-
1il
c:
o
~
t
o
0-
'"
c:
~
'"
"
'C
"
~
w
Q
g
o
Q
B
Q
"
1
~
3
JJ
.
s
"
~
..
o
.
o
.=
g
]
e-
'0
~
~
's
~
oJ
~
o
;;:
.,;
"
i
e
i!J
'"
'"
'C
;;:
13
...,
.
~
~
'S
o
~
~
<<:
"
IE
:E
'"
>d
<=i
:E
'"
'Ii.
go
"
CXl
~f
G..8
L.. >.
Q) 0
c:
ctl
a.
....., :l
0 0 0
0 0 0
CtS >. 0 0 0
to) 0 It) c.o
0 0 0
....J c 0 0 0
Cll C\I C\I C\I
Q. .. .. 0
~ ::::J
~ to)
to)
0 ~(\l
"C
. t:: s Y"(\I
. (t) to) 00
CI)
. .... Q
g- O '~6>
S ... l7v.
D.. 0
"C
C <t(\l
0 U Cll ~(\I
U Cll Q>
Z to) ~v. ti
a "i: ~ ~ ctI
0
- ~v. to)
!II ~ CI)
i: ...
... 0
c - &6) LI..
CI) 1:-6> en
~ '6 c::
Q) ... en
Cll
:::i: 06) "C
0
..c ... ~ ...J
0 '0 .~
'-' "(\I
I- Cll IS" c::
:::i: <l'& ...
7&~ ~
::.R. ::.R. #. #. #. #. #. #. cf!._e #. ~p.. ctI
0 0 <l'o (,)
0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ')
c:i c:i c:i 0 c:i 0 c:i ~ c:i c:i c::
Cl) <Xl r-- c.o It) ..,. C') ..... ...
CI)
~
.....
::::J
0
en
<.0
0
0
N
O'l
~E
=
:I
.,
G..8
L..
Q) '0::: 0::: 0:::
0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~
CO 0 L() CO
0 0 0
0 0 0
....J N N N
a::: . . .
~
~ "C
CD
-
U
. CD ~CI1
.~
Cc:: 0 Yv~
. I.
. D- O
~ C) "C ~ V
c .~
CO Vo
q: - &.....~
0 co
u ~~
.-
I.
Z 0 Q> ...
- &~ ~V~ CIl
III ~~ ~ ca
.- (.)
::I: ~ Q,)
...
- ~~ 0
.... CD
.ll:: V& Ll-
e I. "b en
co o~ c
Q) ::E en
I. .t> '0
0 ~ 0
..c ..... .s>~ ~ ...J
co .S!
::E 7~~
I- V6.- s::
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .s>o g
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
E;I7 ') ca
00 co ~ N 0 00 co ~ N
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- E;I7 E;I7 E;I7 (,)
E;I7 E;I7 E;I7 E;I7 E;I7 s::
...
Q,)
.s::
...
::s
0
(/)
to
0
0
N
~
~
C
:J
o
U
o
C)
Cl)
I-
e)
C
CO
(/)
.... (J)
c: Cl ::R. '#. '#.
(J) c: 0 .....
e ltl Ol d Ol
(J) ~ d "'"
a.. () ....
t ~ "'" ('I) l.O
~ <<! ('I)
g; .... .... r-.:
w 0 .... ....
::::s .... .... ....
en a::
~ ....
ia (J)
c: Cl ::R. ::R. '#.
- (J) c: 0 0
a e ltl 0 Ol 00
(J) ~ 0 oci ('I)
E a.. ()
0
0 .$
~ CIl (J) ltl "'" ..... ....
.r:: Cl a:: .... '<I: N
c: - ~ c) r-.:
::::J .~ ....
0 .... (J) ('I) l.O l.O
0 0 ~ ltl .... .... ....
8 ~ 0
c >>
Gl ftl 0
is .... c: '#. ::R. '#.
E ~ ltl 0
C. (0 00 (0
c: ~ ~ ::::l N ("'j -.i
IV
en 0 ..... ..... .....
0
CIl 0
a.
j "'C (J)
c: Cl ::R. '#. '#.
... ltl c: 0
E ltl ..... .... (0
ftl ~ ("'j -.i N
:::e (J)
0 ()
1ii
u
.-
... >> (J)
0 c. Cl '#. '#. '#.
:! c:
C. ltl 00 ('I) l.O
::::l ~ N N
J: en ....
()
.....
.... ;; UJ LL
ltl W (0
~ 0 l.O 0
N 0 0
0 N
N
M
.....
~r
:=
.:1
..
CL8
c ..c
0
....,
.- s
....,
CO 0
C L..
.- en
....,
(j') (j') ~
<V <V ~
- U
:J 'C a. c
c CO a. CO
.-
...., :J a. ..
c (j') ..
(j') :J ....,
0 CO S u c
u 0') u CO
<V .-
...., ...., c 0 en
c <V .- C
C ..c ....,
<V ~ 0 en ...., <V
E L.. C .- .- ....
CO .- S :J III
...., .- ftl
a. E .- .0 C"' (.)
(j') CIl
0 L.. en ...
0 <V 0
- c 0 C LI..
<V a. (j') .- ..c O'l
> 0 <V .0 E ...., c
<V .- L.. ~ '0,
...., ~
CO 0 'tJ
'C C ~ en 0
<V <V <V ~ U C ..J
L.. > - ..c .- ,!!:!
- C E c
c Ctl ...., ...
C :J S g
S 0 > 0 Ctl
U 0 en ftl
0 C U L.. (,)
...., en 0 en c c
c ..c ...
c .- Ctl CIl
S 0 (j') ...., <V .c
L.. .- ....
(j') ...., 'C ::::s
0 L.. .- 0 Ctl 0
...., ~ c (I)
(:) (/') z e::::
- w
0
0
. . . . . . N
~
+oJ
C
:J
o
U
tJ)
Cl)
Cl)
C')
c
<(
tJ)
o
....J
.... Q);:R. ;:R. '#.
c 0>0
Q) 0
c 0 <C! <C!
tl CO M 0
.... Ll)
Q) .r:: ..... .....
a. U
j ~ Ll) 0 Ll)
..... CXl
9- C') C\i r--:
C\i 0 0
W (j) ..... .....
::::l 0:::
UJ
CP
.j!: .... Q)
... C 0> '#. '#. '#.
.- Q)
... C v
~ e CO It! Ll)
Q) .r:: Ll) cd Lri
E a. u
0
0 '*
CP Q) N I'- C')
&. 0> 0::: C'! C') <C!
... ~ co -i .....
III '5 Q) >- N C') v
.!:! .a: "a; ..... ..... .....
Cl CP 0
~ U >-
C tl
III III ~ c '#. '#. .'#.
0 E CO
..J 0- N ~ .....
.. .... M
~ ~ ::J CO CO
tl I'- I'- I'-
tl
CP 0
a.
i 'C Q) ;:R.
C 0> '#. '#
CO c 0
.. E CO ~ It! ~
III ..r= Ll) v .....
:a: Q)
0 u
iii
u
.- Q) ;:R.
.. >- ;:R. '#.
0 c.. 0>0
C N 0
Ui 0- CO " CO I'-
.- ::J .r:: ..... c:i c:i
J: en U I
.....
Ul u..
.... v w CO
CO 0
~ 0 Ll) 0
N 0 0
0 N
N
.....
.....
~f
G...8
(/'J
J:
~
.- (/'J
J: ~
S c:
.-
ev c:
c: 0
.-
0 +-' (/'J
.- +-'
+-' (/'J ev
(/'J 0::: 0 .:::t.
- Cl 0- "-
ev ev CO
> <( "- E
ev ~ 'C
- J:
~ c: c: .:::t.
+-'
.- S CO CO
U ~
c: ev ...
ev ev 0 (/'J S rJl
CO III
(/'J U "- c: C,,)
0- ~ CI)
ev c: 0 ~ ...
:J "- CO ~ .- - 0
+-' "- LI-
U "- (/'J - CO ev C)
u ev 0- c
(/'J 0- > E 's,
0 .- .-
+-' CO 0 '0
:J "- 0
.:::t. ~ c: (/'J c: J2 ...I
CO "- ev ev III
ev :J "- 'C "- '2
>< c: ...
0- c: ev (/'J 0
:J .- ~
c: :J -
+-' S III
- .- J: (.,)
CO . CO 0
ev 0 +-' C
"- "- ~
+-' - +-' ev ...
CO +-' c: CI)
ev c: (/'J E &.
.:::t. U S ev ...
c: ::::l
"- (/'J 0 :J "- 0
CO 0- 0 +-' (/)
Cl U Z C/) to
::: ::J 0
0
. . N
.
. . .
~
~
C
:J
o
U
CI.)
C')
c
CO
I-
o
... Q)
c: OJ (/. (/. (/.
Q) c:
0 CO CO ('t) CO
..... cO cO ari
Q) .s::
a.. (.)
I . ~
i O'J I'- O'J
~ IX! I'- .-
0 cO .-
::::J W I'- I'- CO
en a:::
.~ ... Q)
~ c: OJ (/. (/. ::R.
- Q) c: 0
~ ~ CO ('t) CO "':
Q) .s:: (") ~ """
E a.. (.)
0
(,) .$
Q) Q) co ~ I'- co
>..1: OJ a::: .- IX!
- - f!! N ....:
C.... .~ .-
CD 0 0 .-
:l 0 ~ co .- .- .-
o Q) Cl
U U
ell C :>.
. till Cll 0
;1 E ... c: (/. (/. ::R.
~ CO 0
... ... ..... 0- N CO cq
0 .e ~ :::l oj .- N
0 CO I'- I'-
... 0
Q) 0
a..
1) "C Q)
~ c: OJ (/. ::R. ::R.
... CO c: 0 0
E CO .- CO CO
Cll .s:: ari (") N
::E Q)
Cl (.)
iii
u
'i: :>. Q)
0 - OJ (/. ::R. ::R.
:!! 0- c: 0 0
0- CO I'- ('t) ('t)
:::l .s:: 0
::I: en .- .-
(.)
...;
..... c; UJ u..
CO w CO
I ~ 0 LO 0
N 0 0
0 N
! N
N
,....
+-' ~~
a>
.:1
~ .
L- (La
co
E
a> 3:
a>
L- c
::s
en co
.-
a> .c
- en
~ '0 .-
-
c C .0
::s co co
+-'
0 0- en
U ::s a>
a> 0 0
L-
.c C) +-'
+-' a>
+-' .c ::s tii
::s +-'
0 C Cll
0 .- u
.0 +-' Q)
.c ...
c 0
C) c 0 LI..
::s ~
.- u c
0 C) ~
L- C en 1j
.c +-' 0
0 L- ...J
+-' L- 0 Cll
L- +-' en c
co en ...
a> g
a> E L- a> -
~ u Cll
- U
.- co c c
C) a> +-' a> ...
c .c en Q)
en .I:
0 co co ...
a> ::::J
L- C 0 0
+-' L- V')
C/) <C U 0- <.0
0
0
. . . N
o
.-
L-
eo
+-'
c
o
- Q)
c
Q) Cl '#. '#. '#.
c
e I'll I'-: <Xl <0
Q) .s:::. '<t Lri c:i
a. U
i ~ I.C) ~ <Xl
g. I.C) ~
,...: ...... ......
:J W <0 l"- I"-
t/) 0::
.~ - Q)
- c
:;::::; Q) Cl '#. '#. '#.
c
~ e I'll C'? I"- 0
Q) .s:::. N <:i <:i
E a. u
0
0 Q)
CI) Q) -
.c Cl I'll ~ N 0
- ~ 0:: ~ I.C)
'0 ~ >. ,...: ...... Lri
.2 Offi <Xl m m
.. CI) <( Cl
III U
.... C >.
c
0 III 0
- c '#. '#. '#.
E ~ I'll
... ... a. 0 <Xl C'?
o@ ~ ::I ,...: ,...: Lri
0 l"- I"- I"-
0
CI) 0
11.
) '0 Q)
C Cl '#. '#. ::R.
I'll C "
... E I'll '<t m 0
III N
::E Q) .s:::. Lri <:i
Cl u ......
a;
u
'': >. Q)
0 c.. Cl '#. '#. '#.
:!i c <Xl
a. I'll m <Xl Lri
::I .s:::. N C"i
::t en U ......
...:
... ~ III U.
I'll W <0
~ 0 I.C) 0
N 0 0
0 N
N
,....
.-
~ ~f
J: ~ G..8
~ .-
S ~ c
a - ::J
L- a. E
C') a.
- ::J E
eo en 'C a
.-
u S - U
L- a
CI) CI) J: E
E c a
CI)
E .n ~ a
L- eo L-
a 0 'C
~ ~
CI) u en a CI)
~ a .n .n
L- eo ~
eo ~ C') eo
E CI) en C
a. c
::J .-
- ~ eo
- 'C CI) L-
eo J: ...
eo rJl
.- en J: ~ co
U ~ (,,)
CI) 'C en CI) (I,)
L- ...
CI) ::J C en L- 0
a LL.
E en eo L- en
C E a E s::
E CI) ~ en
eo "0
CI) CI) 0
a ~ L- ...J
C 'C CI) L-
U .- co
CI) 'C C a. s::
eo ...
E CI) CI) E g
~ .- C') -
a. ~ UJ co
- (..)
.- a en CI)
L- .- L- 'C s::
eo - ~ ...
CI) eo ::J c (I,)
E .!:
> en en eo ...
.- :J
.- CI) c CI) - 0
L- Cl C en
a. :::J --J - <D
0
0
. . . . . N
December 9, 2005
Jim O'Grady
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE: EDC Activity Summary - November 2005
Business and Workforce Development
Staff responded to the following 5 business and workforce development requests in November
2005:
Date Lead Source Reouest Action Taken
1111105 In-Person Client requested information on Met with client to discuss.
busines~ growth in the region.
11/03/05 Email Client requested a list oflocal Emailed client requested information.
SBA lenders.
11/4/05 Phone Client requested demographic Emailed client demographic profiles for the cities of
information. Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula.
11/5105 Email Client requested contacts for Emailed client requested information.
local commercial brokers.
11/28/05 Email Client requested demographic Emailed client demographic profiles for the cities of
information. Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula.
Community Outreach
Staff and/or EDC directors attended the following meetings/events to promote or support
economic development/community outreach:
. Murrieta- Temecula Group Meeting (11/4)
. Business Retention Meeting with APEX Manufacturing in Murrieta - (11/7)
. Temecula Partners in Education Meeting (11/7)
. 2006 Legislative Summit Planning Meeting (11/9)
. Valley EDC State of the Valley Planning Meeting (11/23)
· Corona Employment Development Department (11/14) - Executive Director facilitated a
workshop on employment trends in Riverside County.
Business Retention
· Business Relations Committee Meeting (11/3) - Minutes are attached.
AdministrationlOrl!anization
. EDC Executive Board Meeting (11/7) - Discussion on the proposed hospital in Temecula.
. EDC Industrial Committee Meeting (11/8) - Minutes are attached.
Jim O'Grady
City of Temecula
EDC Activity Summary - November 2005
Page 2 of2
AdministrationlOn!anization (continued)
. EDC Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Meeting - (11/1 0) Minutes are
attached.
. EDC Board of Directors Meeting (11/17) - Minutes are attached.
. EDC Education Committee Meeting (11118) - Meeting cancelled / members did not attend.
. EDC Permit & Planning Meeting (11128) - Meeting cancelled.
. Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; trained a new staff
member; managed web site development; processed membership renewals; and emailed the
following business development/community announcements:
}- Beyond the U.S. Export Administration Regulations ITAR, OFAC and Enforcement
Seminar
}- Women in Health Luncheon at Guidant Corporation
}- SCP AA Luncheon: Who are the Winners and Losers from the November 8th Special
Elections
}- Concordia University Information Night
}- Salvation Army Kicks Off Kettle Campaign
This concludes the activity summary for November 2005. Should you have questions or need
further detail, please call me at 951.677.1862.
Respectfully,
,
Diane Sessions
Executive Director
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:00 a.m.
MuniFinancial
27368 Via Industria, Temecula, CA 92590
Committee Members Present:
Paul Anderson, Strategic Catalysts Inc.
Dr. Billie Blair, Leading & Learning, Inc.
Stan Harter, Law Offices of Stanley A. Harter
Gregory Lee, Southwest California Economic Alliance
Lisa Marie Ells, Cutting Edge Staffing
Cheryl Ferrulli, CLF Financial
Lalli Guerriero, CDM Group, Inc.
Ashley Jones, city of Murrieta
Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula
Joanna Quigley, Wells Fargo Bank
Derrick Fox, Swenson Advisors
Harry Shank, Southwest Community Bank
Guests:
Brian Jewett, MuniFinancial
EDC:
Diane Harris
Diane Sessions
Call To Order
. Chair Stan Harter called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. He welcomed the Committee and thanked all
for attending. Stan Harter thanked Division Manager Brian Jewett of MuniFinancial for hosting the
meeting.
. MuniFinancialOverview: Brian Jewett welcomed the group and gave a brief history of the company.
MuniFinancial is a public finance consulting firm that works with local governments specializing in
revenue enhancement and generation. There are three core divisions of MuniFinancial: I) levy
administration; 2) the federal compliance division; and 3) fmancial consulting division. One of the
services MuniFinancial had provided to city governments was the generation of utility rate studies and
Mello Roos studies. MuniFinancial was centered in California but had been expanding into some of the
more high growth states such as Arizona, Nevada and Florida. They started 17 years ago and now
employ over 70 people. Although many of their employees originally commuted from San Diego,
Orange County or Los Angeles, most have now settled in Southwest California. Jim O'Grady added that
the City of Temecula used MuniFinancial's services and was a very satisfied customer.
Follow-Up Action Reports
· Sunset Metal Works -employee referrals -Harry Shank reported that Sunset Metal Works had hired
one new employee and was looking for a couple additional employees.
· Paulson Manufacturing - Diane Sessions reported on Paulson Manufacturing using ETP funding for
training. She wonld call and send Suzanne Godin for ETP funding information.
· Genotek- Genotek was looking for a graphic artist. Diane Sessions reported that she had a couple of
people in mind for the position and would follow up with them.
EDC Business Relations Committee Meeting
Minutes - November 3, 2005
Page 2 of3
Company Contact Reports
. There were no companies visited last month. Stan Harter gave an overview of the Committee's purpose
to new members. The EDC visits industrial and manufacturing companies, but typically does not visit
individual retail establishments unless larger retailers such as the Promenade Mall and auto dealers. Jim
O'Grady offered his or another Temecula representative's assistance on business visits to Temecula
companies. Ashley Jones offered the same to companies located in City of Murrieta. 1\1r. Harter
explained the survey information was used to help learn about local companies and whether owners were
satisfied with doing business in their respective cities.
. It was noted that Boston Scientific would be leaving the area. It was agreed that a committee
representative would visit them to see how their displaced workers could be assisted. Gregory Lee
reported that Riverside County EDA had a Rapid Response Unit to work with displaced workers due to
company relocations or closures. The Employment Development Department had contacted Boston
Scientific and was working with its Human Resource department. Harry Shank reported that Hudson
RCI had been sold and was moving to Mexico. He had referred three or four of Hudson's employees to
Scott's.
. Discussion was held on how best to distribute companies to committee members for future visits.
Gregory Lee reported the Economic Alliance had access to a business listing that categorized different
types of industries. He would give the listing to Diane Sessions before the next Business Relations
Committee Meeting. It was suggested that individual committee members could focus on the different
sectors such as manufacturing, medical, automotive, distribution, etc. Harry Shank suggested that the
Committee take a look at resource material used for business visits. Ms. Sessions would bring the list of
brochure inventory. She made a list of members who needed committee binders.
. Other discussion included visits to Lake Elsinore businesses. Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of
Commerce had its own Economic Development Committee. The EDC of Southwest California had
been working with the chamber's CEO Kim Cousins to coordinate retention efforts of between the EDC
and the Chamber's EDC. Mr. Cousins had previously recommended that visits could be made to Lake
Elsinore companies by the Chamber's group, and the information could be shared with the EDC during
monthly meetings
Goal Prol!ress Report
. StaI) Harter announced that visits and phone interviews in the fifth. month of the fiscal year were as
follows:
YTD
Goal
Actual
VISIT
PHONE
5
o
SURVEYS
60
6
Open Discussion
. EDC Board Update - Jim O'Grady reported the October board meeting was held at the Old Town
Temecula Theater. It was the first meeting ever held in their conference facility. A tour of the theater
was given after the meeting. Diane Sessions reported the EDC 15th Anniversary Celebration Quarterly
Luncheon was held on October 28 and officially launched the EDC's new name and logo. The next
luncheon would be on the 24th of January. She also indicated that LTJ Graphics designed our new
letterhead, business cards and logo and was working on the format and design for new brochures. She
offered to print generic EDC business card for committee members who go out on visits.
EDC Business Relations Committee Meeting
Minutes - November 3, 2005
Page 3 of3
-General Announcements - City of Temecula - Jim O'Grady announced that the Old Town Temecula
Theater would present the Wailing Jennys on Saturday November 6th. The Outdoor Channel was
proceeding with their expansion and should be comfleted by the first of the year.
At the next City Council Meeting on November st , Council would see a presentation by the Temecula
Valley Chamber of Commerce Convention and Visitors Bureau Tourism Business Improvement
District's proposed 2% assessment on hotel stays in the area. The purpose of the assessment would be to
raise an estimated $450,000 a year for tourism promotion of the Temecula Valley. On December 13th
would be the formal assessment protest hearing also conducted by the City Council. Mr. O'Grady also
reported on the status of the proposed hospital on SR-79 South. He said that the Temecula Planning
Commission hearing could be a lengthy due to the concerns of perceived traffic, noise and the building
height of the hospital project. Mr. O'Grady reported that Universal Health Systems purchased the
property several years ago and had been working on the environmental studies to move the hospital
project forward. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce -.-No report available. City of Murrieta -
Ashley Jones announced that a developer for the Golden Triangle officially submitted plans to develop
that property. She explained that the Golden Triangle was the piece of acreage between the split of the
I-IS and the 1-215 freeways in Murrieta. She would keep the Committee updated as things developed on
this project. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce - Ms. Jones announced that the Murrieta Chamber of
Commerce would host a Business Expo at Lowe's on November 3rd where the city would have a booth;
the city had a Veteran's Day Parade on November 11th with a public safety fair held afterwards at the
Murrieta Police Department. City of Lake Elsinore - No report available. Lake Elsinore Valley
Chamber of Commerce - No report available. Southwest California Economic Alliance - Gregory Lee
explained to those new to the Committee that the Economic Alliance was a partnership between the
three cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore and the County of Riverside. The three cities
provided funding to the Alliance to promote Southwest California. Additionally, Mr. Lee reported on a
CORONET (Corporate Office Real Estate Network) conference that he and Ashley Jones attended in
Las Vegas. They worked the Alliance's trade show booth, which raffled a pair of Southwest Airline
Green Tickets. Southwest Airlines provided the tickets as part of a partnership that was established with
the Economic Alliance. The Alliance saw over 200 people at the trade show.
Adiournment
- The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:30 a.m.
EDC Office - French Valley Airport
37552 Winchester Road, Murrieta, CA 92563
Committee Members Present:
. John Fili, Solid State Stamping
Bill Prouty, Global Economic & Workforce
Development Coalition
Diane Sessions, EDC
Ben Schlussel, APICS
Guests Present:
Diane Harris, EDC
Call To Order
Industrial Committee Chair John Fili called the meeting to order at 8:35a.m. Motion was made
by Bill Prouty, seconded by Diane Sessions and carried unanimously to accept the minutes as
presented.
Committee Business
. Discuss APICS Partnership and Workshops - Diane Sessions reported on her ongoing
search for local classroom space for APICS classes and workshops. She would be contacting
Mt. San Jacinto College, University of Phoenix, and Career Tech Center located in the old
Workforce Development Center building. John Fili reported that Solid State Stamping's
conference room could be an option for APICS classes. The EDC would market the APICS
classes. Mr. Schlussel reported that APICS was hosting a dinner at the Marriott Airport in
Ontario at 6:00 p.m. The EDC would email an event invitation to local manufaturers.
. First Team #1079 - Mr. Fili reported on Robotics Team #1079's presentation at the EDC
board meeting on the Teams' upcoming competition. The Robotics Club raised $3,500 thus
far, partly through an off-season teaser competition. The EDC would help seek donations
from member organizations via a letter campaign. Mr. Fili provided a draft campaign letter
to committee members for review. Donations should be sent to the EDC and passed on to the
Chaparral High School Educational Foundation.
It was noted at the last EDC board meeting that EDC Board Member Ken Carlisle. from
Guidant offered to contribute to Team 1079. Diane Sessions would help facilitate the
donation from Guidant to Team 1079. Bill Prouty offered to contact the CEO of Light Speed
on the Robotics program and see about possible sponsorship. Roger Ziemer from The Gas
Company made a donation last year and could be a good prospect for another donation this
year.
Mr. Fili commented that the Robotics program taught students general business skills such as
project management, teamwork, presentation and budgeting. Student would become skilled
in specific technology areas such as electronics, sensors, mechanics, wireless
communications and others found in manufacturing plants and businesses all over the region.
Industrial Committee Meeting
Minutes - November 8, 2005
Page 2 of2
Students would develop relationships with local businesses that might donate their time and
talent to the program, acting as mentors to the students.
. . Grant Opportunities - The Committee discussed the progress made on grant opportunities
that the EDC could use for workforce development in industrial and manufacturing
. applications.
New Action Items
. AME Event- John Fili reported on the Association for Manufacturing Excellence, which
puts on functions all across the country. The AME hosts annually a tour of several
manufacturing companies in San Diego. Mr. FiJi noted this year's companies were H&M
Electronics, Dynamic/Hardy Instruments, CJ Orthopedics, and Dimension One Spas. He
proposed organizing a carpool to this event on December 6 & 7 at the Doubletree Inn. It was
agreed the EDC should publicize this event. Diane Sessions offered to send out postcards to
manufacturers who might be interested in this tour.
. CCE Programs (California Council on Excellence) - Discussion was held on whether any
local companies were interested in pursuing CCE Certification programs. CCE Certification
Programs were formed in California as a means to broaden the base of companies that were
focusing on excellence. It was agreed that the EDC should be promoting the CCE Programs.
Other Business
. Announcements - Diane Sessions announced the next EDC quarterly lunch would be held on
January 26. She would contact a futurist from Claremont McKenna College to discuss trends
in economics and politics for the next 15 years out.
. Mr. FiJi announced that starting in January the UCR Extension in Temecula would offer a
manufacturing class.
. Diane Sessions invited Ben Schlussel and Bill Prouty to participate in a UCR task force that
would ascertain the workforce training and educational needs of the region.
. Bill Prouty announced that a CEO from Light Speed University in St. Louis would be
bringing all of their manufacturing certificate programs into the market.
Action Items
1. Diane Sessions to contact Ken Carlisle and Roger Ziemer to follow up with donations for
the Robotics Team.
2. Bill Prouty to contact Light Speed on the Robotics Program and possible sponsorship.
3. Diane Sessions to send out a fundraising letter with photo by Friday.
4. Send notice to local manufacturers regarding AME.
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA
TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 8:00 a.m.
EDC Office - French Valley Airport
37552 Winchester Road, Murrieta, CA 92563
Committee Members Present:
Dennis Frank, DC Riverside - Temecula Center
David Phares, D. L. Phares & Associates
Del Ross, EDAC
Diane Sessions, EDC
Staff and Guests:
Diane Harris, EDC
Call To Order
Committee Chair David Phares called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and thanked everyone for
attending.
New Business
· Riverside County/Orange County Major Investment Study - No update.
Continuinl!: Business
· Permit & Planning Workshops - Diane Sessions reported that she had contacted Lori Moss
with the City of Murrieta and shared with her the presentation put on by the Temecula Planning
Department. Ms. Moss had been receptive to the idea of Murrieta's Planning Department giving
a presentation on their permit processes after the holidays. Ms. Sessions would contact Ms.
Moss to schedule a meeting in February and would also contact the City of Lake Elsinore for a
similar presentation. It was suggested the EDC sponsor a Tri-City Luncheon and invite each city
to talk about their permitting program. It was agreed that EDC's sponsorship of the luncheon be
brought before the EDC Board at the next board meeting.
· EIR Process - There was discussion regarding the Environmental Impact Report process; it was
suggested that traffic, utilities, cities, and public permitting agencies could come together during
a SWOT meeting with the EDC. Del Ross suggested that Kim Cousins from the City of Lake
Elsinore participate to get his input on the brine line. It was agreed that a list of topics would be
developed for the workshops, and a general format or agenda would highlight key points. Ms.
