Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
090809 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 - 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/Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section: 1. Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by the Temecula Redevelopment Agency consisting of approximately 30 acres (APN 909-370- 002) located northwesterly of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The parties to the negotiations for sale of this parcel are: Temecula Water Park L.P. (aka Clearwater Development) and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Negotiators for the Temecula Redevelopment Agency are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson, and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the sale of a portion of the parcel. 2. Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and City related entities based on existing facts and circumstances. With respect to such matter, the City Council will also meet pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to decide whether to initiate litigation. 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: 09-07 Resolution: 09-77 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Vanessa Cernac Invocation: Rabbi Yitzchok Hurwitz of Chabad of Temecula Valley Flag Salute: Council Member Roberts ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation to Christopher Curran PTA Membership Month Proclamation South Coast Winerv Golden Bear Award 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 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of August 20, 2009; 2.2 Approve the action minutes of August 25, 2009. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 2009. 5 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application for a proposed amount of $29,032. 6 Authorization to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. 7 Southern California Edison Rate Update - at the request of Council Member Washington RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Receive and File. 8 Second Amendment to Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Temecula and PlanNet Consulting for the Old Town Civic Center IS Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: 3 8.1 Approve an amendment to the Agreement for consulting Services for the Old Town Civic Center IS Master Plan in the amount of $40,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Western Bypass Bridge Project (PW06- RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE PROJECT (PW06-04) AND APPROVING THE PROJECT 10 Planning Application PA02-0311, Crowne Hill Reserve, Disbursement and Release Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve Disbursement and Release Agreement ("Agreement") by and between the City of Temecula and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association regarding disbursement of bond monies the City obtained from Insurance Company of the West in the amount of $1,168,000 and settlement agreement monies the City obtained from PFF Bank and Trust in the amount of $300,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 11 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the action minutes of August 25, 2009. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 12 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the action minutes of August 25, 2009 RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Appoint an applicant to serve an un-expired term on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission through October 10, 2010. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council Regular, Tuesday, September 22, 2009, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with the regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing at the Main Reception at City Hall (43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula) or at the Temecula Library (30600 Pauba Road, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the packet may as well be accessed on the City's website - www.cityoftemecula.orp Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review at the Main Reception at City Hall (43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula - 8:00 - 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's web - www.citvoftemecula.orp - and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact City Clerk's Department - 951-694-6444. PRESENTATIONS . C ~ CIS ~ ~ C o Ui I -N U cq w~~ I~ 4-D ~ ~ z E-o ~4 4 1 . b - , ~ N o ~ ~ ~ CL ct o a o 5 U h ct 41 41 h x a~ N iw o CIO W N a a ? an C,~ w ILI S-i C~ N C U N rA :a rA -o 1 a 0 CIO 75 Cl. u r n U, N 4-4 0 a N a 7r 7r U U U ~ ~ ~ N ' V + i"C V U U o U W ~s c ° s U Cl. r - G T w w~ w w w~ w w x w w w ~ w w w w ~ ~ ~ ~ x xa x x~ x•° x~; x o U ? N .a H ~ a ~ CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AUGUST 20, 2009 - 7:00 PM The City Council meeting convened at 7:01 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL REPORTS COUNCIL BUSINESS Mayor Maryann Edwards Earlene Bundy Pastor Anderson of Crossroad Church Council Member Naggar Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Edwards 1 Health Care Workshop - directed staff to organize a meeting with the Governor, the Temecula Hospital Ad Hoc Subcommittee (comprised of Council Members Comerchero and Naggar), Supervisor Stone, Southwest Health Care representative, and legislators in an effort to address this item. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Discuss all appropriate issues associated with the delivery of health care services to the community and provide direction to staff as necessary. Specifically, the following three items: • Status update on the approval/opening of the new Rancho Springs Hospital Emergency Room • Status update on the Medicare/Medicaid situation on the existing Rancho Springs Hospital facility & Inland Valley Medical Center and regulatory approval affecting the California Department of Public Health (DPH) review • Status update and timeline on the approval of plans for the Temecula Regional Hospital by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OS H PD) 1 Assistant City Manager Adams presented the staff report (as per agenda material). The following individuals addressed the City Council with regard to this matter: • Dennis Knox - CEO of Southwest Health Care Systems (comprised of Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Medical Center) addressed the following: o Current status of Southwest Healthcare CMS certification o Opening of the new expansion at Rancho Springs Medical Center o Development status of the new facility in Temecula • Chief of Staff Jeff Green - Office Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries • Director of Field Operations Larry Grable - Office of the Governor • District Representative Phil Pauley - representing Congressman Issa • Supervisor Jeff Stone • Murrieta City Council Member Rick Gibbs At this time, the meeting was opened for public input and the following individuals spoke: • Wayne Hall • Joan Sparkman • Roseann Hruska • Ron Johnson • Jimmy Moore • Paul Jacobs • Linda Mejia CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 9:43 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with the regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AUGUST 25, 2009 - 7:00 PM 6:15 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and City related entities based on existing facts and circumstances. With respect to such matter, the City Council will also meet pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to decide whether to initiate litigation. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. At 6:15 P.M., Council Member Comerchero moved to call the Closed Session to order. The motion was seconded by Council Member Naggar and voice vote reflected approval of those present (Council Members Washington and Roberts were absent). The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Tiffany Christensen and Saya Hazel Invocation: Reverend Pat Campbell of Temecula Valley Center for Spiritual Living Flag Salute: Council Member Naggar ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Edwards Constitution Week Proclamation United Way Day of Caring Proclamation 1 Business/ Industry Recognition Program - Medical Industry The following businesses were recognized: Abbot Vascular ExtruMed FFF Enterprises Professional Hospital Supply Temecula Children's Museum Nickelodeon Award PUBLIC COMMENTS Angela Morns and Bruce Nimmo, representing Angels at Work, invited the City Council Members to a fundraising benefit "Celebration of Life" on Sunday, September 27, 2009. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed Summerhouse project: • Diane Kessloff • Fred Grindle • Nick Sannella • Bridget Blanton • Carol Monroe • Ann-Marie Honor • Haley Seino • Barry Marr • Jay Jordan • Anne Gregorio • Kathy Vining • Mario Abob • Sheryl Casillas • Rosemary Davis • Glenn Paulson The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed Summerhouse project and addressed the City's current homeless problem: • Shari Crall • Paula Hollis • Denny Mighell • Gregory Melvin Fred Bartz informed the City Council of the Fallbrook Community Planning Group's opposition to the proposed Quarry. Starting September 14, 2009, Jimmy Moore apprised the Council Members of the Osher Program (Osher Lifelong Learning Institute) that will be provided at the Cal State San Marcos Temecula campus. 2 Mr. Moore as well invited the Council and the public to an upcoming BBQ at Vail Ranch on Sunday, November 1, 2009, hosted by the Historical Society. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of August 11, 2009. List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 09-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Access to Summary Criminal History Information - Approved Staff Recommendation (5- 0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 09-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ACCESS SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION OF EMPLOYEES, VOLUNTEERS, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, AND PERMITTEES Approve FY 2009-10 Economic Development Operating Agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the operating agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $136,260. Approval of Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau FY 2009-10 Marketing Agreement - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Marketing Agreement which provides City Marketing Funding Support of $108,000 to the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau (CONVIS). Memorandum of Understanding between California State University San Marcos, Temecula Valley Unified School District, the City of Temecula, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - CSUSM Enrollment Advantage - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between California State University San Marcos, Temecula Valley Unified School District, the City of Temecula, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. License Agreement between the City of Temecula and Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) for Use of Real Property. Parcel Map 32158 (located on the west side of Bostik Court, south of Winchester Road) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Parcel Map 32158 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval. 10 Parcel Map 36055 (located on the south side of 3rd Street, west of Old Town Front Street) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve Parcel Map 36055 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval. 11 Second Amendment to Agreement with Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. for Construction Services - CCTV Camera Installation on Temecula Parkway (Route 79 South) and Pechanga Parkway - Project No. PW07-07 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1 1.1 Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc., for Construction Services for CCTV Camera Installation on Temecula Parkway (Route 79 South) and Pechanga Parkway for an amount not to exceed $35,600. 12 Minor Construction Agreement to Install Fiber Optic Cable associated with the Closed Circuit Television Installation on Temecula Parkway and Pechanga Parkway - Project No. PW07-07 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve a Minor Construction Agreement with SECC Corporation for an amount not to exceed $56,195; 12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the 10% contingency amount of $5,620. 13 Second Amendment to the Agreement with GFB Friedrich, Inc. for De Portola Road Pavement Rehabilitation - Project No. PW06-10 -Approved Staff Recommendation (5- 0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with GFB Friedrich, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $8,950 for additional engineering design services necessary to modify the design for De Portola Road Pavement Rehabilitation - Project No. PW06-10 - and extend the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2010. 14 Award a Construction Contract to Hiah-Licht Electric. Inc. for Traffic Sianal Interconnect Equipment Installation - Project No. PW04-05 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Award a construction contract for Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation - Project No. PW04-05 - to High-Light Electric, Inc. in the amount of $211,878, which includes the base bid of $175,878 and Additive Bid No. 1 in the amount of $36,000; 14.2 Authorize the City Manger to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $21,187.80, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 14.3 Make a finding that the Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 15 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 09-06 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 09-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AFFIRMING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO GATHER FOR EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PARKS, ADDING CHAPTER 12.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED PARADES AND SPECIAL EVENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND AMENDING SECTION 17.04.020 A. OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING THAT CHAPTER 17.04 APPLIES TO TEMPORARY USES AND SPECIAL EVENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY At 8:24 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency. At 8:26 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council approved the Settlement Agreement with the United States Bank for the Crowne Hill Reserves Project based on claims they made against the City; that the terms of the settlement are that the bank will be paying the City the sum of $300,000; and that the City Council authorized the City Manager to sign the Settlement Agreement once that has been finalized. ADJOURNMENT At 8:27 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 5:30 P.M. for a Closed Session with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] ITEM NO. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: September 08, 2009 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Jada Yonker, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $6,122,082.71. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of September, 2009. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 09- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of September, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 08/13/2009 TOTAL CHECK RUN 08/21/2009 TOTAL CHECK RUN 08/20/2009 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: $ 2,019,004.04 3,561,043.43 542,035.24 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 09/082009 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 6,122,082.71 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 674,428.91 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 4,417.50 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 16,992.27 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 322,389.88 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 76,089.70 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 31,317.66 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,138.48 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 13,663.81 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 13,882.05 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 1,679,152.27 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 41,907.40 300 INSURANCE FUND 13,100.59 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 34,279.12 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 7,139.23 340 FACILITIES 8,491.06 370 CITY 2008 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 1,005,128.76 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 6,867.83 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,195,435.12 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 110,882.84 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 81,601.25 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 8,629.27 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 141,009.62 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 32,958.99 477 CFD- RORIPAUGH 59,143.86 001 GENERAL FUND $ 288,287.32 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 11,142.21 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 143,351.40 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 147.67 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 4,763.51 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,446.11 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 1,313.74 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 422.39 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 4,087.81 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,281.77 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 24,291.95 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 5,401.20 340 FACILITIES 9,150.00 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 46,948.16 $ 5,580,047.47 542,035.24 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 6,122,082.71 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 0811312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133252 08113/2009 004594 2 HOT ACTIVEWEAR helmet shield: Fire Marshal 73.95 7195 133253 08113/2009 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD instructor earnings 880.00 880.00 133254 08113/2009 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL Jul training: Police K-9 unit 141.67 141.67 INC 133255 08113/2009 003859 ALL ABOUT SELF STORAGE rental storage unit C354:TV Mseum 2,304.00 rental storage unit C351:Ch Mseum 2,868.00 rental storage unit C332:TV Mseum 2,208.00 7,380.00 133256 08113/2009 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT ret.w/h pmt:R.C. Rd pavement rehab. -22,486.79 Jun prgs pmt:rancho cal pave rehab 224,867.90 credit:billing adjlrancho cal pave rehab -20,302.79 reverse retention/credit:r.c. pave rehab. 2,030.28 Jun ret.w/h pmt:pechanga pkwy -132,027.04 Jun prgs pmt:pechanga pkwy ph II 1,320,270.42 credit:billing adjlpechanga pkwy ph II -327,278.40 reverse retention/credit:pech. pkwy phll 32,727.84 1,077,801.42 133257 08113/2009 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW backflowtest/repair: Wolf Creek 22.00 22.00 133258 0811312009 013079 AT&T LAFCO:ping conf call:05118/09 211.42 211.42 133259 08113/2009 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN Membership: 25868902 MM 47.00 CALIF Membership: 14420053 RS 47.00 94.00 133260 08113/2009 012583 BLANCA Y PRICE billing adj/review fees paid: Planning 500.00 500.00 133261 08113/2009 011230 BONILLA, GERMAN Entertainment: Hot Smr Nights 8114 500.00 500.00 133262 08113/2009 012696 CAL-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC refund:ping dep:overpymnt fees 1,936.00 1,936.00 133263 08113/2009 002415 CASTLE AMUSEMENT PARK TCSD Day Camp Excursion 816 1,608.96 1,608.96 133264 0811312009 012848 CHRISTOPHER R MORALES INC Jul trf sgnl install:btrfld stage/welton 99,855.00 99,855.00 133265 08113/2009 012578 COLLINS, JOHN Entertain ment:old town holiday 12112/08 200.00 200.00 133266 0811312009 008594 COMMUNITY BANK Rel/Escrow 1202:Pech.Pkwy ph II 99,299.20 99,299.20 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 08/1312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133267 08113/2009 008594 COMMUNITY BANK Rel/Escrow 1418:R.C.Rd Pvmnt Rhb. 20,456.51 20,456.51 133268 08113/2009 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC IS technical consulting:citywide 1,750.00 1,750.00 133269 08113/2009 010331 COOPER, JOSIAH reimb: day camp teen excursion 8111 150.00 150.00 133270 08113/2009 012940 CRAWFORD, LILLIAN Gospel @ the Merc 811109 178.50 178.50 133271 08113/2009 003962 DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES INC Idscp inspection srvcs:Pech. Pkwy phll 8,573.75 8,573.75 133272 08113/2009 006484 DAVIS, DEREK performance:sum mer concert 8120 1,000.00 1,000.00 133273 08113/2009 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL portable restroom:AglowlPark 7110 217.63 217.63 SRVCS 133274 08113/2009 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISKIHUB INT'L Jul special events premiums 1,397.87 1,397.87 133275 0811312009 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles:Code Enf 261.80 INC Fuel for City vehicles: Police 100.70 Fuel for City vehicles:B&S 230.60 Fuel for City vehicles:Windstar 81.85 Fuel for City vehicles:PW Maint 1,085.00 Fuel for City vehicles:PW Traffic 223.93 Fuel for City vehicles:PW CIP 69.67 Fuel for City vehicles:TCSDlCode Enf 2,146.92 Fuel for City vehicles:PW Depts 694.51 4,894.98 133276 08113/2009 011202 E M H SPORTS & FITNESS TCSD instructor earnings 1,347.50 1,347.50 133277 08113/2009 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS recognition plaques: Econ Dev 385.46 385.46 INC 133278 08113/2009 005115 ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR INC transportation: teen camp 7114 108.74 transportation: teen camp 7128 155.19 263.93 133279 08113/2009 003665 EXCEL COMMERCIAL July: long distance phone svcs 65.32 65.32 133280 08113/2009 003623 EXCEL HARDWARE go cart rental: 4th of July 240.02 equip rentalAth of July events 240.02 480.04 133281 08113/2009 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE new p I ants: Jefferson Ave medians 1,008.00 irrigation repairs: Rancho Highlands 480.85 1,488.85 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 08113/2009 4:47:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 133282 08113/2009 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC (Continued) Description Amount Paid 712-17 Express mail services 241.23 133283 08113/2009 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE title reports: Res Improve Pgrm COMPANY 133284 08113/2009 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER SWING INN CAFE GYtrng meeting 6124109 JAMESON MANAGEMENT INC HP circuit bds door sys:tcsd SO CAL CINEMAS HP tckts:smr day camp excursion 7114 COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS HP us patent/trdmrk:tcsd AND PAYPAL GR Payflow Pro Transaction SOUTHWEST AIRLINES GR airfare fee credit 7121109 AMERICAN AIRLINES RR airfare:NLC TIS conf 9129 FRENCH VALLEY CAFE GY LT meeting 718109 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES JC regist:NLC ann'I conf 11110-14 ALLIED HAND DRYER HP pushbutton hand dryer:tcsd HILTON RR htlldeposit:conf 7124109 133285 08113/2009 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS misc supplies: Theater 133286 08113/2009 011967 FULL VALUE ENTERTAINMENT Live @ the Merc 7130109 133287 08113/2009 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT 133288 08113/2009 001937 GALLS INC 133289 08113/2009 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M. entertainment:Hot Summer Ngts 713 uniforms: Police volunteers TCSD Instructor Earnings 133290 08113/2009 000177 GLENN IES OFFICE PRODUCTS Jul misc office supplies: Finance INC Jul misc office supplies: Public Works Jul misc office supplies: Info Sys Jul misc office supplies: CM Jul misc office supplies: TV Museum Jul misc office supplies: TCSD Jul misc office supplies: Fire Depts 133291 08113/2009 003792 GRAINGER misc supplies: Theater 1,200.00 17.22 330.88 75.00 275.00 59.95 -0.50 280.40 62.60 395.00 312.00 182.06 108.02 189.00 250.00 26.64 892.50 586.12 110.90 575.36 106.36 89.52 259.17 1,426.45 504.19 Check Total 241.23 1,200.00 1,989.61 108.02 189.00 250.00 26.64 892.50 3,153.88 504.19 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 08/1312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133292 08113/2009 005311 H2O CERTIFIED POOL WATER Jul pool maint svcs: CRCfTES 900.00 900.00 SPCL. 133293 0811312009 008081 HALL & FOREMAN INC 5130-713 eng svc:S.G.Crk pedlbicycle trl 19,372.52 19,372.52 133294 08113/2009 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies: PW Traffic 546.70 Hardware supplies: PW Maintenance 141.52 Hardware supplies: Maint Facility 55.72 Hardware supplies: CRC 425.75 Hardware supplies: City Hall 53.75 Hardware supplies: Library 63.69 Hardware supplies: Ch Museum 13.68 Hardware supplies: Ch Museum 96.06 Hardware supplies: Aquatics 122.67 Hardware supplies: TCC 71.64 Hardware supplies: Fire 334.92 Hardware supplies: TCSD Parks 2,102.90 4,029.00 133295 08113/2009 003299 HAYES, BARNEY entertainment:Hot Summer Ngts 7131 400.00 400.00 133296 08113/2009 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE Hardware supplies: TCSD Parks 47.85 47.85 133297 08113/2009 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE art files: Economic Development 261.00 graphic design svcs: Econ Dev 2,160.00 2,421.00 133298 08113/2009 010676 INTERWEST CONSULTING Jan-Jun plan check svcs: B&S 2,090.00 2,090.00 GROUP INC 133299 08113/2009 004119 J T B SUPPLY COMPANY INC flashing beacons: school zones 2,392.50 2,392.50 133300 08113/2009 000488 KNOTTS BERRY FARM Day Camp Excursion 7123 & 7128 2,142.90 2,142.90 133301 08113/2009 009478 LA FARGA, CARLOS Entertain ment:old town holiday 12113108 150.00 150.00 133302 08113/2009 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC Jun geotech srvcs:tcc expansion 830.50 830.50 133303 08113/2009 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Medical supplies: Paramedics 83.38 Medical supplies: Paramedics 561.66 Medical supplies: Paramedics 336.81 Medical supplies: Paramedics 138.12 Medical supplies: Paramedics 1,373.32 Medical supplies: Paramedics 166.76 2,660.05 Page:4 apChkLst 08/1312009 4:47:43PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133304 08113/2009 012983 LUKAS, MARK Entertainment: Hot Smr Nights 8114 500.00 500.00 133305 08113/2009 012224 MAD SCIENCE OF SAN DIEGO TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,548.40 1,548.40 133306 08113/2009 004141 MAINTEX INC Mlsc custodial supplies:city hall 136.48 Mlsc custodial supplies:city fac's 2,543.56 2,680.04 133307 08113/2009 013075 MANN, JAMES MARCUS refund:special event insurance 169.58 169.58 133308 08113/2009 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC Printing srvcs:eco dev 645.98 645.98 133309 08113/2009 011179 MC MILLIN REDHAWK LLC TCSD Instructor Earnings 364.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 385.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 647.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 665.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 595.00 2,656.50 133310 08113/2009 012962 MILLER, MISTY TCSD Instructor Earnings 735.00 735.00 133311 08113/2009 012580 MINUTEMAN PRESS Printing:Temecula Police envelopes 99.20 99.20 133312 08113/2009 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. TCSD Instructor Earnings 672.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 252.00 924.00 133313 08113/2009 001868 MIYAMOTO-JURKOSKY, SUSAN TCSD Instructor Earnings 294.00 A. TCSD Instructor Earnings 269.50 563.50 133314 08113/2009 005006 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE May con't disclosure report fees: Finance 125.00 GROUP Jun con't disclosure report fees: Finance 125.00 250.00 133315 08113/2009 008820 NEIGHBORS NEWSPAPER Aug display ads:hot summer nights 250.00 250.00 133316 08113/2009 010273 NIXON PEABODY LLP Apr-Jun'09legal services 55,152.67 credit:Apr-Jun '09 legal services -3,563.67 51,589.00 133317 08113/2009 013072 NUNEZ, PAUL & MARIA refund:2nd dwell unit:quimbyfees 4,417.50 4,417.50 133318 08113/2009 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Code Enf. 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 442.84 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 295.66 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 36.57 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 80.07 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 36.57 928.28 Pagea apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 08/1312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133319 08113/2009 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Misc supplies:movies in park events 44.90 44.90 INC 133320 0811312009 005656 PAPA sem 9117 escondido, ca d.camberos 70.00 sem 9117 escondido, ca d.thurman 70.00 sem 9117 escondido, ca m.wiechec 70.00 210.00 133321 08113/2009 012319 P C L CONSTRUCTION SRVCS Jun prgs pmt #9:o.t.infrstr prkg structure 2,000.00 INC ret.wlh pmt #9:o.t. inirstr prkg -200.00 1,800.00 133322 08113/2009 006939 PAINT CONNECTION, THE Res Imprv Prgm: J. Richards 2,440.00 2,440.00 133323 08113/2009 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPANY equip rental/4th of July:Code Enf. 198.90 198.90 133324 08113/2009 012948 PAVEMENT COATINGS Jun ConstlSlurry Seal: Citywide 112,570.50 112,570.50 COMPANY 133325 08113/2009 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 15.90 Petty Cash Reimbursement 468.76 484.66 133326 08113/2009 001999 PITNEY BOWES Jul-Sep postage meter lease: cntrl srvcs 271.60 271.60 133327 08113/2009 000253 POSTMASTER Express Mail & Postal Svcs 48.78 48.78 133328 08113/2009 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN Jul plancheck service: Fire Prev 2,133.81 2,133.81 133329 08113/2009 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST- meter fee:tcc expansion pw06-05 14,114.00 14,114.00 FEES 133330 08113/2009 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT July 01-04-47210-0 T.E.S. Pool 1,353.88 July 01-00-00026-0 27407 diaz rd 158.93 July 01-00-00027-0 27991 diaz rd 74.13 July:various water metersAre 676.43 July 01-08-00035-0 30765 tern pkwy 59.48 July:various water meters:TCSD 63,298.10 July:various water meters:PW 793.66 July:various water meters:tcsd 555.14 July 01-08-00038-1 44614 pech. pkwy 49.13 67,018.88 133331 08113/2009 005062 RAWLINGS, PHIL reimb:rfrshmnts/red cross trng 814 64.06 64.06 133332 08113/2009 000271 RBF CONSULTING Jun eng srvcs:1-15f79S Intrchng 2,444.49 Jun eng srvcs:I-151795 Intrchng 60,011.30 62,455.79 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 08/1312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133333 08113/2009 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Misc electrical supplies:var park sites 143.80 143.80 133334 08113/2009 002110 RENTAL SERVICE Tool and equipment rental: PW 347.82 CORPORATION Tool and equipment rental: PW 52.20 400.02 133335 08113/2009 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON Jun 2009 legal services 133,272.15 133,272.15 133336 08113/2009 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & m.n.d. filing fee:W.Bypass bridge pw0604 2,057.00 2,057.00 RECORDER 133337 08/1312009 000815 ROWLEY, CATHY TCSD Instructor Earnings 315.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,050.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 262.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 525.00 2,152.50 133338 08113/2009 013073 ROYAL STREET refund 50%:ping appl wldrawn 1,716.00 1,716.00 COMMUNICATIONS 133339 08113/2009 011884 RUTLAND TOOL & SUPPLY misc supplies:fs 84 50.68 50.68 COMPANY 133340 08113/2009 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Misc supplies:tiny tot pgrm 61.08 61.08 133341 08113/2009 009980 SANBORN, GWYN Country @ the Merc 811109 603.00 60100 133342 08113/2009 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 450.80 450.80 133343 08113/2009 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 200.00 200.00 133344 08113/2009 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 100.00 100.00 133345 08113/2009 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 100.00 100.00 133346 08113/2009 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ the Merc 816109 325.50 Jazz @ the Merc 7130109 178.50 504.00 133347 08113/2009 000645 SMART & FINAL INC Misc supplies:Mayor's SYEP 125.02 Misc supplies:movies in park events 177.68 Recreation supplies:mspc 184.49 487.19 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 08/1312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133348 08113/2009 000537 SO CALIF EDISON July:2-02-351-5281 CRC 10,739.41 July:2-29-974-7899 ynez rd LS-3 83.77 Aug:2-29-479-2981 temecula pkwy 95.56 July:2-31-031-2590 28301 rncho ca 41.86 Aug:2-30-066-2889 rncho vista PED 18.56 July:2-10-331-2153 TCC 2,542.39 July:2-20-798-3248 C. Museum 2,581.66 Aug:2-30-608-9384 28582 harvestn 631.87 July:2-27-805-3194 Theater 8,383.67 July:2-28-629-0507 Library 13,574.18 Aug:2-01-202-7330 various mtrs 75,972.72 Aug:2-01-202-7603 arterial st lights 27,273.15 July:2-05-791-8807 various mtrs 9,108.14 July:2-31-536-3226 28910 pujol 128.32 151,175.26 133349 08113/2009 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL pest control srvcs: fs 92 42.00 INC pest control srvcs: fs 73 48.00 pest control srvcs: fs 95 80.00 Jul pest control srvcs: var park sites 493.00 663.00 133350 0811312009 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Aug:gen phone usage 36.51 Aug:gen phone usage 70.08 106.59 133351 08113/2009 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS Jul transcription srvcs:Police 568.54 568.54 TRANSCRIPTION 133352 08113/2009 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS Res Imprv Prgm: Elder, Clarence & Doris 649.21 649.21 133353 08113/2009 009811 SUNNY HILLS TOWING LOWBED Jul vehicle towing srvcs:Police 190.00 190.00 SRVC 133354 08113/2009 007698 SWANK MOTIONS PICTURES, "ED" rental:movies in the park 7131 271.00 271.00 INC. 133355 08113/2009 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Misc supplies:day camp 49.04 Misc supplies:day camp 101.29 Misc supplies:mpsc 91.97 242.30 133356 08113/2009 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE C/O Misc hardware supplies: Stn 92 8.16 8.16 133357 08113/2009 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Sunshine Fund 218.16 218.16 133358 08113/2009 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LLC Veh repair & maint:pd motorcycle 240.50 240.50 Page:B apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 08/1312009 4:47:4 3PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133359 08113/2009 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & irrigation/plumbing supplies: var parks 28.28 28.28 SUPPLY 133360 08113/2009 003862 THYSSENKRUPP Jul-Sep elevator maint srvcs:cityfac's 2,040.00 2,040.00 ELEVATOR.BRNCH 37 133361 08113/2009 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC sound techlmovie projection:S.Hicks Prk 1,300.00 1,300.00 133362 08113/2009 010276 TW TELECOM Aug:high speed internet:CRC 48.68 Aug:high speed internet:city hall 316.85 365.53 133363 08113/2009 013030 TWIN OAKS CONCRETE Res Imprv Prgm: Fitzgerald 776.00 776.00 133364 08113/2009 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Jul undrgrnd svcs alert tickets:PW 139.50 139.50 133365 08113/2009 004261 VERIZON Aug xxx-3910 1st St Irrigation 38.52 Aug xxx-1341 Theater 439.82 Aug xxx-1941 PTA CD TTACSD 72.16 Aug xxx-6400 general usage 1,549.15 Aug xxx-5180 79S Irrg ctr 38.52 Aug xxx-1540 old town prk lot 88.08 Aug xxx-7530 GIS Library 425.18 Aug xxx-4200 general usage 942.69 Aug xxx-8900 GIS Library 808.99 Aug xxx-6620 general usage 34.35 4,437.46 133366 08113/2009 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Aug long distance phone Svcs 26.50 Aug long distance phone svcs 976.25 1,002.75 133367 08113/2009 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC Misc custodial supplies:park sites 271.88 Credit:item returned/park sites -271.88 Misc custodial supplies:var city facs 1,125.37 1,125.37 133368 08113/2009 003931 WELLS FARGO BANK NATL ASSN ret/escrow 23303800:pcllo.t.infrstr prkg 200.00 200.