Sessions would need assistance in creating the topics. It was suggested that the utilities be
invited to the forum and then the following month they would be invited to do a presentation. It
was agreed that EDC Director Roger Ziemer would be helpful to facilitate the forum, as he had
ten years of experience in the building industry and in environmental issues.
Committee Reports
· Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) - The cities were moving forward with the FTZ project. It was
suggested that customers become aware of where the boundaries were for the FTZ. The EDC
could host another meeting with FTZ consultants or have them present a program to a larger
group such as the Murrieta Temecula Group.
· Transportation - It was reported that the cities of Murrieta and Temecula were working together
on road projects at Jackson Avenue, Ynez Court and French Valley. Concerning the Cal Trans
western bypass, there would need to be more letters, meetings and action.
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Minutes - November 10, 2005
Page 2 of2
The EDC could be more influential in making the public aware of the progress the cities were
making. Dennis Frank reported on challenges regarding moving the sewers at Diaz Road to the
other side ofthe creek and determining how the move would be funded. It was suggested that
the Committee invite Chuck Washington and Doug McAllister to a meeting to learn what
infrastructure and road projects the two cities had been working on. Mr. Frank suggested
inviting the general managers of Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho Water District to
a committee meeting. Mr. Phares suggested creating talking points on utility issues and holding
a joint meeting in January with the various utilities to discuss infrastructure challenges and
solutions. Dennis Frank suggested that Ken Gulley participate, as his experience on large
projects would be beneficial.
Other Announcements
· Dave Phares suggested calling committee members and EDC members to solicit interest in
joining the committee.
Review Action Items
The Committee reviewed the following new action items:
I. Recommendation to the EDC Board to host a Tri-city Luncheon, which the cities would give
a presentation on their respective permit process worliflow.
2. Diane Sessions to schedule a date with Lori Moss for Murrieta's presentation on permit
process workflows.
3. Diane Sessions to schedule a joint planning meeting in January with Melanie Nieman,
Eastern Municipal Water District, discuss infrastructure and development. .
4. Dennis Frank to call Ken Gulley regarding a joint infrastructure planning and committee
meeting.
5. Dave Phares to invite Chuck Washington and Doug McAllister to a meeting on either
January 12 at 8 a.m. or January 23 at 2 p.m.
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, November 17, 2005- 9:00 a.m.
California Bank & Trust
41615 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA 92590
DRAFT
DRAFT
BOARD MEMBERS
MEMBERS AND GUESTS
Frank Casciari, California Bank & Trust
Scott Crane, Southwest Healthcare System
David Phares, DL Phares & Associates
Stevie Field, County Board of Supervisors, 3'd District
John Fili, Solid State Stamping, Inc.
Dennis Frank, UC Riverside - Temecula Center
Scott Hurst, Wyman Properties
Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank
Gregory Lee, Southwest Calif. Economic Alliance
Doug McAllister, City of Murrieta
Melanie Nieman, Eastern Municipal Water District
Jim O'Grady, City ofTemecula
Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Greg Prudhomme, Kuebler Prudhomme & Co.
Claude Reinke, The Californian
Ron-Roberts, City ofTemecula
Greg Smith, Rancho Physical Therapy
Joan Sparkman, Temecula Valley Bank
Barbara Tooker, Temecula Valley Unified School Dist.
Chuck Washington, City of Temecula
Gary Youmans, Community National Bank
Roger Ziemer, Southern California Gas Company
Cathy Barrozo, City of Lake Elsinore
Dr. Billy Blair, Leading and Learning, Inc.
Ashley Jones, City of Murrieta
EDC STAFF
Diane Harris
Diane Sessions
CALL TO ORDER
· Board President Dennis Frank called the meeting to order at 9: I 0 a.m. He welcomed members and guests.
APPROVE AGENDA
· Motion made by Doug McAllister, seconded by Gary Youmans and carried unanimously to approve the
agenda as amended by moving "La. Membership Recognitions" to the end of the agenda.
MINUTES
· The Board reviewed the minutes of the October 20, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion made by
Keith Johnson, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the October
20, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting as amended by changing "new city administrative offices" to "new
Boys & Girls Club administrative offices" on Page 2, line 39, under OPEN DISCUSSION City/County &
Chamber Updates: City of Lake Elsinore.
FINANCIAL REPORT
· October 31, 2005 Financial Report: The Board reviewed the October 31, 2005 Financial Report that
showed total monthly revenues of $24,117, total expenses of $8,268, and total cash-in-bank of $108,256.
Economic Development Corporation
of Southwest California
Board of Directors Meeting -November 17,2005
Minutes - Page 2 of 4
Diane Sessions reported that the balance sheet did not balance with a discrepancy of approximately $324.
She reported she would find the error in the journal entry and make the appropriate corrections. Motion
made by Dennis Frank, seconded by Jim O'Grady and carried unanimously to approve the September 30,
2005 Financial Report as presented, with the Balance Sheet showing a difference in liabilities and assets of
$324.
NEW BUSINESS
. Ratify Letter of Support for Proposed Hospital on SR-79 South: Dennis Frank reported on a special
session of the Executive Committee Meeting where he asked the Board to approve writing a letter of support
for the proposed hospital on Hwy. 79 south. The Board discussed opposition by certain groups that were
challenging the Environmental Impact Report. The Board of Directors was strongly encouraged to attend
the city council meeting on December 7. Motion to ratify the letter of support for the proposed hospital on
SR-79 South made by Claude Reinke, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried. Abstaining: Chuck
Washington, Jim O'Grady and Ron Roberts, representing the City of Temecula.
. WRCOG T.U.M.F. Public Comment Period Extension: Roger Ziemer reported that the Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) would delay decisions regarding increased T.U.M.F. fees
until further study could be accomplished. Chuck Washington reported that the fee increase in Temecula
would be implemented on July 1 st.
. Discussion on Proposed Development in Wine Country: Discussion was held on monitoring proposed
development in Wine Country. Ron Roberts reported on CitrusNineyard District rules of a minimnm of 5-
acre lots for development of single-family residences. The Planning Commission would recommend to the
County Board of Supervisors to raise lot sizes from 5 acres to 10 acres with development restrictions. 5-acre
lots would be allowed only if homes were clustered in the center and were surrounded by vineyards.
Another restriction of the CitrusNineyard District required a vineyard to have the capacity to produce 5,000
gallons of wine per year, which was amended to 1,000 gallons for the smaller vineyards. The
CitrusNineyard District rules also required a provision that 75% of the grapes used in the production of
wine be from Temecula grapes.
. EDC General Board of Directors Meeting Dark on December 15, 2005: Motion made by Barbara
Tooker, seconded by Scott Crane and carried unanimously to approve the General Board of Directors
Meeting be dark on December, 15,2005, contingent on an emergency meeting provision.
. EDC Special Luncheon on Transportation/Infrastructure Issues: David Phares recommended that the
EDC host a Tri-City and County Transportation Luncheon in February relative to
transportation/infrastructure issues throughout the region. Chuck Washington and Doug McAllister would
help set the agenda and prepare the topics for discussion. Bob Wolfe would be hosting a regional
transportation event at the Riverside Art Museum on December 13.
.CONTINUING BUSINESS
· Discussion on Temecula Education Center/Water District Issue: Jim O'Grady reported on the
TemeculaJEducation Center progress and an ongoing issue related to road improvements around the campus.
The flood control basin must be raised up to accommodate the Cherry Street improvement, necessitating the
need to move water service lines by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Rancho Water District.
A redesign of Diaz Road providing an alternate route for northerly Diaz would present challenges with
Economic Development Corporation
of Southwest California
Board of Directors Meeting -November 17, 2005
Minutes - Page 3 of 4
Rancho Water District and EMWD. The city of Temecula would meet with Rancho Water District to
negotiate.
. . Utilities Updates - Gas - Roger Ziemer reported on Southem California Gas Company's program that
would assist low-income households with paying their gas bills by encouraging donations to the program
that it would match on a ratio of I :4. Water - Melanie Nieman reported that EMWD's primary goal would
be providing reliable service to its customers. Currently EMWD had 78 projects underway at a cost of$600
million, including a potable water desalter for the Menifee/Perris area. Rates would be going up effective
January 1, 2006, and were tied to the Consumer Price Index. EMWD would be promoting water
conservation and making landscapes more water efficient by using California-friendly landscaping.
EMWD's website would provide many resources for information on water conservation. EMWD would be
once again involved with sponsoring the Solar Cup Boat Race, which had a boat entry from Great Oaks
High School and another from Chaparral High School. Electricity - No report. Telecommunications - No
Report.
OPEN DISCUSSION
. EDC Administrative Update: Dennis Frank recognized and thanked Board members who had renewed
their membership with the EDC, and member renewal recognition certificates and membership packets were
handed out. Dennis Frank commended Diane Sessions on the demographic CD that she had created which
included a custom label. Joan Sparkman commended Ms. Sessions on the fabulous job she had been doing
as Executive Director ofthe EDC. Ms. Sessions reported the next EDC Quarterly Luncheon on January 26
would feature an economic futurist.
· City/County & Chamber Updates: City of Lake Elsinore - No report Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of
Commerce -No report. City of Murrieta - Doug McAllister reported that development plans were
submitted for the Golden Triangle and that the City was optimistic about quality retail businesses coming to
the area. The City wanted to keep up the momentum so as not to lose out on first class businesses.
Additionally, Murrieta had received numerous inquiries from hotels interested in the City. Ashley Jones
reported that Murrieta would hold a snow day on December 1st from 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. including a
lighting ceremony of Historic Down Town Murrieta and the arrival of Santa. Dennis Frank congratulated
Murrieta and Temecula on the cities' cooperation in working together on the road improvement projects.
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce -No report. City of Temecula - Jim O'Grady reported that on December
13 the Council would consider approving a 2% tourism assessment used for promotion of local tourism.
Chuck Washington announced that he had been appointed to the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report. Riverside County - Stevie Field
announced that the Board of Supervisors had approved the renaming of Airport Drive of French Valley
Airport to Sparkman Way, honoring Joan and Will Sparkman. There was discussion regarding the effort to
relocate the California Department of Fire and Safety to March Air Reserve Base. Economic Alliance -
Gregory Lee reported that the CORONET event in Las Vegas was well attended. Additionally he reported
that the 3,d quarter median housing resale prices rose from $414,000 to $455,000 in Southwest California.
· Other Announcements -First Team 1079: John Fili reported that the EDC had sent out the fundraising
letters requesting EDC members and manufacturing companies to donate funds in support of First Team
1079 robotics competition. It was also .announced that the promised robotics demonstration would take
place at The Promenade in Temecula on Saturday, November 19, from noon until 4:00 p.m. Associationfor
Economic Development Corporation
of Southwest California
Board of Directors Meeting -November 17,2005
Minutes - Page 4 of 4
Manufacturing Excellence in Lean Manufacturing Principles - Mr. Fili reported on coordinating a group
of people to attend the Association for Manufacturing Excellence Tour of Lean Manufacturing Plants on
December 6th and 7'h. APICS - Mr. Fili further reported that the APICS Training and Logistics in
Warehouse Management would begin in January with the first class in a series of four. Temecula Vallev
Unified School District - Barbara Tooker reported that the school district was in the application process for
the International Baccalaureate Program. Additionally she reported that the superintendent search was
underway and meetings would be held in January or February. She invited the EDC to provide input into
the selection.
ADJOURNMENT
. Dennis Frank thanked Board Member Frank Casciari for hosting the board meeting. At 10:35 a.m., motion
was made by Dennis Frank, seconded by Joan Sparkman and carried unanimously to adjourn the board
meeting.
Respectively submitted by:
Diane Harris
Recording Secretary
Scott Crane
Board Secretary
SOUTHWEST
~J'?ttA
TO:
Robin Zimpfer
Assistant County Executive Officer
. Riverside County EDA
Jim O'Grady
Assistant City Manager
City of Temecula
Lori Moss
City Manager
City of Murrieta
eathy Barrozo
GIS Data Analyst
City of Lake Elsinore
Stevie Field
Legislative Assistant
Supervisor Jeff Stone's Office
FROM:
Gregory L. Lee
Manager, Business Development
DATE:
December 2, 2005
SUBJECT:
SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE
GISIWEBSITE
The Alliance websitehad 2,769 visitors in the month of November. This is in comparison to 2,142 visitors during
the same period last year. The website has had a total of 32,894 YTD. This is in comparison to 22,873 during
the same period last year. (Please see attached graphs)
LEADS
Date Company Type of Business Source Action
11/16/05 RCI Lighting Manufacturing Business Mailed Information Packet (11/16/05)
Control* Facilties
11/16/05 lAC Industries - Business Mailed Information Packet (11/16/05)
Lumber & Wood Facilities
* RCI Lighting Controls is extremely intersted in the area, and we are looking at setting up a region tour the first
part of 2006.
IEEP
For the month of November, the Inland Empire Economic Partnership (JEEP) sent out one three (3) project
request. Of the ~ requests, 1 applied to the Alliance.
Date Proiect # Action Notes
11/02/05 673-05 - Distribution DNR N/A
11/14/05 675-05 - Distribution DNR N/A
11/29/05 646-05 - Materials Testing Lab DNMR Looking for closer proximity to Ontario
*DNR - Did Not Respond
*DNMR - Did No Meet Requirements
MEDIA
Date Type Name Notes
November Magazine Business Facilites - The Medical "SW California's Fast Growing Hub"
Device Industry: Places That Work
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
The Alliance had no speaking engagements in the month of November.
SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA TRADEMARK
The Southwest California application with the artwork has been approved for publication and will appear in the
Official Gazette in December. This mark represents the logo and the words "Southwest California", without the
cities and the county names:
If no opposition is filed against our mark, then it should proceed to registration early next year.
The Official Gazette is a weekly publication put out by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) containing
information about all pending marks, changes to existing marks, and renewals. If anyone who views the trademark on the
Official Gazette opposes the mark, they have the opportunity to file a challenge against it.
The Southwest California application with the words "Southwest California Economic Alliance" has been
approved for publication on the supplemental register and should proceed to publication shortly. A supplemental
registry mark is maintained by the USPTO, often for marks not considered sufficiently distinctive to be listed on
Principal Register. Though marks on the Supplemental Register do not receive all the benefits of registration
available to marks on the Principal Register, registration on the Supplemental Register does allow the owner to
use the @ symbol next to its mark and also provides notice to potential users that the mark is in use.
TRADE SHOWS
The Alliance has no scheduled tradeshows for the remainder of the year.
If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (951) 696.1578.
gl
attachments
for business.. .for family.. .for life
C: Jerry Craig
Sarah Mundy
Rob Moran
ITEM NO. 23
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~
/JIL
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the attached Department of
Public Works Monthly Activity Reports for the months of November and December 2005.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
December 2005 I January 2006
Prepared By: AmerAttar
Submitted by: William G. Hughes
Date: January 24, 2006
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
1. Old Town Community Theatre
This project will construct a 20,000 square foot community theater complex and refurbishes the
existing Mercantile Building. Construction started on 3-3-04. This project is complete. The grand
opening took place on 10/04/05. Punch list items and close out items will likely be on-going for
next two to four months.
2. Fire Station - Northeast Site (Roripaugh Ranch)
This project will construct a new fire station in the north part of the City. The first working day was 4-
11-05 and this extends to a completion date in early February of 2006. Work is focused interior
finishes and site paving and hardscape. Although the station will be complete in February, it will be
roughly 6 to 12 months before the Developer can provide access and utilities to the site. As a result,
there will be a cost to re-mobilize and complete the project when the aforementioned items are
complete, which the Developer is responsible for.
3. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson
This project will widen Winchester road between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also
add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise
Circle. All work, including those outstanding issues with the property owner of the Enterprise
Professional Building at 41530 Winchester Road, have been resolved. Contractor submitted final
billing 1/06; acceptance of roadway improvements to go to City Council this month.
4. Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park
A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow
Way. Bids were opened on September 16, 2004. The contract was awarded to Douglas E.
Barnhart, Inc. at the September 28, 2004 Council meeting. The contract award amount is
$13,365,055.51. On-going and partially completed work includes the installation of irrigation and
field drainage, parking lots paving, sidewalks, access rarnp footings, accessible viewing areas,
shade structures, baseball fields' perimeter fencing, building electrical wiring. Completed work
includes underground electrical, plumbing, site sewer & storm drain, mass grading, soccer field
curbs, basketball courts concrete, baseball fields' backstops, masonry block buildings, building
framing and roofing. Sports field (Musco) lighting was powered up on 12/21/05. An ongoing issue
has been obtaining approval for soil amendments for both the landscape areas and ball fields; until
this is accomplished, planting and hydroseeding is delayed, which in turn delays the start of the 90-
day maintenance period. Contract completion date is now 3/3/06.
5. Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park Synthetic Turf
As part of the sports park project, a separate contract to install synthetic turf on four fields, three
soccer fields and a championship field that includes football overlay, was awarded to Byrom-Davey.
'Final' walk-through of soccer fields was conducted on 12/20/05, after Field Turf spent the week of
12/12-12/16 'fine-tuning' the turf based on comments contained in report provided by DA Hogan.
One last move-in for pre-opening fine tuning is scheduled, otherwise, project is complete.
Acceptance of project to go to City Council next rnonth.
6. Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting
This project will add lights to the basketball courts atVail Ranch Middle School. The project was bid
successfully the second tirne with R & M Electrical Contracting being awarded the project on March
8,2005 in the amount of $102,696.00. Work began June 20,2005 with substantial completion
occurring on 10/31/05. Project delayed due to SCE easement requirement. Contractor is working on
final punchlist items.
7. Temecula Library
A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, has been designed and will be built
on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Station #84. The City was successful in obtaining State grant to
aid in funding the library. Building retaining wall was poured and backfilled. Footings on North side of
pad are excavated and reinforcing steel is being placed. Structural steel is erected on the South half
of the building. Steel decking is on site and will be installed the week of 1/16/06.Under ground
electrical and plumbing is installed and Slab on Grade is poured for South side of building. The
parking lot is being graded and curb and gutter work is scheduled for the week of 1/23/06.
8. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road
over Empire Creek
This project will replace the existing barrier rails of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga
Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. This project is partially funded federal
HBRR barrier replacement funds. Construction Authorization was received. Locations are Rainbow
Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek and Del Rio Road over Empire Creek. The construction
contract was awarded on 8/9/2005 and work began on 10/06/05. Substantial completion occurred
on 12/22/05. The contractor is working on minor punchlist items.
9. Slurry Seal Project - FY 2004/2005
This project will slurry seal the residential streets SW of Pechanga Parkway between Rainbow
Canyon Road and Via Eduardo. Additional working days were added to the contract due to
inclement weather. Construction is complete. Acceptance of job scheduled for City 2/14/06 Council
Meeting.
10. City Field Operations Center (Maintenance Facility and Corporate Yard) - Phase 1
Under this project, an expansion of the maintenance facility will be built on the property adjacent to
City Hall. Western Rim Constructors (WRC) was awarded the project with a low bid of $636,094.80.
The pre-con meeting was held on 10-6-05. Notice To Proceed was issued on 10-10-05. There will
be 100 working days. Hurricanes Katrina & Rita have impacted the resin industry which caused a
shortage of plastic pipe, WRC has advised that pricing & availability may impact this project. The
construction activities are moving along per schedule, 15-day extension granted to allow for utility
2
conflicts and material shortage. The stormcepter has been placed, remainder of the storm drain
system is nearly complete. Fire service alignment was revised to alleviate conflict with existing
underground utilities.
11. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 20051 2006
This project continues the annual pavement rehabilitation program for City streets. Project scope
focuses on Ynez Road, between Rancho California Road and Solana Way. Contract was awarded
to Silvia Construction, Inc. on September 13, 2005. Construction began on 10/02/05. Construction
is complete. Acceptance of job is scheduled for City 2/14/06 Council Meeting.
12. Guardrail Installation and Replacement On Rainbow Canyon Road
In this project, old guardrails will be replaced and new guardrails will be installed in needed locations
on Rainbow Canyon Road within the City of Temecula. Bids were opened 10/27/05. Apparent low
bidder was D.C Hubbs Construction with a bid amount of $245,325.00. The City Council awarded
construction contract to D.C. Hubbs Construction on 11/22/05. The preconstruction meeting was
conducted on 12/19/05. Construction is to begin on 01/17/06.
13. Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road)
This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate
width. Bids were opened on 01/09/06. Apparent low bidder was Grade Pros Inc. DBA McKenna
with a bid amount of $1,367,663.15. Recommendation to award the construction contract is
scheduled for Council meeting on 01/24/06.
PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS
1. Diaz Road Realignment
Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road.
Business Park Drive will be aT-intersection at Diaz. Recommendation to reject all bids is going to
the Oct. 25, 2005 City Council meeting. The project will be re-bid at a future date.
PROJECTS IN DESIGN
1. Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road)
This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultirnate width from the
Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga road. The City recently met with staff members for Caltrans
(Local Assistance) and the City's environmental consultant to re-c1assify the Preliminary
Environmental Document (NEPA) of the project to a Categorical Exclusion with required technical
studies (involving Federal action). After Caltrans (Local Assistance) has recommended that the City
combined the noise studies from the City and Wolf Creek into one overall noise study for review.
Standard Pacific Homes (Urban Crossroads) submitted the combined noise study to Caltrans (Local
Assistance) the week of January 3 for final approval. The City has submitted the natural
environment study/minimal impacts study, Air Quality Study, and Section 106 study wI APE map &
HPSR to Caltrans for review and approval. Once Caltrans (Local Assistance and FHW A) approves
3
the environmental document (PES) and the PSE package, the City can then start the public bid
process and proceed with the acquisition of three properties along Pechanga Parkway.
2. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road
This project will entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly
to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening
of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, and the extension of Overland
Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. Coordination with RCFC & WCD and the Corp of
Engineers is required. he City received confirmation from RCFC & WCD that the Murrieta Creek
Bridge should be raised an additional 4 inches to maintain a minimum 3-foot freeboard. The
consultant is continuing the design and the City should receive 70% design plans by February 1,
2006.
3. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site
A 9,000 SF fire station will be built at the SE corner of Wolf Valley Road and Wolf Creek Dr. STK
formally submitted 100% construction drawings on Aug, & again on Sept, 2005. STK continues to
address 2nd plan check comments from Esgil & will re-submit 3rd submittal in Jan, 2006. STK is
coordinating landscaping w/Architerra Design Group, Inc.; the developer is working on the
monument sign design. STK will resubmit civil & landscape plans in late January as well.
4. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail
This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City
limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1 ,214,000. Caltrans (the administrator of the federal
funds) has given the City the "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." The City is
working with Caltrans, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Riverside County Flood Control
to coordinate the trail design with the Murrieta Creek Improvement project. The signed
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (approved environmental document) was received from
Caltrans on April 15, 2005. Final Design is underway and the 90% Plans were reviewed and
comments returned to Kimley-Horn, the design consultant. The next submittal was received in late
September and comments were returned to K-H on Oct. 19, 2005 for revision. Revised Plans and
Specifications were received in late December 2005 and are being reviewed by City staff. The City
has received construction authorization from Caltrans.
5. State Route 79 South Medians
Under this project medians will be constructed on Route 79 South within the CityofTemecula limits.
PDC is progressing toward the 90% submittal addressing comments from the City.
6. Rancho California Road Widening, Old Town Front Street to 1-15 (Souths ide)
This project will provide a right turn lane for southbound 1-15 motorists and provide a dual left turn
lane from westbound RCR to southbound Front Street. An MND (CEQA) was completed and a
Notice of Determination was filed. The Caltrans permit is being finalized. Union 76 has approved
their right of entry and Denny's is forthcoming. We anticipate going to bid in February with
construction starting in March/April.
7. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement)
This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. A meeting was held on
8/24/05 with Corps of Engineers regarding pursuing the project as stand-alone. Design consultant
4
Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) is continuing to pursue environmental permitting and coordination
issues associated with pursuing the bridge replacement as a project separate from the Corps of
Engineer's channel improvement project. SWE has also revised their original design proposal for
this project in light of these additional efforts required; additional funding will be required to cover
these revisions. No significant changes since last month; permitting issues continue to be pursued.
8. City Field Operations Center (Maintenance Facility and Corporate Yard) - Phase 2
This project will construct the second phase of the City's Field Operation Center, which include the
building. Consultant anticipates re-submitting 100% construction drawings (CD's) addressing the
plan check comments in late January.
9. Santa Gertrudis Bicycle/ Trail Undercrossing at Margarita Road
This project will construct a trail for bicycles and pedestrians along Santa Gertrudis Creek under
Margarita Road. Data regarding existing utilities are being incorporated into the design. Consultant
is continuing the environmental review process and preparing the 90% plan submittal.
10. Bridge Fencing
Fences will be installed on bridges over 1-15. Proposed fencing locations are the east bound sides of
the Overland Drive and Rancho California Road bridges over Interstate 15. Plans are being
prepared for Caltrans approval.
11. Localized Storm Drain Improvements
This project will fix the drainage problem at the south end of Front Street (at the MWD easement).
Baseline right of way, utilities, and mapping are established. This project is currently on hold.
12. Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road
This project will construct an access road to the Long Canyon Detention Basin. Plans and
specifications are 90% completed, however winter rains have affected the project conditions and the
scope of work will need to be reevaluated. Project is on hold.
13. Rancho California Median Modifications
This project will add an additional through-lane on Rancho California between Ynez Road and the 1-
15. The landscape median will be modified in order to accomplish this; no additional R/W will be
needed. This design contract was awarded 12/13/05 & JMD proceeded to work on the 14th. A
schedule will be submitted in January. The design is expected to be completed in early March.
14. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2005/2006
This project will rehabilitate Diaz Road between Rancho California Road and Winchester road,
including replacement of storm drain pipes. PS&E is 70% complete. Advertisement anticipated in
February 2006.
15. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis Creek
This project includes the construction of an approx. 200' ped/bike bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek
near Chaparral H.S. An RFP was sent out; three proposals were submitted. All included costs that
were beyond the budgeted amount for the project. Currently, City is entertaining commissioning a
5
"Planning Study" to further review the available alternatives and potential costs on this project and
re-budget accordingly. This is a federally funded project, which will involve specific steps/actions to
environmentally clear it.
16. Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Silt Removal & Oesiltation 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 RWQCB by
desilting the channel and pond located near the Sports Park. An internal meeting took place in Dee,
2005 to clarify the scope of work. Internal research is continuing.
17. Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 05-06
This project will remove and replace various concrete improvements including sidewalk, curb and
gutter, cross gutters, driveways approaches, and under sidewalk drains. Bid authorization is
expected 01/24/06.
18. Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk Area
This project includes cleaning & sealing cracks in the road surface, removal & replacement of all
pavement delineation, furnishing & installing Rubberized Emulsion - Aggregate Slurry (REAS) Type
II and all necessary traffic control. There are approx, 3,571,850 sf of roadway involved. The bid docs
have been completed; bid authorization is expected 1/24/06. Bids will be due 2/21/06. However,
work can not start until May, 2006.
PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE
1. 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange - Project Report (PR)
This project will modify the 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange to accommodate projected future traffic.
This is the next step of project development after the completion of the Project Study Report.
City continued development of design geometries and environmental technical studies. Caltrans
approved the Air Quality Study and Acoustical Assessment. The first draft Project Report, Natural
Environmental Study, Design Exception Fact Sheets, and Storm Water Data Report were submitted
for Caltrans review. The first Revised Traffic Study was subrnitted for Caltrans 2nd review.
2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans
Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation
This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the 1-15/1-215
split. The project is moving through the Caltrans process. The City was just recently notified that a
visual analysis is needed. This subject had not come up in any of the previous meetings. The city
has received a proposal for $43,000 for this report. Caltrans has promised the City to help with the
preparation of the report. FHW A package was submitted to District 8. Caltrans would prefer to be
the lead agency in dealing with various utility companies. A meeting has been set up to go over the
details. The City has received utility information from 5 utility companies with more information on
the way from the. rest of them.
6
3. French Valley Parkway Interim Southbound Off-Ramp to Jefferson, Auxiliary Lane, and
Widening the Bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Winchester Southbound Off-ramp
- Phase I
The City and Caltrans have agreed that immediate action is required to relieve congestion at the
Winchester Road southbound off-ramp. Caltrans has even agreed to contribute $750,000 to the
construction of an auxiliary lane and widen the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek. A southbound
off-ramp to French Valley Parkway will be included in the construction of the improvements at the
Winchester southbound off-ramp provided that all the environmental clearances can be obtained in
time. The 30% PSE has been prepared and will be submitted to Caltrans for review shortly. R1W
exhibits have been prepared for the south bound off ramp at French Valley. These exhibits show the
needed R1W along the off ramp. They were forwarded to the City of Murrieta so they can start their
negotiations for acquiring the needed parcels.
4. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City
Limits
The determination of the crossing location will need to be coordinated with the Diaz Road Extension
and coordination with the City of Murrieta, Flood Control (RCFC) and Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). The crossing location and elevation will not be determined until the detention basin is
designed by USACE & RCFC. This design is anticipated in mid 2007.
7
.......
a
!La
O~
'"
~ ~
-
~
a
w
~
lI..
I-
W
W
J:
o
o
o
w
0::
C)
o
0::
ll.
ll:::
0::
o
3:
>-
:5~
::::ll-
OZ
wO
:a::a:
w,
1-0
11..1-
00
>-W
!:::d
00::
ll.
o
I-
Z
W
:a:
w
>
o
0::
ll.
:a:
..J
~
~
o
~
~ ,,;
g.s
~ e
~ ~
o ~
~.E
~.9
- 0
5~
~"ll
ro e
o.~
~$!
g g>
.... '0
g>",
"c C:
~ 0
g-~
"O~
~~
0)=
~~
>-- W
,; E
'V.S!
a.:;:
~ is
u ~
.!a :g
1:)13
~"O
"E' ~
o.w
.!::2 E
~ ~
I-;!:
...
'#.0
0'<1
00
~o
~
:c:
o
j:::
o
:;)
e:
~
o
ffi
~
:;)
~
o
a
If
W
~
ro
o
0'"
0"'
2~~
~ ~~ [O~
>--....0
~~~
'~E~
E C"
E 0 l'!
0;;;;; Q)
ou"O
~.so~
a ~~.pj
Q) 0 c: ....
EO(l)Ql
~~c3~
c.E"O~
~~~(O
f-Q)2...r
:g ij 2:-g
Ol-<(ro
N~
"'",
;::...
o.N
~(Il~
~~E~-g
ct:I en 0 . c
Q)"E E"3 ,2
.;~~~~
1ii-g,gmE
'O(lJ<.O(Il~
6 ~z.<(.e
~"S: -5, Q) co
a.~::::J~i?
E Q) e Q)"" .
8~~:5ai.E
CI)-g=.s~~
.9Cll~mu~
~m'-.;g'~6
c..c:: ~:;::: e Co
W.!a ctl:::l Corn
xt:::::::l"'Cw~
Q)Q::l5 ffi..c:.!a
.!::2.Q tf (/) ~ ....
-5 ~ Ul1i) Q)
-ac'!:~o..g.
c'-Q)(.)E-
CllU'Q)ro ~
Ll}Q)a.lD8lD
9~E:2"OO
~.E8effi~
.....fhQ)a.(l)-
(1)'-.oc.!:::!1J
~~=~:6:C
>>>3:....oE3
co> c: Q) .
"O..Qg-cbS
g>~ :a Qi ~!
:.;;;:orn6.i::E
o~~ocn8
3: 0.. Q) 8
1;) ~a.s ro ~
.... ctl:::) CD Q) a:l
~~~.E.oE
~~~~.~~
...
'"
'"
~
...
...
"'
';;!.CD
"'~
"'",
~
..,
'C
OJ
u
:;
"0
.;;
..
c
"
..,
'C
OJ
u
:;
"0
.;;
..
c
o
o
o
.o...
gJ...
ct'i~
o:~
u .
6.s~
.- '"
E g ~
(f.l;,;;;(1)
~U"O
.!:: 20
lL1;;
i35~
eO e
roJ:ll'!
"'_0
~.E:"U
g' CI) Q)
~ >-2
.\: Q) a.
oi;Q.
"'>--<(
=
=
9
...
~
o Belt;'.(I] {f ~
-dOl IDee Q5 r::::
Q).9 q:::'~:5 ~ q::: VI
> -g.!!!3:El;::::E mE";
Q) j ~ co > 13 .9 ro ~. r::: .0 .a <<i
~~~E 5~'c:(/).ofll:R"Cc:"O
+:lc ..:9UoljIDt::.cc,-c
't5Q)~ ~~:L~Qi~8.U)ttl..co
Qi~e 'E8Ql?:..c:cn~~~~
CQlo. .-M~~2cDQl2?3'0.
~~.5 '0 ~:aQl2?c~(\]-oE
;;...r::::>. ,g~'5~g~.~2t~8
1:-o~ _.!::.c ~800l(\]ttlU
"'o. ttl -i5 ttl......" 0) .::; C 0 ID !'!!
0&(\]0 '19g~.!::~-g'5~"O......
5.L..L.. (I)~'oE::Jttlg>ffi.!!!a
Ql20 .!:: Ej.a 8 g>oa.; ~u
~:g 8 ~!'!! Qi~ro'E~.s:a-ci
-E 13 C (I) ~ G) r3.e!'!! ..r:::::B.g
'~.!::J!! -88.5:s~~:g:gl32i
:g~8 .g~Qi~~.5;::5-g,Ql
~C<>o .!::IIi"o.ID.c;g~-..cg
(l)lOttl ..lit:..::.:(I)-oIli.sC\l.2l"Ottl
';;~coo"" 5m:2c.c ...-ccc
c...... _ 3:3' 9,! ::J :s iii C ~ (\] 2
:attl...- "C-8~eo~~"OOl.5
cO)O) Ql'- ttl l?:2'- ::J c.!:: E
J!!.!::.5 ~~~.2L~~-oQl~>-
s;g:s E.~m5B.o*~a.~
~~~.s 8~.c~:go~3:'6-o6
w- c O'(I)........oOO(l)Q)O)
o ,uq:: 0,2:<(1) 2? 5 (I):Q 0.L...r:::: Ql
-E.Q~ E rnofJu ci~m.e~.s
Ol~E.!!! ~-;;2.!:::6:5 3'g! Eo
.!::.$! E.s 0.,5 t) to !'!! ~ Ole e 81:
-g e.g1j"C-;:: Ql3' O>E:;::; o.OJ!!
13D...(I)c ffi~"o"O(I) ~'5g.ttlu)
'~$ 5 g 0> "~2 m ~= O).!!!~
t'c'OU c~(I)Q)Eo-8c.!!!.......
o e- g ~'g, ~ iii a. c ~ (I):~.s ~rg
3'Qlco ,.-ttlE'-o::J19=ttl-.
=co cf!!2?O!'!!ttloo:::.cc(j)f2
<(wo.sO"OttlO-o.c6.O::J"OC<>
.~
"0
~
~'~.!!! ~
~ eg>o
~ 8'2.s
U::.2l.ao
L.. C Ql OJ
~~~.s
E 0)'0
to 8 '2 .~
~a~5.
~-o9o
Ql 2? Q)
cmo.o
o.cL..C
"O't:J219
Ql::J C 0.
t; -', ~
::J Ql Q) ts
-g-E5,<i
8'g>!: 2
m .~ .; !
3'....QlE
(l)Ql C 8
:Q~o
~. W
~~cu
Q)-ttlQl
U ~ 0)..."..,
o , 0 e
~ ~ I 0.
ON<(ai
.r::::"'-Cl.!!!.c
~O ~~ C
O..lit:-oQlO
L..QlQl.sE
~ ~ ~ c: ~
mQle~-=
3' -E 0. ::J '0
mC5~5
C Ql o...c 0
u:: IF 2? ~ 0
~U)
"'!;!
"''''
~>:.
~
~
e
'"
~
e
o
l'!
~:5
~U
(Us
",w
.!:: :5
1jjo
:gQl
5"
"Ol'!
~ .~
",,,,
~15~
Wt;"'
~!'!!~
g c co.
~8;,:;
,.
.
on
"'
...
'"
....
~$"
.....~
"'8.
~
ro
..
en
=
o
...,
~
ro
..
en
=
o
...,
o
o
"'.
~o
1;:1 "'0
'" .
, 0
t g.~
8:.e~
W (!) '"
""e""
0'" ro
o.'(j) .r::::
~~~
m::Eal
"o-,w
ffiD::Cl
Iii..:
ttl~~
'0 ~ g
~ :5 a
0.00
~
'1
o
'"
~
<:l
en
o
~
~
..
...
on
"'
~U)
g~
~>:.
~
..
N
..
..
en
e
o
...,
't=
~
>--
.~
;;0
~o
cr--..
~~
~C;;.
~N
ro",
a.,
~.~
0>
o.ro
t/)O
mE
-E~
aial
I l5
rot;
:~ !'!!
-E
;; 0
0.0
51
~'l:
";' .
~~
..
OJ
e
tril;::::
e :5
~g>
~:s<:
15
53
O).!!!
e
.~ ~
8 l'!
oE
58
~i
o.~
E E
8 ~
J!i'~
c 2?
l!I-
we
.0 ~
~ E
W ~
Em
3 ~
",w
00
Ot/)
~o
0-
"'~
~-6
-=J~q,j
e ~ E
ttl"*~
g>"O t)
:e-g:2
5'0' g
$:0: i5.
0>
.~
:E
'"
:::;
""
~
o
o
OJ
.0
;;
~
W
ro
!Il <0
o~~
O'C N
"5'00
cn~Z;
Ql w..
=a:2:c
:gQ(Sg
::;;"'E
13i..:<(
c~u
&gg
._ C C
~88
.,;
~
~
..,
=
..
=
01
'w
'"
....
~
'"
=
'6
=
~
o.
"0
'0
~
e
o
.~
U
~
'0'
Ii.
...
'"
"'
...
'"
...
o
'"
~
,.
~
l'!
~
"
U
"
OJ
~
"
~
<(
U
:;
iii
;,;:
o
q
<l;
-<(
:a C
:E ~
~~
~ ro
cO
~ffiCl
CJ~al
>...1-
~c.2
19~u
cn~!'!!
QlCC
"'Coo
woo
'"
co
o
'"
~
;;
UJ
"-
$:
c
en
CJ
<0
'T
...
~
en
:j:
o
~
"'CD
o
11.0
O~
'"
",...
-
W'"
Clo
<
11.
I-
W
W
J:
I/)
I/)
I/)
w
0::
o
o
0::
a.
~
0::
o
s:
>-
:5~
::)1-
OZ
wO
::i:::i:
w,
1-1/)
ILl-
00
~~
C3~
a.
I/)
I-
Z
w
::i:
w
~
0::
a.
~
..J
~
a.
<C
o
e _
m " 0
~-5~.~-g
~g~-8m
~"OCl)e-e
:E*.sCJa
U)Q)'OS::'C
€liiJl?.6lij
o.!!!.m ct:I "C
~ Qi.!:: US ~
o.s! Q) "C f!!
(I) ~..c ffi 0)
~ e"3:"C ~
~~"C~~
.f .5 Iii ~ .!!!
-ri en Q)'- +-' .
~ -ci 'iji.!!!.Q ~
iE ~ c: cnrnM
..Jo::: al o.S.5 C\I
~a..!!!~~~
~g>g>.2a.O
c:._.-a.(J,)~
Cl)~-U-o~:E
-g.!!!~ffid>;:
5QiQi13.5~
g, (Il .m 'C :Q +-'
tlcnU'Sc;
l3 g' rn~~:;;
;:'o.E Ql 0 Q)
ro5;g-g~:g
;: 1; B is"iij Ql
g' ~ Q) OJ;;-5
:s -g,:: ffi is :
19 ctl 0 "C en .-
~ -0 ~.s;: L..o"'"
Qlctl-'_O
g> co .l: cO -0 3:
._ >.l: a Ql ....
;g[g'5co:;:!
:IxO~O:l
COlPCf)...-Q.cn
...
o
'"
?ft.CD
ana
...~
~
"
"
~
:;;
iii
d
.E
EN
Eco
~[(i
"....
> 0
,,~
0;;>
~L.U......
m(!) "
.oog
:J~E
(\]6<
"SUt)
Om m
" ~ ~
E'C'C
" 0 0
t-oo
'"
'"
'"
~
Q
=
~
..
~ "
" m
> 0>
0"
'O.c
ct:I-c(fl
& ~.~
,gut)
~"e
Q)~c
008
'00
"N"
ma;J:
~co~
~ g:g .,2
O-oN -g
~~~ "3
ffi ffi.... ~
J:3:c: .c
u ell 0 ~
"w'O
o...a:l~ .g
~ 3: ~
~ '0 U ~
~.mg 8
(\] c: c: c:
Ii. 8.2 . So.
1il w
ego.. E 9l
g.U E 2 (:)
ffi 2 8 i <(
0-= .si
::.: ~~-fi Q)
08CCc.
-gQ)tl5.E
&~-go8
.:.2 (f).5 .12
~ Q) . E c
Cll~:gcg
~o(Ooo.
:8.~ ~.~ 2 g>
m a..... ~ W Q)
(j E c: Q)
SL.Ug~8~
...
o
'"
...
o
o
~
~
1l
"
lD
;;:
o
o
" d
'0 "'
e ....0
0> N
0. '0 '"
~12~
"m ~ ~
~""5
,,'" E
.~ ~ <C
m""
" e e
0>_ _
'0""
'C 0 0
moo
~
'13
m
LL
"
o
"
m
"
2
"' "
goo ~
~..c _
"a. .... Q)
o lI) Q) U)
~<( c~
>- C Q) 0...
LL~ 0,
.:... "Q)Ee: Q) g:e-
o LO:;:::l co
.~<(...... f!! >-
d: ~ g ~S
_ ..Ct) 0 f!!
to....0 0
Q) .g _. "'0 0.
(f.)~c:mo
~.E::3 u.0
.a 5 ~ ~-g
(f.)O<(Octl
'"
'"
'T
~
...
'13
"
~
o
o
<0
'f1
N
?;o
G
...
o
o
~
~1O
o"?
o ~
~ ~
~
~
'S;
'0
o
.E
~
<0
~
...
~
"'0-0-(1)
28ct1
~.!9~
oa.55
5 55 E
.~ ~ g
" w m
~~8
>- Qi'~
i?c.m
LO 8 Q) -
~ E-=:fi
Q)0lL.;e
"St)<Ii;
~~2~
.J:: ..... a. c:
~ E::3
.... <Ii 8 2
~:w>.e>
ot - Q)
1::0Co-o
.Q-;5~5
~Cij.~ g'
1::'1:: E:;::::;
.~ ~ 2'~
E E ~~
Q)"CCIl~
Co ffi.S 3:
:fi11~12
.- 0 li=
~~E8
"80
ctI t:i2
5~~'~
U~=~
2....~15
t:iJ2Q)0
C:3:-g;
8 0,- Q)
Q) 'iO E'~
~.9~~
...
"'
~
~$'
~~
Ne
:;;
"..
O;E
~:
:r
~
'"
'i'
~
..
E
" "
E 0
~g 8 U
:g -. ctI .E
~.~ g. ~
>-U 0::: 0 11
u. 2 "C ~ 55-
ot:i c>> ffi -g:s a ~ ~
&:8~L~&:f~ 2:3
.c ctI c:o m I:: - C\l a."C
~>LO~=O~~EQ)
Q)(f.jcnS~o"<t-~
a:::i..::e..58i..:~1ij0.
c:00_ 0 02
Q)u......(ij 3:u..... 0::: a.
E~5-oE~sctlO)
Q)-o....c:-o.cc:
~5EgJ-(ij5EffiO
n.O<CCDa:::O<(o..:s.
?;o
G
~
.Q
'0
"
"3
'0
"
~
o
w
.~
.c
o
~
~
"
m
15.
S
<(
2
"
Q.
E
8
.~
"
o
U
2 ~
t):a;
" "
8;;;
d
.E
Ii
o
"
2
;;
"
o
o
E
"'
E
2
w
"
$:0
~i
~~
"'"
8~
'0
'"
N
"
"
>-
'13
"
~
o
o
<0
o
;:;:
N
.~
"
o
c:U
~S
OW
U5
20
t).o
"0
8~
~N
.c~
~ "
:I: 0
cj~
og
0'0
- "
1il 8
" W
" m
8 ~
5.~
uQ:)
.E ~
~ 5
8'5
~.5
'Ow
Co I:: .
~8<o
ctI~~
:g ~;:;
~~o
o t- "
o . 0
~~ .S
ON ~
Q)~.c
j5:~.9
...
o
o
~
'#,1.0
g~
~ ~
~g
o~
~
m
'S;
'0
o
.E
~
"
o
..
~
...
~
...
;;\ "
DoE
(j"E
.E ~
W m
~.9tO
Q)C:Q
"C -Q "<t
~m~
CD-gC;
'" " "
mE 0
~Eo>
Qi 8 c:
-oQ)~
~O:::~
g~13
::;005
"<00
~ c:o.o
m.... ~
0.<0 0
0."'-
<("":"C
Ul"
~'t5~
--"
"'''~
~ is ~
o E W
c:ctlti
O:g ctI
'O.c~
Q)mc
55.J:: 8
a.:!: I::
o ~ 0
*~U
355.5
~n~
iii;;;8
...
o
~
~
's;
'0
o
.E
~
=
"
W
m
~
0-
"'
~
..:.
o
~
" ,.,
Q) ~ :5 -g ~
:5 '2 .... ~ t:i ~ 0..
-gCij-5 ~~S ~.3~Q)
~c~ "C:J.~_~;;-g:5
Q) Q).~ (I) ffi -.rg f! 0 ~ ctI:5
g ~ ::3~p:fi<(.au~$'3E
go 0"_._ E- ctI Q) ctlw-o
_~ = ~ 80 0 ~ I::(f.)Oo.. Q)
rg~.J::C:Q):r:.3~-g8:::8
<(w~J9:52--ctlc:c:e
- ~3.~ E!E CIl-o ~o Q) a.
~ctl6rge~~~~~g-o
..9 _S -in <(.... o...:!:'E.a ~ u ffi :>.
-.s.2l5:fi-e ctI.c(/) 0 0 (I) ctI
CIl_ U u.- ctlO ::3p....-o CIl 3
I:: ~ )( 0 -g "C 0 CIl = Et'S 8 i:
~o..~d.t:i~;.m~ctlc:ectl
ctlQ)~CIlQ)":'::;"C.c:a"CQ)o.o..
0:5 -- c: CIl (/) :::::I::>.. c: E"C ctI
.... ~ 0 ~'o ~ t:i ~-;;x: ctI 6:C g'
J2.inijpCijc:....Q)O .3.=octl
~ CIl m 0 Q)';;; -~ ~ ~.~ ~ =-5
Q)~O Qi:5 ~ g"",::3 Q) Q).g Q)
.c , ctI.:l:: "C .... "C t:i.... Q) a. n.
E~ <(~J2Q)(ij110:5Q)0
Q) .9.,- >- c: > u..... ..r:::: c:
E.9~-.c-o:OOmCllCll-O
lI=-u5E.aEaa.C:!2tl5
ctI ffi.an 8 CIl8 a.E~ eS CIl
tj.:!:E Q) ctI'-l5a.CIl.~
..r:::: ~ a.~~.~ Q)15150 a.55t
:!:c:Q)~Og:5c:Eom.c:~
30-5 Q) Q)_-o1,::-2-;';(- 0
Q)~'t5~:5~~.E'Effi5 ~ 5-
E .,:.::; _u. m Q)'E C") >'o..:r: Q)
2'55t:: g>:5~.c i:='-g:r:u.~~
c Ew';;;-o Q) ~ ctlt:ict:S-go:5
8 5~g~ 6 (I) ~c a.ctI~O
~'=-I::C:o"CctlQ)mE~-"
z.~55:,:..Q)cctl~E c:a.i-Q
-- Q) E CIl E.- e 0 I::WS O)~
o CIl ::3'~ Ex CIlX eo.. CIl ctI__
Q)~-"'U"C 8:E ~ Q)'::;: <("in t5 :::::I
..r:::::E::" o.a Q) .... .... Q) c: -. CIl ctI 8"
.....00 CIl....OO 3 Q) 3<( o.ctI
...
o
...
....
'"
...
o
...
....
'"
..
..
e
lD
e
~
m
....
'"
o
i'!
~lD
" "
H
Ul
E
,g
~
"
W
m
~
o..5B
~-5.9
~~-g ~
Q)..r::::ctI 00
e2~ ~
0."50 - "<t
Eo 0::: "Cm <0
-(f.) >'00
iti'cn ~ 0::: ~
~~ ~~"""J
....(1)_1:::2:
ctI-actlO
'; ~~ -5 ~
0-0 0 Q) S
ffi~"EQ:3
"'5.!!!gJ~~
Q)ctI-oEo
0.. 0.. W::JO
'"
<0
o
'"
~
o
(f)
0-
s:
~=
'" ~
~~
..e;
'"
Q.
=
~
..
CD
o
o
~
N
..,~
-
~
o
...
LL
o
w
~
I-
W
W
:J:
o
o
o
w
0::
C)
o
0::
Il..
~
0::
o
==
>-
:)~
;:)1-
UZ
wO
:iE:iE
w,
1-0
11.1-
Ou
>-W
Co
Uo::
Il..
o
I-
Z
w
:iE
w
>
o
0::
Il..
:iE
..J
<(
l-
ii:
<(
u
" ..
.;::: 00 -g
DOLL Ct:I
....>o.9c
Q)"> a::: en 0)
1:: ~ E ~.~
~().gg"C
LL ._ Q)
~~.~::::E
Q):51U~g>
E -- E 0 .-
E :;: = E ~ u::i
oc:to=-o:.;::::<o
ooc8"co
E ~ ell 8 N
e.s-g~.~ ~
-'E>-o_~
Q) o'~ Q) C Ct:I
"E:8 Q).!Q ~:J
o ..... f!! ijl..c
"O~.i::'C1lr::::Q)
c Q).-..c 8"-
J!!~o-o ~
liiO~'3Q)(J)
>Cllt_Oj5:c
Ow ...c .~
.....";::"0 I/J'E a.
g:J.~8,roc
.Q:E~:g2'~
WwQ)CC1Q)Ql
lB > ;;.::.::: e-o
x 0 -- Q)::: eft.
Q)&~eoo
Q)-OwO.gr-...
:5~~!9~g!
~ro'g>.~E'~
"'O..cUJ:;:J1!)
.::!:l::_::a:.!;;; ....
u 3= 0 C:"'C
.s~e-~'Eg
"\j 000 _ ro..c:
......0::: CD r:::: II)
~ ~~:5:g~
11)0;8.50
~.9ffi~E~
'"
o
'"
';F.CD
o~
"'0
-
"
'"
o
o
eo.
$
c
g
'5
o
c
o
OJ 0
" c
@ 16'~
00"
g"'O
"N13
"E 15'~
~ 0
:E.9C:
H
'"
"I
o
o
f
c5 ~"E g::s:
.::.:::~~eo
Ql R"E (!) ~
l!! 15...0 C E
OJ.: iil-Q)-g
..... I II) II)
Oal!!i3e
~.lij~ ~~
~ ~eo!S:m ~
06=..c1-
~ Rg>~~
= O>W ~ c
~~ E 3=.~
155.g.~~
5: ~-E ~ ~
'0.5 Q) (Il"(ij
~~~8~~
...."0 -E
85'::':::.~~_
Wtsu1iiom
cn2~.SE3=
@)t:i~"EQ)m
~c~8:5,=,
.E8a.CI)5~
Ql?f..-g'-rnc
.oOC'\l::::t::.Sm
=~(I)I-~~
3=-ogJCf.lO-ro
CQlL..cci3=-
~~:gg.~.S
SECll('\lffiUl
(Il-g.scg.~
l!?U)(I)Cll-C.
q::;.2:'>~""?~Q)
LL rn c.5 Q) a.
~E1::8-~~~
o.e ._..r:::: "C
q::::.::::::.:::E~c
O)I-I-.go.!!!
<(Cf)CI)CI)c~
';!.CD
o~
"'e.
j '"
e
~"t
l'!!~:S
"'-"'
~ 0
::;;1-
-
o
3
'0
Q;
E
8
w
z
@l
$-
-- 0
0000
" -
"0
~.:.::: d
O"c
::!:: ~-.
00"
5:~::;
lOts
g~~
~~~
Ci5 >.<C
~"
.~ (ij I-
"->00
~
z
~
';'
~
""
"
~"O 0 E
og?_; ~.g
-ol9 e (\] Q) C C'll r::
c: Q) Q..!:: E Q).~"O.Q
Cl)"E a.u.. :I .... ._ c: ro
-:l~ .2!!2><lJN
UJ:::E c 10 c: ~ 1.0";::
() OOIh.-....OO
<(Q)'ijjo1::"Ooo;5
(I):5..::!~Qlg?~~:I
2..1:: UIO E'-a Q) m
~><"-ElSo.ClC:
~3:W=8Q)NE.Q
Q) c: - a. ..... Q) U
Q) Cl ~ <:( -0 In CJ) U :::::I
c,-,c c: ro..... Q) L..
"6>[{locro5:.Jotl
.n~~~-o(ij8~8
o-(ijroc~~c~
lJ).bog.~ E o.5~
e-1?~ (ij ~.g.:li= u.~
O-roU....w~Q)~
02EEe><o'~Q)
>>roEoQla>-8....
E.5(!!':::5:c-oQ)~
-< "E 0) -a (J) 1? ~ :U..c:
Cf.)8eg!ffir-.alD~
~.o~'~O::~ e 30
~'::Q)e~.rge:g~
fEg.~~~~~~1-
'iija:3:~5(/lB:t::
O()..c~_ucg:.rg
z-cl-m-g5w:rlrn
.:;; 0 . E (\].- E 0..2:-
>..Q U::l >,[{l ECf.l(3
c)l1.Qluro-o8"C>'
.5 z."i5' 0 z: Q) r::..c
~ 3 o..~ (P-E-g~-o
30cS-gc(lJC~
Cl.\OQla5.:IL..L..J.!;!Ql
.- Q) E E (/)~.8a.'> u)
~:g g! c'~ >.E~ e c:
() l!? e e.!2>~s.~ e>e:!
Q)g!a.'>r.nEo..>.S~
~C2Em~S2~&.8~
'"
o
.,
';/.co
oS!
"'C;
"'-
:Hl
m~
e"
j!i
"e u
1-"
~ ui
og
e-.~
~ Q
a. @
~~
:2"
~ffi
I!! E
000
s::ii=co
" "''''
"E ~N
~E'"
:::ES2~
<"-
:!
o
f
'0
"''''
C3 .~
" 0
0; I!!
"
"
rn
c
:s
.~ jj
:5 "E
0.0
ooil
~~
jgg
~ "
&:5
2,*
g ~
000
c~
0'"
o c
c: "(ij
rn 0
:0 e
" '"
E ~
~o.
2'~~
wOO
cO"
80..:5
;:: 2i E
3:"E e
t]='+-
Ql(lJ.$
"i5'"3ffi
o..:5E
.~ E E
~~8
o
"E
.l9
'5
o
c
00
ffiUo
:g .~~
:Em~
-€Oci'
g-g~
rn .0'Efl-
~a:~
,$!.....(ij
gs>
o:::"Su
"0g
19 a a
0000
~.S2
~
(ij'~ .!:
~" '"
,,0. C
~ ~.; ~
t;ilq;.c:
.;::0 c:g
o Q) Q) 0
o.c:02
EI-"Cti
'" c c
~ ~ ~8
"C(;5c:E
5-Q);:
o C:o ~
.cE_a:l
~LL~2
6 -g'1: ~
~ g .~ LL
,g~-S.!:
~5~:Q
~g~~
E.9a.-;
.a 0::: a. c:
_ () a:l'o
~o::: ~ C)
'I:-c.c:,$!
a:l C:(O a:l
Q) g t--.Q.
:Q.ca~
e ~ '2 ffi
a.;: ~ Q)
'''E-03
;: 0 Q) .
U.t:: ~ g>:E
"~m~'e~
a.ffi~8~
.S2E.!: € ~
~.ajg,g:E
'"
o
'"
~U)
o~
"'0
'#,CD
~a
~
~
~
"
'Il
Q
III
"E
~
"-
c
~
I-
"
5
'"
o
'"
ori'
'"
;;;
g> -
'2 ~
Q) '2
:s! Q)
3_"
-g~~
00 rn
a::~E
.~ g ~
E 00 "
g;;;m
8::i:c:
o.s~
.c_~
" " 0
c " c
a:l J;; 0
"'000
"
..,.
';'
'"
o
~
""
'"
~
N
~
'"
'"
'"
"
"
'C
"'
Q
::;;
"
'S;
~
c
" 0
.S2,~ ~
Q)Q):: 5-,~
-S2,g~g>
~ ~~rojgE
~'~~:g='~
a. ..... '\.. g-;: Q)
.sa.~a.g>o.
g>E.~~:g~
'S ;: C:'1jj :::l 0
C:"'OWQ)~E
:;:l Q)--C a:l
a:rg~(ija~
~ge-,~EQ)
._ Ih 0'1:"'0 U
iiJ~oo-g.!:
~_~€~~m
-IhE-"-o>
C).S2EijJ5-ffi
'E a ~.S2 ~ i3
Q).- - > Ih
~1Ue:!~t::c:
"c,'!: rn 0 ~ ~
c: 'E ar..!2 Q) q:::
w 0 (I) a:l_"2
0>8ts~~.2l
a"'O .2!,.c:.2 ~
s:ffiEw'6Z
0.3"
ag>rnrnaluj .
E:;:lU) Q)C:"'O
._;t:: al....; Ih 0 ~
rnEc:~~:~~
"E Q) Q) .~- > :::l
alo.EEo~o.
'S19~.e-1:m~
~1:~~"Q>Q)o
8Q)o.E-.c:-
E ~ Q)'!:;: Q)
c: a Q) > U ~ 2!
.~,!::: C) E Q) 8 ~
Q) >"'00.'0' c:
o~1i.~a..s8
".
.
o
.,
'#.~
o~
"'~
1:: _
ai
.. -
Ill"
c E
.!l<(
'"
;::
'"
;;;
.,.
en
c
'c
"
"
c
-0,
c
W
'"
c
o
3
" c
'" 0
:g_E
m"ECi5
4)~~
~Q)S
000-
rn ~
"~g. ~
~!.;8
"
"
I!!
o
g
"
'E
~
:2
Q;
>
o
'"
<;>
'"
~
c
o
.:jj
$ ~
c:J;;.
" 0
Oc
c 8
g~ .,,:.
'" o~-
~ ~ ~
00. '" c
c rn
"CB-'
~"e '*
"-.0-
o ~ c
i:- 0'-
U~~
" 0 "
.c:,$!E
;;:: ~ E
~ :Q 8
~"E-u
.c rn"
0."E i3
-g~f6
8~o.
m a Q)'
Q)O-S
-€ OJ g>
U,!:'w
~"0
J;;:S~
~.c"'O
8~-g
-~-
~mb
13"0
Q).2 -
'2'"~ a
o..c: .!:
o " ~
~~~
".
.
o
'"
~~
0;0;
"'0
-
~
1'i
"'
'"
e
"
~
'13
rn
"-
l'l
c
rn
c
$
c
-"
601
- "
" 0
"Ejg
~~
0_
g'E
~rn
e>-
"$
o.e
00
:!IE!-
~8
"'''
(3 f6
o
o
..;
01
r-
ei
.,
r-
.,.
u
o
o
~
..
'"
"
e
OJ
'E
rn
'5
1<
c
g
'5
o
c
o
o
H
'"
<>
N
~
c;
en
a.
~
'"
<;>
'"
~
""
.......
o
u.o
O~
'"
~
-
~
o
'<t
W
(!)
cl:
0..
....
w
W
J:
tn
tn
tn
W
I:t::
Cl
o
I:t::
D..
~
I:t::
o
;:
>-
:5:2
::l....
OZ
wO
:iii:iii
w,
....tn
u......
00
>-w
!::3
Ol:t::
D..
tn
....
Z
w
:iii
w
>
o
I:t::
D..
~
...J
j:!:
D..
<(
o
"Coo 't5
om e- w
o ~ 0 J:
U:t) u'"
~.~ >.E
5 e .... E ~
o a.J,2<( B
O.~.I/)"Oc
Ql;;.~ C m
:2 ..:~ co E
~.mse.E
> C en"E c
.- Ql :::::I 0 8
O:::O.Qo
E C ro"C.~
o.Q > 0 f/I
J:: B.9.2";'
.B:::::I"OlL.g:;
ctI"OwQ);>
"OWS:E'O..!<i:
~"Oe~~w
'Omcg!'L..~
COW"-"OO
Q) 0. Q) 0:: m.B
a.e.aooQ)
b a. g!; g."E
-0 Q) co C '-0. =>
..r:::::5.l::m :2
CO~~~C
9r:::SQij;;_€
. 0 a.. r:::: m
~u . 8:5'~
(f.I ::::J C C C
S.b ~ ~ o"ti)
.- (J).c..o ~ al
~ c: "0 "in B ..c
a.8~g~5
IJ)Wa.a.Q):;=
~=.Qo>5i
:>=~c5Q)
'0'-0>0--0
Q)5"O:;::::~"O
"0'.....: Q) ~ Q) Q)
5.eE!E~g
.12 c 81:"51 a.
~8~~Ji[
'"
.
",
...
'"
;,
~
8
..
m
!!:
o
'"
Q
~
..
~
'"
'C
:6 ~ w W
~o"'C :5Ei
G)2-ffi eUl
C!)811l ro~
m c: lJ) lJ)"'C
~--8 C'C
ffi g>o 0.0
en "(5 Ci. :;::::;"0
moO 3: Bm
5e.~ .2[1,
ca <<l ili g'.m.....:
~.~L., TSE~
ctI:!:: 19 ~~ e
~:gm -crn2:
Q) 0) E Q) 0 ctI
"Oct: g,g~
~~.g g-g ~
-g'~E: D:,5'iij
mC)Q) LL..o
IllCQ) ..0-0
~~= ::i:ffi.e
i:>'~.~ CD ~~
.- W:::::I >.c....
~ L...~ ~ Cl ~
Os"" ..
_ a:l C (ij Q) "0....
mO8E.g'ffia.
:E -ci .!2 E .... .... C)
ctIct1~.c.c~.=
0.... ::J 5 0 ~
gO::~~"O<1le
t)~~~..9!:5m
c(ijco.]j_lIl
8c>O;::,E!lJ)oc:
_ro~o.=mSQ
=:: cO) Q):gll.
3:.....g>~'O(/)ui
-g-8m-=-c..--
'-0 c"Og>3: s.m
.... ::I Q) __ en 0 (\]
a..:.:: .c ro Q).a"ti
rnW-a.O_;.::
:2 2!.9 2! 5i m S
I- 0 .c a. u. Q) C
';f!. ~
'" in
'" '"
~CD ~
c!2 ~
""'~ -.:t
~ ~
!l !l
.. ..
m m
~ !!:
'"
c
'w
W
e
o
~
'C
C
:J
'C
"
fl 0
" ",0
'E'2 ~
~ $-.:t~
"c"
:E 'OJ~
EtTI~
Szc
~::i 5
~c.\:
l!!1'lt;
~~jg
::!:::cc
=> 0 0
::;;00
~
::l
~
~
'"
W
..
r9~
0",
o -
wa>
w-
<(U>
Q)J-l
_ C
go 5
__ z.\:
0..
c-
.. c
u..1'lt;
&~jg
-occ
'C 0 0
moo
'"
Q
.;,
~
~
..
.;;
.. e
,s ~
s.g
" c
~ =>
o.e
~ "
.s ~
"'.!!
c 0.
:i2 Ql
o 0
.f!~
......
~
"'"
..-;
;: 0
$~
" ..
'C:;
e'C
.a:g
oil'C
" c
- "
" l;
-0 0
~ C
e 0
Ql:e
.0 8-
'j ~
"
W
-
o
..
'0' E
~ ..
0._
.. 0
::~
"
'"
l!!
o
::;;
c
8
c
:>
00
-0
CO
"0
Eo
COO
"'u>
'roJ-l
.. 0
"'8
'C'C
~S
'" "
N ,~
.~ tl
OUJ
~
Z
"'",
100
",ii;
_ 0
..
~
"
:J:
.,
o
o
Ul
,..
N
.;,
'"
~
'"
..
oS-ci
_ w
"'"
- .!a
'Ql:i5
2!j!!
Ci5m
c e
e"
u..",
o'&'
'Co.
C"
.. E
"''C
5 c
0"
~ ID
=~
16 =>
E':>,
.. "
:c ~
Ko
..:E
"'''' .
(lJ .;:: "
.S Q) "0
~ .S ~
'Oli5c
.. 0 0
oS~
x
'"
-
c
'3: ~
t; ..
.. 0
.- "
e ..
c.o
.!as:
;':::;;
l!l
c
..
E
~
e
0.
E
c
'il!
o
E
o
U5
'C
.~
jj
S
o
:c
....
g!t)
o ..
E 'f'
e...
.9-0
w"
-ge
.2 0
<( w
::;; 8
UJ "
u.. ..
"''''
c-
~-~
3l'O
.!a .5' ,;
",WI!
08~
i*ce
t'O) .!!
E.o c
8'~ ~
~l'll!
~ Q) 'E
a>~~
~ .S '*
U).;;'O
C'3: oCt:
,Q '0 :E
l6sw
c ~'w IL
~ U 0:=
:::I ~ arc
o fh"C :::I
,!! -g ~ ~
t)(lJfh.c
Cb ~ ~ Co
2l!:!~Cf1
a.. Q) ,_
~
Z
~:?
~z
",'"
c~
a>",
~
"
.;;
'C
o
.5
~
'C
"
o
'"
w
o
8
:t
c
'w
"
!ll
c
o
'"
c
*
o
c
g,
c
"
o
'"
c
o
-'
=
'"
~
;:
...
N 1O~
~~~I-
c: a...... ~
Q) E N ~
"8-c
.!u"c(\J
Q) (lJ,Q)"")
.D 0 ~ ,S
,~ :: .5: '0
EQ)(lJ~
~~ m'E
(\Jc.5:.D
O~'Oiiil
,g Q) (\J Q)
U!E.b..o
c:cc=
(\J 0 8'-
'" E ~
C Q) 5~.c
O.D'-='~
Q) _ m'O (lJ
c='O~::E
.!!:f.5:fhU>"
I C'- fh "t:
-E,.~ ~ <( m
~ -g -o..c C
,;:; E Q) - ,-
oSQ)-g~-g
(ij a. Q) Q)-
c~C:oSt
._Q Ul Q) E
-- -c..o g
:gffi:=;:~8
(lJ-.5:0Q)
cQ)3:.5:..o
-6~ii:.9.9
-g~(ij-g2
:=;:...!..g'Ou
.5: Q):;:::; Q) ~
'OoS:oBo~
Q) '0 '0 ""-
'O'c (lJ o..!a
C. -6 g Cl a,
,!a (\J ;n::2:,w
~&;S~~
~
Z
~
Z
';fl.1O
"'~
--
c
m
....
"
-'
~ ~
~~
"
::e
o
c
.2
B
'"
'6
o
::;;
c
"
'6
..
::;;
'C
"
o
'"
"
'E
~
-.;
o
o
-li
c
12
...
o
...
o
~
..
o
,;,
o
~
-g~
"0
'C"-
~ .!a
"'UJ
.~ cg
E...
.e_
= Ul
~~
o '(i ,
13.S ~
ffi.rs~
"'c~
c ~ "
$~ii
~_..
..ou..
~ c,S
,,"'C
o E ..
"'816
N (\J.g.
.~ Ci..2
Cl 2!"E
S ~~
~:cffi
:C.=!E
" 0 ..
'" c w
2!~13
'3: e~
t;~<(
Q)S .
'2' m *
0.13 Ci.
.!a C E
n=8
'C
'"
N
"
is
'"
e
",
o
o
'"
>-
u..
'"
e
...
.0
"
'"
..
'"
c
..
E
..
>
"
0..
-" ...
c ~oS~
(lJ 2! '0' .5: OJ
(j)~a.'~:6
g! !!!.'~ 2! R.9
O(\J_....(:)Ul
Q):g6!(\JC
OJ a."'" t:: _ 0
:ge"E.a&ti
..0 a. =' 0 '0 ~
~Q)o:--,g~
'_2!E~>-.., ..
.DJ:(\J-c...._
~~-g3"C~
_a.g'Ql~[iju
g "E.g.s 'O:g,
NQ),g2'~U)
, Ul (\J e Q)
~ Ul ~ a:: 0.,2
.... (lJ _ = fh 0
~.5: -c (lJ:2 >
(lJ8:gCD~~
[ij 0:: ~.~ 0 ~
_c..oo.$.c
0<( Q)'W Ul U
g cr.i m.!a 8:2
:;::I ..5: E (\J .5:
UJ:_E'- ~
.5'1ii~ 8 C.. t;
Ul t: - _.!!!,
C(\JUlCDOe
8 a.t).S 0.0.
Q)~8,s-g-g .
oSO'O~(lJ"C::
Ul .... Q) Q) Ul C (\J
Q)m-g"Eg!.aQ)
-gCTI~~Z.(3
g~'S'-Ee~
.- Q) <( ~Q) Q) j!!
'00 O.:!::'Oc
Q) -ci ~ (\J .g? Q)
'~:B~~~(\J~
a.2'Effil!:!.!ae
~"5i.g5'~~'~
t-(!)UlO(\JI-Q)
~
Z
~
Z
';f!.CQ
"'~
"'",
';f!.CQ
",~
~
m
.;;
-0
o
.5
~
"
-'
8 ~
~ ....0
..
"
::e
o
'6
2
"
..
C9
1'l
c
"
<fJ
~
o
..
'"
'C
~
..
"
(;'
iii
'2
"
-
0~
~ $
.. ~
0..0
'"
o
,;,
~
-
-
,;,
o
~
..
"EoS
~mo
cD Q) C ~
.;; 0)'0 0
o~~~
CL~g~
~~;~
-;;~ g'ffi
B 0 0.(3
tim-g.s
e1ii~1O
o..3:~g
"EQ)cN
Q) .c (\J 0'
E -~ 13 Q)
Q)ii"'Q)Cl
go.. oS .S
[ij ~ ~ B
~(j)El!:!
tj-'wo.
Q) c Q)':':: .
lJJ(\J"COO)
Q) 0:: ~.s,~
oS alJJ g.s
g:g 0 ~"E
'C Q) 0 Q) 8
.9>S:EUl
fh l!:'! 0:: -'-
l!:'!o..Q)E-fi
mgoSsCa
'O;-CcQ)
=' =' c .- Ul
go~~2!
.- a.. a.. ' (ij
t)"'::2:~E
"SO""
'."., (\J 0.-
e~~",E
a. E "t:.
.!a 6 l: 0 -c
~Ci5i5:c%~
~
Z
';f!.(Q
",~
"
-'
~~
~ ....0
..
"
::e
"
>
o
E
..
'"
ijj
0;
c
c
"
'"
o
'"
"
0..
w
"
o
c%-g
ffi~
"'c
m .Q
"'16
:!2~
" ..
50l
"'..
...
-
,;,
o
~
co
o
'"
~
o
<fJ
0..
:s:
...
IL
o
It)
w
~
D..
I-
W
W
:I:
t/)
t/)
t/)
w
a::
C)
o
a::
ll..
~
a::
o
:s:
>-
~~
::JI-
OZ
wO
:!::!:
w,
I-t/)
LL.I-
00
~~
o~
ll..
t/)
I-
Z
w
:!:
w
>
o
a::
ll..
:!:
....I
<I:
I-
~
o
CD
o
o
~
N
....
-
....
o
~
ro ~ .~ t:
~ ~]i~
"'0 I-Q)..!lo::
~'(ij ~ -0..0
:gli; ~-gg~~
-g-g ONe :u
__:3 ~'~8ai>
(/)'0 L..:82Q)~
55 ffi ff :J ~.o 0
Ern"' ma:::.....~J:
Ql Q) 't: C) ~ m cO
>..r:::: ::::l.S co..r:::: 0
eO. ~ Cf.I = fh ~;:::
~~mo~
.~~ aCU"'ON
IDg. ~;~~~
Q) .t:_..o
; ~ ..... g'"'ffi Q)"C
c: ttl .5:c"'C ~ jg
8;: . U)-tJ) r:::
",~~-G'E~-g'~
~{5:;:r~~q;.2:tJ)
'C.~ ca.o~
(lJ1h...-Olo>.>m
> (p 0 c::;:::; I-.f: .
B:g-gmm~~~
co 0)1:) cn.sw:!t~
g.~8..~Q)cr-g~
'-oxe>>"C-o"""
t; Q) .S 1: ~~-g
.,:.!a ffi Q) :J 0 ts
Q)~B~~U;'ti&~
>:::::I:pU>o>Oxo
~C)lSm~m~Q)N
e -g ":5 -g ro fjp...:.!!! :>.
ro..c13_a,[o5~
~~_S~~cti~=
U"O ts lii ' x.1::! 1:
'~.:ijjj'~Ec~o::l
KmIl5KB'~:5:=5~
I/) ;::.!:: (/) l!! '3 m Ct:I (/)
:2~~:2a.Ee~o
!-(I)"Ul-eWro..cr::::
1'!
'"
~
19co~
'c Q) ctI
-5E~~
.lB ffl 0 .~
~~l~
Em W f!!
cUc~
eti.Q)(3 :i
.- ::I II) Q)
E: 8 ~ <5"S:
Q) c:( . ':;; e
-g-g~Jg-g
ro m.a.- (\l
l1 >>(J) E II)
~:a~~~
E Cf.l Q) Q) 1ij
gE~Qio
Olro 0 3: 0
~O'3; 15 ~
"(i5.: tTI g.~
~ <C _ 0::'-
-Q)~rnli
o-s,zro:J
c"'O ro 0 (/)
ill Q) z.... (I)
E > - Q) ctl
a.2am3:
.Q&:a.~~
%:,ro~E.a
~~oo~
~~.~U5!E
::lm...."'O~
:EO~ffil-
c u:i co ."'0
8.~-o,*.m
~"C_Q)>
u~~~&
:5 .S e
>,o-e<cg:5E
:;::; >. 0 $: Q) L..
8ffig-G:ar~~
e.5"~~-g~(J)
t) g.-S 8.~ Clo~
-2.woe~.9<<l
(J) E.... _ a. a.
<<l o~ Q)::J E
~80-.c-8
>-_ 0_ 0 W
~-oooo_(J)~
o C'<tc....c:=
w-g~g,*$~
j!:::;~~a.~1l)
en 0 <<la."O<<lE
(I) _!t ~ e"3.c: e
8.oa.a.OCl-
eii::ew3:~5
a.(J) a.-S ~ W:;::; E'
(J):C ro..c: m W <<l
cl-"O:<:.EEE~
jg-riw3:ro<(.e:::
_Q)_2:a.O -co
ro-oWw -g'l---
OW O.c: co __ ~In
Q)~eot)ffi=e
-S_!:2lQ~~ a.'5~
.c: .c:____E"O_
~_!:2~008~E
e ~-13 ~.9 ~-Q) e
..c:<<lw--o=O-
~ffi..c:~:!~e~
c -I- (J) -- In In 3::
os; <<l - -- E ::J ro
o~~E.oo.c:~
E">:s K~-f5~~
_!:2 <<l w In In > 00
o~E~~E~5
o~_ (I) In Q) 3:: 1-:;::;
e-o:::lCC>Clen<<l
a.~_Q@~_5=E
w:;::; >.:!:: 0 ro.!!! 0
j!: g ~8 [~~ F
",
Q
<D
.c
u
~ ~
os; lL
_ C
NO",
o!:2_C-ii)
oO=w
wlL3::-o
-S~5~
~:::-~ I-
3::e>O
~c~~
108-00::
:5"8ffi~
O.Q5~
8lL~<(
wroB(/)
.DO).Q::::>
.9 o~ g>s
-g ~ -ii)-O
w- In Q)
C 0 e a,
= ~~ Oii)
3::u.c~
5 ~ t-:_!:2
~--c
f3..c: UJ"_
0~0 lQ
-3:<(.0
C> C (/) C
-ffig2g
e -~ ~ S
O"EQ)wr---:
w 0"5 -0 0
-S 8 g> w 0
_ w-SN
0-g_=:Q
5<<lOcE
~ 5 e.~_5
-5-~8~~
E ~ .--
wx>'E[
w UJ E W-13
-0-0<(0):;::;
wro-o-offi
j!: ~ ffi ~ 0!:2
...
o
o
~
<D
o
o
01
~
.c
f-
~
Z
",
Q
'"
1i
~
-e-
o.
~
~
Z
~
Z
~
Z
~
Z
~
Z
~
Z
", iD <D ... ... ", ... ", <D
0 0 ", 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ...
0 0 '" M 0 OJ 0 it;
... !:i '" OJ ... .. ~
0 0 0
~ j ~ - ~ - ~ ,.,
~ ~. '"
; ~ .;; C :El!! C :El!! ~ ~. '"
u C ~ .., g ,!2'c( g ,!;!)c( C m ~. '"
~ 0 .c ~ .c '" " ~. '"
'" m 0 .:! Ol~ m "'; f- = ~. '"
'>,f- .E '" ~. '"
m ~ J!~ m E 0 ~. '"
3: ,,<( u ~. '"
:;; U)
m '"
~ lI:!: "5 d!
<( .., o C 2
C ~
~ '" ~
~ -o-o..c:- $ C
'" C -- - w ~
C s~rolQ 00 E
.c ~
.., "in ~
00 .D-O~.c: .c ~
&l e -SCWll. u
~ :::l ro.. e . C
~ ji: 0.
<ri' '" o wOo. J;
0 C <D ~- (/) C (J) E
0 '" '" >"'0 Ej:c@ C
N .c o~ 00.0 ~ ,.,
~ o - 1O:eCt'i .~ "'~5 ~ '"
.;, "'" ~ ~
j!i ...'" "';"o~ 2
0 ..... - '" ..,
0 E '" - 0. - c:= W ~ :~ '"
N >'&0; >.-xc:l-g '" &
~ j!i <ri'~ <<l:::l <<l:::l ~--' E
N '" 0
m -'" ci ~ - - 3:: <t.: - 0 ~~ ~ C
13 E ",..C ~u~ -c c ffi ~ 'in g
(ijo~~ 'C ()
~ ~ ~Cl"E roo(/)_ "'00 '" ~
"e- 5 ll.""o a..l:e"" :::l "0 C
t: C ~ ,., a. .c ~:@ ~ aJ .c ~1!! ~ 0
a. (f) 0:;::; E ~ a)"~ .~ ~ il 0.
'" a."S-O ro~~~z CJ 0
Oi I"- ~ 00 C ro ClZ ()~ 10 C ()
~ 0: 0: C ~ >ffi~ > 0 c>t) ~ 19 E
(f) cnt)oE ~ ~ -
.c.c" -fi~:g~= ~ ~ en 0 C
'" _ wO <<l g~@ ceftlg@ OE ~ 1-.- '"
5 ll)"olLlL ..,
..--....moo e.s!o ~~:6~~ ~ C .., 'S
0; 'a.a:::o:: u..C::;; ::;; '" <5 CJ
<0
S = = 0
N
~
;;
(f)
a.
01 q .. - :s:
'T 0 ';'
<D ... ..i- N
~ 0 ~ 0
;:: ~
0. 0. '" '"
.....
u..
o
CD
w
~
0.
I-
W
W
:I:
If)
If)
If)
W
0::
C)
o
0::
D..
~
0::
o
s:
>-
:5~
:)1-
OZ
wO
:2E:2E
w,
I-lf)
11..1-
00
>-w
!::(3
00::
D..
If)
I-
Z
w
:2E
w
>
o
0::
D..
:2E
..J
~
~
o
CD
o
o
~
N
~
-
~
o
...
C>
C>
'l'
..
C>
C>
..
~
'i'i
"
~E
-0"";
~t)8
g>:g~
:1a e g
" a...
.. a.",
-Ei Cll 0
.. U -
~u."
,eUro
-cOC&
~ ~ Q)
~cE
~ ~ en
Co:2 -a
g> II q)
"Q) m~
.0..",
i'?.o ~
....10
~>",
~~ ,g
J.li!m:2
u...o
[~ 18
:g :rl "15
.o~~
Z-O:i
~.ffi~
.E ~.~
Croz-
~ aj'u
~ g. m
Q)QjE
iiiii;13
CI)-o.E
15
~
."
<0
."
~
<0
C.
~
~
U)
~
z
,e
.
'"
u
j
..
..
"'
~
.l!l
U)
Cl
u.
U
~
'"
~
..
a.
'5
'"
..
'l'
..
C>
;:
C.
~
z
,e
.
..
j ~
~
~m
~ c
mc
,,<
~
-:0
,~Cii
..
&
..
'"
~
';~
:u ~
:$ a:
',:.5 Q)
"..c ~
;:5 c
1,0 'e
;~ 0
!;:,~ 2
iC (/)
R ~
:13: Q)
),0 "0
'::0>> .-
c~" !.
~.:,'~ C3
,;
<0
C
o
a.
10
o
c.
,.,
..
E
" ..
.. '"
~"
8.:g
e ~
a.:c
..-
-S<U
~~
0-
1: ~
"'0
= ..c:
~ ..
uro
..,s
"Q'Q)
a.~
~ ..
;5-fi
'0$
~ ~
- -
'C >.
.. <0
E'(U
..> .
-5-5~
.~ ai:2
~u:~
> ~-
~ J2 .S
.!Q 15 "0
'" a."
m .. >
~"'o
~ >. ~
.",,~
<112m
"''''.0
;1).9
g..~ Q)
~ 0 >
00:j'g
~
z
...
,e"
&,e
",:g
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..
~
o
f!?"
~*
,,;~
- ~
-'-w
ro r3
"'.<;
~ -
.~ ~,g
:s! ~o
$,:06
vOR
"''''' ..
:gQ)U:j
co-gt>
:6a8
~~.Q
~~g
S-Ut5
~ ~ ~
ro"C 0
"'IOU
'"
'l'
C>
C>
~
~
z
,.,
~
..
"
'Ii
u
U)
on
-
.;
C>
~
~
o
~
o
If
fr1
;.;;;
i
>-
~
~
....
:x:
C)
it
"
~
..
'"
~
.~
~
e
~
~(?
OlL
ont
'70
-a.
~&
~tl
~ ..
~'e'
,.,lL
~ ai
"",
> ~
~~
g e
~2
u. ~
"
c
..
E
~
e
"S;
~
..
;;;
"
..
a.
e
a.
'0",
<00
,,0
~N
~ .[
l'! a.
..",
~:2
o E
tl .S
l!I"
~ ..
8~
.9 ~
15 ..
~tl
<( ..
~'e
"a.
u. 0
,.,~
.0 <0
~ g
~ ~
"S; ro
" ..
<(0
Ec
.gQ)
'<tQ)~
~ '" ~
o ~ ..
~ .. ..
~-5o
.~.~ ~
g 5--0
ro l!!.Ul
l!!JQ in'
~ ~ ~
.0..",
1l a...
c:~~
~:UO
..~'"
.5!!"e .1::
~ :5:~
s ro:S:
ffig (II
E" ~
~ .. ..
e"O E
.~.~ ~
Q) 0. ~
i i~
~1ij ~
m .. c
E""
sB~
Ci:em
",a...
~ ~ ~
~n
3:.!!l"C
~ ~ E
tiS l!~
~
z
~
z
o
."
o
:c
U
e
..
u
,.,
..
~
0;
lL
..
'"
~
..
~
u
..
lL
:;:
N
C>
~
0.
" '"
o ....
ro "C :;:JQ:lCll
....15. Q) L.. ~ c: W
.., ~.e aCe)
~~m ~~~~~~
~~~~ ~'~ffi~gfu
0-0 Q)&:a.5~z
o Q) C>> ro ro EO 0:::
::::J;:!'O ro C)Q)"O Q)O
CalQ) w.S.oc.s::.1-
mtEE Ein.9~"'~
Q) Q) 0 2.s::. z;. c 5 >-
~ii ~~~~m5
..... - .... c Ul._ .
Ul=Q) !?~alm"55:g
.~.3:i .=c3:Q)o.o
2:~ .9 & Q) C 0. e N
<(.iij Ul C ~ 2 ~ c."':
oQial oE.~~~i3
~.;:;: 0) ~ Q) g c -c ....
o 0::: ~ al tr.I tr.I al Q) ~
:~oo C)o..~7:Q)
:fiz;.~ .SEtr.le~'Oa.:
ocm B~m~=~<3
o5e Q):!.SC'OC<(
Q)O?'> a..=tr.I~cOI-
0..... 3:::::J o;o::i 0
;o::i= C 6 >-~'2.iij~W
0.3:0.-Q)-COUlC-'
Z...:tl rnEQ)om::::JO
-g~~"O Eg~~~tf[
roE"OQ) Q)roQ)Oo.Q)LL
~~~B-gEC.:5~g>O
.;:;: ~15:a 8 E~.3:.;:;:wz
Bo.~~ ..ffiLLtr.lBEQ
Q)eOQ)~~1301!S6~.mtiJ
C)~8~~ lij==~z.m--l
~ ro::':'~Ul.2 -5~~:gt55:~
g>':alg-~Ogg~~-go
ro <( 3: E o.Z C)C)cl- alO
o
."
o
:c
u
e
..
u
o
."
o
:c
u
e
..
o
o
."
o
:c
u
e
..
u
Cl
u.