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 2,019,004.04 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 08113(2009 4:47:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA 117 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 2,019,004.04 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 0812112009 8:07:06AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1311 08/20/2009 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT Support Payment- 578.84 578.84 1312 08120/2009 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 123,946.38 123,946.38 RETIREMENT) 1313 08120/2009 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 18,590.01 18,590.01 SOLUTION 1314 08120/2009 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment 9,008.30 9,008.30 SOLUTION 1315 08120/2009 000283 INSTATAX(IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 88,579.97 88,579.97 1316 08120/2009 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 24,919.03 24,919.03 1317 0811812009 005460 U S BANK secured settlement #3 payment 190,443.10 190,443.10 1318 08118/2009 005460 U S BANK spy #2 cfd property tax payment 184,388.87 184,388.87 1319 0811812009 005460 U S BANK '08 COP debt service pmt 1,005,128.76 1,005,128.76 1320 08125/2009 005460 U S BANK cfd 88-12 debt service pmt 1,192,135.12 1,192,135.12 133369 08120/2009 012943 ALPHA MECHANICAL SERVICE HVAC prevmaint:chapel 50.00 INC HVAC prev maint:old town theater 299.00 HVAC prev maint:stn #73 58.00 HVAC prev maint:imagination wkshp 201.00 HVAC prev maint:t.museum 150.00 758.00 133370 08120/2009 009767 ALTA LOMA CHARTER INC Transportation:day camp 7123 3,220.65 transportation:excursions:castle prk 2,573.07 5,793.72 133371 08120/2009 013091 ALVARENGA, MARCIA refund:swim lessons 5104.407 40.00 40.00 133372 08120/2009 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW backtlowtestlrepair:medianstprks:8111 44.00 44.00 133373 08120/2009 004431 AMERICAN PAYROLL INSTITUTE mbrshp renewal:APA:MJ 195.00 195.00 INC Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 0812112009 8:07:06AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133374 08120/2009 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN Membership:02739639 JD 47.00 CALIF Membership:74903696 GDLR 47.00 Membership:21309735 RJ 47.00 141.00 133375 0812012009 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS Cartoon instruction:FAM pgrm 8110 350.00 TCSD instructor earnings 1,344.00 1,694.00 133376 08120/2009 012167 BLACKMAN, HAILE entertainment:hot summer nites 817 800.00 800.00 133377 08120/2009 012583 BLANCAY PRICE Aug:Ldscp Plan Ck/lnspec:Ping 1,750.00 1,750.00 133378 08120/2009 010817 BURNS, DAVID entertainment:hot summer nite 8121 600.00 entertain ment:hot summer nite 7/31 600.00 1,200.00 133379 08120/2009 006908 C C & COMPANY INC entertainment:hot summer nites 8121 275.00 275.00 133380 08120/2009 011268 CAALIM, LAURIETTA refund:picnic rental:meadows park 43.00 43.00 133381 08120/2009 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, City Fac copier lease: Central Svc 4,744.84 4,744.84 INC 133382 08120/2009 008644 CANTRELL, ROGER, AIA, AICP Jul plan review:planning 3,191.00 3,191.00 133383 08120/2009 011510 CATO GEOSCIENCE INC June:consult svc:mining ops analysis 3,136.25 3,136.25 133384 08120/2009 012902 CHOUCAIR, CAROLE FARID mosaic mural art wrk:civic ctr 4,000.00 4,000.00 133385 08120/2009 003534 CLOUD PRODUCTIONS entertainment:hot summer nites 8121 600.00 600.00 133386 08120/2009 004405 COMMUNITYHEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 116.00 116.00 133387 08120/2009 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC misc tools & equip:library 696.00 696.00 133388 08120/2009 013092 CORPREW, FRANCIS refund:lev 6 swim Iessons:5106.504 40.00 refund:lev 1 swim lessons: 5101.517 40.00 80.00 133389 08120/2009 012940 CRAWFORD, LILLIAN sttlemnt:gospel...Merc 818 178.50 178.50 133390 08120/2009 008810 CROSSTOWN ELECTRICAL & equip & maint repair:pw traffic div 4,701.13 4,701.13 DATA Paget apChkLst 0812112009 8:07:06AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133391 08120/2009 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL portable restrooms:riverton park 52.88 SRVCS portable restrooms:veterans park 52.88 portable restrooms:vail ranch park 52.88 portable restrooms:long canyon prk 52.88 portable restrooms:redhawk comm prk 52.88 264.40 133392 08120/2009 011202 E M H SPORTS & FITNESS TCSD instructor earnings 1,344.00 TCSD instructor earnings 420.00 1,764.00 133393 08120/2009 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 Diego Dr Ldscp 210.88 210.88 DIST 133394 08120/2009 010804 FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES Dec-Jan:trans consult:old twn prkg 22,560.72 Feb:trans consult:old twn prkg mgmt 8,094.17 Credit::billing adjust:old twn prkg -218.03 June:trans consult:liberty quarry EIR 2,235.49 32,672.35 133395 08120/2009 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK sttlmnt:thoroughly...millie 819 3,748.39 3,748.39 133396 08120/2009 013089 FISHER, ROSHAWN refund:spec event ins appl fee 335.77 335.77 133397 08120/2009 011306 FORD, ROBIN refund:swim lessons 5104.503 40.00 40.00 133398 08120/2009 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC misc computer supplies:info sys 1,790.04 1,790.04 133399 08120/2009 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT program MC:FAM family fued 8/4 150.00 150.00 133400 08120/2009 001937 GALLS INC patches:police volunteers/explorers 11.00 11.00 133401 08120/2009 001517 HORIZON HEALTH Jul employee assistance pgrm:HR 858.00 Aug employee assistance pgrm:HR 814.00 1,672.00 133402 08120/2009 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 9,513.53 9,513.53 303355 133403 08120/2009 013090 INNES, KATIE ee computer purchase prgm 1,788.60 1,788.60 133404 08120/2009 012987 JACKSON, MARK entertainment:hot summer nite: 817 750.00 750.00 133405 08120/2009 013093 KARAM, MIKE refund:sec dep:crc 669.00 669.00 133406 08120/2009 004481 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES June:santiago det basin:PW06-12 5,577.68 5,577.68 INC Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 0812112009 8:07:06AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133407 08120/2009 013094 LEE, MU Y refund:summer day camp 0405.205 96.00 96.00 133408 08120/2009 008965 LOWDER, BOB entertainment:old twn 8121 550.00 550.00 133409 0812012009 004087 LOWES INC backstage supplies:old town theater 39.78 backstage supplies:old town theater 10.61 50.39 133410 08120/2009 012224 MAD SCIENCE OF SAN DIEGO TCSD Instructor Earnings 2,433.20 2,433.20 133411 08120/2009 013095 MANN, MARCUS refund:sec deposit:crc 102.00 102.00 133412 08120/2009 009541 MEYER AND ASSOCIATES Jun dsgn srvcs:tcc expansion 30,571.25 Credit:pending purchase order -4,499.51 26,071.74 133413 08120/2009 007210 MIDORI GARDENS Jul Idscp maint srvcs: var parks 70,105.00 irrigation repairs: nail ranch park 711 289.96 irrigation repairs: w.c.trail park 718 397.23 irrigation repairs: tem.creek park 7113 401.44 irrigation repairs: w.c.park 7114 280.83 irrigation repairs: calle aragon park 360.08 irrigation repairs: loma Iinda park 7121 203.47 72,038.01 133414 08120/2009 012580 MINUTEMAN PRESS business cards: s dakin 82.20 business cards: c damkolk syers 163.42 business cards: bldg & safety 45.37 290.99 133415 08120/2009 001892 MOBILE MODULAR Jul modular bldg rental:OATC 840.14 Aug modular bldg rental:OATC 840.14 Credit:Aug modular bldg rental:OATC -220.26 Credit:Jul modular bldg rental:OATC -220.26 1,239.76 133416 08120/2009 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEER S 5131-6127109 srvcs:F.V. Pkwy 164,075.48 164,075.48 133417 08120/2009 003963 MR TINT GLASS TINTING city vehicle window tinting: Fire 65.00 65.00 133418 08120/2009 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Jul public ntc ads:City Clerk/Pin 752.95 Jul display ad:City Clerk 195.30 948.25 133419 08120/2009 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Jul newspaper subscr:mpsc 29.90 29.90 133420 08120/2009 009570 O C B REPROGRAPHICS Jul dup bIueprints:var.city prjts 237.71 237.71 133421 08120/2009 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:children's museum 32.53 32.53 DIV Page-.4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 0812112009 8:07:06AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 133422 0812012009 009707 OFFICE IMAGES 133423 08120/2009 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 133424 08120/2009 001958 PERS LONGTERM CARE PROGRAM 133425 08120/2009 000249 PETTY CASH (Continued) Description recreation supplies:volunteer recogn recreation supplies:volunteer recogn City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Land Dev City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW CIP City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Traffic City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Traffic City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Traffic City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Land Dev City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Land Dev City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Land Dev PERS Long Term Care Payment Petty Cash Reimbursement 133426 08120/2009 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS pool suppliestchemicals: crc & tes pools INC 133427 08120/2009 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY Jul Uniform/Flr Mts/Twl Rentals:City Fac Credit:billing adj/TCSD Maint Div Credit:billing adj/PW Maint Div 133428 08120/2009 013074 QUAID, BOB Entertainment:hot summer nights 7131 133429 08120/2009 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST- add'I inspection fees: pech.pkwy/H 1500 FEES 133430 08120/2009 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST- inspection deposit:o.t. infrstr FEES 133431 08120/2009 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Aug 01-06-68615-0 pujol st Aug 01-06-26305-0 o.t. front st. Jul 01-31-61237-2 calle elenita Aug various water meters: tcsd Aug 01-06-99000-14 28640 pujol 133432 08/2012009 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR WASH Jul vehicle detailing srvcs:var.city Amount Paid 393.85 1,163.80 56.42 62.53 80.07 30.52 58.21 87.50 36.57 301.51 85.22 410.99 156.38 104.04 31.61 36.57 36.57 377.54 556.50 229.88 1,378.02 -14.00 -116.00 500.00 1,607.19 1,513.38 16.36 263.57 79.88 8,613.89 8.18 115.50 Check Total 1,557.65 1,574.71 377.54 556.50 229.88 1,248.02 500.00 1,607.19 1,513.38 8,981.88 115.50 Pagea apChkLst Final Check List 0812112009 8:07:06AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 133433 08120/2009 009725 RAZAVI, MANDIS TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 133434 08120/2009 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL Trash/weed abatement:citywide r-o-vJs MANAGEMENT 133435 08120/2009 013096 RIVERA, ISAAC refund:sec deposit:crc 133436 08120/2009 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF renew permit:TCCtfa0005033 133437 08120/2009 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment 133438 08120/2009 009980 SANBORN, GWYN Country @ the Merc 818109 133439 08120/2009 010089 SECURITAS SECURITY SRVCS Jul security patrol srvcs:harveston lake USA 133440 08120/2009 006554 SHAFFER, FRED entertainment:hot smr rights 7117,31&8114 133441 08120/2009 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 133442 08120/2009 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV -CENTRAL Support Payment 133443 0812012009 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV -CENTRAL Support Payment 133444 08120/2009 013029 SITEIMPROVE INC 133445 08120/2009 000374 SO CALIF EDISON 133446 08120/2009 000374 SO CALIF EDISON 133447 08120/2009 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 8111109-8/11110 web site srvcs:info sys line extension @ calle chapos:r.r.str. street light @ calle chapos:r.r.str. Aug 2-27-560-0625 Deerhollow Way Aug 2-28-397-1315 Redhawk Pkwy Aug 2-30-296-9522 TVHS Aug 2-28-171-2620 Police Mall Stn Aug 2-29-974-7568 Ynez Rd TC-1 Aug 2-00-397-5059 various mtrs Aug 2-26-887-0789 various mtrs Aug 2-31-419-2659 Ynez Rd Amount Paid 448.00 515.20 10,754.05 400.00 578.00 12.50 271.50 3,307.50 1,350.00 419.97 200.00 100.00 1,874.00 5,598.11 1,573.20 2,397.22 19.20 303.05 1,678.83 115.76 5,187.39 2,155.13 78.84 Page: 6 Check Total 963.20 10,754.05 400.00 578.00 12.50 271.50 3,307.50 1,350.00 419.97 200.00 100.00 1,874.00 5,598.11 1,573.20 11,935.42 Page6 apChkLst 0812112009 8:07:06AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133448 08120/2009 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Aug 015-575-0195-2 Stn 92 112.29 112.29 133449 08120/2009 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL Jul pest control srvcs:var.city fac's 541.00 541.00 INC 133450 08120/2009 007698 SWANK MOTIONS PICTURES, "hook" rental:movies in the park 8114 296.00 296.00 INC. 133451 08120/2009 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 5130-713109 prof srvcs:w.bypass bridge 20,408.23 20,408.23 133452 08120/2009 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Misc supplies:day camp 25.64 Misc supplies:day camp 48.49 Misc supplies:childrens museum 216.23 290.36 133453 08120/2009 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE CIO Misc supplies:var park sites 9.77 Jul misc hardware supplies:FS#92 47.94 57.71 133454 08120/2009 011736 TEMECULA TROPHY INC recognition award:3rd gtr'09 62.21 nameplates:c mccarthy 16.86 recognition awardsAth of July events 300.15 379.22 133455 08/20/2009 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY Jun '09 Bus. Imprv District Asmnts 45,043.12 45,043.12 CONVENTION & 133456 08120/2009 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY Employee recognition pins: HR 269.44 269.44 133457 08120/2009 012868 THIRD ALARM FIRE EQUIPMENT Medic equip storage:Medics 230.24 230.24 CO 133458 08120/2009 013097 THOMAS, LAURA refund:swim 5104.506, 5102.517 80.00 80.00 133459 08120/2009 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Aug cable svcs:imagination wkshp 126.92 Aug high speed internet stn 92 102.45 229.37 133460 08120/2009 012725 TRZOP, NICHELLE TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,411.20 TCSD Instructor Earnings 862.40 TCSD Instructor Earnings 931.00 3,204.60 133461 08120/2009 005460 U S BANK Trustee & fiscal agent srvcs:cfd 88-12 3,300.00 3,300.00 133462 08120/2009 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 36.00 36.00 133463 08/20/2009 004794 VALLEY WINDS COMMUNITY entertainment:hot smr rights 7124,817 & 750.00 750.00 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 0812112009 8:07:06AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 133464 08120/2009 004261 VERIZON Aug xxx-3143 PD Overland Office 45.14 Aug xxx-7562 irrigation controller 37.38 Aug xxx-0682 Civic Center Camera 92.23 Aug xxx-6812 General usage 88.07 Aug xxx-2372 Wlf Crk Irrg Cntrl 35.52 Aug xxx-5473 Moraga Rd 38.34 Aug xxx-4723 Police Storefront 36.65 Aug xxx-0073 general usage 268.50 Aug xxx-5072 general usage 2,337.12 Aug xxx-8573 general usage 35.52 3,014.47 133465 08120/2009 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Aug long distance phone Svcs 976.25 976.25 133466 08120/2009 013101 VILLA, CHRYSTAL refund:lev 1 swim Iesson:5101.505 30.00 refund:toddler swim:5108.505 50.00 80.00 133467 08120/2009 009101 VISION ONE INC Jul showare ticketing srvcs:theater 1,867.00 1,867.00 133468 08120/2009 007511 VLAHOS, CHRIS EE Computer Purchase Prgm 1,102.41 1,102.41 133469 08120/2009 009031 VYLANI'S POLYNESIAN DANCERS Entertain ment:mpsc luau event 816 150.00 150.00 133470 08120/2009 010003 WALKER, TODD TCSD Instructor Earnings 308.00 308.00 133471 0812012009 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL Jul '09 TUMF Payment 184,768.00 184,768.00 OF 133472 08120/2009 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Jul '09 MSHCP payment 34,816.00 34,816.00 133473 08120/2009 010193 WOOLSTENHULME, LUCIA TCSD Instructor Earnings 14.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 5.60 19.60 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 3,561,043.43 Page:B apChkLst 08121/2009 8:07:06AM 115 checks in this report. FUNDS: 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA LOW/MOD -20%SETASIDE 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAIN T. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 370 CITY 2008 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 472 CFD 01 -2 H ARNE STON A&B DE BTSERVICE 473 CFD 03-1 C ROWNE HILL DEBT SERVIC E FU ND 474 AD03.4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBTS ERVICE FUND 476 CFD 03-6 H ARVE STON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 0812 1 /2 0 0 9 TOTAL CHECK RUN: Final Check List Page: 9 CITY OF TEMECULA Grand Total All Checks: 3,561,043.43 476,757.00 8,097.44 167,160.51 116.98 8,025.47 1,138.48 9,676.53 224.18 230,679.08 39,278.79 857.31 25,945.78 6,857.85 4,089.37 1,005,128.76 6,742.81 1,195,435.12 110,632.84 81,601.25 8,629.27 141,009.62 32,958.99 3,561,043.43 Page9 ITEM NO. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 2009 PREPARED BY: Rudy Graciano, Revenue Manager RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 2009. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of July 31, 2009. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 2009 City of Temecula City of Temecula, Californ is 43266 Business Park Drive ;I Portfolio Management Temecula, CA, 92596 My Portfolio Summary (951)694 6436 July 31, 2009 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Certificates of Deposit - Bank 873,983.53 873,983.53 873,983.53 0.42 1,177 396 5.600 5.678 Managed Pool Accounts 85,045,580.88 85,045,580.88 85,045,580.88 40.85 1 1 0.62E 0.637 Letter of Credit 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 Local Agency I nvestment Funds 69,425,099.02 69,504,473.42 69,425,099.02 33.35 1 1 1.305 1.323 Fed eral Ag ency Callable Securities 33,000,000.00 33,370,320.00 32,999,750.00 15.85 1,417 1,076 4.096 4.153 Fed eral Ag ency B ullet Securities 17,849,000.00 18,084,145.10 17,814,205.33 8.56 714 461 2.123 2.152 Investment Contracts 2,031,468.76 2,031,468.76 2,031,468.76 0.98 6,979 2,953 5.509 5.585 208,225,133.19 208,909,972.69 208,190,088.52 100.00% 359 241 1.600 1.622 Investments Cash Passbook/Checking 6,060,991.57 6,060,991.57 6,060,991.57 1 1 0.000 0.000 (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 214,286,124.76 214,970,964.26 214,251,080.09 359 241 1.600 1.622 Current Year 281,536.29 281,536.29 Average Daily Balance 228,084,279.09 Effective Rate of Return 1.45% Reporting period 07!01!2009-07!31!2009 Portfolio TEME CID Run Date: 08127/2009 -11:39 PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept6.42 Report Ver. 5.00 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2009 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Certificates of Deposit - Bank 95453518-2 86-12 GENIM2 USBANK 06/12/2007 873,963.53 673,983.53 673,963.53 5.600 Subtotal and Average 873,983.53 873,983.53 873,983.53 873,983.53 Managed Pool Accounts 122216003-2 CITY COP RE2 104348006-1 01-2 IMP 2 104348006-4 01-2 RESA2 104348016-3 01-2 RESB2 104348000-4 01-2 SPTAX2 94669911-2 03-1 ACQA2 94669921-3 03-1 ACQ83 94669902-3 03-1 BOND3 94669906-3 03-1 RES A3 94669916-2 03-1 RES B2 94669900-4 03-1 SPTAXI 793593011-2 03-2 ACQ 2 793593009-2 03-2 EMW D 2 793593007-2 03-2 IMP 2 793593016-4 03-2 LOC 2 793593010-2 03-2 PWADM2 793593006-2 03-2 RES 2 793593000-3 03-2 SPTX2 744727011-2 03-3 ACQ2 744727002-2 03-3 BOND 2 744727007-2 03-3 CITY2 744727009 03-3 EMW D 1 744727006-3 03-3 RES3 744727000-4 03-3 SP TX 4 94666001-2 03-4 ADMIN2 94686005-1 03-4 PREP1 94666000-1 03-4 RED1 94686006-2 03-4 RES2 786776002-2 03-6 BON D2 786776007-2 03-6 1MP2 786776006-2 03-6 RES2 786776000-3 03-6 SP TX3 95453510-2 86-12 BON D2 95453518-4 88-12 G14 Run Date' 0812'!2009 - 1139 5.600 5.678 396 09.101/2010 5.600 5.678 396 ASSURED GUARANTY 07/01/2008 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.966 1.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 608.41 606.41 608.41 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 290.76 290.76 290.76 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 582,033.34 582,033.34 582,033.34 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 4,272.65 4,272.65 4,272.65 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 15,113.21 15,113.21 15,113.21 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 306.56 306.56 306.56 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 468.63 468.63 468.63 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 670,666.63 670,666.63 670,666.63 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 216,022.07 216,022.07 216,022.07 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 4,229.47 4,229.47 4,229.47 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 3,442.16 3,442.18 3,442.18 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 523.06 523.06 523.06 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 2,150.25 2,150.25 2,150.25 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 367.56 367.56 367.56 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 606,651.25 606,651.25 606,651.25 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 1,611.39 1,611.39 1,611.39 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 102.75 102.75 102.75 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 1,213,732.04 1,213,732.04 1,213,732.04 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 14,126.65 14,126.65 14,126.65 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 4,071.85 4,071.85 4,071.85 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 39,583.71 39,583.71 39,563.71 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 735.76 735.76 735.76 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 1,402.18 1,402.18 1,402.18 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 610.73 810.73 610.73 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 198,685.47 198,685.47 198,665.47 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 4.75 4.75 4.75 0.000 0.000 1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 54,990.87 54,990.87 54,990.87 0.000 0.000 1 Portfolio TEME CID PM (PRF_PM2) SYmRept 6.42 Report Ver. 5.00 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2009 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 122216003-4 CITY COP RE4 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 122216008-3 CITY COPCIP2 First American Treasury 12/04/2008 4,366.72 4,366.72 4,366.72 0.000 0.000 1 122216000-2 CITY COPLPF2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 37.11 37.11 37.11 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INT1 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 659,708.13 659,708.13 659,708.13 0.000 0.000 1 94434161-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 465,000.00 465,000.00 465,000.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886008-2 RDA 06 CIPA2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 1,785,404.97 1,765,404.97 1,785,404.97 0.000 0.000 1 107886001 RDA 06 PRIN First American Treasury 07/27/2009 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886000-2 RDA 06A INT2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 378,418.13 378,418.13 378,418.13 0.000 0.000 1 107686016-3 RDA 06B CIP3 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 6,624.93 6,824.93 6,624.93 0.000 0.000 1 107886010-2 RDA 06B INT2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107686016-2 RDA 06B RES2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 202,115.10 202,115.10 202,115.10 0.000 0.000 1 107886030-2 RDA 07 CAP12 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107686027-2 RDA 07 ESC2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886020-2 RDA 07 INT2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886026-2 RDA 07 PROJ2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 11,016,256.29 11,018,256.29 11,018,256.29 0.000 0.000 1 107886026-2 RDA 07 RES2 First American Treasury 12/08/2008 91.46 91.46 91.46 0.000 0.000 1 94432360-2 TCSD COP INT First American Treasury 12/08/2008 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.000 0.000 1 94432363 02001 Financial Security Assurance 12/11/2001 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-1 03-2-1 ACOUI CA Local Agency Investment Fun 28,994,484.17 26,994,484.17 26,994,464.17 1.510 1.469 1.510 1 793593009-1 03-2-1 EMWD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,551,235.20 1,551,235.20 1,551,235.20 1.510 1.489 1.510 1 793593007-1 03-2-1 IMPRO CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,193,503.57 1,193,503.57 1,193,503.57 1.510 1.469 1.510 1 793593010-1 03-2-1 PW AD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 534,963.15 534,963.15 534,963.15 1.510 1.489 1.510 1 793593006-3 03-2-3 RESER CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,580,949.26 3,560,949.28 3,580,949.28 1.510 1.469 1.510 1 122216008 CITY COP CIP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 17,768,076.30 17,768,076.30 17,768,076.30 0.000 0.000 1 122216003-1 CITY COP RE1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 816,468.07 816,466.07 616,468.07 0.000 0.000 1 107886008-1 RDA 06 CIP-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 4,484,663.29 4,484,663.29 4,484,663.29 0.000 0.000 1 107686018-2 RDA 06 CIP-2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,044,156.22 3,044,156.22 3,044,156.22 0.000 0.000 1 107886030-1 RDA 07 CAP-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107686027-1 RDA 07 ESC-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,561,600.04 3,561,600.04 3,561,600.04 0.000 0.000 1 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,113,249.42 1,113,249.42 1,113,249.42 0.000 0.000 1 107686006 RDA 06 RES A MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434166 RDA TABs RES MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 Subtotal and Average 96,468,320.77 85,045,580.88 85,045,580.88 85,045,580.88 0.628 0.637 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Portfolio TEME CID PM (PRF_PM2) SYmRept 6.42 Page 3 Letter of Credit 104348006-1 02006 ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2008 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subtotal and Average 3.00 Run Date' 0812'!2009 - 1139 1.00 1.00 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2009 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Local Agency Investment Funds 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,507,726.17 1,507,726.17 1,507,726.17 0.000 0.000 1 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,855,470.39 3,855,470.39 3,855,470.39 0.000 0.000 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,072,208.21 3,072,206.21 3,072,208.21 0.000 0.000 1 744727007-1 03-3 CITY 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776007-1 03-6 IMP 1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 154,414.16 154,414.16 154,414.16 0.000 0.000 1 SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 13,737,260.79 13,755,184.38 13,737,260.79 1.510 1.489 1.510 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 33,064,614.55 33,107,755.37 33,064,614.55 1.510 1.489 1.510 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 14,033,404.75 14,051,714.74 14,033,404.75 1.510 1.489 1.510 1 Subtotal and Average 71,561,241.00 69,425,099.02 69,504,473.42 69,425,099.02 1.305 1.323 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 3133X4M1 01075 Federal Farm Credit Bank 09/28/2007 1,000,000.00 1,006,880.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 4.932 5.000 1,154 09/28/2012 31331YSC5 01085 Federal Farm Credit Bank 02/06/2008 2,000,000.00 2,000,620.00 2,000,000.00 3.590 3.541 3.590 919 02/06/2012 31331YTS9 01087 Federal Farm Credit Bank 02/14/2008 2,000,000.00 2,030,000.00 2,000,000.00 3.750 3.699 3.750 1,290 02/11/2013 31331Y3E8 01103 Federal Farm Credit Bank 07/15/2008 1,000,000.00 1,015,940.00 1,000,000.00 3.950 3.896 3.950 713 07/15/2011 31331Y5N6 01112 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/20/2008 1,000,000.00 1,001,880.00 1,000,000.00 4.250 4.192 4.250 1,115 08/20/2012 31331Y5J5" 01113 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/21/2008 1,000,000.00 1,001,880.00 1,000,000.00 4.020 3.965 4.020 934 02/21/2012 31331Y5T3 01115 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/11/2008 1,000,000.00 1,000,940.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 740 08/11/2011 31331Y5V8 01117 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/26/2008 1,000,000.00 1,002,500.00 1,000,000.00 4.400 4.340 4.400 1,486 08/26/2013 31331GAP4 01122 Federal Farm Credit Bank 09/04/2008 1,000,000.00 1,003,130.00 1,000,000.00 4.250 4.192 4.250 1,130 09/04/2012 3133XM5R8 01073 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/28/2007 1,000,000.00 1,003,130.00 1,000,000.00 5.060 20.165 20.445 755 08/26/2011 3133XM5E7 01074 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/28/2007 1,000,000.00 1,003,130.00 1,000,000.00 5.220 5.148 5.220 1,123 08/28/2012 3133XRSM3 01102 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/23/2008 1,000,000.00 1,030,940.00 1,000,000.00 4.050 3.995 4.050 905 01/23/2012 3133XRVA5 01109 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/30/2008 1,000,000.00 1,032,500.00 1,000,000.00 4.220 4.162 4.220 1,094 07/30/2012 3133XRWE6 01110 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/12/2008 1,000,000.00 1,019,380.00 1,000,000.00 4.125 4.068 4.125 741 08/12/2011 3133XRXX3 01116 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/20/2008 1,000,000.00 1,030,940.00 1,000,000.00 4.070 4.014 4.070 1,115 08/20/2012 3133XRYN4 01116 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/20/2008 1,000,000.00 1,001,560.00 1,000,000.00 3.375 3.329 3.375 384 08/20/2010 3133XRZN3 01119 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/27/2008 1,000,000.00 1,002,190.00 999,750.00 4.000 3.953 4.008 940 02/27/2012 3133XS2J6 01120 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/27/2008 1,000,000.00 1,001,880.00 1,000,000.00 3.375 3.329 3.375 391 08/27/2010 3133XS3A4 01121 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/28/2008 1,000,000.00 1,002,190.00 1,000,000.00 3.625 3.599 3.649 576 02/28/2011 3133XUAE3 01131 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/27/2009 1,000,000.00 994,690.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 1,091 07/27/2012 3133XUBX0 01133 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/30/2009 1,000,000.00 997,190.00 1,000,000.00 2.375 2.342 2.375 1,278 01/30/2013 3126XSR46 01128 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 06/25/2009 2,000,000.00 2,020,140.00 2,000,000.00 3.000 2.959 3.000 1,424 06/25/2013 3128X8S52 01129 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 06/29/2009 1,000,000.00 1,006,780.00 1,000,000.00 2.450 2.416 2.450 1,063 06/29/2012 3136F9CB7 01088 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/11/2008 2,000,000.00 2,113,760.00 2,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 1,318 03/11/2013 3136179DP5 01090 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/27/2008 1,000,000.00 1,057,500.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 1,334 03/27/2013 3136F9YW7 01106 Federal National Mtg Assn 08/05/2008 1,000,000.00 1,000,310.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 734 08/05/2011 3136FHRX5 01126 Federal National Mtg Assn 05/21/2009 1,000,000.00 992,810.00 1,000,000.00 2.125 2.096 2.125 1,754 05/21/2014 Portfolio TEME CID Run Date: 08/27/2009 - 1 139 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2009 Page 5 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Callable Securities 3136FHXF7 01127 Federal National Mtg Assn 06/10/2009 1,000,000.00 995,630.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 1,227 12/10/2012 31398AYN6 01134 Federal National Mtg Assn 07/28/2009 1,000,000.00 999,900.00 1,000,000.00 3.000 2.959 3.000 1,622 07/28/2014 Subtotal and Average 33,999,750.00 33,000,000.00 33,370,320.00 32,999,750.00 4.096 4.153 1,076 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 31331XMQ2 01059 31331YG46 01092 31331Y3P3 01105 31331Y3N8 01111 31331GF-47 01135 3133XRRU6 01101 3133XSWM6 01124 3133XTN86 01125 3133XTXC5 01130 104348006-5 01-2 RESA3 104348016-4 01-2 RESB3 104348000-5 01-2 SPTAX3 94669906-4 03-1 RES A4 94669916-3 03-1 RES B3 946699005 03-1 SPTAX2 793593016-5 03-2 LOC 3 744727006-4 03-3 RES4 744727000-5 03-3 SP TX 5 94686000-2 03-4 RED2 94666006-3 03-4 RES3 786776006-3 03-6 RES3 786776000-4 03-6 SP TX4 Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Subtotal and Average 16,913,237.59 01/26/2007 1,000,000.00 1,036,250.