U
~
'"
~
..
a.
.~
o
'"
"
..
&.
..
'"
l!I
'"
"
"
'E
jg
~
10
c
..
E
~
.2'
"
..
'"
N
..
i5
,
'"
~
0.
'"
o
1;1
fil
u
....
'1
on
'"
~
0.
"
2
~
..
~
0'
i'?
~
..
..
.0
~
..
~
'"
o
~
~
.c
"
.2
o
~
~
..
E
..
;S
i!?
c
~
CJ
B
c
..
~
~
o
~
E
.e
.5
,.,
~ 0 ~
~UlEQ)
Q) ~.2> 3:
"Of"-.....co
~6~r;;
S'"c 2.2
tr.I ::l.- c
c C):g::l
8Cal-c
Q) .Q 0 lij
.o"~
c>-e.~
~~.ec
Ul-ce~
;... al Q) 0
cl:2.s::.
c-c:;;E
Q) Q) C 0 Ul
o C al,J::.~
C)~ _ C Q)
6.3: in':fi5
(ijQ)~::::J~
-g:5roti~
l:2-g~8a..
~~g...g-
c5i~.E~
~E-m.s::.
3: Q) >-"C (0
-c~~cf"-.
c Q)..... Q) 6
~~~'O"c
(ij..Q~E:)
3: Ul"C 0)":
g>g>g>if ~
.c:p:P"3:
19.~.~~o
e~~~-5
3:~~Q)m
Q)......;o
c.s.s.- ::::
~E E in'~
I- 3: 3: 3: Ul
<(
o
."
o
:c
u
e
..
u
..
."
'C
"'
u
:;;
."
.;;
..
c
~
..
~
~
..
a.
e
a.
i
c
..
U
~
.2
~
~
"
W
~
2
l!I
f!?
2
.<;
B
c
e
u.
'"
~
'2
..
"
~
'"
&!
'"
.
~
~
is
~
'"
C>
~
B
f!?
..
~
~
~
..
a.
e
a.
,s
'j;
"'~
~ 0
:gu
~S
~
:,,::c
'" 8
1:5 Qi
..'"
~ ..
0"
:pc
u ..
E'"
~ ~
c .C
8-il
~ ~
.e~
",1l
_ u
~ ..
W ~
'O~
E;
~rg
" 0
i'? E
.. E
0.0
i'? 8
lL..
"0
."
~ l!
0"'
e
e ::::J
.. ..
U-'
'"
~
'2
..
"
'j;
."
..
&.
..
.0
~
..
lL
(0
o
'"
~
o
en
0-
;?:
....'"
o
ll..0
O~
N
....~
-
~
o
w
~
I-
W
W
:I:
o
o
o
w
II::
C)
o
II::
ll..
~
II::
~
>-
~i!
:;)1-
OZ
wO
:!::!:
w,
1-0
u..1-
00
~~
O~
ll..
o
I-
Z
w
:!:
w
~
II::
ll..
:!:
...I
~
ii:
<C
o
,,;
u
~
"e-
"-
w
~
.9
Ii;
>
:!!;
z
'"
c
'0
'"
c
o
~
~
~
C
.~
'5
...,
"0
C
~
]i!
~
"0
~
u..
'"
c
.~ .~
~ ell ';
e"E (/)
c. ~ 0
"0 E c.
c: (1)::;
ctI ~ 0...
. ~
0>.0 '3
.!:: E :?::
ro '(5 ~
~~ ~
C:~ 0
'" ~ '"
eLL 15
:g ~ "E
'" '" ~
~Ci5::::E
o
~
.2
:.
>
"0
ffi 15
w c
fij ~
n: ~ ~
(ij l!! ~
C ::I e
~ E n
~ .~ "g
S -; u
W '" _2
c: @ en
~ :s 5
J2 g'l 0
'D ~ c::
~ OJ 0
e e ts
0. a. .E
c. "0 W
<<l ~ C
c ~ 0
~ c. 0
~ ~ui~
fIl a.~.a
CIl ui <(.- ::I
J:U):s;:2:I
.c ~ I m <3
~ K '1ii ~O
~ c: c:"C 0
"g"4) ~:R;
:5 (ij Cij .~~
<((I)()c"-
.... :5 't5 Q) ~
.E:p......[:-m
tl~:6~o
~ n Eke g
0" Q) ~= c:
~c%;:~8
:!!;
z
:!!;
z
~
~
~
c
.~
'5
...,
....
"I
:;
3:
..
"0
I!!
'"
c.
I!!
"-
,,;
W
~.E
e.g
c.c
c ~
.- E
5 I"
U ~
,Eoo
W on
c c
8g
."iij
50
tic>
.E:E
W c
c ~
8@
E<(
~o
'3 c
"' 0
-:! :~
l:t:i5
.g ~
"02
~ W .
~.~~
~ 'a ~
'Owl!!
~ :g :J
_~.c
c '" E
8 ~~
:!!;
z
:!!;
z
:!!;
z
:!!;
z
~
..
~
~
c
.~
'5
...,
~
~
~
c
.~
'5
...,
W
E
~
E
~
e
c.
.s
"
~
rfJ
>-
~
'"
"-
'"
'"
c
'"
~
o
~
"-
~ -~
o c: ctI Q)
-g .Q c ~
"ffi ~ ~o
I/J a:: :s ffi .~
-g ~ ell 00.
:JC ..c 3:E
u. ll) Q) 0 w
-E 0:: .0-
(J)B c6 c:<<l
~.!2 C &~
- a. Q) . 0
~ti. E 1:: 0:::
'* ~ f! Q)-
me. ~ E~
c: .Q Q) ~ c6
0""" 0::: _ roo:.::
~ ~ Q) 0::: c..<1l
_;;~"O~~&~
E c Cll'C _ 0
= =!i. mI.-
W.- >-E&~
"'C !!! c: m co L.. c:
L.. -0 0 3: .... CD ro
~ .... >-..c O"E ..c
(\] ~ ffi .2> e ro g
IGOID..ma..
~
~
..
'"
~
..
~
..
~
'"
q
~
o
~
on
o
o
N
W
~
~
0-
:"O~
~ffi.s
~.B ~~
o C In c:
j9(1),a
g>.!a B 0::
"2 g'l ~ gj
.5 <( c::r:
Ol(ij 0 c:i
~O~S N
ro.3 c ~ :6
~.E~~ ~
- (J)::I a EI9"
B"E g (0 '0
.~ Q) '0 a
u.. E- ~ E
S: E ~ ::I
Q) 8 to:.!: E
~C)-g5 :
:5.!:: rou oS
c: g'l S: 2
.- Q) Q)...... .!::
~ -c'~ ~ 'D
E~.::8 ~
E >oS:5 C'll
lt~m.~ 3= vi
o ~ E"C C'll U)
5. :; I: Q) m ~
U) o.g ~ Q) e
.-~>e ~a.
~C'llma. C'lll:
.0'Q)-5.9 ~.;;
5.~.3: g . I: S
o::~C)+::g:gE
~'6.g.lSq.2~
:r: I:.!: g~ 00 Q)
.....2"E-5~~m
8.a8~~Cf.I8
:!!;
Z
:!!;
Z
:!!;
Z
:!!;
Z
~
~
~
C
.~
'5
...,
~
~
~
..
c
.!l!
'5
...,
c
o
~
:ciQ)
"'0>
~:g
0::",
"""
"E ~
~i'ii
E c
1l 'ffi
.!'!::!;
c.
~ '
0::_
~~
:gID
di;S
>-E
~ ~
~O>
.2l e
:1:"-
W
'C
~
t:
, ~
ECJ
I"l!!
g> ~ "E
O::~o Ql
o ~ ~ ~
000 a
13 Q) 00 ~
00 OLI: ..c:
.9~f.TI
W _ c
S~~~
g{j'~~
r! .- (lJ 0
Ql ~..c: a.
'to ~ C) :g
Cf.IE.9~
w~~~
fI:!-g~w
000...01-
on
'T
'"
o.
3:
..
"0
C
'"
.W
"-
u.
0::
S 0.9 (5 .!!! lD
(lJ .... "0 I: -
j~ I g~m .gm
:C.2$ E ~i~ -o~g
g: 19 I: Ql 8 J;:: ..... 0.
~~~ cil~ ~C~ .s~
*1L~ .!:-ci ~m!p.. ~2!
Ql > -0 .=:: Ql 1..0.2 ....J co
132C'll ~~ ~~; g~
.!:&~ ....E .scQl ~Ql
SC'll'6 J2co .3:Ql~ Qlo5
~~~ s2! -g~= ~g-ci
.....0 w ~ C'll i!:.c ~ I: "C Q)
J2U)1- .e-g E:g.s co~.=::
~~~ 0.10 ~-g ~.!!!~
3-g: 0..."R 5"C- :g~~
u......Q) ()::I-ciogm o..oQ)
~e1ii :OlQ)eon '2offi
~~~ ~"~~~~.8 gi~
.Q.QCii "E.~g.om= ....05205
-- E.......>-ch.:;: _....(/l
lDm~ v....c~> c-
- (j ~ 8::1 1:..... "C,u
~!EI: ococoEQ):g. QlO....
5'52"0::1 U)m I: 1iiSS
ill m19 ~ .!:-g E~"E..Q ~.(j) B-
I-IDo "E"E3=2-.:l::mo.cE
....1- Q)8.~;;:O.S.Em~8
J2Qo' l::: Q)"'QlOi!.o:>;:>O
... ::I'!!! ....:;; E (/l ::I ;:>0 U) Q)
I:.co 0 ~0l5.0<( (/l m-.~o5
.Qoo oe.!:Q)Cf.Il1.io<<lc3o
'5 C) g ..0 Q) ::I ..... Q)..o -
=..l:C\I ~,::.oo:Ot$~E~..l:_Q):;:
a."e - ":>v. E'-W....
9-Z0U;o. jll g.!! ~.!!!. -"0 I: ~
'v _._<<I>0_Q)U)0Q)
"E~-g~ Q)'5.!!!.ifil5..~o5 ~Q)"E
C'll mai::l,=I:9.U).O'1Oo:EQ)
C>>~Ql..-,E=o""::I,," Oco
.... "'5 ::I ..- C .0._ .... 0 a. Q) <( - Ol
::I 0'". Q) ti ~.C Q) I: 'C'll>-.!:
O~ ~;.;8~mo ~o5.g ~ co~
'0
~
-,;
8!
:!!;
z
:!!;
Z
~ ~
Z Z
:!!;
Z
:!!;
Z
:!!;
Z
'"
c
:!; '0
z r;r>
c
o
'"
c
'0
r;r>
c
o
'"
c
'0
r;r>
c
o
:!!;
z
~
~
~
'"
c
.!l!
'5
...,
~jl
c ~"'
.9:1 GI
'5 E l!
...,<("
'"
'"
I"
"'
I"
~
~
..J
~
"
~
'"
C
.~
'5
...,
.,.
.,.
.,.
.,.
.,.
.,.
~ ~
J2 J2
'" W
c c
.Q 0
~ 'C
"" c
'0 0
~ 0
c.
C/) .S
~ 'l'
.s W
'0 <(
co -g
E 'ai
(/lJ2 r!
.9lQ) .9t$
i.i: -5 U) Q)
o ~ ~.e
.!!!. :e ll.. 0...
2 <<I S Q)-
ll.."O 010 I:
ll..~.""'e~"01l
_..... 0. Q)
C) 00 a.::> 0::
c
o
'i'j
~
Q;
rfJ
c
l!!
'3
W
c
o
o
~
";'
..
o
3:
..
CD
o
'"
~
o
rfJ
ll.
;;':
'"
~
.2
~
o
~
o
'C
..
>
o
~
o
'C
'"
>
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
d:>1~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
December 1, 2005
Monthly Activity Report - November, 2005
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel
for the month of November, 2005:
I. SIGNS
II. TREES
A.
B.
C.
Total signs replaced
Total signs installed
Total signs repaired
154
4
11
A.
Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns
5
III. ASPHALT REPAIRS
A.. Total square feet of A. C. repairs
B. Total Tons
6.215
45
A.
N. CATCH BASINS
Total catch basins cleaned
234
A.
V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
2,000
VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A.
B.
Total locations
60
11,410
Total S.P.
VII. STENCILING
A. 353 New and repainted legends
B. .......:!!:. L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
R:\MAINTAIN\MOACfRPT\05.06\
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to ...l!L service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming,
sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings, This is compared to ~ service order requests
for the month of October. 2005.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 99 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and
response to street emergencies.
The total cost for Street Maintenance perrormed by Contractors for the month of November. 2005 was $19.655.00
compared to $147.427.00 for the month of October. 2005.
Account No. 5402
Account No. 5401
Account No. 999-5402
$ 19,655.00
$
$
cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
AIi Moghadam, Senior Engineer (Traffic)
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development)
R:\MAINT AIN\MOACTRPT'I05.06\
~. ;~ CD 0 0 '" 0 0 ~ 0 CD '" ~ 1;>l ... 0 '" '" '"
0 0 0 CO<! 0 0 ... 0 ": .... '" "i 0 ... '" CD
;o.!;; ~ .; .,; ~ .,; .,; cO .,; ~ cO .; lli ~ .,; ~ 0; 0;
w ~ .,. '" '" '" CD 0 ... ... CD '" .,. CD CD
(.)i;5 :>-'i ~ '" ... CD ... '" '" CD 0 CD "t ~ CD q '"
(:;i;o.: ~ ~ uS ,.: uS uS 0 uS '" 1i .... ~ uS 0 ~ oi
CD .,. CD ~ '" '" .,. .,. ,. .... .,. .... .,. 0
" ~ .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. '" .,. q
'851; III .,. .,. ~
.,.. u: .,.
"';~ CD 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 CD 0 '" 0 '" 0 .... 0 CD
:(1)",::.::'::':'" .... '" 0 0 0 0 CD 0 "! 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '"
o!ll,w cO .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; ,..: .,; ~ .,; 0; ,..: ... .,; ... .,; ..;
p.:l::..). '" '" .,. .,. CD '" .... 0 CD .... '" 1;>l ~ .,. :e 0 '"
:ii!L:ii~ ~ CD ~ CD '" '" '" .... '" m CD ~
,.: oi .; ,.: oi ar .. .; <t 0 ~ .,. ~
CD '" ~ ~ .,. .,. .,. ... '" ....
.....Cl" .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. ~ .,. '"
O:'.:.LL.:'(I) .,. .,.
~""'U::
0.:
.0'"
",9
~"o
(I),':w
iOo
".
0
w
s:::~.:.1I)
o::.>~::::t:::!:
0.'"'.0
;;;"'w
:!o
0
"
"' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 '" 0 '"
0<: "' 0 0 0 0 0 "! 0 CD '" '" '" 0 CD 0 '"
,; .,; .,; .,; ... .,; .,; ..; ,..: ,..: ,..: .,; lli .,; ..
0 '" "' ~
0 "" .,. .,. .,. 1;>l 0 ~ l'l ... .... CD ~ .,. '" 0
LL .... CD .,. "!. '" ~ '" '" CD
!;; ~ :2 ~ ..... .; .,. ~ ",' .,. .; .,. .;
~ .,. .,. '" .,. .,. ....
0 Z .,. .,.
"
'" '" 0 0 0 '" '" '" 0 '" '" 0 ... 0
0 ~ '" '" '" CD '" '" ... 0
w '" '" ~ "t '" 0
~ I- '" uS ~ '"
0<: w 0 ~
~ '"' ~ I
'"
:! Z
0
"
L"g" 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 CD .... .... 0 ": 0 '" 0 '"
I%~ .; .,; .,; .,; cO .,; cO .,; ,..: .,; .; ,..: ~ .,; .; .,; .;
... .,. .,. .,. ~ '" III 0 CD '" .... '" CD .,. CD '" CD
CD "!. .... '" ~ CD ~ '" '" ~ ~ 0
,.: ~ uS ~ .,. .,. ",' ,.: ,.: .,. ~ .,. ar
~ .,. .,. ~ .,. ~ ~ ....
.,. .,. ~ .,. ~
iL .,. .,.
jiLt; ,; l::! 0 0 0 0 .... '" CD '" CD '" '" .... '" 0
li~~ '" '" ~ '" 0 ~ '" '" '"
.... '" ~ ... '" '" CD
.. ..
IT. {~~
ILi; it;
;,; in ;,; in ;;; ;.: ;;; ;.: ;,; 1ii in in
'" c '" 'E ." 0 ." 0 '" 0 c a;
J! {!. 0<: JJ '" '" co 'iij
...'jj ~ >= " co .!l co '0 u c
0 10 '"' '"' co c
0 0 co 0 0 '" co
...... LL W LL " iJj :! :! LL W .c
e 0<: e u e :i: u
~ 0<: '" 0 iJj
co co Z co 0
0<: " w " w " w !;; iJj ,:;
~ '" ~ '" '" '"' W I- Z
III III ,:; Cl III U :! w ::> w
::> w III :! ::> 0 :!
w '"' a
LL Cl w '"' ii: '"' w
0 Cl w w
'" LL I- 0<: ~ !:c
Z 0 0 Z
W '" !if ~ :i: III 0<: :!1
'" 0<: w w w
0 w Z ~ '"' w W III
::> ~ :l:: 0
U ~ U Z ~ " 0<: 0<: 0<: 0
III :; '" I- 0 ::> w
. ~ w 0 w
~ ~ Cl w w ~ ~ w S:
;'.';; Z III 0<: ~ III W :l:: III
::> ii: ::> u
:l:: S: ii: 0 III III ~ Z 0 ~ 0<: s: g
w ii: Z Z ~ W
'" 0 " Cl Cl :l: I- 0
~ I- ;i!1; W ~
i. 1ii III ~ 1ii 1ii Cl 0 III oi I-
'"
o
o
N
~m5
" .c ~
.0 c)"
E " '"
~:l:'O
Q) ;:;;;;: ~
Cl"'~
'5l ..\..Il'
~ ~~)
E '"
.c'5l'5l
~~....
Q) E ~
~.c<ll
III " ~
OClla.
III
~
0<:1- CD
00<: 0
>owo
>c..o~
OWZIl)
,:jD::<cg
",>Z",
::::)!:::~D::
"':':Z<C
LL.I--W
o,,~>
I-<CI-'"'
z>w<C
w...Jwo
:!:l::o<:!Il
I-l-l-lL
~ZIIl
<co
ll;:!
o
t
w
<J)
o
::l
<:
~
::l
::l
...
"-
a:
()
<3
'"
z
"
...
z
"
~
,;:
"'''
wo
'" ,'<"
.. "'"
u " '"
. "'''
2 ;;;! [2
H~
'<3'
~ >-:>,
"E OJ l:O
~ il~
, " .
~~a
" , ~
o OJ '-
0...- LOO
'" '"
.... .
ID [0
"
oj
'"
;;;
000
o
o
'"
'" '" 0
~ ~
N
q
~
;;;
00
o
o
'"
MCOLOmoLOC")
LOCX>C\!(",)C\I"'<tO
(")...-0 cocom
....: C\f"':
"0
'" co
NN
""
'"
'"
....
rC
'"
"'.
;:::
~
'"
w
'"
"
w
"
w
"
"
'"
"
>-
~
"
6'
'"
"
(\
"
z
i'!
"
'"
;;;
it.
0..... LOa
g? ~
cD [0
"
'"
'"
;;;
000
o
o
'"
"''''0
gj ~
N
o.
~
;;;
00
o
o
'"
M(Olt)O'lOIO('I)VO
LOroC\lMC\lvO('l)CO
(").....0 COCOC>>C\IC'\[
~ C\I~ ...: ...;
'"
'"
....
rC
'"
'"
;:::
N
'"
0000 000 000 00 ;1)V~lOg~ '" 00 f)j
00 '" "'~
0:: 0 0 0 o. ..... C\l OM ".
W 0 0 0 08 N ~ tJ
lXl '" '" '" ~
~ LO~ co
::;; ...:~ <Vi
w t;
15 '"
Z
oO"'<to 000 '" 00 00 LOroCOC\lOI'- '" ....'" 0
..... O.....C\lN '" ,,'"
0 0 ~ 0 0 ..- M CO.N '" '" '"
rC 0 .,; 0 "" oxi
N '" '" '" '"
'" " '"
"" '" co
~
;;; '"
C
Ul W 0000 000 "'00 00 co.....ooo..... '" .... ~ '"
Iii '" 0 ...................... 0 '" "
>:; 0 0 0 ~ '" 0
0:: ..J", 0 0 0 0 "" .;
~ <1.0 '" '" .... '" N
::;;0 ..... '"
o'l' ;;; ""
0 '"
::; o:g '"
lXl >:;0
::> 0::'"
<1. ~~
l5 0000 000 "''''0 00 M('I)OCDOM 0 CO"
~ ~ M.....m 0) N '" '" "'
w> 0 0 0 ~ N ~ 0
I- o;;;! 0 0 '" 0 "" ~
Z '" '" '" '"
W ~o co '"
::;; ZUl "" 00
I- w- '" '"
.!1f 1-"- '"
Z
<1. <(
W ::;;
C
0..-.....0 000 ~ "'0 00 ('I) "'<t 10 (00..- " f)j '" '"
'" '" 0 ~ 0 0 M"<tCO l"- N co ~
.... . N N
<6 0 0 rC 0 <6 oxi
'" '" '" '" '"
~ '" ~
N '" N
co '"
'" '"
I-
W 3:
w
"- w
d 0:: -'"
" 0 <:'0
Cl Ul rn Q) c: CI>_
OJ 0:: E Q) - U.
" Z "- w al OJ' iil'.l!J m c-
alRfla ii: "* m 0 Cl 0 <: ro...J ::J ::J CJ)
I- ~
"-OJ OJ 1i2 ~ Z ~ ~al~f-ffi
Q) ..... CU) t; I.L.. .5(1) '0 '0 Ul ~Ul Z Ul
.... ro c.... ~ ...J I- OJ OJ l- t; w ~~~~$~8m6 I-
m ::J roC/) I- iB ClUl l- E 6 en I- 13
g.s-t5o ~ c.5:0 Z E EO 0.0 Z ~1Y';n ES ar ~"E ~
(fJ Q) Q)(J :::i1;)O 0 ";:: (1)(.) (1)0 <( Q) (J) roo;:: a::::J 0 a::: 0
'" " Cl;;;! Cl.!J!;;;! e.> I-';;;;! s';;;! ::;; 0:: c: co. 1-' 0 ;;;!
- S",,:cOJ;
'" ~ '" I- .5 :g W en CJ) J:: ~ 0 ~
-a g .5~ Z .9- c~ w ~ ~5 '1- ~ <: <: " . ~ ~ -2: 6
(/) 0 ~o 0 .;;. roO 0:: qo 0)0)- 0 Q) ~
C3 .-._ro.....a::: 4=Q)"
-< () Ol- e.> (I) (1)1- I- 1-1-1- 0::1- OOCl)UI- Z<(CI) I-
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of November, 2005
DATE
ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION
OF WORK
TOTAL COST
SIZE
STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE
# 5402
Date: 11/10/05
CITYWIDE
GRADE, BACKFILL & COMPACT R.O.W. DIRT
SHOULDERS
Date: 11/05
# 5402
Date:
#
Date:
#
Date:
#
Date:
#
Date:
#
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
$ 14,655.00
WEED ABATEMENT AND TRASH PICK-UP ALONG
R.OW's
CITYWIDE
TOTAL COST
$ 5,000.00
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402
- 0-
$19,655.00
-0-
R:\MAlNT A1N\MOACTRPT\05.06\
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
11/01/05 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. OVERLAY 1,383 4
11/02/05 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. OVERLAY 1,263 5
11/03/05 MIRA LOMA AT RANCHO VISTA R & R A.C. 400 10
11/08/05 DEL REY AT SOLANA R & R A.C. 420 10
11/08/05 LOMA LINDA AT RANCHO VISTA A.C. OVERLAY 249
11/28/05 DIAZ ROAD / RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. OVERLAY 420 5.5
11/29/05 DIAZ ROAD S/O WINCHESTER A.C. OVERLAY 840 5
11/30/05 DIAZ ROAD S/O WINCHESTER A.C. OVERLAY 1,240 5.5
TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 6.215
TOTAL TONS 45
R:\MAINTAINIWKCMPLTD\ASPHALT.RPR\05.06\NOVEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
] 1/01/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 22 CATCH BASINS
11/07/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 17 CATCH BASINS
11/08/05 JEFFERSON AT WINCHESTER CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS
11/14/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 11 CATCH BASINS
11/15/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 28 CATCH BASINS
11/16/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 30 CATCH BASINS
11/17/05 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS
] 1/21/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 17 CATCH BASINS
11/22/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED ]8 CATCH BASINS
11/28/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS
11/19/05 . AREAS #3 & #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 24 CATCH BASINS
11/30/05 AREAS #3 & #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 25 CATCH BASINS
TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 234
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLETD\CATCHBAS\05.06\NQVEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
11102/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 205 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11102/05 6th AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 214 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11103/05 28450 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 153 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11107/05 CUPENO LANE AT PECHANGA PARKWAY REMOVED 13 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11107/05 WINCHESTER BRIDGE REMOVED 28 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11108/05 JUNE ROAD AT PARKSIDE REMOVED 90 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11109/05 LINEAR PARK REMOVED 52 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
1111 0/05 PUJOL AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 71 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 6nr AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 755 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 1,080 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 MAIN STREET APARTMENTS REMOVED 135 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 PUJOL AT 1ST STREET REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 6TH STREET AT FRONT REMOVED 10 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER REMOVED 95 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 MARGARITA N/O WINCHESTER REMOVED 459 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11114/05 CALLE T AJO AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 135 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11/16/05 BOLANDIA AT RORIPAUGH REMOVED 55 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11118105 28550 PUJOL (4 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 75 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11/18/05 28500 PUJOL (4 JOLCATIONS) REMOVED 115 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11118/05 28464 FELIX VALDEZ (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 58 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11118/05 MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 246 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11118/05 28450 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 254 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11118/05 28418 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 80 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
WI 8/05 28374 FELIX VALDEZ (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 70 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\GRAFATl\05.06\NQYEMBER
11/18/05 1-15 FWY SIB AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 45 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11/21/05
11/21/05 NIB 1-15 FWY @ HWY 79 SO. REMOVED 360 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11/21/05 WINCHESTER BRIDGE REMOVED 3,000 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11/21/05 1-15 SIB @MONUMENT REMOVED 18 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/21/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 91 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11121/05 BUTTERFIELD STAGE BRIDGE REMOVED 694 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11121/05 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT A VENIDA DE MISSIONES REMOVED 15 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/21/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AT VINTAGE fiLLS CHANNEL REMOVED 70 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
lII21/05 WOLF STORE CHANNEL REMOVED 1,345 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/22/05 PECHANGA BRIDGE REMOVED 299 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/22/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT ASTEROID WAY REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11/22/05 MARGARITA ROAD AT TUSCANY APARTMENTS REMOVED 22 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/23/05 6TH STREET AT FRONT REMOVED 42 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
11/28/05 6TH STREET AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 106 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
I 1/28/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 250 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/28/05 PUJOL AT ISTSTREET REMOVED 25 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
lII28/05 CAMINO RUBARO AT V AIL RANCH P ARKW A Y REMOVED 20 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/28/05 V AIL CREEK AT OVERLAND DRIVE REMOVED 20 S.P.. .OF GRAFFITI
11/28/05 MARGARITA PARK APARTMENTS REMOVED 75 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
lII28/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT BUSINESS PARK REMOVED 80 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/28/05 NICOLAS AT NO. GENERAL KEARNEY REMOVED 15 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/28/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT HOPE WAY REMOVED 30 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/29105 TEMECULA LANE AT LOMA LINDA REMOVED 100 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11/29105 VIA GILBERTO REMOVED 80 S.P.. OF GRAFFITI
11130105 OVERLAND AT JEFFERSON REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11/30105 VIA PUERTA AT CAMINO VERDE REMOVED 60 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
11/30/05 VIA JOMILLA AT CAMINO HERENCIA REMOVED 70 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
TOTAL S.P.. GRAFFITI REMOVED 11,460
TOTAL LOCATIONS 60
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\GRAFFITl\05.06\NOVEMBER
~
<<
~>
~o
U~
~~
~~
~~
~5:
~~
o~
~~
~~
~t.n
Uo
o
('l
r-'- .,-",'"._-- -'---'-"~~--- --.--...'-.-.. -'''-'.-''-..-.