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 4.934 5.002 298 05/26/2010 04/21/2008 2,000,000.00 2,053,120.00 1,993,700.00 2.630 2.703 2.740 628 04/21/2011 07/15/2008 1,000,000.00 1,045,000.00 998,140.00 3.500 3.514 3.563 793 10/03/2011 07/30/2008 1,000,000.00 1,046,250.00 999,000.00 3.625 3.610 3.661 713 07/15/2011 07/29/2009 1,000,000.00 986,560.00 997,500.00 2.250 2.284 2.316 1,458 07/29/2013 07/03/2008 1,000,000.00 1,045,310.00 998,570.00 3.625 3.626 3.676 699 07/01/2011 01/23/2009 1,000,000.00 1,010,940.00 1,000,000.00 2.100 2.071 2.100 905 01/23/2012 05/07/2009 1,000,000.00 1,001,250.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.479 1.500 628 11/07/2011 06/11/2009 1,000,000.00 1,011,250.00 1,000,000.00 2.250 2.219 2.250 1,045 06/11/2012 03/03/2009 441,000.00 440,955.90 439,760.51 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 203,000.00 202,979.70 202,438.65 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 162,000.00 161,983.60 161,552.02 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 866,000.00 865,913.40 863,605.27 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 223,100.00 223,077.69 222,483.07 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 231,000.00 230,976.90 230,361.22 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 2,841,000.00 2,840,715.90 2,833,143.85 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 2,178,000.00 2,177,782.20 2,171,977.22 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 220,000.00 219,976.00 219,391.64 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 21,400.00 21,397.86 21,340.82 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 96,000.00 95,990.40 95,734.53 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 338,000.00 337,966.20 337,065.34 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 03/03/2009 26,500.00 28,497.15 28,421.19 0.560 1.113 1.129 30 08/31/2009 17,849,000.00 18,084,145.10 17,814,205.33 2.123 2.152 461 Investment Contracts 95453518-1 88-12 GEN IM IXIS Funding Corp 95453516-1 88-12 RES 2 IXIS Funding Corp Subtotal and Average Run Date' 0812'!2009 - 1139 07/24/1998 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.430 5.509 5.585 2,953 09/01/2017 07/24/1998 1,531,468.76 1,531,468.76 1,531,468.76 5.430 5.509 5.585 2,953 09/01/2017 2,031,468.76 2,031,468.76 2,031,468.76 2,031,468.76 5.509 5.585 2,953 Portfoho TEME CID PM (PRF_PM2) SyrnRept 6.42 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2009 Page 6 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Total and Average 228,084,279.09 208,225,133.19 208,909,972.69 208,190,088.52 1.600 1.622 241 Run Date: 08127(2009 - 1133 Portfoho TEME GP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash July 31, 2009 Page 7 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Retention Escrow Account SYSAAA#1202 AAA#1202 COMMUNITY BANK 08/29/2008 795,655.85 795,655.85 795,655.85 0.000 0.000 1 4110170281 EDGEDEV TORRY PINES BANK 11/14/2008 544,467.84 544,467.84 544,467.84 0.000 0.000 1 23303800 PCL CONST Wells Fargo Bank 01/29/2009 673,438.33 673,436.33 673,438.33 0.000 0.000 1 Passbook/Checking Accounts SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2008 2,610.00 2,810.00 2,810.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSFIex Ck Acct Flex Ck Acct Union Bank of California 07/01/2008 19,421.41 19,421.41 19,421.41 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGen CkAcct Gen CkAcct Union Bank of California 07/01/2008 4,012,502.14 4,012,502.14 4,012,502.14 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2008 12,696.00 12,696.00 12,696.00 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 1 Total Cash and Investments 228,084,279.09 Run Date: 08/27/2009 - 11 39 214,286,124.76 214,970,964.26 214,251,080.09 1.600 1.622 241 Portfolio TEME CID PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through July 31, 2009 Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $49,281,093.09 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND $0.41 101 STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,462,742.14 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 5,273,925.46 150 AB 2766 FUND 414,896.21 160 AB3229 COPS 53,631.18 165 RDA AFFORDABLE HOUSING 20% SET ASIDE 12,240,695.43 170 MEASURE A FUND 8,141,798.50 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 962,285.51 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 360.47 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 622,938.39 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" 90,256.83 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD 39,055.59 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAI NT. 214,013.80 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,411,129.52 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 35,259,190.50 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 5,382,582.42 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,073,819.60 276 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 IMPROVEMENT FUND 155,816.34 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 31,962,916.66 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 11,465,551.46 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,064,934.48 310 VEHICLES FUND 779,631.60 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 710,091.99 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 352,329.13 340 FACILITIES 168,047.72 370 CITY 2008 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 856,588.49 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 754.76 380 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 19,557,522.82 390 TCSD 2001 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 15,516.00 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 4,792,811.81 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 1,476,163.34 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,068,446.47 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 174,570.64 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,992,960.58 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 605,509.84 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 10,851,713.17 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 2,755,470.56 Total $217,731,762.91 Less: *CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 (2,760,798.65) Grand Total: $214,970,964.26 These investments are in an irrevocable trust with CalPers and are only available to finance retiree health care. These monies are not available for general City operations/capital projects. Since they are not available for general expenditure, they will be excluded from the monthly Treasurer's Report so as not to overstate the City's investments. ITEM NO. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application for a proposed amount of $29,032. BACKGROUND: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) is awarded by Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). This grant is generally awarded annually and allows local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime. This grant is in addition to the JAG grant recently awarded to the City which included $119,000 in Federal Recovery Act Funds which will be brought to council at a later date pending acceptance of required terms and conditions. Requirements for submission of the JAG grant proposal to the BJA include: 1. A 30-day review period by the community with an opportunity to comment. 2. Approval of the application by the City Council. A notice was published in the local papers on Friday, August 7, 2009, outlining the grant application. The notice invited the public to review a copy of the grant application posted in the law library at City Hall and to submit written comments or to make verbal comments in person on the date of action. The 2009 JAG proposal requests funds to increase enforcement efforts targeting specific juvenile and school related criminal and safety issues. These funds will be used to purchase educational materials as well as training supplies. It will also fund overtime for School Resource Officers (SROs) and patrol officers to conduct high visibility truancy sweeps through the City of Temecula. Funds will also be used to train fifty officers and supervisors to effectively respond to high risk calls for service on school campuses. The JAG grant is a non-competitive grant with funds allocated for the City of Temecula based on crime statistics and population. Submission of the grant package is a requirement for funding the grant. It is anticipated that the grant will be awarded and funds will be made available by October 2009. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriation of funds for the grant will be made upon notification of the final award amount for the programs noted above. ATTACHMENTS: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application Program Narrative Proposal to increase enforcement efforts targeting specific juvenile and school related criminal and safety issues. Program Challenges As one of the fastest-growing cities in Riverside County, Temecula faces a significant challenge to keep pace with rapid population growth. Between 1990 and 2007, Temecula grew in population from 27,099 to 97,935, a 261% growth rate. In 2000 42.6% of Temecula's households were reported to have children under the age of 18. As these children mature juvenile-specific crimes and safety issues increase exponentially, as do the additional challenges related to effective law enforcement responses. The City of Temecula has maintained a proactive posture in enforcing tobacco, truancy, and vandalism laws as well as maintaining safe learning domains within our schools. As we strive to work smarter within a shrinking fiscal environment, proactive, highly visible interdictions have proven to be effective toward stemming negative juvenile behaviors. We have utilized city funding in previous fiscal years for enforcement efforts targeting businesses that sell prohibited merchandise to juveniles. These efforts revealed our target population is able to purchase this merchandise with relative ease. Maintaining a safe environment within our school campuses remain one of the highest priorities in the City of Temecula. Fiscal restraints have limited the on-site training opportunities at our schools. Individually assigned school resource officers were tasked with threat assessments of their respective high schools. On-site training that increases the effectiveness of law enforcement responses to high risk incidents has been identified as "best practice" methodology in maintaining safe campus environments. Program Solutions With our target population increasing it is imperative that efforts are made to minimize their ability to purchase prohibited merchandise and leave the safe confines of the school campus. The Temecula Police Department will form a collaborative effort between school resource officers (SRO), patrol officers, and officers assigned to the Temecula Promenade Mall that will identify local businesses that stock merchandise that is restricted for sale to minors. Proactive operations utilizing underage law enforcement explorers will focus on potential sales of prohibited/restricted merchandise to obviously underage customers. Educational and enforcement action will immediately follow the prohibited sale. The combined effort of education and enforcement will support a positive approach to reducing prohibited sales to our youth. The City of Temecula proposes annual, pro-active enforcement operations targeting high interest violations be independently funded by the JAG award. The JAG award will fund three separate operations targeting each specific violation; tobacco and spray paint sales, truancy sweeps (totaling 9 operations), and one annual on-site active shooter scenario- based training session. These operations will be conducted on an overtime basis to prevent any disruption to the daily obligations of the SRO, patrol, or mall teams. Budget and Budget Narrative This JAG award will be used to fund overtime-based staffing for enforcement operations related to the prohibited sales of specific merchandise to juveniles. Truancy enforcement sweeps will also be funded as will one annual training session held on-site at a local high school. The purchase of supporting training material and supplies, along with educational material to be handed out during the operations, is included. One necessary training item to be purchased is a "sole-provider" item. Simunitions training munitions are used in active shooter training scenarios to provide realistic force on force training. The purchase of the Simunitions training munitions will be independent from other training materials. A. Personnel Name/Position Budget Detail Worksheet Computation Cost Deputy Sheriff 424 yearly overtime hours assigned to rant activity $22,963.84 Sheriff Sergeant 49 yearly overtime hours assigned to rant activity $3,919.02 Sub-total: $26,882.86 B. Fringe Benefits Name/Position Computation Cost Deputy Sheriff Overtime Salary + 4.020% $923.05 (FICA Workman's Comp. Unemployment Comp.) Sheriff Sergeant Overtime Salary + 5.000% $195.95 (FICA Workman's Comp. Unemployment Comp.) Sub-total $1,119.00 C. Travel No cost/no entries D. Equipment No cost/no entries Total Personnel & Fringe Benefits $28,001.86 E. Supplies Supply Items Computation Cost Educational Handouts color Printing cost estimate (150 brochures per ear $170.14 Simunitions Training Sole provider purchase $660 Ammunition (1000 rds. per year @ .66 ea) Expendable Training Consumable support $200 Supplies - Active Shooter material per training event Training (butcher paper, victim costuming, water, etc.) Total $1,030.14. F. Construction No costs/no entries G. Consultants/Contracts No costs/no entries H. Other Costs No costs/no entries 1. Indirect Costs No costs/no entries Budget Summary Budget Category Amount A. Personnel $ 26,882.86 B. Fringe Benefits $ 1,119.00 C. Travel No Cost D. Equipment ($5000 or more) No Cost E. Supplies $ 1,030.14 F. Construction No Cost G. Consultants/Contracts No Cost H. Other No Cost Total Direct Costs $ 29,032.00 1. Indirect Costs No Cost Total Project Costs $ 29,032.00 Federal Request $ 29,032.00 Non-Federal Amount No Request Review Narrative In the near future, the following notice will be published in the local media, on the City of Temecula website and at three locations around City Hall. Notice of Availability for review and comment THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 BUSINESS Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Consideration of a grant application has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL To consider the matter described below. Case no: Grant Application - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Application: City of Temecula Police Department Location: Citywide Proposal the City of Temecula Police Department is applying for grant funds to increase enforcement efforts targeting specific juvenile and school related criminal and safety issues. Any person may submit written comments to the Temecula Police Department before the date of action or may appear and be heard in support or opposition to the grant a the date of action. The proposed grant application may be viewed in the Law Library, in the City Clerk's Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the grant may be addressed to Heidi Schrader, City of Temecula Police Department, (951) 693-3923. Place of Action City Council chambers 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Date of Action TBD Time of Hearing 7:00 PM On the date of TBD, the following agenda report will be sent to the Temecula City Council for consent and approval by the local governing body. TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: TBD SUBJECT: Edward Byrne Memorial justice Assistance Grant Application PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City council approve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application for a proposed amount of $29,032. BACKGROUND: The Edward Byrne memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) is awarded by Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). It allows local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime. The grant replaces the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program that has funded law enforcement projects within the City of Temecula in previous years. Review requirement for submission of the JAG grant proposal to the BJA include: 1. 30 day review period by the community with an opportunity to comment. 2. Approval of the application by the City Council. A notice will be published in the local papers in the near future outlining the grant application. The notice invited the public to review a copy of the grant application posted in the law library at City Hall and to submit written comments or to make verbal comments in person o the date of action. The 2009 JAG proposal requests funds to staff, on an overtime basis, enforcement operations targeting sales to minors of restricted merchandise, ie; tobacco and spray paint, along with funding truancy sweeps and annual law enforcement response to active shooter scenario training at local schools. The funds will also purchase related training and educational material and supplies. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriation of funds for the grant will be made upon notification of award. ATTACHMENTS: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Application. Abstract Applicant: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Title: The Temecula Vandalism, Truancy Reduction, and Safety Collaboration. Goals: 1. To identify and reduce the number of business establishments selling tobacco products and spray paint to underage patrons. 2. To identify locations used as gathering places for truant students and reduce the number of truant students by 10%. 3. To train 50 deputies and supervisors to effectively respond to active shooter and other high risk calls for service on school campuses. Strategies to be used: Businesses in the City of Temecula that sell tobacco products and spray paint within close proximity to schools will be identified and charted. These businesses will initially be contacted as an educational phase to provide them with information and possibly training aids, to educate their respective employees in the lawful sale of tobacco and spray paint products. A follow up enforcement phase will become operational wherein underage decoys will attempt to purchase restricted items from the same businesses. A collaborative team from patrol, school resource officers and school officials will conduct highly visible truancy sweeps through the City of Temecula to identify gathering spots for truant students. School officials will handle in-house follow up with students and school resource officers will conduct criminal prosecution is necessary. Officers and supervisors from the Temecula Police Department will receive comprehensive, realistic, on-site, scenario-based training. This training will develop advanced skills related to active shooter type calls and other high risk incidents that may occur on school campuses. ITEM NO. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: Authorization to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 PREPARED BY: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayorto execute the Supplemental Agreement forthe use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2009, the City Council recommended funding for fiscal year2009-10 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects. This recommendation was forwarded to the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) for review and processing with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD provides CDBG funding for local projects which meet at least one of the following nationally established goals: The activity benefits fifty-one percent of low to moderate income individuals; or, 2. The activity aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or, 3. The activity meets an emergent community development need. The EDA processed the City's recommendation and, on August 10, 2009, submitted the attached Supplemental Agreement to the City for signature. The projects and levels of funding approved by the EDA are as follows: ORGANIZATION PROJECT AWARD AMOUNT City of Temecula Temecula Community Center (TCC) $329,105 Expansion VNW (Vineyard of the New Wine Circle of Care Food Program 9,210 Senior Citizen Service Center Emergency Food Purchase and Storage 9,210 (Temecula Emergency Assistance Program) Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center Rape Prevention Education 4,605 New Vision Children's Services Southwest Center for Autism Spectrum 1,846 Disorder Children of the Court Advocate Advocacy for Abused Children 6,445 Scholarship Program (CASA) Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County The Learning Connection 6,445 Safe Alternatives For Everyone, Family Support Program 9,210 Temecula/Murrieta Police Activities League Assistance League of Temecula Valle Operation School Bell 9,210 TOTAL CDBG FUNDING $385,286 The EDA reduced the non-profit Public Service funding amount by $4,820 from the City's original funding request and as a result, the various non profits allocations were reduced on a pro-rata basis as reflected on the attached Schedule of Funding Allocations. The City's Public Facilities project funding amount was reduced by $25,895 from its original request. The total CDBG funding forfiscal year 2009-10 is $385,286. The execution of the fiscal year 2009-10 Supplemental Agreement facilitates CDBG funding for these projects. FISCAL IMPACT: CDBG funds are budgeted in a special revenue fund forthe approved programs and projects for fiscal year 2009-10. ATTACHMENTS: -Schedule of Funding Allocations -Supplemental Agreement for the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2009-10 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM YEAR 2009-2010 SCHEDULE OF FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FY FY 2009/2010 FY FY 2008109 200912010 Funding 200912010 Funding Funding Recommenda Funding PUBLIC FACILITIES Award Request tion Revised Temecula Community Center Expansion $354,052 $355,000 $355,000 $329,105 PUBLIC SERVICES Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) $0 $15 000 $0 $0 Outreach Program Services , Assistance League of Temecula Valley 7,200 10,000 10,000 9,210 Operation School Bell Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County 7 200 30 000 7 000 6 445 The Learning Center , , , , CASA for Riverside County 0 10,000 7,000 6,445 Advocacy for Abused Children Musician's Workshop 0 10,000 0 0 Performing Arts and Music Access Neighborhood Healthcare 0 8 500 0 0 Diabetes Self-Management Program , New Vision Children's Services 0 20,000 2,000 1,845 SW Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center 0 5,000 5,000 4,605 Rape Prevention Education Safe Alternatives For Everyone, Inc. 13 272 15 000 10 000 9 210 Family Support Program , , , , Senior Citizen Service Center 9,000 10,000 10,000 9,210 Temecula Emergency Assistance Program Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship 0 10 000 0 0 Single Moms in Balance , Valley Oaks Ranch 0 26,424 0 0 Equine Intervention Program VNW 9,000 25,000 10,000 9,210 Circle of Care Program Volunteer Center of Riverside County 0 550 14 0 0 211 Call Center , YMCA 7,464 No 0 0 Swim Cam /Swim Lessons request Total Public Services $53,136 $209,474 $61,000 $56,180 GRAND TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 File No.: 3.TM.16-09, 3.TM.17-09, 3.TM.18-09 0.46-09, 0.47-09, 0.51-09, 0.53-09 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS The COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE of the State of California, herein called, "COUNTY," and the CITY OF TEMECULA, herein called "CITY," mutually agree as follows: 1. GENERAL. COUNTY and CITY have executed a Cooperation Agreement, dated July 12, 2005, whereby CITY elected to participate with COUNTY, which has qualified as an "Urban County" for purposes of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and to assist and undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Title 1, as amended, Public Law 93-383 hereinafter referred to as "Act". Said Cooperation Agreement, dated July 12, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if each and every provision was set forth herein. 2. PURPOSE. CITY promises and agrees to undertake and assist with the community development activities, within its jurisdiction, by utilizing the sum of $385,286, CDBG Entitlement Funds, as specifically identified in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I are attached hereto and by this reference are incorporated herein, for the projects: A. 3.TM.16-09 Temecula Community Center (TCC) Expansion, $329,105. B. 3.TM.17-09 VNW Circle of Care Food Program, $9,210. C. 3.TM.18-09 Senior Service Center - Emergency Food Program, $9,210. D. 0.46-09 Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center, $4,605. E. 0.47-09 Southwest Center for Autism Spectrum Disorder, $1,846. F. 0.51-09 Children of the Court Advocate Scholarship Program $6,445. G. 0.53-09 The Learning Connection, $6,445. H. 0.58-09 Temecula/Murrieta Police Activities League Violence Prevention Program, $9,210. I.0.61-09 Operation School Bell - Temecula, $9,210. Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement for the projects shall be for a period of one (1) year from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, and proceed consistent with the completion schedule set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I. In the event that the projects are not substantially completed by the time set forth in the completion schedule due to unforeseen or uncontrollable causes, the COUNTY may consider extending the schedule for the completion of the project. Times of performance for other activities may also be extended in writing by COUNTY. If substantial progress toward completion in conformance with the completion schedule, as determined by COUNTY, of the projects are not made during the term of the Supplemental Agreement, COUNTY may suspend or terminate this agreement by the procedures set forth in the Section titled "Termination", of this agreement and the entitlement funds associated with the projects may be reprogrammed by COUNTY after appropriate notice is given. 4. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS. a. COUNTY's Board of Supervisors shall determine the final disposition and distribution of all funds received by COUNTY under the Act consistent with the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement. COUNTY, through its Economic Development Agency, shall: (1) Make payment of the grant funds to CITY as designated in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I; and (2) It is the CITY's responsibility to monitor all project activities of Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I to ensure compliance with applicable federal regulations and the terms of this Agreement. b. CITY shall comply with timely drawdown of CDBG funds by expeditiously implementing and completing County-approved, CDBG-funded projects. CITY acknowledges that CITY's drawdown performance directly impacts the COUNTY's overall program drawdown rate. If the CITY's unobligated CDBG fund balance, as of January 15, 2009, exceeds two-times (200%) the CITY's 2008-2009 CDBG allocation, the COUNTY may take the necessary administrative actions to reduce the CITY's CDBG fund balance. Necessary actions include reprogramming the excess CDBG fund balance to other eligible activities as selected by COUNTY. COUTY may authorize CITY in writing, prior to January 15, 2009, to Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 exceed the CDBG fund balance requirement. C. CITY shall comply with timely drawdown of funds by submitting monthly requests for reimbursement or other County-approved reimbursement schedule. All disbursements of grant funds will be on a reimbursement basis and made within thirty (30) days after the CITY has submitted its letter identifying payments and documentation supporting expenditures. d. All authorized obligations incurred in the performance of the Agreement for projects eligible under the following regulations must be reported to COUNTY no later than by June 15.2009: a. Public Services [24 CFR 570.201 (e)] b. Acquisition [24 CFR 570.201 (a)] C. Clearance Activities [24 CFR 570.201 (d)] d. Interim Assistance [24 CFR 570.201 (f)] e. Code Enforcement [24 CFR 570.202 (c)] All other eligible activities under this Agreement must be implemented, completed, and obligations reported by the CITY no later than the completion schedules set forth in the Exhibits to this Agreement. The COUNTY will directly manage and monitor projects identified in Exhibits D, E, F, G, H and I. These projects have been determined to be of Countywide benefit, receiving grant funding from multiple sources; therefore, these projects will be managed and monitored by the COUNTY. 5. COOPERATION WITH HOUSING ACTIVITIES. CITY shall cooperate with COUNTY in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and public assistance housing, and shall assist COUNTY in carrying out its Strategic Plan of the Consolidated Plan and other requirements of the Community Development Block Grant Program. 6. LEAD_ AGENCY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15051(d) of Title 14 of the Page 3 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Administrative Code, CITY is designated as the lead agency for the projects that are the subject matter of this Agreement. 7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. In contemplation of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the California Government Code imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an agreement as defined by Section 895 of the Code, the Parties hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 895.4 and 895.6 of the Code, agree that each Party shall be liable for any damages including, but not limited to, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys fees, resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of their employees or agents in the performance of this Agreement, and each Party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Parties from such claims, demands, damages, losses or liabilities for their negligence 8. INSURANCE. Without limiting or diminishing the CITY'S obligation to indemnify or hold the COUNTY harmless, CITY shall procure and maintain or cause to be maintained, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance coverage's during the term of this Agreement. A. Workers' Compensation: If the CITY has employees as defined by the State of California, the CITY shall maintain statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance (Coverage A) as prescribed by the laws of the State of California. Policy shall include Employers' Liability (Coverage B) including Occupational Disease with limits not less than $1,000,000 per person per accident. The policy shall be I endorsed to waive subrogation in favor of The County of Riverside, and, if applicable, to provide a Borrowed Servant/Altemate Employer Endorsement. B. Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability insurance coverage, including but not limited to, premises liability, contractual liability, products and completed operations liability, personal and advertising injury, and cross liability coverage, covering claims which may arise from or out of Page 4 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY 'S performance of its obligations hereunder. Policy shall name the County of Riverside, its Agencies, Districts, Special Districts, and Departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of Supervisors, employees, elected or appointed officials, agents or representatives as Additional Insureds. Policy's limit of liability shall not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this agreement or be no less than two (2) times the occurrence limit. C. Vehicle Liability: If vehicles or mobile equipment are used in the performance of the obligations under this Agreement, then CITY shall maintain liability insurance for all owned, non-owned or hired vehicles so used in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit. If I such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this agreement or be no less than two (2) times the occurrence limit. Policy shall name the County of Riverside, its Agencies, Districts, Special Districts, and Departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of Supervisors, employees, elected or appointed officials, agents or representatives as Additional (Insureds. D. General Insurance Provisions - All lines: 1) Any insurance carrier providing insurance coverage hereunder shall be admitted to the State of California and have an A M BEST rating of not less than A: VIII (A:8) unless such requirements are waived, in writing, by the County Risk Manager. If the County's Risk Manager I waives a requirement for a particular insurer such waiver is only valid for that specific insurer I I and only for one policy term. 2) The CITY 'S insurance carrier(s) must declare its insurance self-insured retentions. If such self-insured retentions exceed $500,000 per occurrence such retentions shall have the prior written consent of the County Risk Manager before the commencement of operations under this Agreement. Upon notification of self insured retention unacceptable to the COUNTY, and at the election of the Country's Risk Manager, CITY 'S carriers shall either; 1) reduce or eliminate such self-insured retention as respects this Agreement with the COUNTY, or 2) procure a bond Page 5 of 13 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which guarantees payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration, and defense costs and expenses. 3) CITY shall cause CITY'S insurance carrier(s) to furnish the County of Riverside with either 1) a properly executed original Certificate(s) of Insurance and certified original copies of Endorsements effecting coverage as required herein, and 2) if requested to do so orally or in writing by the County Risk Manager, provide original Certified copies of policies including all Endorsements and all attachments thereto, showing such insurance is in full force and effect. Further, said Certificate(s) and policies of insurance shall contain the covenant of the insurance carrier(s) that thirty (30) days written notice shall be given to the County of Riverside prior to any material modification, cancellation, expiration or reduction in coverage of such insurance. In the event of a material modification, cancellation, expiration, or reduction in coverage, this Agreement shall terminate forthwith, unless the County of Riverside receives, prior to such effective date, another properly executed original Certificate of Insurance and original copies of endorsements or certified original policies, including all endorsements and attachments thereto I evidencing coverage's set forth herein and the insurance required herein is in full force and effect. CITY shall not commence operations until the COUNTY has been furnished original Certificate (s) of Insurance and certified original copies of endorsements and if requested, certified original policies of insurance including all endorsements and any and all other I attachments as required in this Section. An individual authorized by the insurance carrier to do I so on its behalf shall sign the original endorsements for each policy and the Certificate of Insurance. 4) It is understood and agreed to by the parties hereto that the CITY 'S insurance shall be construed as primary insurance, and the COUNTY'S insurance and/or deductibles and/or self- insured retention's or self-insured programs shall not be construed as contributory. 5) If, during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof, there is a material change in the scope of services; or, there is a material change in the equipment to be used in the performance of the scope of work which will add additional exposures (such as the use of aircraft, watercraft, cranes, etc.); or, the term of this Agreement, including any extensions Page 6 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 thereof, exceeds five (5) years the COUNTY reserves the right to adjust the types of insurance required under this Agreement and the monetary limits of liability for the insurance coverage's currently required herein, if, in the County Risk Manager's reasonable judgment, the amount or type of insurance carried by the CITY has become inadequate. 6) CITY shall pass down the insurance obligations contained herein to all tiers of subcontractors working under this Agreement. 7) The insurance requirements contained in this Agreement may be met with a program(s) of self-insurance acceptable to the COUNTY. 8) CITY agrees to notify COUNTY of any claim by a third party or any incident or event that may give rise to a claim arising from the performance of this Agreement 9. RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS. a. CITY shall establish and maintain records in accordance with 24 CFR Part 570, Part 85, OMB Circular A-87, and 24 CFR 91.105, as applicable, and as they relate to the I acceptance and use of federal funds under this Agreement. b. CITY shall maintain a separate account for CDBG Entitlement funds received as set forth in Exhibits (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I). C. CITY shall, during the normal business hours, make available to COUNTY, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or other authorized representative, for the examination and copying, all of its records and other materials with respect to matters covered by this Agreement. d. CITY shall not retain any program income as defined in Section 570.500 of Title 24 of the Federal Code of Regulations. Said program income shall be used only for the activities that are the subject of this Agreement. Further, all provisions of this Agreement shall apply to such activities. e. The CITY shall ensure that at least fifty-one percent (51 of the persons benefiting from all CDBG-funded activities or projects designated as serving limited clientele [570.208(a)(2)(i)] are of low and moderate-income and meet the program income guidelines attached as Exhibits (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I). The CITY and City's Sub-recipients must Page 7 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provide the required income certification and direct benefit documentation. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CITY shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances and any amendments thereto and the federal regulations and guidelines now or hereafter enacted pursuant to the Act. More particularly, CITY is to comply with those regulations found in Part 85 and Part 570 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. CITY is to comply with OMB Circular A-87, or any subsequent replacement. CITY is to abide by the provisions of the Community Development Block Grant Manual, prepared by COUNTY and cited in the above-mentioned Cooperation Agreement. CITY will comply with Section 3 of the Housing & Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, attached hereto as Exhibit "S". CITY will comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570.200 0), attached as Exhibit "R," pertaining to inherently religious activities. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and its agents, servants, and employees shall act at all times in an independent capacity during the term of this Agreement, and shall not act as, shall not be, nor shall they in any manner be construed to be agents, officers, or employees of the COUNTY. 12. TERMINATION. a. CITY. CITY may not terminate this Agreement except upon express written consent of COUNTY. b. COUNTY. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 11 a, COUNTY I may suspend or terminate this Agreement upon written notice to CITY of action being taken and the reason for such action: (1) In the event CITY fails to perform the covenants herein contained at such times and in such manner as provided in this Agreement; and (2) In the event there is a conflict with any federal, state or local law, ordinance, regulation or rule rendering any of the provisions of this Agreement invalid or untenable; or (3) In the event the funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above is terminated or otherwise becomes Page 8 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unavailable. C. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees to return any unencumbered funds which it has been provided by COUNTY. In accepting said funds, COUNTY does not waive any claim or cause of action it may have against CITY for breach of this Agreement. d. Reversion of Assets 1. Upon expiration of this Agreement, the CITY shall transfer to the COUNTY any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration of the Agreement as well as any accounts receivable held by CITY which are attributable to the use of CDBG funds awarded pursuant to this Agreement. 2. Any real property under the CITY'S control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds (including CDBG funds provided to the SPONSOR in the form of a loan) in excess of $25,000 is either: (i) Used to meet one of the National Objectives in Sec. 570.208 until five years after expiration of this agreement, or for such longer period of time as determined to be appropriate by the COUNTY; or (ii) Not used in accordance with Section (i) above, in which event the SPONSOR shall pay to the COUNTY an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for the acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. 13. NONDISCRIMINATION. CITY shall abide by Sections 570.601 and 570.602 of Title 24 of the Federal Code of Regulations which requires that no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with Community Development funds. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST a. CITY and its assigns, employees, agents, consultants, officers and elected and appointed officials shall become familiar with and shall comply with the CDBG regulations Page 9 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prohibiting conflicts of interest contained in 24 CFR 570.611, attached hereto as Exhibit "Cl" and by this reference incorporated herein. b. CITY and its assigns, employees, agents, consultants, officers, and elected and appointed officials shall become familiar with and shall comply with Section A-11 of the County's CDBG Policy manual, attached hereto as Exhibit "Cl" and by this reference incorporated herein. C. CITY understands and agrees that no waiver of exception can be granted to the prohibition against conflict of interest except upon written approval of HUD pursuant to 24 CFR 570.611 (d). Any request by CITY for an exception shall first be reviewed by COUNTY to determine whether such request is appropriate for submission to HUD. In determining whether such request is appropriate for submission to HUD, COUNTY will consider the factors listed in 24 CFR 570.611 (e). d. Prior to any funding under this Agreement, CITY shall provide COUNTY with a list of all employees, agents, consultants, officers and elected and appointed officials who are in a position to participate in a decision making process, exercise any functions or responsibilities, or gain inside information with respect to the CDBG activities funded under this Agreement. CITY shall also promptly disclose to COUNTY any potential conflict, including even the appearance of conflict that may arise with respect to the CDBG activities funded under this Agreement. e. Any violation of this section shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and the Agreement shall be immediately terminated by the COUNTY. 15. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. As to CITY or its claimants, COUNTY shall bear no liability for any later determination by the United States Government, the Department of Housing and Urban Development or any other person or entity that CITY is or is not eligible under 24 CFR Part 570 to receive CDBG funds. 16. USE OF PROPERTY. Whenever federal CDBG funds or program income are used, in whole or in part, for the purchase of equipment or personal property, the property shall not be transferred from its originally funded use, by CITY or sub-recipient, for a period of five Page 10 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (5) years from the close-out date of the grant from which CDBG assistance was provided. The CITY shall maintain a current inventory for COUNTY monitoring and review. 17. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CAUSED BY PROJECT. CITY agrees to notify and to require any lessee or assignee to notify Riverside County Workforce Development Center of any and all job openings that are caused by this project. 18. PUBLICITY. Any publicity generated by CITY for the project funded pursuant to this Agreement, during the term of this Agreement, will make reference to the Contribution of the County of Riverside, the Economic Development Agency, and the Community Development Block Grant Program in making the project possible. 19. PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION. CITY and its sub-recipients shall be monitored and evaluated in terms of its effectiveness and timely compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and the effective and efficient achievement of the Program Objectives. Quarterly reports shall be due on the last day of the month immediately following the end of the quarter being reported. The quarterly written reports shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following data elements: a. Title of program, listing of components, description of I activities/operations. b. The projected goals, indicated numerically, and also the goals achieved (for each report period). In addition, identify by percentage and description, the progress achieved towards meeting the specified goals and identify any problems encountered in meeting goals. C. If the CDBG-funded Activity meets a National Objective under 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(2)(i), CITY will report the following: 1) Total number of direct beneficiaries (clientele served) with household incomes at: • Above 80% MHI • Between 50% and 80% MHI (Low-Income) • Between 30% and 50% MHI (Very Low-Income) Page 11 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Less than 30% MHI (Extremely Low-Income) 2) Total number and percent of the clientele served that have household incomes at or below 80% MHI 3) Racial ethnicity of clientele 4) Number of Female-Headed Households CITY and its sub-recipients shall report beneficiary statistics monthly to EDA on the pre- approved Direct Benefit Form and Self-Certification Form (certifying income, family size, and racial ethnicity) as required by HUD. Updated forms are to be provided to CITY by EDA should HUD implement changes during the term of this agreement. CITY and sub-recipients will collect and provide all necessary data required by HUD pertaining to the Specific Outcome Indicators as identified in the CPD Outcome Performance Measurement System. 20. SOURCE OF FUNDING. CITY acknowledges that the source of funding pursuant to this Agreement is Community Development Block Grant (CFDA 14.218). 21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. It is expressly agreed that this Agreement together with the cooperation Agreement between the parties, embodies the entire agreement of the parties in relation to the subject matter thereof, and that no other Agreement or understanding, verbal or otherwise, relative to this subject matter, exists between the parties at the time of execution. 22. MINISTERIAL ACTS. The Assistant County Executive Officer/EDA or designee(s) are authorized to take such ministerial actions as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Agreement as it may be amended from time to time by COUNTY. 23. PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. CITY shall obtain COUNTY's written approval from the Economic Development Agency prior to implementing the following "high risk" activities funded with CDBG assistance: a. Construction of public facilities (project plans and specifications); b. Acquisition of real property; C. Historic Preservation; Page 12 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. Relocation; and e. Economic Development 23. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a writing signed by the duly authorized and empowered representative of COUNTY and CITY respectively. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the SPONSOR have executed this Agreement as of the date listed below. DATED: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Jeff Stone, Chairman Board of Supervisors SH:JT:mmv CITY OF TEMECULA By: Mayor Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.16-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - NON-PUBLIC SERVICE L GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst PHONE: (951) 308-6342 FAX: (951) 694-6479 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Temecula Community Center (T CC) Ex]2ans i can PROJECT LOCATION: 28816 Pulol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: Environmental Assessment CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 570.201 (c) Public Facility PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: City Funding $329,105 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of City: YES ❑ NO II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities City will be responsible for administering a 2009-2010 Community Development Block Grant for the Temecula Community Center (TCC) Expansion in a manner satisfactory to the County of Riverside and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such program will include the following activities eligible under the Community Development Block Grant program: Activity #1 The City of Te.rriecul a operates the Ternec7ul a Cornmuni ty Center in. the old town (low%mod income) section of the ci ty. C"L,BG funds will be use d for the design and construct ion of a 3,600 square foot expans_.on to the existing facily ty. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.16-09 B. National Objective All activities funded with CDBG funds must comply with one of more of the CDBG program's National Objective Criteria as required under 24 CFR 570.200(a)(2). City certifies that the activity(ies) carried out under this Agreement will meet the following National Objective: National Objective Criteria: 570.208 (a) (1) (i ) CFR Reference: Low Mod Area C. Levels of Accomplishment - Goals and Performance Measures The City agrees to implement and complete the following activity(ies): Activity #1 Design and engineering Activity #2 Construction of facility CPD OUTCOME PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Objectives (select one): ® Creating Suitable Living Environments ❑ Providing Decent Affordable Housing ❑ Creating Economic Opportunities Outcome (select one): ❑ Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ® Sustainability (promoting livable or viable communities) D. City Capacity By executing this Supplemental Agreement, the City certifies that it has the appropriate number of trained and knowledgeable staff, adequate facilities, proper equipment, required licensing and permitting, and sufficient amount of financial resources necessary to implement and carry out the activities funded with CDBG funds. City will immediately notify County of any significant changes in organizational management, assigned staff, change in facilities, loss or change in matching funds, or any other event that could potentially impact the City or subrecipient's performance under this Agreement. Any changes in the above items are subject to the prior approval of the County. E. Performance Monitoring The County of Riverside will monitor the performance of the City and its subrecipients against goals and performance standards as stated above. Substandard performance as determined by the EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.16-09 County will constitute noncompliance with this Agreement. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the City within a reasonable period of time after being notified by the County, contract suspension or termination procedures will be initiated. F. Program Budget It is expressly agreed and understood that the total amount to be paid by the County under this Agreement shall not exceed $329,105 Drawdowns for the payment of eligible expenses shall be made against the line item budgets specified in this Section and in accordance with performance. Payments may be contingent upon certification of the Subrecipient's financial management system in accordance with the standards specified in 24 CFR 84.21. The County may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the City shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the County. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the County and City. Line Item Design/Engineering Costs Project Administration Costs Construction Costs Acquisition Costs Relocation Costs El Capital Equipment Costs 0 Code Enforcement El Clearance ❑ Interim Assistance Other: El EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.16-09 III. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. Accounting Standards The City agrees to comply with 24 CFR 84 or 85 as applicable and agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures required therein, utilize adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary source documentation for all costs incurred. B. Cost Principles The City shall administer its program in conformance with OMB Circulars A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," or OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments as applicable. These principles shall be applied for all costs incurred whether charged on a direct or indirect basis C. Documentation and Record Keeping Records to be Maintained The Subrecipient shall maintain all records required by the Federal regulations specified in 24 CFR 570.506, that are pertinent to the activities to be funded under this Agreement. Such records shall include but not be limited to: i Records providing a full description of each activity undertaken; ii. Records demonstrating that each activity undertaken meets one of the National Objectives of the CDBG program; iii. Records required to determine the eligibility of activities; iv. Records required to document the acquisition, improvement, use or disposition of real property acquired or improved with CDBG assistance; V. Records documenting compliance with the fair housing and equal opportunity components of the CDBG program; vi. Financial records as required by 24 CFR 570.502, and 24 CFR 84.21-28; and vii. Other records necessary to document compliance with Subpart K of 24 CFR Part 570. 2. Records Retention The City shall retain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the Agreement for a period of five (5) years. The retention period begins on the date of the submission of the County's annual performance and evaluation report to HUD in which the activities assisted under the Agreement are reported on for the final time. Notwithstanding the above, if there is litigation, claims, EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.16-09 audits, negotiations or other actions that involve any of the records cited and that have started before the expiration of the five-year period, then such records must be retained until completion of the actions and resolution of all issues, or the expiration of the five- year period, whichever occurs later. 3. Client Data The City shall maintain client data demonstrating client eligibility for services provided. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, client name, address, income level or other basis for determining eligibility, and description of service provided. Such information shall be made available to County monitors or their designees for review upon request. 4. Disclosure The City understands that client information collected under this contract is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly connected with the administration of the County's or City's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract, is prohibited by applicable federal and State law unless written consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of a responsible parent/guardian. Close-outs The City's obligation to the County shall not end until all close-out requirements are completed. Activities during this close-out period shall include, but are not limited to: making final payments, disposing of program assets (including the return of all unused materials, equipment, unspent cash advances, program income balances, and accounts receivable to the County), and determining the custodianship of records. Not withstanding the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement shall remain in effect during any period that the City has control over CDBG funds, including program income. 6. Audits & Inspections All City records with respect to any matters covered by this Agreement shall be made available to the County, HUD, and the Controller General of the United States or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, as often as deemed necessary, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts of all relevant data. Any deficiencies noted in audit reports must be fully cleared by the City within 30 days after receipt by the City. Failure of the City to comply with the above audit requirements will constitute a violation of this contract and may result in the withholding of future payments. The City hereby agrees to have an annual agency audit conducted in accordance with current County policy concerning subrecipient audits and OMB Circular A-133. EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.16-09 IV. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE Unless pre-approved by County, City will perform and complete the activities described in Section II in conformance with the schedule of tasks and milestones listed below: Tasks / Milestone Start Date Completion Date Attend Mandatory Cooperating City Training Implement Project Activities Execute Supplemental Agreement & Notice to Incur Cost Tasks / Milestone Submit Quarterly Performance Reports to County County Monitoring of City Program/Performance Specific Project Activities City Submits Reimbursement Requests Monthly Submittal ❑ Other Schedule CDBG-funded Project Complete May 15, 2011 V. SPECIAL CONDITIONS /PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS EDA must review and approve (in writing) all construction bid documents prior to notice of inviting bids. This public facility project meets a National Objective of the CDBG program by primarily serving persons with low and moderate incomes (NOTE: at least 51 % of the persons benefiting from the facility must be low/moderate income). Upon project completion, Sponsor must collect and report annual Direct Benefit data to EDA for a five (5) year period. July 2009 July 2009 Upon Notification from EDA August 2009 Start Date September 2009 Completion Date October 15, 2009 January 15, 2010 April 15, 2010 July 15, 2010 October 15, 2011 January 15, 2011 April 15, 2011 July 15, 2011 To be determined by Program Manager To be determined by Program Manager EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.17-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - NON-PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: Citv of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analvst PHONE: (951) 308-6342 FAX: (951) 694-6479 E-MAIL: PROJECTNAME: yNW Circle of Care Food Program PROJECT LOCATION: 27711 _ Diaz Road, Temecula, CA 92590 LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: CEX CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: Public Facility 570.201 (c) PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: Temecula $9,210 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of City: YES ❑ NO II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities City will be responsible for administering a 2009-2010 Community Development Block Grant for the VNW Circle of Care Food Program in a manner satisfactory to the County of Riverside and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such program will include the following activities eligible under the Community Development Block Grant program: Activity #1 Vineyard of the New Wine Circle of Care distributes food to eligible families at various sites throughout the Sout z-west part of R.%.vers_7de County. CIJ funds W"17 be used to purchase a walk.-in refrigeration unit. EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.17-09 B. National Objective All activities funded with CDBG funds must comply with one of more of the CDBG program's National Objective Criteria as required under 24 CFR 570.200(a)(2). City certifies that the activity(ies) carried out under this Agreement will meet the following National Objective: National Objective Criteria: 570.208 (a) (2) (i) (B) CFR Reference: Low Mod Limited Clientele Income Certification C. Levels of Accomplishment - Goals and Performance Measures The City agrees to implement and complete the following activity(ies): Activity #1 Enter into Subrecipient agreement with VNW Circle of Care Activity #2 Install refrigeration unit CPD OUTCOME PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Objectives (select one): ® Creating Suitable Living Environments ❑ Providing Decent Affordable Housing ❑ Creating Economic Opportunities Outcome (select one): ® Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ❑ Sustainability (promoting livable or viable communities) D. City Capacity By executing this Supplemental Agreement, the City certifies that it has the appropriate number of trained and knowledgeable staff, adequate facilities, proper equipment, required licensing and permitting, and sufficient amount of financial resources necessary to implement and carry out the activities funded with CDBG funds. City will immediately notify County of any significant changes in organizational management, assigned staff, change in facilities, loss or change in matching funds, or any other event that could potentially impact the City or subrecipient's performance under this Agreement. Any changes in the above items are subject to the prior approval of the County. E. Performance Monitoring The County of Riverside will monitor the performance of the City and its subrecipients against goals and performance standards as stated above. Substandard performance as determined by the EXHIBIT B Page 3 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.17-09 County will constitute noncompliance with this Agreement. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the City within a reasonable period of time after being notified by the County, contract suspension or termination procedures will be initiate F. Program Budget It is expressly agreed and understood that the total amount to be paid by the County under this Agreement shall not exceed $9,210 Drawdowns for the payment of eligible expenses shall be made against the line item budgets specified in this Section and in accordance with performance. Payments may be contingent upon certification of the Subrecipient's financial management system in accordance with the standards specified in 24 CFR 84.21. The County may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the City shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the County. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the County and City. Line Item Design/Engineering Costs El Project Administration Costs Construction Costs El Acquisition Costs El Relocation Costs 17 Capital Equipment Costs Code Enforcement El Clearance El Interim Assistance Other: El EXHIBIT B Page 4 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.17-09 III. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. Accounting Standards The City agrees to comply with 24 CFR 84 or 85 as applicable and agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures required therein, utilize adequate internaf controls, and maintain necessary source documentation for all costs incurred. B. Cost Principles The City shall administer its program in conformance with OMB Circulars A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," or OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments as applicable. These principles shall be applied for all costs incurred whether charged on a direct or indirect basis C. Documentation and Record Keeping Records to be Maintained The Subrecipient shall maintain all records required by the Federal regulations specified in 24 CFR 570.506, that are pertinent to the activities to be funded under this Agreement. Such records shall include but not be limited to: i Records providing a full description of each activity undertaken; ii. Records demonstrating that each activity undertaken meets one of the National Objectives of the CDBG program; iii. Records required to determine the eligibility of activities; iv. Records required to document the acquisition, improvement, use or disposition of real property acquired or improved with CDBG assistance; V. Records documenting compliance with the fair housing and equal opportunity components of the CDBG program; vi. Financial records as required by 24 CFR 570.502, and 24 CFR 84.21-28; and vii. Other records necessary to document compliance with Subpart K of 24 CFR Part 570. 2. Records Retention The City shall retain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the Agreement for a period of five (5) years. The retention period begins on the date of the submission of the County's annual performance and evaluation report to HUD in which the activities assisted under the Agreement are reported on for the final time. Notwithstanding the above, if there is litigation, claims, EXHIBIT B Page 5 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.17-09 audits, negotiations or other actions that involve any of the records cited and that have started before the expiration of the five-year period, then such records must be retained until completion of the actions and resolution of all issues, or the expiration of the five- year period, whichever occurs later. 3. Client Data The City shall maintain client data demonstrating client eligibility for services provided. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, client name, address, income level or other basis for determining eligibility, and description of service provided. Such information shall be made available to County monitors or their designees for review upon request. 4. Disclosure The City understands that client information collected under this contract is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly connected with the administration of the County's or City's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract, is prohibited by applicable federal and State law unless written consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of a responsible parent/guardian. 5. Close-outs The City's obligation to the County shall not end until all close-out requirements are completed. Activities during this close-out period shall include, but are not limited to: making final payments, disposing of program assets (including the return of all unused materials, equipment, unspent cash advances, program income balances, and accounts receivable to the County), and determining the custodianship of records. Not withstanding the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement shall remain in effect during any period that the City has control over CDBG funds, including program income. 