[ 0
i w
Q
>
0
Z
I-
0
0
I-
<l.
W
(J)
t-
el 11.
::;) 0
<t
> en
-' +
::;)
...,
w t-
z
::;) en
..., 0
~ u
:;; +
a:
<l.
<t
a:
<t
:;;
III
w
lL
Z
<t
...,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O'l CO r-. CO U') "'" (") C\I ,....
..
"I'on 0'1
<n "1'<'1 00
... 0 t-- . ~
~ 0 ~"I'
\00'1
OJ N on "I'
"" ~ ~~
OJ ~
<9 u ....
Q) fh
... Q
.~
'" ;,;
- '" ...
~
... Q 0
0 0
f-t 0 ... ... '"
E-< '" =
. 0 ~
~U U
,......,\OO\~ONNOO\t"f')O
,.....,NN,.....,'<:j"lI")"'i"...;;tN~\O
rLJ
...J
...J
-<
U ~ ",[) ,[)
~ ~ ,.0 ;..c;n.D
~ ~ ..c: t> ....i=i J5 i=i.i=i
8"']~'21:;'g;>,Eb~2~1:l
f-t ~ .f..;21~;21 ~ ~.:( r.1J 8 i 8
'O'V1l11l110'lI1lrlCiOo' ~)<o
o N:I:'::-t'-V),;NN_tn ..<':'If''"J
~ ,,*\0 M d0N'oO~gr-
t-..C"l"('f') OO-,V) V) O'"<j- ~,<..,'1 r-
If)0\ 00 ('()O:"<j-S'! ~q~ ,('f)~
...0 ('fN~"'::::I"~ V)~r-:oO~~O\ C1l..,...,
__....,.,.......-!,.,....('f')
-EA-it7-EA-'-EA--b'7Y7-b'7-EA- Vl--&9-.i17
\0 -- V) \0. -n0\ "<j- "'::::1"&1 0
lI1t'-,'N'OOO!:""'-'""",-V)'<;j"-l.f)\O
r-~,..~' \D~ ',l0...OO",q',\c!" qN,,'O\~ ,_"<j-
,(f")-- -.N'C""l',O\'\D,-.::t t'- "<t:._~
~
I'<l
~~
<""
;>0
0'0
"'~
~ ,I-< 1-<
>-. .0 ]01)
"'8 -S\lS.oS
8 ;:I....,r::......... 2':l o1.l"';L) iU
:::I l-< B .C >-. ll) >.,bJ.1...... 0 ::> ~
I:l .0 0:<:10.. cl:I c: ,...., :::l ,p.,....... 0
~.~ ~.~.~ ~.~ ~ ~ OZQ
~" k5 k5
rl:J.;.:....O. .0;......0.0
E-4 I-; ro.:ctl S] S S
r" <Xl ::I u......... .::1 01) iU o1.l
"".1. ',:;:l., ,";"" a.1:: ';>-',,11)>, b1J ....... 0 ::> ()
o ~ ~ ~o..~ 3"3 ::Ifrtl On)
U >-,>I., ""< "" >-,.>-, < '" 0 ZA
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
.. ...... ii<i?/iii:";~ i'jf!fi , '., i.l/ i i
DATE DATE WORK
REC'D ; .......i i....... .......i/ii../i i'i' . ...;i<i> COMPLETEn
llIOl/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MARGARITA SIGN DOWN llIO 1/05
llIO 1/05 NIGHTHAWK PASS CAT IN STORM DRAIN 11/01/05
11/01/05 43460 CORTE BARBASTE DEBRIS REMOVAL 11/01/05
11/01/05 40072 VILLA VENECIA ROOT PRUNING 11/01/05
11/02/05 31870 VIA CORDOBA TREE TRIMMING 11/02/05
11/03/05 28900 OLD TOWN FRONT DEBRIS REMOVAL llI03/05
11/03/05 WINCHESTER E/O JEFFERSON DEBRIS REMOVAL llI03/05
11/04/05 40217 CAMINO CAMPOS VERDES SIGN REPAIR 11/04/05
llI07/05 41760 BARGIL COURT STORM DRAIN REPAIR 11/07/05
11/07/05 45916 JERONIMO COURT SIGN REPAIR 11/07/05
11/07/05 RANCHO VISTA E/O HIGH SCHOOL DEBRIS REMOVAL llI07/05
11/07/05 29805 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL TREE BRANCH DOWN 11/07/05
11/07/05 43384 VIA ANGELES SIGN REMOVAL 11/07/05
11/08/05 32141 CORTE EL DORADO SIGN REPAIR 11/08/05
11/09/05 44754 TEHACHAPI TREE TRIMMING llI09/05
11/09/05 LA SERENA UNLOCKED GATE 11/09/05
11/14/05 MIRA LOMA DRIVE DEBRIS REMOVAL 11 /14/05
11/15/05 39340 JESSIE CIRCLE S.N.S. REPORT 11/15/05
11/15/05 29830 MIRA LOMA TREE TRIMMING 11/15/05
11/16/05 31626 CORTE TORTORSA TREE BRANCH DOWN llI16/05
11/18/05 VIA VASQUEZ AT CAMINO CASANA SNS DOWN llI18/05
11/18/05 1-15 SIB OFF RAMP GRAFFITI llI18/05
11/18/05 CORTE EL DORAGO SNS DOWN 11/18/05
I 1/18/05 40526NEWTOWN STORM DRAIN CONCERN 11/18/05
11/22/05 VIA SEVILLA AT VIA LA VIDA SNS DOWN SS/22/05
.
R;\MAINTAIN\WRKCOMPLTD~ORS\05.06\NOVEMBER
............. ...../ ..;t>../....> ...... < I ...
DATE ..........JA............. DATE WORK
RE9'D .. .. COMPLETED
.. ..... .. ........ .....V..../....: ........ H >
11/22/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT JEFFERSON PAINT SPILL 11/22/05 .
11/23/05 31036 CORTE ANZA TREE TRIMMING 11/23/05
11/23/05 45703 MASTERS DRIVE A.C. REPAIR 11/23/05
11/23/05 45344 TOURNAMENT LANE TREE TRIMMING 11/23/05
11/28/05 45630 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD TREE TRIMMING 11/28/05
.
.
TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 30 I
R:\MAlNTAIN\WRKCOMPLTD\SORS\05.06\NOVEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SIGNS
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
11/01104 30319 VERONA PLACE INSTALLED W14-2
11101105 42238 FABER COURT INSTALLED W14-2
11/01/05 VINE STREET INSTALLED W-53
11101105 MARGARITA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R2-50
11102/05 WOLF V ALLEY AT CAMINITO OLITE REPLACED R-1
11/02/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 24 S.N.S.
ll/03/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE INSTALLED R-18
11/03/05 JEFFERSON: AT OVERLAND REPLACED R-6
11/03/05 MORENO DRIVE REPLACED R-26
11/07/05 41615 WINCHESTER ROAD REPLACED R-7
11/07/05 27309 JEFFERSON ROAD REPLACED R4-7, TYPE "K"
11107/05 YNEZ AT EQUITY REPLACED Wl-6
11108/05 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 11 SIGNS
11/09/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 37 S.N.S.
11/1 0/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 17 S.N.S.
11/10/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT TOWN CENTER DRIVE REPLACED R-26
11/1 0/05 YNEZ AT YNEZ COURT REPLACED R-7, "K' MARKER
11/10/05 WINCHESTER E/O ENTERPRISE CIRCLE REPLACED R4-26
11/1 0/05 SOLANA E/O YNEZ REPLACED R-26
11/1 0/05 DEL REY E/O A VENIDA BARCA REPLACED R-2-35
11115/05 V AIL RANCH PARKWAY AT CAMINO PIEDRA REPLACED R-1-A
11/15/05 V AIL RANCH PARKWAY AT TERZICH REPLACED R-1-A
11115/05 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT HARMONY LANE REPLACED R-1-A
R:\!vIAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\SIGNSI.05.06\NOVEMBER
~ YiiG'ii_:::t?iSj .......<'..x/0/;'x;,.',,,
.>"./x
ll/15/05 PEPPERCORN AT VIA PLATA REPLACED R-26
11/15/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ REPLACED R-7
11/15/05 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT RANCHO VISTA REPLACED R-I
ll/15/05 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT RANCHO CALIF. ROAD REPLACED 3 DELINEATORS
11/15/05 YNEZ S/O WINCHESTER REPLACED 4R-7
11/16/05 REDHAWKAREA REPLACED 3 S.N.S. .
.
11 /18/05 27309 JEFFERSON REPLACED R-7,KMARKER
11/21/05 OVERLAND AT JEFFERSON REPLACED R-7,KMARKER
11/21/05 YNEZ AT LA PAZ REPLACED RI-I
11/22/05 CALLESITO V ALLART A REPLACED R-I
11/22/05 VIA SEVILLA AT VIA LA VIDA REPLACED R-26, R-17
ll/23/05 .MORNING VIEW AT EAGLE CREST REPLACED R-I
11/23/05 REDHAWKAREA REPLACED 10 SNS
11/28/05 PUJOL AT I ST STREET REPLACED R-I
11/28/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 13 SNS
11/28/05 VIA BENABARRE AT CORTE LORITA REPLACED R-I
11/29/05 JERONIMO AT PAHUTA REPLACED R-I
11/29/05 CHOATE AT ABBEY ROAD REPLACED R-I
11/29/05 CHOATE AT NIGHTHAWK PASS REPLACED R-I
.
11/29/05 CALLE BANUELOS AT NIGHTHAWK PASS REPLACED R-I
11/29/05 CALLE BANUELOS AT LONGFELLOW REPLACED R-I
11/29/05 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT A VENIDA DE MISSIONES REPLACED W-31
11/29/05 JEFFERSON AT WINCHESTER REPLACED R-18
11/30/05 YNEZ ROAD W/O RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R2-45
11/30/05 VIA MONTEZUMA AT A DEL RIO REPLACED "N" MARKER
TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED -.lli
TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED --1
TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED ----11
R;\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\SIGNS\.Q5.06\NOVEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
STENCILS / STRIPING
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
1lI03/05 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE REPAINTED 33 LEGENDS
1lI04/05 OVERLAND & COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE REPAINTED 35 LEGENDS
11/07/05 MEADOWVIEW REPAINTED 36 LEGENDS
11/14/05 TEMEKU HILLS AREA REPAINTED 57 LEGENDS
11/15/05 TEMEKU HILLS AREA REPAINTED 49 LEGENDS
11/16/05 TEMEKU HILLS AREA REPAINTED 37 LEGENDS
11/28/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 48 LEGENDS
1lI29/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 24 LEGENDS
11/30/05 MARGARITA S/O CITY LIMITS REPAINTED 34 LEGENDS
TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 353
NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. -=l!:
R:\MAINTAlN\WRKCOMPLTD\STRIPING\05.06\NOVEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
11/30/05 RANCHO VIST A AT MIRA LOMA
TRIMMED
3 R.O.W. TREES
11/30/05 COMMERCE CENTER AT VIA MONTEZUMA
TRIMMED
2 R.O.W. TREES
TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED ~
R:\MAINTAIN\WRKCOMPLTD\TREES\05.06\NOYEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2005
11/07/05 HWY 79 SO. AT FRONT STREET
ABATED
2,000
S.F. R.O.W. WEEDS
TOTAL S.F. R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED
2.000
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCOMPLTDIWEEDS\05_06\NQVEMBER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Eugineer
FROM: 6~Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
DATE: January 3, 2006
SUBJECT:
Monthly Activity Report - December, 2005
The following activities were performed by Public Works Departmeut, Street Maiutenance Division in-house persounel
for the month of December, 2005:
I. SIGNS
II. TREES
A.
B.
C.
Total signs replaced
Total signs installed
Total signs repaired
83
11
12
A.
Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns
4
III. ASPHALT REPAIRS
A.
B.
Total square feet of A. C. repairs
Total Tons
6.365
60
A.
IV. CATCH BASINS
233
Total catch basins cleaned
A.
V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
o
Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A.
B.
Total locations
78
18.054
Total S.F.
VII. STENCILING
A. ---1R New and repainted legends
B. -..!! L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
R:\MAINTAIN\MOACTRPT\05.06\
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to ---1'L- service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming,
sign repair, A.c. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 2!L service order requests
for the month of November. 2005.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 159 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 December. 2005 was $25.383.00
compared to $19.655.00 for the month of November. 2005.
Acconnt No. 5402
Account No. 5401
Account No. 999-5402
$ 23,425.00
$ 1,958.00
$ "0-
cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer (Traffic)
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development)
R:\!\1AINT AINIJvlOACfRPT\05.06\
:;:
w
w
ci
::>
I-<!l: '" 00 ... 0 o~ 0 00 '" ~ '" '" 0 '" '" '" '"
'" 0 00 "! 0 0'" 0 '-: ... "'00 "! 0 '" ... '" >'
0 till- et uici ~ ci cui ci ~ cO lAiN ~ ci ~ oi oi ~
OtllW ::>
0 ~.,. ... ... "'''' 0 '" '" "'., ... .,. '" '" ::>
'" [3 c 0<(...;'" .... '" '" '" "'''' '" '" 0 .,... ~ 00 o. '"
<'i .c e .<i!ii1<i! ~ uS ,..: on =0 uS N N a)~ on ci ~ uS ti:
i':' 0>" '" .,. 00 ;;; ...'" .,..,. '" ...... .,. ... .,. 0 a:
"lD ""..00 ~ .,. .,..,. .,. .,.... .,. q u
~ .J: '" 01.1,;':0 .,. .,. ~ '"
c I!! ~ ,'U:: .,. 0
'" ~~ ;S;
~ Z
~ Ii;!l: ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 '" 0 '" 0 00 <(
,., . ., "'0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 ~ 0 '" 0 ~ 0 '" e-
lD ,., O:!a,W N dd ci cO ci ~ ci oi ,.; cD ..; cO ci cO ci ci z
'E -glD 0";'" '" "'.,. .,. '" 0 '" ~ ... '" ., 0 .,. '" 0 '" J
.0 "'}<i! 0 '" '" "'!. '" 00 '" ~ "'... o. '" '" '"
" --g uS cO ... ~ 0 ar..;- <'i ON ~ cO .,. ...
en "" ~ ...~ 2l<0 a:
E 2l. ., '" ~ "'~ .,..,. ., "'... .,. '" '"
" .,. .,. .,. .,..,. ~ .,.~ .,. '"
16 .0 I!! O-LL:,(/.l .,. .,. .,.
" ~-"""U::
0 en a.
'" 00 0 0 g~ -' 0 '" 0 "'0 0 0 III 0 '"
2l'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" .,0 ., 0 0 ~
..t ci ci ci cO oeD ci ,..: cO cOcO ,.; ci ,.; ci ,..:
,,-0 0 .,..,. .,. ~ '" ... '" '" ... "'''' '" .,. '" .,. '"
tiO '" ~ '" "'''' '" '" "l .,. '" '"
cO ~ ~:i .,..,. ~ on ~ on 0
OW ~ . .,. .,..,. .,. '"
00 .,. .,.
'" 0 00 0 ~ '" ~ ... '" ~ ... '" '" 0
0 '" '" '" ., ~ '" '" ~ '"
w '" '" 0 '" ~
~ Iii '" uS cO
0:: 0 ~
O..J d
~~ w
0
0 .
0
. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 '" 0 ~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 "! 0 00 '" '" '" 0 ., 0
.; ci ci ci ~ ci ci ,.; ,..: ,..: ,..: ci N ci N
~ ~
i{. " .,..,. .,. 0 ~ 0 '" ... 00 ~ .,. ., '" 0
~ ., ... '" "'.,. "!. ... ~ ... ... 00
<. ",' ,..: <'i .,. on .,. <'i .,. <'i
< .. ~
.,. .,..,. '" .,. .,. ...
I{ .,. .,.
;~
li!.~ i. '" '" 00 0 '" ... ... 0 ... '" 0 '" 0
en ~... '" '" ~ '" '" '" 0
'" '" ~ '" 0
~I- '" 1.1 uS ~ N
0::0:: 0 ~
~~ w 0 I~
0 'l'
uw z '" li<
::::i0:: <C 0
z 0
m~ w '"
:::l- I- 0:: I~l. it 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c..> z <C 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0 '" ... ... 0 "( 0 '" 0 '"
"-i= ;;: w ..; ci ci ci cD ci cD ci ,..: ci ..; ,..: ~ ci ..; ci ..;
00 >- '" .,..,. .,. ~ '" '" 0 00 '" ... '" 00 .,. ., '" 00
:;; ., "'!. ...'" ... ~ '" ~ '" '" .... ~ 0
I- <C I- .... I..}i ,..: ~ ui'N' .,..,. <'i ,..: ,..: .,. ~ .,. .,;
z ~ w <C ~ .,. .,..,. ~ .,.~ ~ ...
w 0 I.{i .,. .,. ~ .,. ~
:;; " W tIl 1/.'. .,. .,.
1-1- 0:: iL
o::Z Iii I;ib.~,{} '" 0 00 0 ... '" ., '" "'... '" 1;;: '" 0
<co ... ... '" ~ '" 0 ~ '" '"
fh:;; ... '" ~ '" '" '" '"
... ...
0
"'.
.........7,..; Gi ;; Gi ;; " " Gi .;.: ;; ;;
...ii.. CI c CI'" :m 0 ]! 0 CI " C 0;
......i .. 0 0:: .5 ~ ~.c ~.c .5 0 'iij
$ .. " .. c
'01- ~ o;! 00 '" c
0 ,fo ....J ';'...J 0 0 lD ..
"- W 0; :;; :;; "- W .c
l!! 0:: ,,0 l!! ~ 0
0:: ~ 0:: ~a. 0 0;
w .. .. z '" C I- 0;
0:: " W " " w .::
i ~ 0- 1-0- W 0- .... W tIl I- Z
tIl I-tIl .:: Cl tIl 0 :;; W :::l W
:::l W tIl :;; :::l 0 :;;
W ..J a
a "- Cl w .... ii2 .... w
0 oll "- Cl W I- W <i! l;c
0 w !l: z 0 0 Z 0::
'z l1. lD j:: W W ~ tIl 0:: 0 ~
0 0 0:: z ~ ..J W W
0 0 :::l W ;;: ~ " w 0 tIl
W tIl ~ 0 z .... 0 0:: 0:: 0:: 0
._0 ~ ::; l1. l1. I- 0 :::l W
W W tIl W W 0 W
I- ~ Cl j:: !l! ~
<i! z tIl 0:: ;!!; tIl W " tIl
0:: :::l u: :::l 0 0:: ;;: g
" 0 tIl tIl ~ Z 0 :;:
w ii2 z z ;;: W
l1. 0 " Cl Cl " 0:: l- e
~ Ii; ;1; 0:: 0:: ;1; W ~
Cii Cii Cii Cl 0 tIl oi I-
0....... COo 000 "'00 00 COr--.CO(,<,)COC'\l '" ....... '"
'" '" "''''", ('<')O'l L!')"<;f" COCO '" "'....
.... . 0 .... . 0 """ ....... "t COR OR '" "'~ ....
<6 '" 0 00 0 C\i'ci '" no
::;:. .... '" .... '" CO CO w
~ '" "'. '"
"
OOZ ;; '" ;: W
WO '" "
~ ~no '" .... '" w
'? ,,=> .... .... "
=>'"
C ~" =>
. no
'7 ;;;!~ ;=
M
= "'''' ,.
0....... COo 000 "'00 00 COr--.OCl(,<,)COC'\l '" ....... '" ~
..~ ~ ~ 0 "''''", 0 (,<,)O'll{)",,"COco '" "'.... .... ;;
.... . "<;f"....... C'\I~ ~ O~ '" '" ~
<6 '" 0 00 0 C\i'ci '" '"
ii .... '" .... CO Q.
::;:. "'CO no
w ~ .. ~ '" "'. "
" '" ~ ;; '" ;: i'i
'E ~'" '"
~ W~ l)J .... '" "
0 l:! e .... Z
<n E ro ~
* ~~
o E z
0 <nil. <'
00.......0 000 O~o 00 ('<').......('<')"""0....... '" '" ;:1; '" "
:::J:~"l CO....C"') C'\I '" ~ ~
0 0 0 '" '" ~ 0 ~
0:: cO 0 .... 0 cO oi
'" .... 0 .... ~ 0
w "'. ~ CO
III ~ <6 cO
:;; ~ 00
w ....
U
W
C
0000 000 000 00 """",,",,,,"l{)0C"') '" 0 0 '"
8~ ~ '" 0'" '" '" ::;:.
0 0 0 '" 0'" '"
0 0 0 .0 N N
.... .... .... 00 ~ 0
"'", ~ 00
.... cO
.,..,'"
~ ....
....
00"""0 000 COOo 00 L!')OClCOC'\lOr--. '" .... '" 0
....... O.......C'\IC'\I '" ... '"
0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ '" CO'" '" '" '"
'" 0 oi 0 ..f cO
'" .... "' .... "'
'" ... .....
'" .... 10
~
~ ....
c
m w 0000 000 '" 00 00 COr--.OOO....... "' .... ~ "'
I- "' ............................ 0 '" ...
~ w 0 0 0 0 ~ "' ~ 0
0:: ...JCD 0 0 0 0 '" '"
~ 1>.0 .... .... .... .... '"
:;;0 ": '"
o'l' ~ '"
u '"
::; u:g ....
III ~O
::J 0::'"
I>. o~
... S:w 0000 000 '" COo 00 C"')C"')OCOOC"') 0 00 ;:1;
0 '" "'~'" '" '" "' ;:;;
w>- 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ '" ~ 0
I- u;;! 0 0 ui 0 ..f '"
Z .... .... "' .... '"
w ~u 00 '"
:;; Zm .... cO
w- .... '"
~ 1-'" ....
Z
;;:
W :;;
C
0..............0 000 ~ "'0 00 ~~~CO o~ ... '" oi "'
'" '" ~ .... N "' 10
.... . 0 0 0 '" '" ~
<6 0 0 '" 0 <6 cO
'" .... '" .... "'
~ '"
N .... 1!l
00
.... ....
-$
3l....!!l
..." "
Q) .... CCI)
.... ro CI-
ro 5- jgCl)
5-(1) 00
(I) Q) me,)
'" 1ii Ol..,
ro.... ro<l;
-a g .6:1-
(/) 0 ~o
<{OClI-
Cl
Z
0:
~
I-
m
~
I-
Z
o
U
1ii
"
...
~ m
LL .6: CI)
~ ...JI-
m ~CI)
C .-0
::J 1;)CJ
OlSll..,
.6: :g <I;
.9- C 1-0
.lo '"
CJ) CJ)I-
alal~
E ficn
E EO
.C Q) CJ
1-0::..,
ill 00 <t
Q) ~t5
t=t=1-
m
0::
o
I-
!i
0::
I-
Z
o
U
w
W
0::
I-
I-
W
W
...
ci
CJ)
Cl
z
~CI)
o::~
1>.0
CJ)u
;i;;!
qt5
0::1-
s:
W
0::
U
W
U
~
Z
W
I-
Z
;;:
:;;
~
(3
_00
<:-0
" <:
-g gg,~
m ~ ~ 0
-g"OC3"O~~ro
~~[:g~lil.ffi()
o..~.ooE::>ar~
ID (/) CO.C > 0::: ::J
O:::EIIlI-. ~
(/)(/)..r:::.(/)$~
cC,BIDos:
.9.9 ro ~ . Q)
(I)CI)()I-O:::Z
00_
-...
ill 0-
='CJ)
g,
O::'ffi
>
" 0
E E
o "
0::
" .-
.~ u:
" i::-
ot:: Q) ~
<{CJ)C)
m
~
o
u
g
I-
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of December, 2005
DATE
ACCOUNT
MECHANICAL WEED ABATEMENT, TRASH &
DEBRIS CLEAN-UP & SPECIAL EVENT
PREPARATION
Date: 12/05
CITYWIDE
R.O.W.'s
# 5402
Date: 12/05
CITYWIDE
RANCHO VISTA E/O MARGARITA
CATCH BASIN MINOR REPAIRS
CITYWIDE R & R UNDERSIDEW ALK DRAIN
# 5402
TOTAL COST
$ 10,850.00
Date: 12/15/05
DE PORTOLA EAST OF BUTTERFIELD REMOVE DAMAGED POST AND RAILING AND
STAGE ROAD REPLACED DUE TO TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
# 5402
TOTAL COST
$ 5,375.00
Date: 12/22/05
JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD
EXCAVATE FLOW LINE AND REMOVE SILT AND
DEBRIS
#5401
$ 1,958.00
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
Date:
#
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
Date:
#
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402
TOTAL COST
$ 1,958.00
$23,425.00
-0 -
R:\MAINTAIN\MOACTRPT\05.06\
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005
121106/05 DEL REY / RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. OVERLAYS 1,288 12.5
12/08/05 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. OVERLAYS 2,723 26
12/12/05 YNEZ - DE PORTOLA / RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. BERM & OVERLAYS 192 5
12/13/05 DE PORTOLA (BIKE LANE) A.C. OVERLAYS 247 5
12/14/05 DE PORTOLA (BIKE LANE) A.C. OVERLAYS 930 5.5
12/20/05 DE PORTOLA (BIKE LANE) A.C. OVERLAYS 985 6
TOTAL S,F. OF REPAIRS 6,365
TOTAL TONS 60
R:\MAINTAINIWKCMPLTDIASPHALT.RPRI05.06\DECEMBER.05
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005
12/01/05 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 26 CATCH BASINS
12/05/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS
12/06/05 AREA #1 CLEANED .& CHECKED 5 CATCH BASINS
12/07/05 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS
12/08/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS
12/12/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 29 CATCH BASINS
12/13/05 MEADOWVIEW AREA CLEANED & CHECKED 20 CATCH BASINS
12/14/05 MEADOWVIEW AREA CLEANED & CHECKED 18 CATCH BASINS
12/15/05 MEADOWVIEW AREA. CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS
12/19/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 19 CATCH BASINS
12/20/05 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 21 CATCH BASINS
12/21/05 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS
12/27/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS
12/18/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 24 CATCH BASINS
12/29/05 AREAS #2 & #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 16 CATCH BASINS
TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED ~
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLETD\CATCHBAS\05.06\DECEMBER.05
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005
12/01/05 LOMA LINDA AT VIA DEL CORONADO REMOVED 500 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/01/05 6TH STREET AT VINCENT MORAGA REMOVED 300 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05105 28566 PUJOL REMOVED 27 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05105 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD REMOVED 155 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12105/05 6TH STREET AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 160 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 160 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05/05 MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 65 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05/05 1 ST STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 225 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05/05 WINCHESTER BRIDGE REMOVED 424 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/05/05 WINCHESTER AT BIG 0 TIRES REMOVED 147 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/06/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT BAHIA VISTA REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/06/05 PASHAHO AT VIA GILBERTO REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/08/05 PARKSIDE AT SARAH WAY REMOVED 42 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/08/05 McCABE AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/08/05 AMARITA AT VIA ALORA REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/09/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/12/05 LA SERENA AT WALCOTT REMOVED 35 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/12/05 MARGARITA S/O DE PORTOLA REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/12/05 FELIX VALDEZ AT 6TH STREET REMOVED 493 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/12/05 PUJOL LOT REMOVED 250 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/12105 28592 PUJOL REMOVED 337 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/12105 "C" STREET REMOVED 128 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/13/05 MARGARITA E/O TUSCANY RIDGE REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/15105 PUJOL STREET LOT REMOVED 330 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
R:\MAJNTAIN\WKCMPLTDlGRAFFITII05.06\DECEMBER
12/15/05 ROMANCE AT JANE PLACE REMOVED 91 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/15/05 WINCHESTER AT RUSTIC GLEN REMOVED 26 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 28450 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 236 SF OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 28464 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 265 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 6TH STREET AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 70 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 28566 PUJOL REMOVED 216 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 260 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 1 ST STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 416 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 REDHAWKAT ANZA REMOVED 65 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/16/05 DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 45 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 6TH STREET AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 190 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 MAIN STREET AT PUJOL STREET REMOVED 40 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 6TH STREET AT OLD TOWN FRONT STREET REMOVED 70 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 GRANNY'S ANTIQUES ON FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 200 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 PAULIE'S EQUIPMENT RENTAL REMOVED 130 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 300 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT CALLE T AJO REMOVED 167 S.F. OF GRAFFITI .
12/19/05 OVERLAND BRIDGE REMOVED 512 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 WINCHESTER EXIT SIB 1-15 FWY REMOVED 1,300 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 WINCHESTER AT YNEZ REMOVED 75 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 WINCHESTER PARK & RIDE REMOVED 48 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 WINCHESTER NIB ON RAMP 1-15 FWY REMOVED 100 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/19/05 MIRA LOMA AT EDISON SUBSTATION WALL REMOVED 4,050 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/20/05 42221 MAIN STREET REMOVED 37 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/20/05 29601 MIRA LOMA REMOVED 235 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/20/05 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT WELTON REMOVED 80 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/20/05 ROMANCE AT PUFFIN REMOVED 85 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/21/05 ROMANCE AT PUFFIN REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\GRAFFlTJ\05.06\DECEMBER
12/21/05 1-15 FWY SIB AT OVERLAND BRIDGE REMOVED 360 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/21/05 MAIN AT PUJOL REMOVED 6 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/23/05 SANTIAGO BRIDGE REMOVED 5 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 TEMECULA LANE AT CANTERFIELD REMOVED 20 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 MARGARITA AT LA SERENA REMOVED 10 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT PASEO DE LAS OLAS REMOVED 25 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 6TH STREET AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 85 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 FELIX VALDEZ AT CREEK SIDE REMOVED 50 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 GRANNY'S ON CREEK SIDE REMOVED 315 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 96 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 MARGARITA PARK AT EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 287 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 MARGARITA ROAD N/O WINCHESTER REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 LA SERENA AT SO. GENERAL KEARNEY REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/27/05 TEMECULAELEMENTARY REMOVED 19 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 PECHANGA BRIDGE REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 YNEZ AT EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 47 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 105 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 MARGARITA ROAD AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 1,300 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 PUJOL AT MAIN STREET REMOVED 280 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO REMOVED 30 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 MERCEDES AT 3RD STREET REMOVED 980 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/29/05 ROMANCE AT JANE PLACE REMOVED 175 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
12/29/05 SPARKMAN ELEMENTARY REMOVED 40 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/29/05 MEADOWS P ARKW A Y S/O RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 41 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/29/05 1 ST STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 268 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
12/28/05 1 ST STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 290 S.P. OF GRAFFITI
TOTAL S.P. GRAFFITI REMOVED 18,054
TOTAL LOCATIONS 78
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\GRAFATI\05.06\DECEMBER
~
<<
~>
~o
U~
~~
~~
~~
H~
~~
O~
~~
H~
~
Ul.I)
=
=
~
I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I III I II I I I I
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
~m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~NNNNN~~~~~
,.....,\OO\t-ONNOO'\('f)OOO
......NN,....,-l'<;j"V)."=1"-.:tC'l.q-\Ot'-
rFJ
...:i
...:i
2J iJ
~ ~~.g- ~~]
o a {5~.[ ~ ~..Qgp fr ~
E-<~~);\..::);\.Ei.Ei..::""o
t t
.D;,.o
ss
11)'11)
> Q
o (1)
zo
"
III
c
>
o
z
I-
o
o
l-
ll.
W
Ul
Cl
::J
c(
>-
-'
::J
..,
W
Z
::J
..,
~
:a:
a:
a.
c(
a:
c(
:a:
m
w
L1.
z
c(
..,
~
~
~
~
<
"
2
~
"
o
Z
~
z
"
;l
"
l-
LL
o
en
+
I-
en
o
()
t
"'"~
180
....N
elI-<
;: ~
-~
oS
.$_2
S oj
00
E-<~
oolflt-
O\t-\O
t---~cl ~
..,....,..
t---'''1"""I
""
00
....
V;-
...
o
o
~....oo
.00=
0'00:
rnUU
O,I.fl,t:() V) 0 -lrJ \,f) 00 lrJ_9~
ONr:-- r- V)~C')lt.r'l__~~_lQ"'_:
r<""i ...:;f _ \0 rri ci\o'~'oO M _ ~~-~
.C;-__.~ ~- gs: tg-..--~--.'N--.:to;,~-,~\O~
\OC'fM <<:::t-tr) t"-~oO......~ 0\ ('f'),......~
or-. .- ....... ,...., ....... ',C1")."'J
W-Ef'l--Ef'l-Wf.A.VtWy}.Y't-EA--E/3-W
~ aJ 10
CfJ.C ..0 1-< .D ,.0
~_ _.~ ~ ~ _ tj ~_ 15 S S
,rI1 ~ 1-< ~ =-a ;>-, Q,) >.. _~_,+-, 0 ~_8
o -~ i3, -_~ 0.. ~!3'3~frt)_o-v
U.-,~""<o:,,,,>-,,-,<O:U'lOZQ
\O..........-l lrl\Ot()Q\ "'<t' "<:t(f)Q -.::t
l.f) ".t'- N Coor-"''''''' lrl<">tl(y \0 ,In
['--\0 \0 I.()OOQ\ _ \0 0,<\1,0\ ,,,,,," 0
~......~ ~_ (':fN~o\ v5 "<:!"~ t> -_"","~ _~ 00
- ~
r-l
~~
<o:E-<
:;;;0
0'0
",,1"0<
~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
C '.D.....o.o
r","" ;;;S15SS
s r' u- =' Q,) Q,) ll.)
~.Ea '[ ~gb gp at6 g
.-,. ~ ::E <0: ::E ~ ~ <o:~ 0 Z Q
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005 .
..... ,.'fW'> 01<0C';Yf!0!",!'f'W'ff0; .." ',iiif0;':i'if/'. >:if:i,,;;', I!ti.~;iii;;;0;i;0')"!;:i+tt;~i; fyri~~~it <
"'.2:t: i! .;ir, i;i;0~ff?0'0Yi;';!;;;i' I~;>!,i;ii"., '! .'7
- :' '/>ti' 1,"< <Ii'f;;; i . "<
12/01/05 30050 DEL REY A.c. REPAIR 12/01/05
12/05/05 46149 VIA LA TRANQUlLA KEYS IN DRAIN 12/05/05
12/06/05 41835 CAMINO DE LA TORRE OIL SPILL 12/06/05
12/07/05 33878 ABBEY ROAD DEBRIS REMOVAL 12/07/05
12/08/05 41684 BOREALIS TREE REMOVAL 12/08/05
12/09/05 30289 CORTE COELHO BLUE R.P.M. MISSING 12/09/05
12/09/05 33154 TERRACE DRIVE SNS DOWN 12/09/05
12/09/05 V AIL RANCH PARKWAY DEBRIS REMOVAL 12/09/05
12/12/05 TOWNSHIP AND PORTSMITH ITEM IN CATCH BASIN 12/12/05
12/15/05 30392 SENELA DEBRIS PICK-UP 12/15/05
12/16/06 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD E/O MARGARITA DEBRIS REMOVAL 12/16/05
12/16/05 42720 JOLLY COURT POTHOLE 12/16/05
12/16/05 CORTE Y ACA OIL SPILL 12/16/05
12/19/05 42037 SWEET SHADE DEBRIS PICK-UP 12/19/05
12/19/05 32470 CORTE BARELA BROKEN WATER LINE 12/19/05
12/23/05 41915 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE . . TREE DOWN 12/23/05
12/27/05 32193 CANTERBURY COURT POTHOLE 12/27/05
12/27/05 43100 CORTE ALMERIA SNS REPAIR 12/27/05
12/30/05 27057 ROCK BLUFF TRENCH FAILURE 12/30/05
.
TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS --12 I
R:\MAINTAIN\WRKCOMPLTD\SORSI05.06\DECEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SIGNS
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005
12/01/05 CAMINO CARMARGO REPLACED R-1
12/01105 CALLESITO FANDRIQUE AT REDHAWK REPLACED R-1
12/01/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 8S.N.S.
12/06/05 28695 YNEZ REPLACED R-7
12/06/05 CALLE JABILI AT RANCHO VISTA REPLACED S.N.S.
12/06/05 MUlRFIELD AT GREENSBORO REPLACED S.N.S.
12/07105 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT A VENIDA DE MISSIONES REPLACED W-31
12/08/05 YNEZ AT EQUITY INSTALLED 5 "N"MARKERS W-31 W-56
12/09/05 CITYWIDE REPLACED 18 DELINEATORS
12/12/05 MARGARITA AT LOWES REPLACED R-7, TYPE "K:
12/12/05 DE PORTOLA AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REPLACED R-7, TYPE "K"
12/12/05 BUTTERFIELD N/O BRIDGE REPLACED W-41
12/13/05 MIRA LOMA AT RANCHO VISTA REPLACED R-7
12/13105 YNEZ AT MOTOR CAR REPLACED R-7
12/13/05 WOLF STORE ROAD AT REDHAWK INSTALLED R3-2
12113/05 PECHANGA AT HURON REPLACED R-26
12/13/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 3 R-7; 10 SNS
12/13105 TEHACHAPI AT REGINA REPLACED R-1
12/14/05 REDHAWKPARKWAY REPLACED 6 R-7
12/15105 OVERLAND AT COSTCO REPLACED R4-7
12/19/05 WINCHESTER AT JEFFERSON REPLACED 2 TYPE "K"
12/20/05 SA WYERS RUN ROAD AT HARMONY LANE REPLACED S.N.S.
12120/05 TEHACHAPI PASS AT REDHA WK PARKWAY INSTALLED R4-7, TYPE "K"
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\SIGNS\.05.06\DECEMBER
12/20/05 TEHACHAPI PASS AND REGINA INSTALLED R-l,SNS
12/21/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT FELIX VALDEZ REPLACED WI-7
12/21/05 SANTIAGO EAST OF YNEZ REPLACED R2-35
12/21/05 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 12 SIGNS
12/23/05 CAMPANULA REPLACED R-26-D
12/27/05 VALLEJO AT SANTIAGO REPLACED S.N.S.
12/27/05 TEMECULA LANE AT LOMA LINDA REPLACED W-17
12/27/05 REDHAWKAREA REPLACED 5 R4-7
12/28/05 MAIN STREET AT FRONT STREET REPLACED R-l
12/28/05 REDHA WK AREA REPLACED 3 R4-7, 3 "K" MARKERS
12/29/05 MEADOWS PARKWAY ATCAMPANULA REPLACED R4-7
12/29/05 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLENN REPLACED R4-7
12/30/05 CALLE PINA COLADA AT N. GENERAL KEARNEY REPLACED W-31
TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED -..M
TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED --1!
TOTALSIGNSREPAURED 12
R:\MAINTAIN\WKCMPLTD\SIGNS\.05.06\DECEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
STENCILS / STRIPING
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005
12/01/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 40 LEGENDS
12/05/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 23 LEGENDS
12/06/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 55 LEGENDS
12/07/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 16 LEGENDS
12/08/05 AREA #3 REPAINTED 36 LEGENDS
12/13/05 RUSTIC GLEN TRACT REPAINTED 44 LEGENDS
12/19/05 DEER HOLLOW AT PECHANGA REPAINTED 7 LEGENDS
TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 221
NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 0
R:\MAINT AlN\WRKCOMPLTD\STRIPING\05.06\DECEMBER
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING
MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005
12/21/05 MIRALOMA
TRIMMED
4 R.O.W. TREES
TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED ~
R:\MAINT AIN\WRKCOMPLTD\TREES\05.06\DECEMBER
ITEM NO. 24
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~f'"
/}12.
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mitch Aim, Chief of Police
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Police Department Monthly Report
The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the months of
November and December 2005.
PATROL SERVICES
Overall calls for police service
"Priority One" calls for service
Average response time for "Priority One" calls
VOLUNTEERS
Volunteer administration hours
Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours
Reserve officer hours (patrol)
Total Volunteer hours
CRIME PREVENTION/GRAFFITI
Crime prevention workshops conducted
Residential/business security surveys conducted
Businesses visited
Businesses visited for past crime follow-up
Crime prevention articles
Total square footage of graffiti removed
OLD TOWN STOREFRONT
Total customers served
Sets of fingerprints taken
Police reports filed
Citations signed off
Total receipts
November
2,806
54
5.1 minutes
November
340
155
35
1,192
November
4
0/0
13
15
1
11,460
November
287
30
47
9
$9,518
December
2,757
42
5.9 minutes
December
408
169
o
1,153
December
2
0/0
3
9
1
18,054
December
238
27
23
7
$6,398
POP TEAMS
On sight felony arrests
On sight misdemeanor arrests
Felony arrest warrants served
Follow-up investigations
November December
3 1
3 7
0 2
1 11
November December
1,220 1,105
0 2
64 86
465 385
155 90
111 188
31 19
November December
27.4 22
6.2 6.8
0 0
November December
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 7
November December
82 99
5 11
21 21
0 0
0 1
November December
2 6
6 6
28 17
237 187
Bullying
Stranger Danger/PAL
November December
36 5
80 81
12 43
TRAFFIC
Citations issued for hazardous violations
D.U.1. checkpoints conducted
Non-hazardous citations
Stop Light Abuse Program (SLAP.) citations
Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations
Parking citations
Injury collisions
INVESTIGATIONS
Average open cases per Detective
Average case closure rate per Detective
Number of community seminars conducted
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT TEAM (SET TEAM)
On sight felony arrests
On sight misdemeanor arrests
Felony arrest warrants served
Misdemeanor arrest warrants served
Follow-up investigations
PROMENADE MALL TEAM
Calls for service
Felony arrest/filings
Misdemeanor arrest/filings
Vehicle burglaries
Vehicle thefts
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS
Felony arrests
Misdemeanor arrests
Citations
Youth counseled
Presentations
Vintage Hills
Temecula Elementary School
YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM
Orientations delivered to new program members
School visits
Home visits
ITEM NO. 25
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
~(
/J1l
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Anthony Elmo, Director of Building and Safety
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Departmental Report - December 2005
PREPARED BY: Diane Ball, Administrative Assistant
The month of December 2005 showed a gain of construction activity as compared to previous
months. The following is an overview of permit and inspection activity for December.
Sinqle Family Development - Tracts
In December, the City issued 23 new single family home permits for a total square footage of
89,836. These homes are primarily in Harveston, which currently has 717 homes under construction
with the addition of 1 ,239 homes under construction in Wolf Creek. There are a total of 2,530 single
family homes under construction.
Custom Sinqle Family Homes
As of December, we have 29 custom homes under construction for a total of 228,566 square feet.
Multi-Family Development
Cape May Apartments in Harveston is constructing 19 buildings equaling 300 units which began
final walk through this month. Temecula Ridge is in the building process with 22 buildings totaling
76 units and 11 completed. Temecula Creek has completed most of their condo construction and
have only 1 building with 20 units left to complete in the first phase.
Commercial Development
Rancho Pueblo LLC was issued 3 new commercial permits in December for a total square footage
of 64,396 for their project at 31515 Rancho Pueblo. Plan check activity included submittals for
Temecula Creek Village at 31 021 Highway 79 South, Olive Garden Restaurant at 29025 Overland
Drive and Temecula Creek Plaza at 31141 Highway 79 South.
Total Permit and Inspection Activity
During the month of December inspection staff performed 3,308 inspections and 239 permits were
issued representing a construction valuation of $14,500,897. The total building permit fees collected
in the month of December were $142,214.53.
ITEM NO. 26
Approvals
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Manager
JM.f'"
ilK
9#
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE:
January 24, 2006
SUBJECT:
Monthly Report
The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development
Department for the month of November/December.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
New Cases
The Division received 143 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home
occupations including 24 applications for public hearings during the month of November/
December. The new public hearing cases are as follows:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT 1
EXTENSION OF TIME 2
MINOR MODIFICATION 1
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 4
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 3
PRE-APPLICATION 1
SIGN PROGRAM 1
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 1
Status of Maior Proiect
New Proiects
. Temecula Village - A Second Extension of Time for approved Development Plan application
PAOO-0140. The project is located on the north east corner of Rancho California Road and
Moraga Road. The application was submitted on November 16, 2005. The project is
tentatively scheduled for the March 15, 2006 Planning Commission hearing. (PA05-0352-
MCCOY)
. Legacy Corporation - A Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes for two industrial
buildings plus one office building totaling 116,506 square feet. The project is located at
41995,41973 and 41951 Remington Avenue. The project was submitted on November 23,
2005. The project is currently under review. (PA05-0362 - MCCOY
. Temecula Community Church - A Conditional Use Permit application with a Development
Plan for an addition of three buildings and removal of existing modular buildings and
trellises. The project is located at 28871 Santiago Road. The project was submitted on
December 15, 2005. The project is currently under review. (PA05-0389 - MCCOY)
. Down's Energy - A Development Plan application for a liquid natural gas distribution facility
and a 14,776 square foot office speculative building. The project is located at the northwest
corner of Rancho Way and Diaz Road. The project was submitted on December 22,2005
and is currently under review. (PA05-0402 - MCCOY
. Butterfield Station Sign Program - To establish and implement a sign program for the
Butterfield Station shopping center. The property is located on Highway 79 South and
Butterfield Stage Road. The application was submitted on October 4,2005. (PA05-0294-
MCCOY)
. Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement Amendment - An Amendment to the Roripaugh
Ranch Development Agreement to change Section 4.1.6 relative to the timing of issuance of
building permits and construction of improvements for fire service, and secondary access.
The project was submitted on December 28, 2005. The project is scheduled for Planning
Commission on February 1, 2006 and City Council on February 14, 2006. (PA05-0404
KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch Mega Center - A Development Plan for the Roripaugh Mega Center
including a 16,343 square foot Community Center, a 1,414 square foot Restroom/Pool
Equipment building and a 640 square foot cabana totaling 18,397 square feet on 3.88 acres
in PA 30 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The project was submitted on November
14,2005 and comments were mailed to the applicant on December 29,2005. Staff is
currently awaiting resubmittal. (PA05-0345 KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch PA16-18 TTM - A Tentative Tract Map (No. 29368) to subdivide 100.07
gross acres into 399 lots (389 single family residential lots) located in Planning Area 16, 17,
and 18 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The application was submitted on December
7, 2005 and is currently under review. (PA05-0375 - KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch SPA - A Specific Plan Amendment to Roripaugh Specific Plan (PA94-
0075) to change the location of the park-and-ride facility from Planning Area 11 to Planning
Area 33B consistent with the first amendment to the Deferral Agreement. This application
was submitted on November 9,2005. Comments were sent to the applicant on December
19,2005 and the project was resubmitted on January 3,2006. The project is scheduled for
Planning Commission on February 1,2006 and City Council on February 14, 2006. (PA05-
0341 - KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch PA 10 TTM - A Tentative Tract Map (No. 30766) to subdivide 8.1 gross
acres into 15 lots (14 single family residential lots) within Planning Area 10 of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan. The project was submitted on December 12, 2005 and is currently
under review. (PA05-0384 KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch PA19 TTM - A Tentative Tract Map (29367) to subdivide 28.03 gross
acres into 27 lots (25 single family residential lots and 2 open space lots) located in Planning
Area 19 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The project was submitted on December 12,
2005 and is currently under review. (PA05-0384 KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch PA24 and 25 TTM - A Tentative Tract Map (30768) to subdivide 21.5
gross acres into 123 lots (122 single family residential lots/1 open space lot) located in
Planning Areas 24 and 25 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Minimum lot size is 4,000
square feet, with an average lot size of 5,443 square feet. The project was submitted on
December 13, 2005 and is currently under review. Comments are due January 25,2006.
(PA05-0387 KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Roripaugh Ranch PA4A EOT - An Extension of Time application for a previously approved
Home Product Review (Development Plan - PA03-0347 previously known as Casa
Diamante) for the construction of 100 single family homes located within Planning Area 4A
of the Roripaugh Specific Plan. This project was submitted on December 19, 2005 and
comments are due January 30, 2006. (PA05-0391 KITZEROW / PETERS)
. Rancho Highlands III-A Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and Vesting Tentative
Map submitted on December 21,2005 to allow a subdivision forcondominium purposes and
development of 137 multi-family units located near the north east corner of Ynez Road and
Rancho California Road. Comments are due January 17, 2006. (PA05-0398, PA05-0399,
PA05-0400 - DAMKO)
. Temecula Lane II - A Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and Vesting Tract Map
submitted on December 20, 2005 for the development of 297 multi-family residential units
located on the southeast corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road. Comments
are due January 18, 2006. (PA05-0395, PA05-0396, PA05-0397 - DAMKO)
. Barrington Product Review - A Development Plan submitted on December 18, 2005 for 130
single family homes located within Tract 32437-1,2,3, -and, F of the Harveston Specific Plan
located on Ynez Road and Date Street. A DRC letter was mailed December 27,2005. Staff
is waiting for applicant response. (PA05-0378 - DAMKO)
. Prescott Product Review - A Development Plan submitted on November 7, 2005 for 112
single family homes in the Harveston Specific Plan located on the north side of Date Street
in Tracts 32437-3 and 23437-F. A DRC letter was mailed on December 6,2005. Staff is
waiting for applicant response. (PA05-0335 - DAMKO)
. Beacon Industrial Condos - An Industrial condo map submitted on November 23,2005 to
subdivide the 13,716 square feet Beacon Industrial building into 9 condominium units
located at 421 03 Rio Nedo. A DRC letter was mailed on January 3,2006. Staff is awaiting
applicant response. (PA05-0361 - DAMKO)
. U-Store-It U-Haul Rentals - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow U-Haul truck rentals at
U-Store It located at 28401 Rancho California Road (APN 921-281-019). This project was
submitted on November 15, 2005. A DRC letter was mailed to the applicant on December
28, 2005. Staff is waiting for response back from applicant. (PA05-0349 - LECOMTE)
. Asher Business Park - Pre-Application for proposed high tech research and development
campus consisting of six buildings totaling 62,209 square feet located at the south east
corner of Calle Empleado and Winchester and Winchester Road. Comments were due from
other departments on January 10, 2006. The project is under staff review. (PR05-0023-
LECOMTE)
. YMCA - A Development Plan to construct a 38,540 square foot YMCA building within a 0.66
lease area of a 20.2 acre site located at 29119 Margarita Road. The application was
submitted on November 29, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the application. Comments
are due on January 2,2006 and staff anticipates a January 26,2006 DRC meeting for the
project. (PA05-0365 - FISK)
. Temecula Office Center - Proposed one lot Tentative Parcel Map for condominium
purposes on 4.72 acres on the west side of Business Park Drive between Rancho Way and
Rancho California Road. The project was submitted on November 18, 2005. Staff is
currently awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0358 - BALES)
. Rancho Highlands Maravilla - A Development Plan and Product Review for 71 tri-plex
buildings totaling 213 units on 23.3 acres in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan along the
extension of Tierra Vista and Rancho Highlands Road (APN 944-330-001, 003 and 017).
The applications were submitted on June 6, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on July 14,
2005. Staff is currently preparing an I nitial Study for this project. Staff is continuing to work
with applicant on finalizing the site plan and product placement. (PA05-0167 - PAPP)
Recentlv Approved Proiects
. Nextel at Haz-It Markit - A Conditional Use Permit submitted on May 24, 2005 for a wireless
facility consisting of 12 antennas on a mono-palm and an 11x20' building. A DRC letter was
sent to the applicant on June 29, 2005. The project was approved at the December 14,
2005 Planning Commission hearing. (PA05-0157 - FISK)
. Rancho Temecula Town Center - A Comprehensive Sign Program for Rancho Temecula
Town Center submitted on February 17, 2005. The subject property is located atthe corner
of Winchester Road and Nicolas. A DRC letter was sent on March 7,2005. The applicant
resubmitted plans on April 11, 2005. Staff reviewed the revised plans and a meeting to
discuss further changes was held on June 9, 2005. Plans were resubmitted July 1, 2005
and in September. The project was approved on November 4, 2005. (PA05-0052-
KITZEROW/PETERS)
. Butterfield Station - A Development Plan to construct five commercial buildings totaling
72,698 square feet on 7.57 acres located on Highway 79 South and Wolf Store Road. The
project was submitted on August 29, 2005. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on
October 5, 2005. The project was approved at the December 14, 2005 Planning
Commission hearing. (PA05-0254 - MCCOY
. Burke Building - A Development Plan application submitted July 19, 2005 for a three story
shell building consisting of approximately 4,156 square feet of retail/commercial on the 1 st
floor with approximately 8,150 square feet on the 2nd and 3rd floor suites for offices. The
project is located at 41955 4th Street. A DRC meeting was held on September 1 , 2005 and
a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on September 12, 2005. Revised plans were
resubmitted on October 6,2005. The project was approved at the December 14, 2005
Planning Commission hearing. (PA05-0205 - MCCOY
. PA 17 Wolf Creek - a Home Product Review for 133 single family homes within Planning
Area 17 of Wolf Creek. Three plans with three different and elevations ranging in size from
2,899 to 3,293 square feet. Plans were submitted July27, 2005. DRC comments were sent
September 8, 2005. Revised plans were submitted November 1, 2005. The project was
approved at the January 5,2006 Director's Hearing. (PA05-0215 - KITZEROW/PETERS)
. PA23 Wolf Creek - A Home Product Review for 126 single family homes within Planning
Area 23 of Wolf Creek. Three plans with three different and elevations ranging in size from
2,878 to 3,150 square feet. Plans were submitted July 27,2005. A DRC letter was mailed
to the applicant on September 20, 2005. Revised plans were submitted November 1 , 2005.
The project was approved at the January 5, 2006 Director's Hearing. (PA05-0220-
KITZEROW/PETERS)
. La Vasani TPM - A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 4.96 acres into 2 parcels located at
30854 Lolita Road. This project was submitted on February 23, 2005. A DRC letter was
sent out on March 21, 2005. This project was approved at the December 21, 2005
Director's Hearing. (PA05-0025 - DAMKO)
. Marriott Fairfield Inn - A Development Plan to construct and operate a 47,897 square foot
92 unit three story hotel on 1.71 acres generally located at the southeast corner of
Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue. The application was submitted on August 8,2005
and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on August 9,2005. This project was approved at
the December 14, 2005 Planning Commission hearing. (PA05-0232 - FISK)
. Marriott Fairfield Inn - A Development Plan to construct and operate a 47,897 square foot
92 unit three story hotel on 1.71 acres generally located at the southeast corner of
Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue. The application was submitted on August 8,2005
and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on August 9,2005. This project was approved at
the December 14, 2005 Planning Commission hearing. (PA05-0232 - FISK)
. Milgard Windows - A Minor Modification to an approved Development Plan to construct a
12,000 square foot awning at the rear of the Milgard Windows manufacturing facility located
at 26879 Diaz Road. This project was submitted on October 17, 2005. Comments were sent
to the applicant on November 17, 2005 and the project was resubmitted on December 8,
2005. The project was administratively approved on January 13,2006. (PA05-0307-
KITZEROW/PETERS)
. Rosa's Cantina - Planning staff helped this applicant prepare plans for a Minor Modification
to construct and addition to an existing food storage room atthis Old Town restaurant. This
project was approved at the Old Town Local Review Board in January. (PA05-0344-
NOLAND)
Proiects Under Review
Commercial
. Star World Center - A Development Plan to construct a 13,709 square foot commercial
building on 1.4 acres located on the west side of Old Town Front Street, approximately 800
feet south of Santiago Road. The application was submitted on November 22, 2004. A
DRC meeting was held with the applicant on January 6, 2005. A DRC letter was sent to the
applicant on January 6,2005. Revised plans were submitted on April 27, 2005. A second
DRC meeting was held with the applicant on June 9, 2005 and a DRC letter was sent to the
applicant on June 9, 2005. Revised plans were submitted on August 2, 2005. A third DRC
meeting was held on September 1, 2005. Revised plans were submitted on October 26,
2005. The project is scheduled for the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
(PA04-0584 - FISK)
. Pujol Condos - A Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes for a residential
condominium project located approximately 1 ,800 feet south of 1" Street on the west side of
Pujol. The application was submitted on July 7, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on
September 1, 2005 and a DRC letter was mailed on September 1, 2005. Revised plans
were submitted on October 26, 2005. A second DRC letter was sent to the applicant on
December 13, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting the submittal of environmental documents
and revised plans. (PA05-0209 - FISK)
. Krieger's Fayade and Porch - A Minor Modification to a Development Plan to paint an
existing building and to construct a 528 square foot covered porch along the west side of the
building. The application was submitted on February22, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on
March 31, 2005 and a DRC letter was sent at the applicant on April 6, 2005. The project
was re-reviewed at the May 9,2005 Old Town Local Review Board meeting. The Old Town
Local Review Board requested that the applicant provide additional information and details.
Revised plans were submitted on July 7,2005. Staff determined that information requested
by the Old Town Local Review Board had not been included with the resubmittal. Staff sent
correspondence to the applicant requesting an update on the resubmittal of plans on
October 27,2005. The applicant has indicated that they intend to relocate the building and
therefore do not intend to pursue this application, therefore the application will be closed.
(PA05-0055 - FISK)
. Tall Tree Mall Expansion - A Development Plan to construct a 3,000 square foot addition to
an existing 3,600 square foot commercial office building on .18 acres, located at 41964 Main
Street in Old Town. The project was submitted on December 21,2004. A DRC was held on
February 17, 2005. A DRC letter was sent on February 18, 2005. A 30 day letter was sent
to the applicant on April 22, 2005. Revised plans were submitted on July 11,2005. A DRC
meeting was held on August 18, 2005 and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on August
18, 2005. A 30 - day no response letter was sent on October 5, 2005 and a 60 day no
response letter was sent on October 26, 2005. The application will be closed by staff due to
inactivity. (PA04-0622 - FISK)
. Temecula Creek Plaza Sign Program - A Comprehensive Sign Program for seven
commercial/office/retail buildings at the southeast corner of Jedediah Smith Road and
Highway 79 South. The application was submitted on February 9,2005. Comments were
sent to the applicant on July 25, 2005. Revised comments were sent to the applicant on
December 7, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the revised program. (PA5-0040 - PAPP)
. Temecula Glass Company - A Development Plan to construct an 11,271 square foot
commercial building on .987 acres located at 41755 Enterprise Circle. The application was
submitted on April 12, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on May 19, 2005. A DRC letter was
sent on May 20, 2005. Revised plans were submitted on December 7, 2005. Staff is
currently reviewing revised plans. (PA05-01 05 - BALES)
. Redhawk Car Wash and Tire Store - A Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit
submitted on June 8, 2005 for 3 buildings totaling 8,354 square feet used for a self-serve
carwash and tire store. The project is located on the northeast corner of Margarita Road
and De Portola Road. A DRC meeting was held on August 18, 2005. A DRC letter was
mailed on August 23, 2005. Applicant is working out access issues with Staff. Staff is
waiting for applicant resubmittal. (PA05-0172 -DAMKO)
. Butterfield Ranch Self-Storage - A Development Plan submitted June 19, 2005 for a
127,572 square foot self storage building located on the southeast corner of Highway 79
South and Butterfield Stage Road. A DRC meeting was held on September 1, 2005.
Applicant resubmitted on November 14, 2005. A DRC letter mailed November 28,2005.
Staff is waiting for applicant response. (PA05-0189 - DAMKO)
. BJ's Restaurant - A Development Plan to construct an 8,466 square foot restaurant building
on a 0.95 acre site located at the southeast corner of Ynez Road and Overland Drive. This
project was submitted September 22, 2005. A Planning Commission sub-committee
reviewed the proposed building and site plan changes for the Overland Commercial Center.
Revised plans were submitted on December 26, 2005 and staff is currently reviewing the
revised plans. Staff anticipates presenting the project at the February 15, 2006 Planning
Commission hearing. (PA05-0275 - FISK)
. BJ's Restaurant - A Minor Conditional Use Permit for the sale of distilled spirits from an
8,500 square foot restaurant to be located at the southeast corner of Ynez Road and
Overland Drive. The application was submitted on December 19, 2005. Staff has requested
Conditions of Approval and anticipates a February 15,2006 Planning Commission hearing
for the project. (PA05-0392 - FISK)
. BJ's Restaurant - A Minor Modification to an approved site plan for property located at the
south east corner of Ynez Road and Overland Drive. The approved site plan calls for two
5,500 square foot restaurant buildings to be located at the street corner of the site. The
applicant proposed to construct one 8,500 square foot restaurant rather than two, as
anticipated by the approved site plan. The application was submitted on December 19,
2005. Staff anticipates a February 15, 2006 Planning Commission for the project. (PA05-
0393 - FISK)
. Schafer Building - A Major Modification Application to an approved Development Plan to
change materials and add stucco to an approved building. The project is located at 41273
Margarita Road. This project was submitted October 5,2005. The project is scheduled for
the February 1, 2006 Planning Commission. (PA05-029 - MCCOY
. Jefferson Avenue Inn - An Application for an Extension of Time to Development Plan PAOO-
0507. PAOO-0507 is an approval for a 3-story hotel building located on Jefferson Avenue.
This project is tentatively scheduled for the March 15, 2006 Planning Commission hearing.
(PA05-0312 - MCCOY
. Temecula Professional Building - A Development Plan to construct a 10,5000 square foot
office building on 0.91 acres located on the west side of Margarita Road, approximately300
feet south of De Portola Road. The application was submitted on October 5,2005. A DRC
was held on December 12, 2005 and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on December
12, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PA05-0297 - FISK)
. Dr. Levi's Office and Retail - A Major Modification to renovate the former 5 & Diner into
offices and retail facilities located at 26460 Ynez Road. The application was submitted on
October 31, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on December 22, 2005. Staff is currently
awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0329 - BALES)
. Lyndie Lane Speculative Building - A Development Plan to construct a 9,265 square foot
commercial building located at 29748 Rancho California Road. The application was
submitted on October 14, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on December 8, 2005. Staff is
currently awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0305 - BALES)
. Rite Aid - A Minor Conditional Use Permit and Public Convenience and Necessity
application to sell alcohol within a 16,836 square foot retail facility to be located within the
Rancho Temecula Town Center at the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas
Road. The application was submitted on October 25, 2005. Staff is awaiting additional
documents to schedule for hearing. (PA05-0314 - BALES)
. Wells Fargo Drive Thru A TM - A Conditional Use Permit to a Development Plan for a drive
thru automatic teller machine for a Wells Fargo Bank. The project will be located on
Highway 7 south and Butterfield Stage Road. APN 960-030-008, 009. This project was
submitted on October 26,2005. A DRC meeting was held on December 15, 2005. Staff is
currently awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0319 - MCCOY
. Gupta Industrial Condo - A Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes to create 5
industrial condominium units in an existing building. The project was submitted on October
31,2005. The building is located at 41636 Enterprise Circle North. A DRC letter was mailed
out on January 9, 2006. Staff is waiting for a resubmittal. (PA05-0330 - MCCOY)
Subdivisions
. Selby Parcel Map - A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 21.22 acres into 6 parcels at the
east side of Ynez Road north of Rancho California Road and south of Solana Way. This
project was submitted on January 6, 2005. Comments were due January 28, 2005 and a
pre-DRC was held February 1, 2005. A DRC was held February 10, 2005. A DRC letter
was sent on February 102005. On June 30, 2005 Staff requested additional information to
complete an I nitial Study for this project. A DRC meeting was held August 4,2005. Revised
plans were submitted on September 16, 2005. A third comment letter was mailed November
2,2005, with a 3,d submittal received on September 15, 2005. Staff will schedule for a
Planning Commission hearing upon clearance from county geologist. Staff is waiting for
resubmittal. (PA05-0004 - KITZEROW /PETERS)
. Parcel Map 28049 - An Application for an Extension of Time for Parcel Map 28049. The
project site is located on the west side of Pujol Street, approximately 2,200 feet south of First
Street. The application was submitted on October 13, 2005. Staff anticipates a February
Director's Hearing for the project. (PA05-0304 - FISK)
Industrial
. Winchester Gilcrest - A Development Plan submitted on April 5, 2005 for a total of 55,956
square feet of industrial office/warehouse space in 3 one story buildings. The project is
located on the south side of Winchester Road, west of Diaz Road. A DRC was scheduled
for May 12, 2005. A DRC letter was mailed on May 17, 2005. Applicant resubmitted on
October 5, 2005. Comment letter was sent on October 20, 2005. Applicant has been
working with Staff on reviewing the site plan. (PA05-0096 - DAMKO)
. Plaza Rio Vista -A Development Plan to construct a 19,650 foot office building on .99 acres
at the corner of Black Deer Loop and Diaz Road. The application was submitted on May 1 0,
2005. The DRC meeting was held on June 23, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting revised
plans. (PA05-0139 - BALES)
. Storage 2 U - U haul Rental- A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for Uhaul rentals at
Storage 2U located at 27731 Diaz Road. The application was submitted on October 26,
2005. A DRC meeting was held on December 15, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting revised
plans. (PA05-0318 - BALES)
Mixed Use/Residential
. Naron Pacific Tentative Tract Map 30434-A proposal fora Tentative Tract Mapto create 30
residential lots and 4 open space lots in the chaparral area. The application was originally
submitted on April 18,2002. The CAD has made a recommendation on policy for the
chaparral Area allowing Y:! acre lots if it does not increase the "net" density. Staff met with
applicant in April to discuss grading issues and begin preparation of an I nitial Study. An
environmental constraint map was submitted on February 9, 2005. Staff met with the
applicant on March 22, 2005 to discuss grading impacts and received revised plans and
constraints map. A letter was mailed to the applicant on April 7, 2005 informing him thatthe
submitted plans are not adequate, the project is still considered incomplete, and additional
information is still required in order to proceed with processing. Staff met internally on April
8,2005 to discuss General Plan update. A letter was sent to the applicant on April 13, 2005
to explain City Council decision not to modify Chaparral Policy, therefore project plans must
be revised to adhere to existing policies within the General Plan. Staff is currently awaiting
submittal of revised plans. A 30 day close-out letter was sent certified mail to the applicant
on September 16, 2005 and the applicant requested additional time to revise plans. A 60
day follow up letter will be mailed. (PA02-0204 PA02-0193 - KITZEROW/PETERS)
. R. Alison TM -A Tentative Tract Mapto subdivide 3.71 acres into 11 residential lots located
at 31670 Rancho California Road. The application was submitted on June 9, 2005. A DRC
meeting was held on July 21, 2005 and a letter was mailed to the applicant on August 1,
2005. Staff is awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0034 - BALES)
. Wolf Creek Motorcourts - A Home Product Review and a Tentative Tract Map to Subdivide
14.1 acres into 6 common lots with 113 residential units in a motor court design. The
application was submitted February 7,2005. A DRC meeting was held March 10,2005.
Revised plans were submitted June 6, 2005. A DRC letter was mailed on September 16,
2005. Revised plans were submitted November 1, 2005. This project is scheduled for
Planning Commission on January 18, 2006. (PA05-0034 - KITZEROW/PETERS)
. Tierra Vista Condominiums - An Administrative Development Plan to construct 23 residential
condominiums on 1.5 acres. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of
Tierra Vista Road and Ynez Road. The application was submitted on September 30,2003.
Revised plans were submitted on July 7, 2004. A second DRC letter was provided on
September 10, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on February 7,2005. A third DRC
letter was provided to the applicant on April 8, 2005. Revised plans were received on
August 2, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting submittal of correspondence from the county
geologist regarding earthquake faultline setbacks. (PA03-0552 - FISK)
. Renaissance Villages - A Residential Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map to
construct 58 condominium units totaling 78,397 square feet on 3.98 acres generally located
on Pujol Street, approximately 100 feet north of Main Street. The application was submitted
on August 3,2005. A DRC meeting was held on September 26, 2005 and a DRC letter was
mailed to the applicant on September 27,2005. Revised plans were submitted on October
26, 2005. Staff has requested additional site plan revisions and is currently awaiting the
submittal of revised plans. (PA05-0229 - FISK)
. Temecula Lane -A Conditional Use permit, Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map to construct 59 4-plex buildings totaling 236 units, 32 3 plex buildings totaling 96 units
and 96 single-family detached units on a 47.5 acre site located at the northeast corner of
Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane. The project was submitted on August 8, 2004. A
DRC meeting was held with the applicant on October 21, 2004. Plan revisions were
submitted on March 3, 2005. Staff provided revision comments to the applicant on March
31,2005. The project is scheduled forthe January 18,2006 Planning Commission Hearing.
(PA04-0496 - DAMKO)
. Woodcreek Apartments - A Minor Modification application to build 35 tenant covered
parking spaces/garage ports to be located at 42200 Moraga Road. The application was
submitted on May 31, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on July 14, 2005. Revised plans
were submitted on August 4, 2005. A second DRC letter was sent on August 25, 2005.
Staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PA05-0160 - BALES)
. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness Church - A Pre-Application for a Conditional Use Permit
to construct an 11,550 square foot church with two additional detached residential units
totaling 1,612 square feet located on Calle Girasol and Riverton. The project was submitted
on July 19, 2005 and is currently under review. A DRC was held on September 22,2005. A
DRC letter was sent on September 29,2005. Staff is currently waiting for a formal submittal.
(PR05-0012 - MCCOY)
. Silver Oaks - A Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map to construct 112 age restricted
condominiums on 7.5 acres on the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Dartola Road.
The project was submitted on August 9, 2005. A second DRC was held on November 1,
2005. Staff is currently awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0235, PA05-0236 - BALES)
. Pujol Condos - A Development Plan to construct 9 multi-family condominium buildings
totaling 134,213 square feet on 7.85 acres located on the west side of Pujol Street,
approximately1 ,800 feet south of 1" Street. The application was submitted on July 21,
2005. A DRC meeting was held on September 1,2005 and a DRC letter was mailed to the
applicant on September 1, 2005. Revised plans were submitted on October 26, 2005. A
second DRC letter was sent to the applicant on December 13, 2005. Staff is currently
awaiting the submittal of environmental documents and revised plans. (PA05-0208 - FISK)
. Tentative Tract Map 32780 - A Tentative Tract Map to divide 22.45 acres into 38 single
family lots on Walcott Lane north of La Serena. The project was submitted on August 10,
2005 and is awaiting applicant response. A DRC letter was held and a DRC letter was
mailed to the applicant on December 13, 2005. Staff is currently waiting for resubmittal.
(PA05-0240 - MCCOY)
. Mira Loma PDO -A Planned Development Overlay to change the zoning ofa 7.24 acre site
from High Density Residential (H) to PDO -11 to change the development standards forthe
site. The project site is located at 29601 Mira Loma Road. The project was submitted on
August 8, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on September 29, 2005 and a DRC letter was
sent to the applicant on October 4,2005. Staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised
plans. (PA05-0234 - FISK)
. Redhawk PA 13 -A Pre-Application to construct 98 condominiums totaling 117, 897 square
feet on 8.9 acres on Deer Hollow Road and Peach Tree Street. The application was
submitted on August 31,2005. A DRC meeting was held and a DRC letter was sent to the
applicant on November 21,2005. Staff is waiting for formal resubmittal. (PR05 - 0014-
MCCOY)
. Stonebriar - Wolf Creek - A Home Product Review for 112 single family homes in PA21 of
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Elevations include three floor plans and elevation types
ranging from 3022 to 3446 square feet. Application was submitted November 4, 2005. A
DRC letter was sent out on December 27, 2005. Staff is waiting for resubmittal. (PA05-
0332 - MCCOY)
. Temecula Village - A Pre-Application for commercial retail center to be located at 30010
Rancho California Road. This project was submitted September 30,2005, and is currently
under review. A DRC letter went out on January 5, 2006. Staff is waiting for formal
resubmittal. (PR05-0017 - MCCOY)
. Palm Valley Condo Conversion - A Tentative Tract Map (TTM 34062), Conditional Use
Permit, and Multi-Family Residential Development Plan application to convert 32 apartment
units to condominiums located at 42140 Lyndie Lane. The application was submitted on
September 29,2005. A DRC hearing was mailed on November 2, 2005. The project was
resubmitted on November 21,2005 and is scheduled for Planning Commission on February
1, 2006. (PA05-0290 - PETERS/KITZEROW)
. Laurel at Wolf Creek - A Home Product Review for architecture and placement of 167 single
family residences within Planning Area 15 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The project was
submitted on October 20,2005. A DRC letter was mailed to the applicant and the applicant
resubmitted on December 23,2005. The project is currently under review. (PA05-0310-
MCCOY)
Miscellaneous
. Sprint 100 Margarita - A Minor Conditional Use Permit for the co-location of six (6) cellular
telecommunication antennas on a mono-pine, which includes the replacement of the existing
57 foot high mono-pine, with a 68'4 ft mono pine, located at 41520 Margarita Road. The
application was submitted on September 23, 2004. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant
on October 19, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on December 9,2004. The applicant
contacted staff on February 22, 2005 stating that the proposed site for co-location was
already occupied by another carrier and that revised plans must be submitted for location on
another structure on the project site. Revised plans were submitted on June 29, 2005. A
DRC letter was sent to the applicant on August 4, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting the
submittal of revised plans. (PA04-0529 - FISK)
. Margarita Crossings - A Sign Program for the proposed Margarita Crossings Shopping
Center located at the southwest corner of Margarita Road and Overland Drive. The
application was submitted on March 1, 2005. A DRC letter was sent on March 28, 2005 and
staff met with the applicant to review the DRC comments on April 22, 2005. The applicant
submitted a revised sign program on July 1,2005. The project was heard at the September
21, 2005 Planning Commission hearing and was continued to the December 7, 2005
Planning Commission hearing so that the applicant could revise the program and address
the Planning Commission concerns. The sign program was approved at the December 14,
2005 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has filed an appeal of the conditions of
approval placed on the project. Staff anticipates presenting the appeal at a February 2006
City Council meeting. (PA05-0064 - FISK)
. Doghouse/Lolita Road Monopalm Wireless antenna - A Conditional Use Permit to construct
a 50 foot high monopalm with 12 panel antennas, on 2" microwave dish, a shelter to match
residence, a generator pad for emergency use, and 2 live palm trees with irrigation located
at 30984 Lolita Road. The application was submitted on June 24, 2005. A DRC letter was
mailed on July 23, 2005. This project was resubmitted in November and a second DRC
letter was sent December 16, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting resubmittal. (PA05-0195-
KITZEROW/PETERS)
. Cingular Mono-Pine Wireless Antenna - A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 50 foot
high monopalm on Greentree Road, approximately 500'east of Via Sierra. The project was
submitted on April 19, 2004. Staff has received 3,d party review comments. Staff has
postponed scheduling the project for a Planning Commission hearing at the applicant's
request and anticipates scheduling the application for a March 2006 Planning Commission
hearing. (PA04-0285 - FISK)
. Meadowview Golf Course - A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and
construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. The
focused EIR requires modification. Staff is currently waiting for the revised EIR. (PA01-
0375 - KITZEROW/PETERS)
. Verizon Wireless Telecommunication - A Conditional Use Permit for a 60-foot high mono-
pine within the Rancho California Water District facility. Staff has informed the applicant that
the proposed mono-pole is not an acceptable design for the area. The applicant indicated
alternative sites would not be feasible; however, on November 10,2003, they offered to look
at alternative sites and designs. The applicant resubmitted on May 1 0,2004. Staff met with
the applicant on August 19, 2004 to discuss design alternatives. The applicant is continuing
to cooperate with staff to develop a solution. On September 16, 2004 the applicant
submitted design concepts that were not supported by staff. There has been no formal
resubmittal since May 10,2004. There is a new Telecommunication consultant for third
party review. Staff issued a 30-day close out letter for this project on November 14, 2005. A
60-day close out letter was sent to the applicant on January 13, 2006. (PA02'{)637 - PAPP)
. Temecula Regional Hospital- A General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Overlay,
Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan, and a Parcel Map to construct a fitness center,
cancer center, two medical/office buildings (4 stories each) and a six story hospital structure
all totaling approximately 535,000 square feet, located north of Highway 79 South, south of
De Portola and west of Margarita Road. The project was submitted June 30, 2004. A DRC
was held on August 18, 2004. Staff and the city Council subcommittee have met with the
applicant twice. The applicant submitted revised plans and a Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-
0571) on November 4, 2004. This project went to the Planning Commission on April 6,
2005. The Planning Commission recommended that staff prepare an EIR forthis project. A
Focused EIR was prepared for this project and is currently out for Public Review and
Comment. The public comment period closed on October 28, 2005. This project was
presented to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2005 and again on January 5,
2006. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and
approve the project. This project is scheduled for the January 24, 2006 City Council
meeting. (R04 -0462, PA04-0463 - PAPP)
. Verizon Wireless Telecommunication - A one-year extension of time for a previously
approved Minor Conditional Use Permit (PA01-0019) to co-locate 3 antenna array panels on
an existing mono pine structure located at the RCWD tank in Chardonnay Hills, 31008
Rancho California Road. A Director's Hearing was held on September 9, 2004 where itwas
re-directed to Planning Commission due to environmental concerns expressed by
neighboring property owners. An Initial Study is being prepared to consider aesthetic
impacts. The applicant has been notified that a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
There is a new consultant working with the applicant who is preparing a new submittal to
forward to our new Telecommunication consultant for 3,d party review. The applicant has
been advised that continued processing of this application will require the submittal of an
additional one-year extension oftime as more that one-year lapsed since the application was
submitted. The applicant has not applied for a second Extension of Time and a 30 day
close out letter was issued on November 14, 2005. On January 11 , 2006, this application
was closed due to inactivity and because the Extension of Time had expired. (PA04-0264-
PAPP)
. Brightstart Daycare - A Minor Conditional Use Permit for a large family childcare proposed
in a 1,639 square foot home located at 31862 Via Barraza. This project was submitted on
July 26, 2005 and is currently under review. A DRC meeting was held on September 1,
2005 and a DRC letter was sent on September 13, 2005 to the applicant. Staff is still
awaiting applicant response. (PA05-0213 - MCCOY)
. General Kearney Reservoir Wireless Facility - A Conditional Use Permit to replace an
existing non-disguised unmanned wireless monopole with a new 65 foot tall unmanned
wireless mono pine with 12 antennas, four-foot diameter microwave dish and associated 336
square foot shelter and a back-up generator. The property is east of Placer Lafite and south
of Chemin Coutet. The application was submitted on March 1,2005. A DRC meeting was
held on April 21 ,2005. Staff is currently awaiting revisions. (PA05-0063 - BALES)
Small Business Assistance
. Wine Sellars - An Administrative Development Plan for an outdoor dining area has been
submitted for this wine tasting facility at the south east corner of Sixth Street and Old Town
Front Street (The Hitching Post Center) in Old Town Temecula. Staff is currently this
applicant resolve issues with the Public Works and Community Services Departments. The
signs for this business were approved by the Old Town Local Review Board in December
under a separate application. (PA05-0269 - NOLAND)
. I Love Clocks - Staff helped this applicant obtain approval of new signs for this business in
Old Town Temecula. (PA05-0281 - NOLAND)
. The Farmers Wife - The Old Town Local Review Board and Planning Department approved
an Administrative Development Plan for new signs for this business located in the Chaparral
North Building in Old Town Temecula. (PA05-0273 NOLAND)
. CBM Financial- City Planning Staff helped this applicant obtain approval for new signs for
their business in Old Town Temecula. (PA05-0303 - NOLAND)
. Truffles & Lace - Planning staff helped this applicant obtain approval for new signs for their
business in Old Town Temecula. (PA05-0348 - NOLAND)
. European Cafe - New signs were approved for this renamed business in Old Town Plaza.
Staff aided the applicant in complying with the sign program for this center and obtaining
funding under the Fayade Improvement Program. (PA05-0347 - NOLAND)
. The Banquet Room - Staff helped the applicant in the approval process and funding under
the Fayade Improvement Program for signs at this new location in Old Town Plaza. (PA05-
0346 - NOLAND)
. State Farm - Signs were approved forthis new business in Old Town Plaza and staff helped
the applicant obtain funding under the Fayade Improvement Program. (PA05-0364-
NOLAND)
Special Event Permits
. 2005 Holiday Light Parade - Planning Department staff helped the Community Services
Department obtain approval for this Major Temporary Use permit. This city-sponsored event
took place December 2, 2005 on Jefferson Avenue. (PA05-0251 - NOLAND)
. Baby Cruz Charity Car Wash - A Minor Temporary Use Permit was approved to conduct this
event at the North West corner of State Highway 79 and Margarita Road on November 12,
2005. (PA05-0343 - NOLAND)
Special Proiects & LonQ RanQe PlanninQ Activities
The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for
both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance
or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the
major special projects and long range planning activities currently in progress are described in
the paragraphs below:
. Development Code Clean-Up Amendment - The item was initially presented to the Planning
Commission and has been continued off-calendar. Staff has finalized the amendmentto the
Development Code. The proposed amendment is currently under review. (PA05-0041 -
WEST)
. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment - Staff has finalizing the draft amendment to the Old
Town Specific Plan to expand the protection for historic structures throughout the City, as
well as make a number of other clarifications related to alleys, landscaping, signage, and
mixed use projects within the Old Town Area. A draft of the I nitial Environmental Study and
notification letters for the non-Old Town property owners have been prepared and are
currently under review. Staff anticipates taking this item to the Planning Commission in
March. (PA04-0596 - WEST)
. Nicolas Valley Rezoning -To better implement the Rural Preservation provisions of the
General Plan an amendment to the Development Code to further restrict the land use
options in this area is being prepared. This item is incorporated into the Development Code
Clean-up Amendment. (WEST)
. Public Transportation Master Plan - The decision has been made to attemptto do this work
effort in-house rather than hiring an outside consultant. Staff is beginning the process of
developing detailed work outline to guide the future work effort. (WEST)
. Mixed Use Development Standards and Traditional Neighborhood Design Criteria - Staff
has started the development process for Mixed Use Development Standards by reviewing
existing projects and guidelines. This is expected to result in a recommended approach for
areas of the City that are designated for Mixed Use development. (WEST)
. Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Amendment - Staff is proposing to amend the Roripaugh
Estates Specific Plan to resolve commercial zoning issues and existing land uses a draft
Specific Plan has been developed. Staff is preparing to undertake a similar process with the
Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. (PA97 -0443 - WEST)
. Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft-
grading ordinance. Staff is working with GIS to analyze topography, soil types,
environmental (habitat), and other constraints.
. Procedures to Implement CEQA - Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines and
procedure manual for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local
exemptions. This is expected to include significance thresholds and procedures for the City
to contract for the preparation of environmental impact reports.
. Project environmental reviews and permitting:
.:. EMWD Wastewater Lift Station - Staff is reviewing the EMWD proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the replacement of the existing lift station along Diaz Road.
The new lift station is proposed to be located at the corner of Diaz Road, Rancho
California Road and Business Park Drive. The public comment period ends January 18,
2006. (WEST)
.:. Diaz Road General Plan Level Improvements - Staff has prepared an Initial Study to
determine the impacts of constructing ultimate improvements on Diaz Road. Staff is
recommending that a Negative Declaration be prepared, the scheduling of this item for
the City Council will be coordinated with Public Works Department. (EA07 - PAPP)
.:. 1-15/ SR79 S. Ultimate Interchange Project - Staff has provided comments to the Public
Works Department on the issues that need to be addressed in the NEPA/CEQA
document that is to be prepared for this project. (EA111 - WEST)
General Plan Amendments
. PA03-0178 TERC 52, LLC - A General Plan Amendment application (and Zone Change
PA03-0177) to change the land use designation on 52.83 acres from Business Parkto High
Density Residential at the northwest corner of the Rancho California Business Park adjacent
to the Campus project. Staff is awaiting the submittal of additional information to determine
that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive General Update. Due to inactivity,
staff issued a 30 day close out letter on November 14, 2005. A 60-day close letter was sent
to the applicant on January 13, 2006. (PAPP)
. PA04-0411, Nicolas 73 - A General Plan Amendment application (and Zone Change PA04-
0414, and TTM PA04-0415 ) to change the land use designation on 73 acres from very low
density Residential to L-1 at the southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo. Pre-DRC
was held on July 8,2004 and DRC was held on July 15, 2004. Based upon issues raised at
DRC and clarified in a follow-up letter the applicant was informed that staff does not support
the GPA. Issues related to the overall project density and number of lots proposed on the
map will require a resubmittal. Due to inactivity, staff issued a 30 day close out letter on
November 14, 2005. A 60-day close out letter was sent to the applicant on January 13,
2006. (PAPP)
. Map 32780 - A General Plan amendment to amend the Land Use Designation from Very
Low (VL) to Low Density (L) for a 22.45 acre parcel located on Walcott Lane north of La
Serena (APN 957-170-032-033-034-035-036). This application was submitted on August
13, 2005. A DRC is scheduled for November 15, 2005. A DRC was held and a DRC letter
was mailed to the applicant on December 13, 2005. Staff is currently waiting for resubmittal.
(PA05-0283 - MCCOY