6. Audits & Inspections All City records with respect to any matters covered by this Agreement shall be made available to the County, HUD, and the Controller General of the United States or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, as often as deemed necessary, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts of all relevant data. Any deficiencies noted in audit reports must be fully cleared by the City within 30 days after receipt by the City. Failure of the City to comply with the above audit requirements will constitute a violation of this contract and may result in the withholding of future payments. The City hereby agrees to have an annual agency audit conducted in accordance with current County policy concerning subrecipient audits and OMB Circular A-133. EXHIBIT B Page 6 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.17-09 IV. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE Unless pre-approved by County, City will perform and complete the activities described in Section II in conformance with the schedule of tasks and milestones listed below: Tasks / Milestone Start Date Completion Date Attend Mandatory Cooperating City Training Implement Project Activities July 2009 July 2009 Execute Supplemental Agreement & Notice to Incur Cost Tasks / Milestone Submit Quarterly Performance Reports to County County Monitoring of City Program/Performance Specific Project Activities City Submits Reimbursement Requests Upon Notification from EDA August 2009 September 2009 Start Date To be determined by Program Manager To be determined by Program Manager Completion Date October 15, 2009 January 15, 2010 April 15, 2010 July 15, 2010 October 15, 2010 January 15, 2011 Monthly Submittal ❑ Other Schedule CDBG-funded Project Complete TBD V. SPECIAL CONDITIONS /PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS EDA must review and approve (in writing) all construction bid documents prior to notice of inviting bids. This public facility project meets a National Objective of the CDBG program by primarily serving persons with low and moderate incomes (NOTE: at least 51 % of the persons benefiting from the facility must be low/moderate income). Upon project completion, Sponsor must collect and report annual Direct Benefit data to EDA for a five (5) year period. This public facility project meets a National Objective of the CDBG program by primarily serving persons with low and moderate incomes (NOTE: at least 51 % of the persons benefiting from the facility must be low/moderate income). Upon project completion, Sponsor must collect and report annual Direct Benefit data to EDA for a five (5) year period. EXHIBIT C Page 1 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.18-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: Citv of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: Heidi Schrader, Management Analyst SUBRECIPIENTNAME: Senior Citizens Service Center of the Rancho Temecula Area, Inc. ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 PROGRAM CONTACT: David Bilby, Senior Debet Analyst PHONE: _(951) 308-6342 FAX: (951) 694-6479 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Senior Service Center - Emergency Food Program PROJECT LOCATION: 41765 Elm Street. Murrieta, CA 92552 LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT [24 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: Temecula $9,210 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ❑ NO II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities City will be responsible for administering a 2009-2010 Community Development Block Grant for the Senior Service Center - Emergency Food Program in a manner satisfactory to the County of Riverside and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such program will include the following activities eligible under the Community Development Block Grant program: Activity #1 The Senior Service c.:.enter provides basic P.eeds to low- Income lI d1 rlduals o'. +-he Telneci.lla-Misr.,`ie+ area. Needs it c `ude I] I c121erc7el?C;J food, 1t lit j assts-a n-e, a2d other essent a' needs. ( 1%BG funds wl_i.l be used for consumable SgLpplles. EXHIBIT C Page 2 of 6 File No.: 37M. 18-09 B. National Objective All activities funded with CDBG funds must comply with one of more of the CDBG program's National Objective Criteria as required under 24 CFR 570.200(a)(2). CITY certifies that the activity (ies) carried out under this Agreement will meet the following National Objective: National Objective Criteria: 570.208 (a) (2) (i) (B ) CFRReference: Low Mod Limited Clientele Income Certification C. Levels of Accomplishment - Goals and Performance Measures The City agrees to provide the following levels of program services: Activity Units Total Total per Month Units/Year Unduplicated Persons Activity #1 600 Unit of Service is defined as: People Served CPD OUTCOME PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Objectives (select one): ® Creating Suitable Living Environments ❑ Providing Decent Affordable Housing ❑ Creating Economic Opportunities Outcome (select one): ® Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ❑ Sustainability (promoting livable or viable communities) D. City Capacity By executing this Supplemental Agreement, the City certifies that it and its subrecipients have the appropriate number of trained and knowledgeable staff, adequate facilities, proper equipment, required licensing and permitting, and sufficient amount of financial resources necessary to implement and carry out the activities funded with CDBG funds. City will immediately notify County of any significant changes in organizational management, assigned staff, change in facilities, loss or change in matching funds, or any other event that could potentially impact City's performance under this Agreement. Any changes in the above items are subject to the prior approval of the County. E. Performance Monitoring The County of Riverside will monitor the performance of the City and its subrecipients against goals and performance standards as stated above. Substandard performance as determined by the County will constitute noncompliance with this Agreement. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the City within a reasonable period of time after being notified by the County, contract suspension or termination procedures will be initiated. EXHIBIT C Page 3 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.18-09 F. Program Budget It is expressly agreed and understood that the total amount to be paid by the County under this Agreement shall not exceed $9,210. Drawdowns for the payment of eligible expenses shall be made against the line item budgets specified in this Section and in accordance with performance. Payments may be contingent upon certification of the Subrecipient's financial management system in accordance with the standards specified in 24 CFR 84.21. The County may require a more detailed budget breakdown than the one contained herein, and the City shall provide such supplementary budget information in a timely fashion in the form and content prescribed by the County. Any amendments to the budget must be approved in writing by both the County and City. Line Item Amount Notes Total Direct Program $ 9,210 Expenses Salaries ❑ Fringe ❑ Office Space (Program Only) ❑ Utilities Communications ❑ Reproduction/Printing ❑ Supplies and Materials Mileage ❑ Equipment (Program Only) ❑ Audit ❑ Transportation ❑ Other (Vouchers) Total Indirect Program I $ Expenses Indirect Costs (Specify)* ❑ * All indirect costs must be pre-approved by the County. City must submit an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan to County, in a form specified by County, demonstrating the appropriate share of general and administrative costs. EXHIBIT C Page 4 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.18-09 III. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. Accounting Standards The City agrees to comply with 24 CFR 84 or 85 as applicable and agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures required therein, utilize adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary source documentation for all costs incurred. B. Cost Principles The City shall administer its program in conformance with OMB Circulars A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," or OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments as applicable. These principles shall be applied for all costs incurred whether charged on a direct or indirect basis C. Documentation and Record Keeping Records to be Maintained The City and its subrecipients will maintain all records required by the Federal regulations specified in 24 CFR 570.506, that are pertinent to the activities to be funded under this Agreement. Such records shall include but not be limited to: i Records providing a full description of each activity undertaken; ii. Records demonstrating that each activity undertaken meets one of the National Objectives of the CDBG program; iii. Records required to determine the eligibility of activities; iv. Records required to document the acquisition, improvement, use or disposition of real property acquired or improved with CDBG assistance; V. Records documenting compliance with the fair housing and equal opportunity components of the CDBG program; vi. Financial records as required by 24 CFR 570.502, and 24 CFR 84.21-28; and vii. Other records necessary to document compliance with Subpart K of 24 CFR Part 570. 2. Records Retention The City shall retain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the Agreement for a period of five (5) years. The retention period begins on the date of the submission of the County's annual performance and evaluation report to HUD in which the activities assisted under the Agreement are reported on for the final time. Notwithstanding the above, if there is litigation, claims, audits, negotiations or other actions that involve any of the records cited and that have started before the expiration of the five-year period, then such records must be retained until completion of the actions and resolution of all issues, or the expiration of the five- year period, whichever occurs later. EXHIBIT C Page 5 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.18-09 3. Client Data The City shall maintain client data demonstrating client eligibility for services provided. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, client name, address, income level or other basis for determining eligibility, and description of service provided. Such information shall be made available to County monitors or their designees for review upon request. 4. Disclosure The City understands that client information collected under this contract is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly connected with the administration of the County's or City's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract, is prohibited by applicable federal and State law unless written consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of a responsible parent/guardian. 5. Close-outs The City's obligation to the County shall not end until all close-out requirements are completed. Activities during this close-out period shall include, but are not limited to: making final payments, disposing of program assets (including the return of all unused materials, equipment, unspent cash advances, program income balances, and accounts receivable to the County), and determining the custodianship of records. Not withstanding the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement shall remain in effect during any period that the City has control over CDBG funds, including program income. 6. Audits & Inspections All City records with respect to any matters covered by this Agreement shall be made available to the County, HUD, and the Controller General of the United States or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, as often as deemed necessary, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts of all relevant data. Any deficiencies noted in audit reports must be fully cleared by the City within 30 days after receipt by the City. Failure of the City to comply with the above audit requirements will constitute a violation of this contract and may result in the withholding of future payments. The City hereby agrees to have an annual agency audit conducted in accordance with current County policy concerning subrecipient audits and OMB Circular A-133. EXHIBIT C Page 6 of 6 File No.: 3.TM.18-09 IV. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE Unless pre-approved by County, CITY will perform and complete the activities described in Section II in conformance with the schedule of tasks and milestones listed below: Tasks / Milestone Start Date Completion Date Attend Mandatory Cooperating July 2009 July 2009 City Training Execute Subrecipient Agreements July 1, 2009 September 30, 2009 (EDA must approve) Implement Program Activities July 1, 2009 Execute Supplemental Agreement August 2009 September 2009 & Notice to Incur Cost City Submit Quarterly October 15, 2009 Performance Reports to County January 15, 2010 April 15, 2010 July 31, 2010 County Monitoring of City TBD TBD Performance City submit Monthly September 2009 July 2010 Direct Benefit Reports City Submits Reimbursement Requests Monthly Submittal ® September 2009 May 15, 2010 Other Schedule ❑ CDBG Program Services Complete June 30, 2010 V. SPECIAL CONDITIONS /PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Sponsor must collect income self-certifications from every individual or family participating in CDBG-funded activities or the parent or legal guardian of every child participating in CDBG- funded activities. This includes family income, family size, and ethnicity. Sponsor is required to collect income verification documentation from at least 10% of the participants. All of this documentation must be submitted to EDA on a monthly basis. EXHIBIT D Page 1 of 1 File No.: 0.46-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst SUBRECIPIENT NAME: Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center ADDRESS: 1845 Chicago Avenue, Suite A, Riverside, CA 92507 PROGRAM CONTACT: Larry McAdara, Executive Director PHONE: (951) 686-7273 FAX: (951) 686-0839 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center PROJECT LOCATION: 1845 Chicago Ave, Suite A, Riverside, CA 92507 LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT [24 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: 1 IT District $3,250 Temecula $4,605 2nd District $5,000 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ® NO ❑ II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities This project provides a Countywide benefit and will be administered by EDA. Activity #1 The Riverside Area. Rape Crisis Center provides direct services to rape survivors and their families. Services include counseling, medical care, advocacy, and legal .services. CDBG f ends will be used for ".scholarships" to low-incotne clientele. EXHIBIT E Page 1 of 1 File No.: 0.47-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilbv. Senior Debt Analvst SUBRECIPIENT NAME: New Vision Children's Services ADDRESS: 40335 Winchester Rd., #E-522, Temecula, CA 92591 PROGRAM CONTACT: Mary Mollway, President/Executive Director PHONE: (951) 757-0875 FAX: (866) 837-6612 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Southwest Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders PROJECT LOCATION: LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT [24 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: 3rd District $5,000 Temecula $1,846 5th District $10,000 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ® NO ❑ II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities This project provides a Countywide benefit and will be administered by EDA. Activity #1 The Southwest Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders provides a wide-range of services to eligible special needs children and individuals, including education, support, and treatment. CDBG.funds will be used salariesibenefits (direct cost), supplies, and utilities. EXHIBIT F Page I of 1 File No.: 0.51-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst SUBRECIPIENT NAME: CASA for Riverside County, Inc. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3008, Indio, CA 92202 PROGRAM CONTACT: Deborah Sutton, Executive Director PHONE: - (760) 346-2497 FAX: (760) 863-7431 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Children of the Court Advocate Scholarships PROJECT LOCATION: All of Riverside County LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT 124 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: ,IT District $5,000 3rd District $5,000 5th District $5,000 2nd District $15,000 4th District $9,000 Temecula $6,445 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ® NO ❑ II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities This project provides a Countywide benefit and will be administered by EDA. Activity #1 The prograin provides trained volunteers to independently investigate an abused child's circumstances, report findings to the Juvenile Courts, monitor the deliver), of 'services, and advocate on the child's behalfthroughout the process. CDB(; funds will provide 75 Advocate "Scholarships" for abused children that will be paired with a volunteer to follow the child's case until permanently resolved. EXHIBIT G Page 1 of 1 File No.: 0.53-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst SUBRECIPIENT NAME: Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County ADDRESS: P.O. Box 892349, Temecula, CA 92589 PROGRAM CONTACT: Michelle Arellano, CEO PHONE: _(951) 699-1526 FAX: (951) 699-4273 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: The Learning Connection PROJECT LOCATION: Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT [24 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: 3rd District $5,000 Murrieta $8,931 Lake Elsinore $13,199 Temecula $ 6,445 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ® NO E] II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities This project provides a Countywide benefit and will be administered by EDA. Activity #1 The Boys and Girls Club provides Before and afier-school programs to under- seriwed youth in Southwest Riverside County, area. The program includes recreational and academic activities, art and life skills. CDBG. funds will be used for 30 "scholarships" to allow participation in the program. EXHIBIT H Page 1 of 1 File No.: 0.58-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE L GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst SUBRECIPIENT NAME: Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. ADDRESS: 30520 Rancho Ca. Road, Suite 107 PMB 117, Temecula, CA 92591 PROGRAM CONTACT: Melissa Donaldson, Executive Director PHONE: (951) 587-3900 FAX: (951) 587-3902 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Temecula/Murrieta Police Activities League Violence Prevention Program PROJECT LOCATION: 28816 Pu of Street, Temecula, CA 92590 LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT [24 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: 3rd District $5,000 Temecula $9,210 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ® NO E] II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities This project provides a Countywide benefit and will be administered by EDA. Activity #1 Safe Alternatives For Everyone and the TerneeulalMur^rieta Police Activities League provide a violence prevention program, and raecreationaLsports activities. C,:l)BG fiends will he used to pay eligible expenese of the educational programs for low-income youth living in Southwest .riverside County. EXHIBIT I Page 1 of 1 File No.: 0.61-09 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK - PUBLIC SERVICE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION CITY NAME: City of Temecula ADDRESS: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY PROGRAM CONTACTS: David Bilby SUBRECIPIENT NAME: Assistance League of Temecula Valley ADDRESS: 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92590 PROGRAM CONTACT: Leticia Plummer, President PHONE: _(951) 694-8018 FAX: (951) 694-8298 E-MAIL: PROJECT NAME: Operation School Bell - Temecula PROJECT LOCATION: 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula. CA 92590 LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: EXEMPT [24 CFR 58.34 (a)(4)] CDBG ELIGIBILITY CODE: 24 CFR 570.201 (e) Public Services PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY: 3rd District $10,000 Temecula $9,210 Project to be administered by County (EDA) on behalf of CITY: YES ® NO E] II. SCOPE OF SERVICE A. Activities This project provides a Countywide benefit and will be administered by EDA. Activity #1 The Operation School Bell Program provides clothes and school supplies to children from low-income.families. C.DBG fiends will provide "scholarships" to eligible children. EXHIBIT "R" Constitutional Prohibition In accordance with First Amendment Church/State Principles, as a general rule, CDBG/ESG assistance may not be used for religious activities or provided to primarily religious entities for any activities, including secular activities. The following restrictions and limitations therefore apply to the use of CDBG/ESG funds. (1) CDBG/ESG funds may not be used for the acquisition of property or the construction or rehabilitation (including historic preservation and removal of architectural barriers) of structures to be used for religious purposes or which will otherwise promote religious interests. This limitation includes the acquisition of property for ownership by primarily religious entities and the construction or rehabilitation (including historic preservation and removal of architectural barriers) of structures owned by such entities (except as permitted under paragraph (j)(2) of this section with respect to rehabilitation and under paragraph (j)(4) of this section with respect to repairs undertaken in connection with public services) regardless of the use to be made of the property or structure. Property owned by primarily religious entities may be acquired with CDBG/ESG funds at no more than fair market value for a non-religious use. (2) CDBG/ESG funds may be used to rehabilitate buildings owned by primarily religious entities to be used for a wholly secular purpose under the following conditions: (i) The building (or portion thereof) that is to be improved with the CDBG/ESG assistance has been leased to an existing or newly-established wholly secular entity (which may be an entity established by the religious entity); (ii) The CDBG/ESG assistance is provided to the lessee (and not the lessor) to make the improvements; (iii) The leased premises will be used exclusively for secular purposes available to persons regardless of religion; (iv) The lease payments do not exceed the fair market rent of the premises as they were before the improvements are made; (v) The portion of the cost of any improvements that also serve a non- leased part of the building will be allocated to and paid for by the lessor; (vi) The lessor enters into a binding agreement that unless the lessee, or a qualified successor lessee, retains the use of the leased premises for a wholly secular purpose for at least the useful life of the improvements, the lessor will pay to the lessee an amount equal to the residual value of the improvements; (vii) The lessee must remit the amount received from the lessor under subparagraph (2) (vi) of this section to the recipient or subrecipient from which the CDBG/ESG funds were derived. EXHIBIT "R" Constitutional Prohibition Page 2 The lessee can also enter into a management contract authorizing the lessor religious entity to use the building for its intended secular purpose, e.g., homeless shelter, provision of public services. In such case, the religious entity must agree in the management contract to carry out the secular purpose in a manner free form religious influences in accordance with the principles set forth in paragraph (j) (3) of this section. (3) As a general rule, CDBG/ESG funds may be used for eligible public services to be provided through a primarily religious entity, where the religious entity enters into an agreement with the recipient or subrecipient from which the CDBG/ESG funds are derived that, in connection with the provision of such services: (i) It will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of religion and will not limit employment or give preference in employment to persons on the basis of religion. (ii) It will not discriminate against any person applying for such public services on the basis of religion and will not limit such services or give preference to persons on the basis of religion; (iii) It will provide no religious instruction or counseling, conduct no religious worship or services, engage in no religious proselytizing, and exert no other religious influence in the provision of such public services; (iv) The portion of a facility used to provide the public services shall contain no religious symbols or decorations, other than those permanently affixed to or part of the structure. (4) Where the public services provided under paragraph (j) (3) of this section are carried out on property owned by the primarily religious entity, CDBG/ESG funds may also be used for minor repairs to such property which are directly related to carrying out the public services where the cost constitutes in dollar terms only an incidental portion of the CDBG/ESG expenditure for the public services. EXHIBIT "S" Page 1 of 2 Economic Opportunities for Section 3 Residents and Section 3 Business Concerns Sec. 135.38 Section 3 clause. All Section 3 covered contracts shall include the following clause (referred to as the Section 3 Clause): A. The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 170lu (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD- assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low- and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. B. The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the part 135 regulations. C. The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. D. The contractor agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR part 135. The contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR part 135. EXHIBIT "S" Page 2 of 2 E. The contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the contractor's obligations under 24 CFR part 135. F. The contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the contractor's obligations under 24 CFR part 135. G. Noncompliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. H. With respect to work performed in connection with Section 3 covered Indian housing assistance, Section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e) also applies to the work to be performed under this contract. Section 7(b) requires that to the greatest extent feasible (i) preference and opportunities for training and employment shall be given to Indians, and (ii) preference in the award of contracts and subcontracts shall be given to Indian organizations and Indian-owned Economic Enterprises. Parties to this contract that are subject to the provisions of Section 3 and Section 7(b) agree to comply with Section 3 to the maximum extent feasible, but not in derogation of compliance with Section 7(b). XHR.1~.~, > x:; EXHIBIT CI Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest Page 1 of 4 § 570.611 Conflict of interest. (a) Applicability. (1) In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by recipients, and by subrecipients (including those specified at § 570.204(c)), the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A 110, respectively, shall apply. (2) In all cases not governed by 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110, the provisions of this section shall apply. Such cases include the acquisition and disposition of real property and the provision of assistance by the recipient, by its subrecipients, or to individuals, businesses and other private entities under eligible activities which authorize such assistance (e.g., rehabilitation, preservation, and other improvements of private properties or facilities pursuant to § 570.202, or grants, loans and other assistance to businesses, individuals and other private entities pursuant to § 570-203, § 570.204 or § 570.455). (b) Conflicts prohibited. Except for the use of CDBG funds to pay salaries and other related administrative or personnel costs, the general rule is that no persons described in paragraph (c) of this section who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG activities assisted under this part or who are in a position to participate in a decision making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from a CDBG assisted activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter. For the UDAG program, the above restrictions shall apply to all activities that are a part of the UDAG project, and shall cover any such interest or benefit during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. (c) Persons covered. The conflict of interest provisions of paragraph (b) of this section apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of the recipient, or of any designated public agencies, or subrecipients which are receiving funds under this part. (d) Exceptions: threshold requirements. Upon the written request of the recipient, HUD may grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section on a case-by-case basis when it determines that such an exception will serve to further the purposes of the Act and the effective and efficient administration of the recipient's program or project. An exception may be considered only after the recipient has provided the following: EXHIBIT CI Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest Page 2 of 4 (1) A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by an assurance that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description of how the public disclosure was made; and (2) An opinion of the recipient's attorney that the interest for which the exception is sought would not Violate State or local law. (e) Factors to be considered for exceptions. In determining whether to grant a requested exception after the recipient has satisfactorily met the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, HUD shall consider the cumulative effect of the following factors, where applicable: (1) Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or an essential degree of expertise to the program or project which would otherwise not be available; (2) Whether an opportunity was provided for open competitive bidding or negotiation; (3) Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of low or moderate income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of the assisted activity, and the exception will permit such person to receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made available or provided to the group or class; (4) Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her functions or responsibilities, or the decision making process with respect to the specific assisted activity in question; (5) Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected person was in a position as described in paragraph (b) of this section; (6) Whether undue hardship will result either to the recipient or the person affected when weighed against the public interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict; and (7) Any other relevant considerations. EXHIBIT CI Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest Page 3 of 4 Community Development Block Grant Policy Manual I.D. # A-11 (pg. 1 of 2) TOPIC: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 1989 This Conflict of Interest Code is written to comply with Federal Regulations (24 CFR Part 85). These Regulations. "Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments" require that grantees and sub-grantees will maintain a written code of standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. 1) No employee, officer or agent of the grantee shall participate in the selection, in the award or in the administration of a contract supported by Federal Funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. 2) Such a conflict will arise when: i) The employee, officer or agent; ii) Any member of the immediate family; iii) His/Her partners, or; iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the above has a financial or other interest in the firm's selection for award. 3) The grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to sub-agreements except as noted in Section 4. 4) A grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will be presumed to have a financial interest in a business if their financial interest exceeds the following: i) Any business entity in which the official has a direct or indirect investment worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more. ii) Any real property in which the official has a direct or indirect interest worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more. EXHIBIT CI Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest Page 4 of 4 Community Development Block Grant Policy Manual I.D. # A-11 (pg. 2 of 2) TOPIC: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 1989 iii) Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received by or promised to the official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. iv) Any business entity in which the official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management. v) Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received by, or promised to the official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. 5) For purposes of Section 4, indirect investment or interest means any investment or interest owned by the spouse or dependent child of an official, by an agent on behalf of an official, or by a business entity or trust in which the official, the official's agents, spouse, and dependent children own directly, indirectly, or beneficially a 10-percent interest or more. 7fa..3',f U:: it;..20C?':E::X, 3 i C do.. ITEM NO. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: Southern California Edison Rate Update (at the request of Council Member Washington) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula first began addressing baseline allocation concerns and the structure designed by Southern California Edison (SCE) in August of 2006. It was then that Council Member Comerchero requested an effort commence to explore the extreme financial consequences associated with baseline allowances for our region during one of the more severe heat storms we had experienced. September 2006 - The Cities of Temecula and Canyon Lake requested the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to review the current allocation of baseline provided for SCE customers. February 2007 - It was quickly decided that several cities would appeal to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) which represents 16 cities, to take on this effort as a region in addressing the baseline allocations in both Region 10 and Region 17. WRCOG accepted this project and commissioned legal counsel & consultants from RW Beck, Inc. to investigate and provide recommended steps to explore possible rate relief methods for the rate payers of this region. WRCOG began holding a series of meetings with governmental officials, staff from Southern California Edison and meetings with the CPUC. June 27, 2008 - Council Member Chuck Washington and City staff provided testimony before an Administrative Law Judge representing the CPUC appealing to the Commission to address the inequity in baseline and variance in climatic conditions for this region. October 31, 2008 - WRCOG Executive Director & on behalf of the City of Temecula provided testimony to the CPUC during their review of Phase 11 of the SCE 2009 general rate case. Essentially this exercise recommended the following: Splitting SCE Region 17 into regions 17A and 17B (Temecula). Converting baseline allowances during summer from 60% of average usage to 50% average consumption. The CPUC and Administrative Law Judge approved the boundary revision on August 25th 2009. Baseline Zone Modification In accordance with SCE, six baseline zones shall be revised to align with the nine climate zones established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to provide a more accurate basis for establishing baseline allocations. Customers currently residing in SCE's existing baseline zone 15 shall retain their currently designated baseline zone. Baseline Allocation SCE shall update its baseline allowances to reflect current usage levels and reduce baseline allocation percentages for each baseline zone to 50 percent of the average aggregate customer usage. However, if legislation modifying the residential rate protective provisions of AB1 X is enacted, which allows at least a three percent annual increase in Schedule D Tier 1 and Tier 2 rates, SCE shall use then-current usage levels and establish rates at the next regularly-scheduled rate change with the baseline allocation percentages for each baseline zone set at 55 percent of the average aggregate customer usage. SCE has excluded the impact of seasonal residents from the determination of baseline allocations forzones 15 and 16. The baseline kilowatt-hour allowance for each revised baseline zone based on the CEC climate zones shall not be less than the allowance in effect in the baseline zones that existed on February 1, 2001. By making adjustments mentioned above, Temecula residents would be afforded a new baseline of 14.1 kWh/day which is more than 100 kilowatts higher than the new Region 17A for Summer Months. It is estimated that creating these sub regions and re-evaluating climatic conditions for the purpose of establishing a baseline may translate to a savings for customers between $4-20 per month. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. ITEM NO. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Tim Thorson, Director of Information Systems (IS) DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: Second Amendment to Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Temecula and PlanNet Consulting for the Old Town Civic Center IS Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an amendment to the Agreement for consulting Services for the Old Town Civic Center IS Master Plan in the amount of $40,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. BACKGROUND: The City has retained PlanNet Consulting to develop an IS Master Plan for the Old Town Civic Center. This plan is a conceptual study of the City's current and required technology environments. The deliverables are physical and logical diagrams, budgetary estimates, and phasing strategies for the new Civic Center. It is the staff's desire to amend this agreement for the Civic Center's Audio Visual requirements, where the scope will include: Conference Rooms, Auxiliary Room and Council Chambers design and specifications. These services will address the technology areas for physical and logical design. These services will entail the preparation of separate bid packages forthe furnishing and installation of the Audio Visual capabilities identified in the IS Master Plan and will compliment the facilities and acoustical design work included in the Civic Center construction contract that was prepared by the City's architectural consultant, NM&R. FISCAL IMPACT: The Old Town Civic Center- Phase II project is included in the FY 2008-12 Capital Improvement Program, and is funded with Cap Reserves, Certificates of Participation and Development Impact Funds - Corporate Facilities. Adequate funds are available in the project account - Account# 210-165-751-5802 for this expense. The total amount requested for this amendment is $40,000.00. The total authorized will be $280,579.00, which includes the first amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Second Amendment to Agreement with PlanNet Consulting Project Location/Description SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PLANNET CONSULTING OLD TOWN CIVIC CENTER IS MASTER PLAN THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of September 8, 2009, by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and PlanNet Consulting Inc. ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: On December 11, 2007, the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Temecula and PlanNet Consulting" in the amount of One Hundred Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Five Dollars and No Cents. ($144,795.00) The agreement was amended on February 12, 2008 in order to extend the term of the agreement to December 10, 2010, add addition scope of work, and increase the payment for services in the amount of Ninety Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four and No Cents ($95,784.00). C. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement in order to add addition scope of work, and increase the payment for services in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($40,000.00) and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. Section 4.a: Payment of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, 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. The second amendment amount shall not exceed $40,000.00 (Forty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ) for additional design & consulting services for a total contract amount of $280,579.00 (Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Dollars) for the total term of the Agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement Exhibit 'A' to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment 'A' to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc 4. Exhibit 'B' to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment 'B' to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT: PlanNet Consulting 2850 Saturn Street Suite 100 Brea, CA 92821 BY: NAME: TITLE: BY: 2 CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc NAME: TITLE: Date: FSM Initials: ATTACHMENT `A' Scope of Work PROJECT BACKGROUND/ SCOPE OF WORK PlanNet Consulting's understanding of the project is as follows: The new Civic Center project will be developed on 4+ acres as a multi-story building of approximately 95,544 square feet (sf). A plaza area will also be developed in an adjacent area that is 0.75 to 1.5 acres. The following schedule is anticipated on this project: o Construction started July 2008 and is expected to be completed by September 2010. o AV Systems Design (September 2009 - December 2009) o AV Systems Bid (January 2010 - February 2010) o AV Installation (March 2010 - September 2010) o Move-in September 2010. • PlanNet was retained by City of Temecula to assist in development of the IS Master Plan for the civic center. • PlanNet was retained to provide Audiovisual infrastructure design and AV-space planning related architectural support consulting services to NMR Architects. BASIC SERVICES Audiovisual Technology Consulting Services Audiovisual (AV) system design scope includes the design of the audiovisual systems described in the June 9, 2008 IS Master Plan within which appears PlanNet Consulting's Audiovisual Systems Program and Opinion of Probable Installed Cost. In addition to this document, PlanNet will author and insert programmatic and budgetary information regarding the downtown audio system. The systems described both in narrative and budgetary forms are considered an essential part of this proposed scope of work. 1. Audiovisual System Design and Request for Proposal (RFP) Development 1.1. Conduct the following stakeholder meetings to discuss the AV Technology System and RFP Design Requirements: C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc 1.1.1. One (1) meeting for Council Chambers Audio & Video Systems including Control and Peripheral Systems: • Camera Control • Video Production • Video and Monitoring • Recording • Audio Mixing and Processing • Projection system (including upkeep, service, etc.) • Lectern (control and Dais confidence monitor) • General use and functionality (user requirements and preferences). • AMX Control and Sire (voting, other offerings, etc.) • Webcasting • Dais use/ functionality (including Paperless Agenda, etc.) • Reception Area • Overflow Area (Foyer, Closed Session, Community Center) • Foyer Signage Displays • General use and functionality (user expectations). 1.1.2. One (1) meeting for Conference Rooms, Closed Session Videoconferencing, Lunch/Break Room, Workout Room and Community Center AV Systems: • General use and functionality (user expectations). • Lecterns (split configurations, control, etc.) • Projection Systems • Overflow and Recording • Equipment location and service • General use and functionality (user requirements and preferences). 1.2. Develop final design concepts depicting the programmed and narrated AV systems on functional single line drawings and required details. 1.3. Develop and discuss operator controls and specifications. 1.3.1. Prepare detailed equipment lists and cut sheets for review and discussion with project stakeholders. 1.3.2. Recommend top three (3) manufacturers and associated contacts for the City of Temecula video production representatives to evaluate and compare an agreed upon list of equipment appropriate for the project. 1.4. Review the updated Opinion of Probable Installed Costs for the AV systems and confirm any portions of the system design to be shown as "Bid Alternates". 4 CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc 1.5. Prepare and transmit for review a complete Audiovisual Systems Request for Bid Proposal Package (RFP) to be issued by the Owner's Construction Manager, CIO, or General Contractor to include the following: 1.5.1. Technical schematic drawings representing the audiovisual system design and equipment configuration. 1.5.2. Technical specifications for the audiovisual systems. 1.6. Assist project team representatives with PlanNet's recommended pre-qualification requirements for the project. Discuss potential Audiovisual contractors to include in the City of Temecula's directed pre-qualification process. 1.7. Finalize AV RFP (incorporating Owner's instructions to bidders, insurance requirements, and any specialized instructions) including system documentation drawings and specifications for bidding/ negotiation; and issue to the City of Temecula for distribution to pre-qualified AV Contractors. 2. Audiovisual Systems Bidding/ Evaluation 2.1. Address RFIs submitted by bidders and prepare Addendums if required. 2.2. Review up to three (3) final bid submittals for responsiveness and compliance. 2.3. Submit a brief written report to City of Temecula evaluating the Audiovisual bids and providing recommendations for selection of the Audiovisual contractor. 3. Audiovisual Technologies Deliverables As part of this engagement, PlanNet Consulting will provide the following deliverables: 3.1. Audiovisual System Design 3.1.1. AV meeting notes confirming and finalizing system design specification requirements 3.1.2. AV system equipment specs for review with project stakeholders 3.1.3. AV system schematic drawings and details for review with project stakeholders 3.1.4. AV System Bid Drawings and Specifications / RFP. 3.2. Audiovisual Pre-Bid Submittal Review and limited RFI Answers ASSUMPTIONS This SOW is based on the following assumptions: 1. General: 1.1. The fees for this project are based upon an approximate 13-month project schedule for the AV Technology Systems and assumes that the system work Civic Center 5 CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc audiovisual system design will occur simultaneously with the Old Town sound system design effort. 1.2. PlanNet can begin work on this project in one week from the Authorization to Proceed. 1.3. City of Temecula management and staff will provide any required information to PlanNet Consulting in a timely fashion. 1.4. Where practical, PlanNet Consulting will participate in meetings remotely via conference call or video-conference. For purposes of this proposal we have assumed the following for meeting quantities / times: 1.4.1. Design Meetings 1.4.1.1. Up to two (2) in-person trips for five (5) business unit meetings. 1.4.1.2. Up to two (2) follow-up telephone or video conferences with IS department. 1.4.2. Bid Review call 1.4.3. AV Contractor Submittal Review Calls 1.4.3.1. Up to two (2) follow-up telephone or video conferences with IS department. 1.5. Audiovisual services proposed herein assume that our scope of work will be based on the June 9, 2008 audiovisual systems budget of up to $1,200,000 dollars for civic center audiovisual systems. This budget and lists of audiovisual system capabilities and comments regarding our audiovisual deliverables are listed herein to provide a benchmark of our involvement and are not intended to imply that additional services fees will be required with any modifications of this assumed scope of work. Additional services may be required if the scope of design work expands beyond these benchmarks and would be reviewed with the City at appropriate stages of the project prior to completing any additional scope of work. 1.6. Deferral of audiovisual system implementations may require adjustment to design documentation excluded from this proposal. Required work (to be determined at a later date) could include updating of discontinued model numbers and in some cases, redesigns of subsystems. 1.7. PlanNet consulting fees assume that the audiovisual systems installation contract will be awarded to a pre-qualified professional Audiovisual systems integrator licensed with considerable experience in this type of work and that the Audiovisual systems integrator will be contracted to the City's IS Department. 1.8. PlanNet will provide recommendations of the top (3) products for such detailed evaluation by the City of Temecula at design meetings but will require the City of Temecula to provide final equipment selections to PlanNet to be used in the development of final AV system drawings and specifications without directly participating in these hands-on evaluations. The following equipment selections to be decided by City Representatives are as follows, based on high-level requirements provided in the Technology Master Plan AV Program and Budget: 1.8.1. Council Chambers Production Video Switcher 1.8.2. Council Chambers Voting System and Paperless Agenda System. 6 CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc 1.9. This project excludes Construction Administration services. Per City of Temecula request, PlanNet understands that these services will be the responsibility of the City of Temecula's IS Department. CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc ATTACHMENTS' PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE PlanNet Consulting will conduct this project for the fixed-fee amount below. These fees can be distributed between technology areas only upon mutual consent of the PlanNet PM and City of Temecula IS Director. TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SERVICES FEE Audiovisual Technology Systems - Design/ RFP/ Bid Submittal $40,000 Review TOTAL $40,000 Payment Schedule Payment Number Schedule Amount Description 1 Upon execution of the Amendment $12,000 30% payment 2 AV System Design Concept Approved $12,000 30% payment 3 AV Systems Design Completed $12,000 30% payment 4 AV Systems Bid Completed $4,000 10% payment CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp\941887.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: CIVIC CENTER PRIORITY: I Project Type: Description: Department: Scope of Project: Benefit: Infrastructure Project will construct an approximately 93,000 square-foot, three-story City administration building and Council Chambers, along with a 3,500 square-foot Community Room. The project will be located near the intersection of Mercedes Street and Main Street in Old Town. Planning/Public Works - 210.165.751 Project will include design and construction of a three-story City Administration Building, Council Chambers, and Community Room on City owned parcels located east of Mercedes Street and Main Street. Project will continue to promote the revitalization of Old Town and provide a permanent facility for administrative staff through build-out. Project Cost: Actuals Total Project to Date 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Cost Administration $ 2,505 $ 397,495 $ 325,000 $ 725,000 Acquisition $ 82,000 $ 82,000 Construction $ 44,200,000 $ 44,200,000 Construction Engineering $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Design $ 1,348,391 $ 3,872,609 $ 5,221,000 Fixtures/Fum/Equip $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,500,000 Utilities $ 385,000 $ 385,000 Totals $ 1,350,896 $ 50,937,104 $ 2,325,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,613,000 Source of Funds: Capital Project Reserves $ 1,350,896 $ 27,066,676 $ 2,325,000 $ 30,742,572 COPS $ 23,270,428 $ 23,270,428 DIF (corporate Facilities) $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Total Funding: $ 1,350,896 $ 50,937,104 $ 2,325,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,613,000 Future O & M Cost: $ 900,000 A nnually 91 O W H W U U U i r.. V a 1 ITEM NO. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: September 08, 2009 SUBJECT: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Western Bypass Bridge Project (PW06-04) PREPARED BY: Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Engineer - CIP William Becerra, Associate Engineer- CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE PROJECT (PW06-04) AND APPROVING THE PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Western Bypass Bridge Project (PW06-04) is a component of the future Western Bypass corridor. It will extend the Western Bypass from just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street to Pujol Street. The proposed 288 foot bridge will span Murrieta Creek and will provide four travel lanes and pedestrian access along both sides. Pujol Street will be extended approximately 1000 feet and serve as an interim connection for the Western Bypass. Staff contracted with EDAW, Inc. to complete an Initial Study (IS), which included an Air Quality Technical Memorandum, Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, Burrowing Owl Survey Report, and Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. The IS identified no impact (or less than significant impacts) for the following environmental areas of concern: aesthetics, agricultural resources, geology & soils, hazards & hazardous materials, land use & planning, mineral resources, population & housing, public services, recreation, traffic & transportation, and utilities & service systems. However, the IS found that the project has the potential to have significant air quality, biological resources, hydrology & water quality, and noise impacts unless the recommended mitigation measures described in the IS are implemented. A copy of the Initial Study is included in Attachment No. 2. To mitigate the possible impacts to a level of insignificance, a number of mitigation measures have been identified. According to CEQA Guidelines, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the project is required. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a MND forthis project. A list of the proposed mitigation measures is included within the attached MND. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and IS document were distributed for public review from June 10, 2009 to July 9, 2009. To date, four correspondence letters were received with our response to these letters depicted within the attached MND. Any subsequent public comments will be provided to the City Council during staff's presentation of this item. Upon review of the project by the various Environmental Regulatory Agencies, the final mitigation requirements will be determined and incorporated into the Project Plans and Specifications. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2010-2014. Funding sources include Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Capital Project Reserves, and Reimbursements/Other (Developer). At this time, the mitigation costs are not yet known. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution 09 Initial Study Location Map Project Description SCH 92009061038 FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE PROJECT Prepared for: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92101 July 2009 PREFACE This is a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), prepared pursuant to the California Quality Act (CEQA), addressing potential environmental consequences of the implementation of the Western Bypass Bridge project in the City of Temecula. The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review for a 30-day period that concluded on July 9, 2009. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California provided a letter. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District provided comments in an e-mail to the City of Temecula. The Pechanga Cultural Resources - Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians provided a letter. Comments received and responses to those comments are provided following this preface. The Draft IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and documentation regarding its distribution of the document is included as well. STATE OF CALIFORNIA _P. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ARKOLD SCRWARZMEWER GOvaRNOR July 13, 2009 William BccetTa City of Temecula P.O. Boa 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Subject Western Bypass Bridge (LR09-0004) SCAM: 2009061038 Dear William Becerra: oN~~05 +4qy~~ cC CYNTHIA BRYAwr DntwmR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on July 9, 2009, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse 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, 4P-%z:- Tcrry Rob Director, State Clearinghouse RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FOR WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE FINAL ISIMND Response to State Clearinghouse letter Comment 1 This comment has been received and noted. No response is necessary. 1400 loth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812.3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCN# 2009061038 Project Title Western Bypass Bridge (LR09-0004) Lead Agency Temecula,Cilyof Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The project is a component of the future Western Bypass corridor and would extend the Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via proposed bridged, and paves Pujol Street north -1,000 ft to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street. Lead Agency Contact Name William Becerra Agency City of Temecula Phone 951-693-3963 Fax email Address P.O. Box 9033 City Temecula State CA Zip 92589-9033 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Lat/Long 33° 28'5 1" N 1117° 8'40" W Cross Streets Temecula Parkway between Old Town Front Street and Pujol Street Parcel No. 922210062 +63, 922110021, 44, 45 Township 8S Range 3W Section 13 Proximity to: Highways SR 79 Airports Railways Waterways Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek Schools Temecula & Vail ES,Rancho Community Christian Van Avery Prep Land Use GP: Highway Tourist, open space, public institutional Z: Highway Tourist, open space-conservation Base SBB&M Project Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Noise; Water Quality Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission Date Recelved 06110/2009 Start of Review 0611012009 End of Review 0 710 912 0 0 9 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. 10 MIND METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Executive Ofte July 2, 2009 Via Electronic and Regular Mail Mr. William Becerra Senior Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Becerra: Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration for the Western Bypass Bridge Project The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) reviewed the Draft Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (N ND) for the Western Bypass Bridge Project (Project). The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project. The project is a component of the future Western Bypass corridor and will extend the Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via a proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street. The proposed Project is located near Temecula Parkway/State Route 79, extending from the existing terminus of the bridge with Murricta Creek to Pujol Street, and a portion of Pujol Street to the north in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside. "Phis letter contains Metropolitan's comments to the proposed Project as a potentially affected public agency. The City of Temecula has contacted Metropolitan regarding this proposed Project, and we appreciate these efforts and look forward to continued coordination on this Project. Substructures last provided comments in a letter dated March 17, 2009, a copy of which is attached for reference. We reviewed the Draft IS/MND and request that Metropolitan be identified as an agency whose approval is required under Environmental Permits in Section II. Tn addition we hrliPVP an MNiI chrnil i h _______r n~lnnt-i inctPAd_ Of of thme e N--ti- T)Pel-tin aC proposed in the Notice for this project, given that mitigation measures are needed to reduce impacts under the category Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. We also note the determination to prepare an MND by Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner, in Section V. Response to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California letter Comment 2 The comment has been received and noted. No response is necessary. Comment 3 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has been included as an agency whose approval is required under Environmental Permits in Section II. Comment 4 A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be presented to City Council and recommended for approval. 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, Califomia 90012 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 54153, Los Angeles, Califomia, 90054-0153 • Telephone: (213) 217-6000 Mr. Becerra Page 2 July 2, 2009 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to 15 Comment 5 continuing discussion on this Project. For further assistance, please contact Miss Connie Yee at (213) 217-5657. The comment has been received and noted. No response is necessary. Very truly yours, &Q10-o Delaine W. Shane Manager, Environmental Planning Team CY/cy P\Enyi-mentakftnning & Compliance\ENVPUIN\EPT project Folder\Wverslde County\oty of Temecula\Western Bypass Bridge Project Commentltr.D" Enclosures: Letter from Substructures, dated March 17, 2009 Project Location Map Wang, Julie To: Wang, Julie Subject: FW: JPR 09-06-08-02Ndestern Bypass Bridge -----Original Message----- From: Will Becerra [mailto:Will.Becerra@cityoftemecula.org] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2ooo 1:57 PM To: Wang, Julie; Roya Golchoobian Cc: Stuart Fisk Subject: RE: JPR o9-o6-o8-0z/Western Bypass Bridge Julie, The only other comment I have received is attached. (Besides the correspondence from Pechanga) Thanks William Becerra Associate Engineer Phone: (951) 693-3963 Fax (951) 693-3929 Email yy -----Original Message----- From: Wills, Mark [mailto:MWILLS@rcflood.org] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:56 AM To: Will Becerra Cc: Smith, Zully; Thomas, Steve Subject: IS/MIND - Western Bypass Bridge Project Hello William, Response to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District e-mail Comment 6 A hydraulic analysis was conducted for the proposed project and provided in the Hydraulic Analysis and Scour Evaluation for the Western Bypass Bridge as prepared by West Consultants, Inc. in November 2008. The City has also provided the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District with a copy of this report. Comment 7 Hydraulic modeling for Murrieta Creek was performed using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) HEC-RAS model based on the 100-year flood discharges of Q = 22,300 cfs (with a future detention basin) and Q = 38,600 cfs (without a detention basin). The models also included two different channel geometry; interim condition (prior to completion of ACOE project) and ultimate condition (after the completion of ACOE project). For the lower discharge of 22,300 cfs the water surface elevation at the bridge site increased by 0.14 feet for the interim geometry and 0.38 feet for the ultimate geometry. For the higher discharge of 38,600 cfs, the water surface elevation at the bridge site increased by 0.05 feet for the interim geometry and 0.26 feet for the ultimate geometry, all of which is considered as insignificant. The following table from the Hydraulic Analysis and Scour Evaluation summarizes the hydrologic data. In reviewing the referenced IS/MND, it has come to my attention that the document lacks technical documentation concerning the bridge's impact upon Base Flood Elevations in Murrieta Creek. In general, a bridges abutments, deck 6 and piers all have the potential to obstruct flows and/or raise water surface elevations. Typically, the extent to which a proposed bridge will impact flood conveyance is determined by performing a hydraulic analysis. In the case of the Western Bypass, it appears that at least two sets of bridge piers will be located within the channel prism. It follows, therefore, that at least some loss of flood conveyance will occur with the construction ofthe bridge The extent to which the piers will reduce conveyance and thereby increase Base Flood Elevations is not quantified in 7 the IS/MND. Additionally, the extent to which the increase in Base Flood Elevations extend upstream ofthe proposed bridge is not discussed in the IS/MND. Thus, from a CEQA perspective, the level of significance of the bridge's impact on Base Flood Elevations is unclear. Murrieta Creek is a FEMA mapped floodplain with a designated Regulatory Floodway. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations 144 CFR 6o.3(d) & 44CFR 65.12] require the local community (Temecula) to prohibit 8 Floodway encroachments or process a formal map revision (CLOMR/LOMR) through FEMA. The IS/MND makes Hydrologic Data Summary Existing Channel Ultimate Channel N With With Detention Basin Without Detention Basin o Bridge Bridge No With No With Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Frequency (years) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Discharge (cfs) 38,600 38,600 22,300 22,300 38,600 38,600 Water Surface Elevation at 997.91 997.96 995.05 995.43 999.40 999.66 Bridge (feet) Source: WEST 2008 Comment 8 According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate map (FIRM) Number 06065C3285G, effective August 28, 2008, the base flood elevation at the upstream face of the proposed bridge location is approximately 996.7 feet. The discharge is provided in the Flood Insurance Study, effective August 28, 2008, and is equal to 30,900 cfs. The discharge of 30,900 cfs in HEC-RAS for the interim geometry with the proposed bridge was analyzed. The resulting water surface elevation at the upstream face of the bridge is 996.63 feet, which is less than the base flood elevation. Therefore, a map revision request would not be required by FEMA. mention of a FEMA "Floodplain Management Review"; however, it's unclear how FEMA's regulatory approval of an 8 increase in Base Flood Elevation mitigates the potential physical impacts associated with the increase. (Contd) As you probably know, the District along with the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula are the local sponsors of the Army Corps of Engineers' Murricta Creek Flood Control project which is located immediately upstream ofthe proposed bridge. The District's concern is to ensure that the design of the proposed bridge is compatible with Corp's Murrieta Creek project. I suspect that the necessary hydraulic analysis may already be underway, perhaps in conjunction with the bridge design. Could you please ascertain the status of any hydraulic analyses associated with the Western Bypass project and provide me with update - or better yet - a copy of the actual analyses? I will forward any documents received to our Federal Projects coordinator. Thank you for your assistance, Mark H. Wills Chief of Regulatory Division Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 951.955,8411 Comment 9 The City has been coordinating design efforts with Zully Smith, David Van Dorpe (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and staff with Tetra Tech (designers for the Murrieta Creek project). The City has an open dialogue since the coordination meeting on November 26, 2008 and has continued to share information to help ensure that both projects are compatible. PECHANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES hwict rda Band of Luisefio Mission Indians Poa1 ulr- Boa 2183 - Trn-I.. CA 92593 IckpMme (931) 308-9295 - Faa (951) 50h-9491 July 6.2009 VIA E-MAIL and USPS Mr. Stuart Fisk Project Planner City of "Temecula Community Development P. O. Boa 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 0-p- G-nne A- vlcc chairperson: Mary 11car shsm l'anmillcc >1cmMs: rvic G.hk hdene Mloandz Itridgca Bamallu Maawell Aurclia Marrunu Richard I1. S-c. III D-t-_ Gary nu Boa Owrdina oc e- Maemru C'u11un1 Analyo: Anna 11-- xlonnor sulurvalu: Jim Mcphcrum Re: Pechanga Tribe Conunenis on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Western Bypass Bridge Project (I.R09-0004) ])car Mr. I isk: Thank you for im iling us to submit comments on the above named Project. This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luisctilo Indians (hereinafter. "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code §'+21092.2. to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project'). Please add the Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents. archeological reports, and all documents pertaining to this Project. The Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project. The Tribe also requests that these comments be incorporated into the record of approval for this Project as well. The 'tribe is submitting these comments concerning the Project's potential impacts to cultural resources in conjunction with the environmental review of the Project. The Tribe reserves the right to fully participate in the environmental review process, as well as to provide further comment on the Project's impacts to cultural resources and potential mitigation for such impacts. Further, the Tribe reserves the right to participate in the regulatory process and provide comment on issues pertaining to the regulatory process and Project approval. Response to Pechanga Cultural Resources - Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians letter Comment 10 The comment has been received and noted. The City will include the Pechanga Band of 10 Luiseno Indians (the Tribe) to their distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological reports, and all documents pertaining to the project. The City will directly notify the Tribe of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this project. The comments received by the Tribe have been included in this Final IS/MND, which is to be presented to City Council and recommended for approval. THE CITY OFTF.N'IF.CVI.a NIUST INCLUDE INVOLVEMENT OF •1ND CONS1 L"FATION WITH THE PECHANGA TRIBE IN ITS FNVIRON.IFNT L REVIEW PROCESS It has been the intent of the Federal Go%crnnientl and the Slate of California-' that Indian 11 See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments and Executive Order of November G. 2000 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Comment 11 The comment has been received and noted. Please see response to Comment 10 above. Sacred Is The Dutv Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Western Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 2 tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as other governmental concerns. The responsibility to consult with Indian vibes stems from the unique government-to-govermuent relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions of governmental agencies and departincnm to this case, it is undisputed that the project lies within the Pechanga Tribe's traditional territory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is imperative that the City of Temecula consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an adequate basis of krowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the Project effects, as well as generating adequate mitigation measures. PECITANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of the Tribe's aboriginal territory; as evidenced by the existence of Luiseflo place names, Mow yixe'lval (rock art, pictographs, pe€roglyphs), and an extensive Luiseno artifact record in the vicinity of the Project. The Tribe further asserts that this culturally sensitive area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this area. The Pechanga T'ribe's knowledge of our ancestral boundaries is based on reliable information passed down to us from our elders; published academic works in the areas of anthropology, history and ethno-history; and through recorded ethnographic and linguistic accounts. Of the many anthropologists and historians who have presented boundaries of the Luiseno traditional territory, none have excluded the MUlrieta/Tetnecula area from their descriptions (Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925; White 1963; Harvey 1974; Oxendine 1983: Smith and Freers 1994), and such territory descriptions correspond almost identically with what was communicated to the Pechanga people by our elders. 11 (Contd) Comment 12 12 The comment has been received and noted. No response is necessary. The Project area and surrounding vicinity contains numerous known cultural resources and village sites that are significant both pursuant to State and Federal law. but also significant to the Tribe's cultural heritage and history. The Project is encompassed within a village known as 'exva Temeeku, a village complex integral to Pechanga cultural history and heritage, and probably is the single most important area to the Tribe; it is the place of our creation. While historic accounts and anthropological and linguistic theories are important in determining traditional Luiserlo territory; the Pechanga Tribe asserts that the most critical sources of information used to define our traditional territories at(-, our songs, creation accounts and oral traditions. 2 See California Public Resource Code §5097.9 et seq.; California Government Code §§§65351,65352,65352.3 and 65352.4 Pechanga Cu llu al Resources • Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post OJ11ce Boy 2183 • Temecula, CA 92592 Sciared Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And /Pith Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Conunent Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on (lie Western Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 3 As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), this area has been recorded with the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) as the Murrieta Creek Archaeological ArcalDistrict and designated the encompassing number of P-33-011443. This District was nominated by Tom King for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1972 and incorporates three individually recorded areas designated as 11-33-000050, -000270 and -000365. Luiseno history begins with the creation of all things at `exva Terneeku and disperses out to all cornets of creation (what is today known as Luiseno territory). Exva describes a "place of sand" and Temieku literally means "sky place." Temecula derives its etymology from this meeting place. where the Santa Margarita River, Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek converge into the Santa Margarita River and flow onto the Pacific Ocean. While these terms indicate a specific place. it is important to note that many locational terms refer to a much larger area and often incorporate many square miles of land. This location is where our Origin Story and ancestral songs say Ttiukurnit (Father Sky) and Tan0aymi,vt (Earth Mother) created the world. Their children were known as the first people or Kaanialant, which were all the creatures: trees, rocks, fog, deer, bear, birds and humans. Many of the Luisefio creation songs mention Temecula specifically. It was at Temecula that the first human. Wuyoot, lived, fed and taught the people and here that he became sick. Many Luiseno songs relate the tale of the people taking the dying Wuyool to the many hot springs, including Murrieta Hot Springs (Churzfkunuknu Sczkiwuna) and those at Lake Elsinore (71dngvu Wunzdivmu), where he died. He was cremated at 'csxva Telneeku. It is our creation account that states the Luiseno have always lived in Temecula. The Temecula people, who were evicted and moved to the Pechanga Reservation, are now known as the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (the Pechanga Tribe). Additional songs, called Monfivol, recount the places and landmarks that were destinations of the Luiseno ancestors. They describe the exact route of the Temecula (Pechanga) people and the landmarks to claim title to places in their migrations throughout Luiseno history (DuBois 1908:110). Other oral accounts describe specific events such as a Temecula village leader killing the evil TMaktnish (the Luiseno evil spirit) at Elsinore. followed by his cremation in Temescal Canyon.. at a village complex we know as Paxavxa. These examples illustrate a direct correlation between the oral tradition and the physical place. proving the importance of songs and stories as a valid source of information outside of the published anthropological data. In addition, Pechanga elders state that the Temecula/Pechanga people had usage gathering rights to an area extending from Rawson Canyon on the east, over to hake Mathews on the northwest, down Temescal Canyon to Temecula, eastward to Aguanga, and then along the crest of the Cahuilla range back to Rawson Canyon. The Project area is located within the south central area of this culturally affiliated territory. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Most Likely Descendent (MLD) files substantiate this habitation and Pechanga Cdtural Resources • Temecula Band ofLuiseho Hisrion Indians Post Office Box 2183 • Temecula. Cl 92592 12 (Co ntd) Sacred Is The Duty Ti awed Unto Our Care Bind With Honor K Rlse To Tire Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Westem Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 4 migration record from oral tradition. These examples illustrate a direct correlation between the oral tradition and the physical place; proving the importance of songs and stories as a valid source of information outside of the published anthropological data. Toola yixelval (rock art) is also an important element in the determination of Luisen`o territorial boundaries. Toola yixelval can consist of petroglyphs (incised) elements, or pictographs (painted) elements. The science of archaeology tells us that places can be described through these elements. Riverside and Northern San Diego Counties are home to red, black and white-pigmented pictograph panels. Archaeologists have adopted the name for these pictograph- versions, as defined by Ken Hedges of the Museum of Matt, as the San Luis Rey style. The San Luis Rey style incorporates elements which include chevrons, zig-zags, dot patterns, sunbursts, handprints, net/chain, anthropomorphic (human-like) and zoomorphic (animal-like) designs. Tribal historians and photographs inform us that some design elements are reminiscent of Luisefto ground paintings. A few of these design elements, particularly the flower motifs, the net/chain and zig-zags, were sometimes depicted in Luiseho basket designs and can be observed in remaining baskets and textiles today. An additional type of tdola yixelval, identified by archaeologists also as rock art o: petroglyphs, is known as cupules. Throughout Luisefto territory, there are certain types of large boulders, taking the shape of mushrooms or waves, which contain numerous small pecked and ground indentations, or cupules. Many of these cupule boulders have been identified to the immediate south of the Project. Additionally, according to historian Constance DuBois: When the people scattered from Ekvo Temeko, Temecula, they were very powerful. When they got to a place, they would sing a song to make water come there, and would call that place theirs, or they would scoop out a hollow in a rock with their hands to have that for their mark as a claim upon the land. The different parties of people had their own marks. For instance, Albar"ras's ancestors had theirs, and Lueario's people had theirs, and their own songs of Munival to tell how they traveled from Temecula, of the spots where they stopped and about the different places they claimed (1908:158). Additionally, the Peclrangayane (Pechanga People) have strong historical ties to the Project and the surrounding area. No only did our elders work on the ranches in the area and on what we know as the Towel Slaughterhouse (CA-RIV-4949TH-now demolished), but when the Pechanga people were evicted from their village along Temecula Creek in 1875 which was located directly south of the Project, they took refuge in the hills southwest of the Project area, near the historic site of John Magee's home and store on Rainbow Canyon Road, which was the main road to San Diego. This area consists of two places called TkavishTa (TAAH-vish-pah) and TuulSaana (TOOT-chap-nah), which had springs as well as oaks that provided shelter. In a 1914 letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the people of Pechanga recounted the eviction: (Contd) Pechanga Cultural Resources Temecula Rand gfLwseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 • Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred 1s The Div) Trusied Cln.to Our Care And CJ~lth Honor UiRise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Western Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 5 We once owned good fertile lands near our present Reservation. That good land is located at beautiful Temecula Valley now owned by the Pauba Ranch Company. We were driven out of it in the year 1875 during the summer months. Juan Murrieta is the name of that Spaniard who put its out from there. He did as lie pleased with our crops, lie drove a large flock of sheep into our wheat crops. Murrieta and his workmen drove the wagons to our doors, loaded on what stuff we had in our houses, then took it to the main road and dumped it there, saying, Now you can take your choice in taking this road whether you take it west, south, or east. Then we took the road westward for about a mile, to where old John Magee lived. He, John Magee was kind enough to us to let its live around his place for a long time. Although the Luiseho tribes have been separated into distinct reservations, all Luiselo people were created at 'esva Tenieeku and the surrounding areas. Because Pechrungayam have always been located nearest our Creation Place, we are driven to protect this sacred geography, which includes not only the physical features, but the cultural landscape that comprises our place of origin. Our direct ancestors have always lived within hail of `ewer Temeeku and its associated places. Even after Europeans colonized our homelands and carved the land into parcels, we remained in the Temecula valley. We were evicted from our village on the Pauba Ranch and then relocated to the Pechanga Reservation, but we retained our continued ties to our place of origin. Thus, as briefly outlined above, our songs and stories, our indigenous place names as well as academic works, demonstrate that the LUiSClo people who occupied what we know today as Temecula are ancestors of the present-day Luiselo/Pechanga people, and as such, Pechanga is culturally affiliated to this geographic area. In addition, the Pechanga Tribe has a long modern day history of involvement with Projects in the City of Temecula- No only has the Pechanga Tribe been involved, but it has been given the designation of the consulting tribe or affiliated tribe on projects located in the City of Temecula and its sphere of influence, such as Temecula Creek, Vail Ranch Towne Center, Vail Ranch Square. all Redhawk commercial and residential developments, Wolf Creek. Temecula Regional Hospital, Butterfield Stage Shopping Center, Shamrock Quarry, Temecula Civic Center, Murrieta 18, Temecula LDS and many others. The Pechanga Tribe has also been designated Most Likely Descendant (MLD) on several projects within the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta including projects such as Temecula Creek, 50-Center. the Copper Canyon development and the Jefferson Avenue Project. The Tribe would welcome to opportunity to meet with the City of Temecula to further explain and provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction. 12 (Contd) Pechanga Crdlurcd Resources • Temecula Band of Luisefro Mission Indians Port Q,(/ice Box 2183 - Temecula, C4 92592 Sacred is The Duly Trusted Unto Our Cray And MM Honor We Rise To Trre Need Pechanga Cotmnent Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Western Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 6 PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed Project is on land that is within the traditional territory of tile Luiscilo Tribe, and thus the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, The Pechanga Band is not opposed to this Project, The Tribe's primary concerns stem from the Project's proposed impacts on Native American cultural resources. The Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luiseno village sites, sacred sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground disturbing work on the Project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. The Tribe is in receipt of the June 2009 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and the Archaeological Survey Report'. The Proposed Project is located in a highly sensitive region of Luiseno territory and the Tribe believes that the possibility for recovering subsurface resources, including human remains, during ground-disturbing activities is high. Pursuant to the 2009 EDAW study, there are eleven recorded cultural sites and one historic site within a one-mile radius of the Project, including the Murrieta Archaeological District. According to the EDAW study, there is one prehistoric site within the Project boundaries, but neither the EDAW study nor the IS/MND indicate whether there will be any impacts to the site from the Project. The Tribe requests further information in this regard so that it might be better able to assess the Project impacts. As described above. the Project is located within the confines of our Luiseno creation area, the most significant and sacred area known to the Tribe. Documented domestic activity and sacred/ceremonial areas are within this region as well as recorded and unrecorded human remains and other features that are not represented elsewhere in Luiseno territory. Further, the Tribe has elders that worked in the Towel Slaughterhouse (CA-RIV-4949/H) and the surrounding ranches in the early and mid-1900s, thus intertwining the Luiseno Peoples to the creation of the modern-day City of Temecula. The Tribe requests that it continue to be allowed to be involved and to participate with the City in assuring that an adequate environmental assessment is completed and in developing all monitoring and mitigation plans and measures for the duration of the Project. In addition, given the sensitivity of the Project area, it is the position of the Pechanga Tribe that Pechanga tribal monitors be required to be present during all ground-disturbing activities conducted in connection with the Project, including any additional archeological excavations performed. ` 3 Western Byp'iss Budge f i oicct -Cultur'rl-Resource3 Te`cli'iucat M6rii i'aiidu'iil--EDAl iic-Febrnarv 23, 2909 Pest an a Cslteaal Resources • Temecula Bard ofLuneno ANsion Indians Post Office Box 2183 • Temecula, C4 92592 Comment 13 The comment has been received and noted. Please see response to Comment 10 above. One site (CA-RIV-11,222) was recorded within the boundaries of the present project area 13 (McKenna 2001b). The site was previously recorded as a collection of two circular rock carvings. Surveyors were successful in relocating the site but found that, contrary to its previously mapped location, the site is actually located outside the present project area. Therefore, as the site is located outside of the present project area, the project will not impact this site. A site record update was prepared for sites CA-RIV-4949/H and -11,222 on appropriate DPR forms, with a corrected site location map. Mitigation measures have been identified for the project and are included in the document. Sacred Is The Dntn Trusted Unto Our Care And 1Tfth Honor We Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Western Bypass Bridge Prgjcet July 6, 2009 Page 7 The CEQA Guidelines state that lead agencies should make provisions for inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5). As such, it is the position of the Pechanga Tribe that an agreement specifying appropriate treatment of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources be executed between (tic Project Application/Developer and the Pechanga Tribe. The Tribe believes that adequate cultural resources assessments and management must always include a component which addresses inadvertent discoveries, Every major State and Federal law dealing with cultural resources includes provisions addressing inadvertent discoveries (See e.g.: CEQA (Cal. Pub. Resources Code §21083.2(i); 14 CCR §1506a.5(o); Section 106 (36 CFR §800.13); NAGPRA (43 CFR §10.4). Moreover, most state and federal agencies have guidelines or provisions for addressing inadvertent discoveries (See e.g.: FHWA, Section 4(f) Regulations - 771.135("); CALTRANS, Standard Environmental Reference - 5- 10.2 and 5-10.3). Because of the extensive presence of the Tribe's ancestors within the Project area, it is not unreasonable to expect to find vestiges of that presence. Such cultural resources and artifacts are significant to the Tribe as they are reminders of their ancestors. Moreover, the Tribe is expected to protect and assure that all cultural sites of its ancestors are appropriately treated in a respectful manner. Therefore, as noted previously, it is crucial to adequately address the potential for inadvertent discoveries. Further, the Pechanga Tribe believes that if human remains are discovered, State law, would apply and the mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. According to the California Public Resources Code, § 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage Commission must name a "most likely descendant," who shall be consulted as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or items discovered in the course of this Project. 'rhe Tribe is in general agreement with the proposed mitigation measure for cultural resources presented in the IS/MND and request it be incorporated into the final IvtND document and added as a condition of approval for the Project. As the Tribe is unsure at this point whether the site within the Project boundaries will be impacted by the Project, it is requesting that it be allowed to provide further comment and proposed mitigation once that issue becomes clear. Further, the Tribe requests that the City include the following mitigation measures/conditions of approval as well: Pechanga Cultural Resoumes • Temecula Band ofLuaeiio Mission Indians Post Ofee Bar 2183 • Temecula, CA 92592 Socred Ls The Duey Trusted Unto Our Core And With Honor Ike Rise To The Need 13 (Contd) 14 Comment 14 The mitigation measures as identified have been included in the document. Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of emecu]a Re: Pechanga Tribe Continents on the Western Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 8 CUL 2 At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsihilitics, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, exeavatior. and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation: and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. CUL 3 Prior to beginning prn_ject construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre- grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CUL 2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities; and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. CUL 4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CUL 5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. CUL 6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading; the City, the Project Archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. The City shall make the final determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, custorns. and practices of the appropriate Tribe. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Temecula in protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact me once you have had a chance to review these comments so that we might address the issues concerning the mitigation language. Thank you. 14 (Coutd) Pechanga Cvlfural Resources • Temecula Band ofLuiseno Mission Indians Pori Office Box- 2183 • Temecada, Cd 92592 Sacred Is The Duo, Tnated Unto Our Carr. And With Honor tq Rise To The Need Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of"Femecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Western Bypass Bridge Project July 6, 2009 Page 9 Sincerely. Anna Hoover Cultural Analyst Cc Pechanga Office of the General Counsel Totnaras & Ogas, TAY Pechanga Cultural Re.mirces • Tenrecrda Band afLuiseiro Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 • Terneculrr, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Dion, Trusted Unto Ora Care And Mth Honor lf~ Rise To The Need TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT INFORMATION ....................1 II. INTRODUCTION 2 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance 2 Why This Document? 2 Summary of Findings 2 Environmental Permits 3 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 Project Location and Setting 5 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................11 V. DETERMINATION ..................11 VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................12 1. Aesthetics ..................13 2. Agricultural Resources ..................15 3. Air Quality ..................17 4. Biological Resources 22 5. Cultural Resources 29 6. Geology and Soils 31 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 35 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................39 9. Land Use and Planning 45 10. Mineral Resources ..................46 11. Noise 47 12. Population and Housing 52 13. Public Services 53 14. Recreation 55 15. Transportation/Traffic ..................56 16. Utilities and Service Systems 58 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 61 VII. MITIGATION MEASURES/ PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES 64 VIII. INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION DISTRIBUTION LIST 72 IX. REFERENCES ..................73 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page i APPENDICES A Air Quality Technical Memorandum B Biological Resources Technical Memorandum C Burrowing Owl Survey Report D Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum E Native American Consultation F Foundation Report G Noise Technical Memorandum LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Regional Location Map 6 2 Vicinity Map 7 3 Proposed Project Details 9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Estimated Daily Project Emissions ................................................................................................18 July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page ii ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Western Bypass Bridge Project City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 William Becerra, Associate Engineer (951) 693-3963 4. Project Location: The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Temecula, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (I-15) near the I-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 (SR-79). 5. Project Sponsor's Name: City of Temecula 6. General Plan Designation: Route passes through Highway Tourist Commercial, Open Space, and Public Institutional Facilities 7. Zoning: Route passes through Highway Tourist/Commercial and Open Space - Conservation Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 1 II. INTRODUCTION Introduction and Regulatory Guidance Project Approval City of Temecula (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for reviewing and approving this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Why This Document? Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over approval of the proposed project. The City is the lead agency for the proposed Western Bypass Bridge Project. The City has directed EDAW. Inc. (EDAW). environmental consultants. to mcnare an IS./NTND in comuliance with CEQA. The purpose of this document is to present to decision-makers and the public the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed project. The preparation of an MND is the appropriate document under CEQA based upon the IS, which revealed no substantial evidence that a significant adverse environmental effect would result from the proposed project. This disclosure document is being made available to the public for review and comment. The IS/RIND was available for a 30-day public review period from June 10, 2009 to July 9, 2009. Comments were addressed to: William Becerra Associate Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 (951) 693-3963 Phone (951) 693-3929 Fax After comments were received from the public and reviewing agencies, the City may (1) adopt the IS/MND and approve the proposed project; (2) undertake additional environmental studies; or (3) abandon the project. If the project is approved and funded, the City could design and construct all or part of the project. A copy of the IS/MND was available for public review at the following locations: City of Temecula Temecula Public Library 43200 Business Park Drive 30600 Pauba Road Temecula, CA 92589 Temecula, CA 92592 Summary of Findings Chapter VI of this document contains the evaluation and discussion of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Based on the issues evaluated in this chapter, it was determined that the proposed project would have no impact related to the following issue areas: • Agricultural Resources • Land Use and Planning July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 2 • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation Impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant for the following issue areas: • Aesthetics • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems Impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation for the following issue areas: • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise Environmental Permits The proposed project would require the following permits and would be required to comply with the following State of California regulations: Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Required for the Proposed Project Agency Permit/Approval Requirements and Status U.S. Army Corps of Section 404 Permit Section 404 application to ACOE Regulatory Branch, Engineers (ALOE) concurrent with 401 application to RWQCB. Under Nationwide 14 and does not rise to the terms/conditions of Regional Condition 8. Regional Water Quality Section 401 Permit Section 401 application to RWQCB to be sent concurrent Control Board (RWQCB) with 404 application to ACOE. California Department of 1601 Agreement for Streambed CDFG regulates impacts to and mitigation for impacts to Fish and Game (CDFG) Alteration jurisdictional species and waters. When this environmental document is finalized, a 1601 application will be submitted to CDFG. RWQCB Water Discharge Permit As a project that would disturb more than 1 acre of soil, the project is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. This will be completed prior to construction commencement, after this environmental document has been approved. Federal Emergency Floodplain Management Review All structures placed within the FEMA-designated Management Agency floodplain are subject to a Floodplain Management Review (FEMA) to ensure the structure would not obstruct the 100-year flood or the free flow of stormwater. This will be completed prior to construction commencement. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 3 Agency Permit/A > >roval Requirements and Status MSHCP MSHCP Consistency Review A Habitat Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application will be filed with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for Joint Project Review (JPR) which will be completed prior to approval of this environmental document. Metropolitan Water Easement Documentation; Entry If any work is proposed with Metropolitan Water District District of Southern Permit of Southern California's fee property prior to the California completion of the easement documentation, an entry permit must be obtained from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California before the construction work may proceed. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 4 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location and Setting The project site is located in the southwestern portion of Temecula (Figure 1), approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (I-15) near the I-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 (SR-79) (Figure 2). The project area extends Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via the proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street (Figure 3). Project Description The City proposes to implement the proposed project, which is a component of the future Western Bypass corridor. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the ALOE. However, no channel improvements are to be implemented as part of the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final ACOE channel. Rock slope protection (rip-rap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of four travel lanes (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour (mph). Structure depth of the bridge is to be determined; however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of pavement of Pujol Street. Street lighting will not be provided on the project segment of Puiol Street. Purpose and Need Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Western Bypass interchange with I-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 5 I_./ I , 1*11XO Lake Elsinore We.Aern Bypass Bridge Project - Final ISINE' D P:42r r,, G O>Gr_z5g Ni, m I ypzss 3 ui 45Crrrn~la'csL~'. aas F!'g lrmapa (dina') 04103 Figure 1 Regional Map Westem Bypass Bridge Project - Fuial IS IVE' D P:12000I06020029i{rsSen:3yyassBridgelbGrayhicsl!'±'~ereslFIg2»nt¢~ai (dnra~ty)4Ii4I09 0 Figure 2 No Scale Vicinity Mal) This page intentionally left blank. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 8 922130017 ,w } d~d0 sGO } 922210061 922120017 922120018 N 922120019 N • 922120016 Q. ` 922120008 St ' G Q nt 9220 7 m 922210060 922120009 0~ n C 922110036 C L 01 d 922110029 41 922210059 922120010 U 922210057 922210058 N 1 40 922120011 40 • At N 922120012 + r ! 922120013 922110030 ~ ~ rrti•• 922120014 922110007 Ns~t~re 922210063 6k 922110031 a c 922110038 Oyylet 922110027 ~ eee •e 922110040 922210062 ee ; 922110042 + 922110039 922110032 922210049 922110022 922110008 , 922110019 r 922110041 922110018 ~922110043 922110026 922210011 922110021 Legend Proposed Paving 922110010 Rip-rap 3 Staging Area ~ax~ Parcel Boundaries 922110045 o Right-of-Way Abutment G° 940320007 922100022 922110013 Footing G Proposed Bridge A922,100021 Slope/Grading 922110014 940320006 922100026 922110012 Proposed Slope 922260001 Source. TY Lin, January 2009, City of Temecula, January 2009, County of Riverside 2007 G175 87.5 0 175 Feet Figure 3 Scale: 1:2,100, 1 inch =175 feet Proposed Project Details Western Bypass Bridge Project- Final IS/MND P: 12006106080089 Western Bypass Bridge l6GraphicsTiguresTigure 3 design plan.ai dbrady 4123109 This page intentionally left blank. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 10 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards/ Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic V. DETERMINATION On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows: ❑ The proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the general exemption (CEQA Guidelines, 15061 (b)(3)), a statutory exemption, and/or a categorical exemption, and that if a categorical exemption, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply. A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that 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, no further environmental document is required. FINDINGS consistent with this determination will be prepared. Signature Date Stuart Fisk, AICP, Senior Planner For: City of Temecula. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 11 VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed project using the environmental checklist from the State CEQA Guidelines as amended. The definitions of the response column headings include : A. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. B. "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced). C. "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less than Significant impacts. D. "No Impact" applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. "No Impact" answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis). July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 12 1. Aesthetics Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetics Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Community Design Plan Exhibit in the General Plan, the project site is located within an area identified as a viewshed. Viewsheds are discussed in the General Plan which states " Temecula's location and natural setting provide opportunities for spectacular views of local agriculture and the rolling hills of southern, eastern, and western areas, as well as Munieta and Temecula Creeks". The General Plan also states that "In order to preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private development projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of scenic resources, such as the hillsides, prominent western and southern ridgelines, and scenic roads, or significant open space areas". Although the proposed bridge will be located within an area identified by the General Plan as a viewshed, as designed, the bridge will not significantly obstruct public views of scenic resources such as the hillsides, prominent ridgelines, scenic roads, or significant open space areas. The project is located over Munieta Creek between a developed urban area with commercial use and semi-rural area consisting of a few residential uses, specifically single-family homes on the ridge top west of the project site and a multi-family complex north along Pujol Street within Temecula. Due to the level topography and surrounding development, views of the project site are limited to the intersection of Western Bypass and Old Town Front Street as well as the businesses immediately adjacent to the east of the project site and the few homes up along the ridge top west of Munieta Creek. Construction of the bridge over Munieta Creek would not significantly impair the public's visual enjoyment of the area's recreational or scenic resources. The majority of viewers are anticipated to be motorists approaching the bridge from the northeast or southwest, and employees and patrons of businesses immediately east of Munieta Creek. The transitory experience of such views diminishes Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 13 the sensitivity of the viewer. The visual change would not limit the general public's access to scenic resources of Munieta Creek and the background mountains, or create a visually dominant feature. Long-term visual impacts associated with the proposed bridge would not be significant. The bridge would follow the same architectural treatment and design as other bridges within the City and therefore would ensure that it does not become a dominant visual feature. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts on a scenic vista. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. No designated state scenic highways are located in the vicinity of the project. No historic structures, landmarks, or rock outcroppings would be removed as a result of project development. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is State Route 74, located over 25 miles north of the project site. I-15, approximately 300 yards east of the project site, is an eligible, but not designated, state scenic highway. The proposed project is a new bridge crossing over Munieta Creek located between existing roads. No impacts to scenic resources would occur. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning designations. The bridge structure would not be out of place or represent an undue change from what would typically be anticipated at a creek bed near a network of roads. Of those vantage points from which the bridge would be a noticeable structure in the foreground, none would be viewed on a continual basis. Such views would be apparent to passing motorists, business employees, and patrons, and the few residences up on the ridge top to the west. The design of the Western Bypass bridge would be approved by the City to ensure that appropriate architectural treatments are implemented. The Western Bypass bridge would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the area and would not appear out of place. d Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed bridge would be constructed of concrete, asphalt, and other nonreflective materials in natural tones and hues. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards and will be directed to minimize spillover into the night sky. Street lights are proposed along the bridge and would contribute incrementally to urban light sources from the adjacent commercial uses. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to lighting and glare is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 14 2. Agricultural Resources Issues Potentially Significant Impact 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: Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact 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-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Agricultural 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, Unglue 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-agricultural use? No Impact. There are no prime or unique farmlands located within the immediate vicinity of the project and the study area has not recently supported agricultural activities. The site is not suitable for agriculture because of existing development, lack of irrigation water, and unsuitable soil types. The Temecula Valley, which includes Murrieta and Temecula, is currently becoming more urbanized. Therefore, no impacts to prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance would result with implementation of the proposed project. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 15 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project route does not contain agricultural resources, is not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not subject to a. Williamson Act contract. No impacts to agricultural resources would occur. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No farmland is present in the project vicinity and the proposed project would not change the existing environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 16 3. Air Quality Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute sub- ❑ ❑ • ❑ stantially to an existing or projected air quality 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ • ❑ ❑ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ • ❑ number of people? Information in this section is based on an Air Quality Technical Memorandum (EDAW 2009a), which is found in Appendix A. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project. a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Conformity of the proposed project with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is required by the federal Clean Air Act. The proposed project is listed in the Southern California Association of Governments 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) and the project description of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the 2008 RTP and 2008 RTIP. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the assumptions contained in the SIP and thereby conforms to the SIP. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 17 b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Construction Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include construction activities for bridge construction and extending paved roadways. The principal sources of pollutant emissions during construction are fugitive dust and construction equipment engine exhaust. Fugitive dust would be created during roadway grading and soil excavation and stockpiling. Fugitive dust includes particulate material equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PMro) and particulate material equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which are potential health hazards and may contribute to nuisance impacts due to deposition of dust from construction activities on buildings, vehicles, and plants. In construction equipment exhaust, the principal pollutant sources of concern are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). VOCs and NOx react in the atmosphere with sunlight to form ozone. Other secondary sources of VOCs are paving materials, paints, and solvents associated with construction. The proposed project construction does not include substantial grading of undeveloped land or extensive vehicle travel on unpaved roads. Construction of the proposed project would begin at the end of 2009/beginning of 2010 and is estimated to occur for approximately 18 months. Construction activities would include two stages: bridge construction and roadway paving, with potential overlap between stages. Project-generated emissions were modeled using a roadway construction emissions model, which includes bridge construction, provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; and construction inputs to the model from the City. Estimated project construction emissions were compared to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality significance thresholds, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Estimated Daily Project Emissions Phase (Year) Emissions Pounds Per Day (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction period (Dec 2009 - May 2011) Estimated Maximum Total Daily Project Emissions (Unmitigated) 7 52 26 8 3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55 Project totals may not appear as the sum of applicable phases due to rounding. Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1113; see Standard Conditions AIR-1 and AIR-2. VOC and CO emissions would occur on the days when paving, building construction, and architectural coating occur simultaneously. NOX, PM 10, and PM2.5 emissions would occur on the days when demolition and grading activities overlap. As shown in Table 1, construction-related project activities would result in pollutant emissions that would not exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds for regional emissions. Project-generated construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions would not be expected to violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, the following mitigation measure would be incorporated into the project regarding fugitive dust. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 18 AIR-1: Dust Control - The Project Contractor shall prevent dust exposure to persons or property by implementation of one or more of the following measures to prevent visible dust plumes from extending beyond the boundary of the construction area and into public space: • Physical separation of the source and receptors with a solid barrier that would prevent the transmission of dust • Physical separation of the source and receptors by creation of a buffer zone and pedestrian and vehicle detours • Wetting of areas to prevent the generation of dust plumes In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2006), which would result in minimizing PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To further minimize short-term, construction-related PM emissions and ofd site impacts, the following measures are recommended to reduce fugitive dust emissions: • Water all active disturbed surface areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Ensure that all cut and frill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. • Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep away access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 19 • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. The Air Quality Element of the Temecula General Plan provides the following additional measures to reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions: • The contractor should discontinue construction activities during first- and second-stage smog alerts. • When feasible, the contractor should utilize existing power sources (i.e., temporary power poles) to minimize the use of diesel generators. • Whenever feasible the contractor should use construction equipment with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier II, or Tier III, certification. Operations (Post-construction) Less Than Significant Impact. Once constructed and operational, the bridge and roadways will provide an additional roadway crossing of Munieta Creek in the area. The proposed project does not generate new vehicle trips in the area or generate operation pollutant emissions; therefore, operational emissions were not calculated using the roadway model utilized for construction emissions. Traffic in the surrounding region is anticipated to utilize this crossing and roadway to access I-15 and SR-79, thereby diverting and reducing traffic from other local roadways, creek crossings, and I-15 interchanges (e.g., the Rancho California Road crossing and 1-15 interchange). Thus, vehicle pollutant emissions in the surrounding region would not be substantially changed with the proposed project. Therefore, the operational activities of the proposed project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; the impact would be less than significant. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (inclu&ng releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the previous two sections, both short-term and long- term pollutant increases would not be substantial, and long-term emissions would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The quantities of emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and the impact would be less than significant. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While particulate emissions from the proposed project would not be substantial at a regional level, there is the potential to locally expose persons and property to substantial concentrations of dust and particulates from construction activities. Dust generated by roadway grading, and bridge construction and excavation could occur in local "clouds" or plumes that could be inhaled by pedestrians, residents, vehicle occupants, or patrons of local businesses and/or be deposited on the commercial and residential properties. The project area is inhabited at the terminus of the project area on either side of the creek. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, there would be no exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant. Locally, traffic redirected on this creek crossing would result in local traffic emissions along the improved segment of Pujol Street and increased local emissions on the existing approaches to the July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 20 crossing from the paved segment of Pujol Street, Old Town Front Street, and the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. Localized traffic emissions from the proposed project would include fugitive dust, carbon monoxide, and odors; however, for this project they would not occur in the intensity or duration to be considered substantial in proximity to sensitive receptors e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not locate or relocate people close to a source of objectionable odors. Construction activities may generate temporary odors from asphalt installation, painting, or other typical construction tasks. While these odors may not be desirable, they would not occur in the intensity or duration to be considered substantially objectionable. The impact would be less than significant. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 21 4. Biological Resources Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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? g. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identi- fied in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? h. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally pro- ❑ tected 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 interruption, or other means? ■ ❑ 11 11 d. 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 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ Information in this section is based on a Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (EDAW 2009b), which is found in Appendix B and a Burrowing Owl Survey Report (EDAW 2009e) as found in Appendix C. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 22 Biological Resources Would the project. a. 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is within the western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. The project site is within Independent Criteria Cell 7264 of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the MSHCP. Specifically the project is toward the southeastern and eastern portions of the cell. Cell 7264 is within Subunit 1: Munieta Creek of the SWAP. Burrowing owl focused surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence of the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek near Pujol Street in Temecula. Suitable habitat for burrowing owl is present on-site and this habitat is contiguous with other suitable habitat to the north and west of the project site. However, no burrowing owls were observed during focused surveys. Impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been mitigated through compliance with the MSHCP. To comply with Objective 6 of the Species Objectives for burrowing owl identified in the MSHCP, the following mitigation measure would be incorporated into the project. BIO - 1: Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl will need to occur within 30 days prior to disturbance of the project site. Take of active nests will be avoided and, if burrowing owls are present, passive relocation outside of the nesting season is required. b. 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Riparian habitat will be impacted through the project design and implementation. A jurisdictional delineation has been conducted to ascertain all potential impacts to riparian and wetland habitats (composed of unvegetated channel, freshwater marsh, and mule fat scrub) and to provide appropriate mitigation measures to reduce permanent and temporary impacts to levels that are less than significant. Mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, open channel, and open water were observed on the project site in association with the channel bank of Murrieta Creek. Approximately 0.45 acre of riparian habitat occurs within the permanent construction footprint and the acreage within the limits of temporary disturbance will be discussed in the jurisdictional delineation report (in preparation). This includes the loss of approximately 0.3 acre of mulefat scrub, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.025 acre of open water/freshwater and 0.05 acre of unvegetated channel. To comply with the MSHCP, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) will be prepared to reduce impacts to riparian habitat to less than significant through avoidance and mitigation. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to riparian and wetland habitat will be proposed at a minimum 3:1 ratio and will be pursued off-site. BIO - 2: Project impacts to riparian habitat will be implemented in the form of off-site restoration. Potential restoration areas within the drainage channels of Munieta Creek tributaries to the east will be Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 23 inventoried. Channel segments characterized by monotypical strands of giant reed (Arundo donax) will be located. Areas selected for restoration will be at least one-half acre in size. BIO - 3: Eradication/Restoration efforts will be conducted by cutting and spraying with approved herbicide glysophate (cutting stems and spraying or painting herbicide on to cut stem surface); all eradication efforts under the terms and conditions of the permit(s) will be implemented. The dead Arundo biomass can be left on site to decompose naturally over time, however, this may be a concern due to potential flood or fire hazard or aesthetics, therefore the biomass may need to be removed for native replanting if conditional to the permit(s). BIO - 4: A conceptual wetland mitigation and enhancement plan will be developed outlining the areas of mitigation and will include appropriate riparian and wetland plant palettes and species, seed mixes, and planning polygons. The conceptual wetland mitigation and enhancement plan, in addition to contract documents (i.e., restorative grading [contour grading] and landscape plans) for the project, will be prepared to provide and present sufficient wetland/riparian mitigation for the bridge construction and placement process. This mitigation plan will receive the approval of the requisite resource agencies. To accomplish the necessary mitigation, the planning documents will specify minor contour grading to improve hydrologic and ecological conditions to support wetland/riparian plant species, removal of nonnative invasive species, planting and seeding, monitoring and maintenance activities, and success standards. BIO - 5: Appropriate monitoring time frames and reporting requirements and frequency will be negotiated with the agencies. In addition, approximately 0.34 acre of Riversidian sage scrub habitat is present on-site within the project limits. Therefore, to comply with the MSHCP take permit (TE-088609-0), the following mitigation measure would apply: BIO - 6: No clearing of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat on-site can occur between March 1 and April 15. c. Dave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act rnclurbing, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Potential for scour at the proposed bridge was evaluated and the estimated total scour depths at the abutments are 18.5 feet at the west abutment and 9.5 feet at the east abutment. Riprap revetment is necessary to protect the abutment foundation against scour. A total of approximately 900 cubic yards of riprap would be placed at both abutments. The riprap will be installed based on the launched toe method to minimize excavation in the creek bed. Riprap would be placed 4 to 6 feet below the surface. If the water is flowing next to the embankment, the water would be diverted toward the center of the river by digging near the toe of slope and building a berm using the same material to contain the water in the middle of creek. The RSP fabric and riprap then is placed where the river bed was excavated (no dewatering is necessary) and covered with some of the soil to create the original creek bed elevation. The remaining soil will be hauled to a City authorized facility or used for the July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 24 construction of embankment behind the abutment. The pier footings are below the creek bed between 8 to 16 feet below the original ground. During construction, coffer dams (sheet piling) would be placed around the piers and water would be pumped out from the center of coffer dam by placing a few well points and place concrete for the footing. A track excavator may be used to remove the soil and then place the soil back on top of the footing to cover it and bring it back to the original ground level. Any additional remaining soil will be hauled away to a City authorized facility or used in the embankment. No permanent diversion of the creek would be created post-construction as the channel will be put back to its original cross section. A jurisdictional delineation has been conducted to ascertain all potential impacts to riparian and wetland habitats (composed of unvegetated channel, freshwater marsh and mule fat scrub) and to provide appropriate mitigation measures (BIO - 2 through 1310 - 5) to reduce permanent and temporary impacts to levels that are less than significant. d.. 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 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. Compliance with the MSHCP will reduce impacts to the wildlife corridor associated with Murrieta Creek to less than significant. The project site is also within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10 within the MSHCP. The purpose of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 is to maintain connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve to the north and Proposed Constrained Linkage 10 to the south. Constrained Linkage 13 is constrained by urban development and agricultural uses. Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area and links the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve in the north to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve in the south. High-quality riparian habitat is important within these linkages to provide habitat for yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), and least Bell's vireo. Other species important in this linkage include western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), arroyo chub (Gila orcutti), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), southwestern willow flycatcher, and tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Since the project site is directly adjacent and within the area described by the MSHCP Conservation Criteria for conservation, Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines will be applied to construction and project design. These Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines include the following mitigation measures in order to comply with the MSHCP: BIO - 7 (Drainage): The project will comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The runoff discharge into the MSHCP Conservation Area will not be altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Untreated surface runoff from paved areas will not flow into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, exotic plant materials etc. that may harm biological resources or ecosystem processes in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mechanical trapping devices to ensure that runoff does not enter the Conservation Area will be incorporated into project design and regular maintenance of these devices will occur. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 25 BIO - 8 (Toxics): Chemicals that may be potentially toxic or may adversely affect the habitat, water quality or wildlife species will not be discharged into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures to avoid discharge of chemicals, such as those used to for drainage issues will be implemented. BIO - 9 (Lighting): Night lighting will be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. Shielding will be used to ensure night lighting will not be increased within the MSHCP Conservation Area. BIO - 10 (Noise): Noise within the MSHCP Conservation Area will not exceed residential noise standards. Berms or walls will be constructed if necessary to minimize the effects of noise on the MSHCP Conservation Area. BIO - 11 (Invasives): The plant species listed in Table 6-2 (Appendix A) of the MSHCP will be avoided in all landscaping plans. These species are considered invasive, non-native plant species. BIO - 12 (Barriers): Barriers will be incorporated into project design, as feasible, to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and other appropriate mechanisms. Barrier plans will focus on the exclusion of domestic predators from the Conservation Area. BIO - 13 (Grading/Land Development): Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development will not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. e. Con., Ect with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, snch as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. No oak trees were observed within the project site. f. Conflict ufiith the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within the limits of the MSHCP. A Joint Project Review application will be submitted to the Regional Conservation Authority for concurrence that the project is consistent with the MSHCP. With the implementation of the mitigation measures as previously outlined, the proposed project would be consistent with the MSHCP. In addition, standard best management practices as outlined by the MSHCP will be implemented during construction and include the following: BIO - 14: A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. BIO - 15: Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 26 BIO - 16: The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. BIO - 17: The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. BIO - 18: Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. BIO - 19: Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. BIO - 20: When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. BIO - 21: Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. BIO - 22: Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. BIO - 23: The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. BIO - 24: The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. BIO - 25: Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. BIO - 26: To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). BIO - 27: Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 27 travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. BIO - 28: The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 28 5. Cultural Resources Issues Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact o Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- ❑ ❑ • ❑ cance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- ❑ • ❑ ❑ cance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonto- ❑ ❑ ❑ • logical resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ • interred outside of formal cemeteries? Information in this section is based on a Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum (EDAW 2009c) as found in Appendix D. Cultural Resources Would the project: a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Less than Significant. Archival research of the project area was conducted by EDAW on January 16, 2007 at the Eastern Information Center housed at University of California, Riverside. An update was conducted on December 23, 2008. The archival research focused on the identification of previously recorded cultural resources within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project area and involved a review of historic maps and historic site and building inventories. This research provides a background on the types of sites that would be expected in the region. The research was also used to determine whether previous surveys had been conducted in the area and what resources had been previously recorded within the project limits. The archival research indicated that 1 historic resource and 11 archaeological resources have been previously recorded within 1 mile of the project area. The single previously recorded historic resource (CA-RIV-4949/1-1) is located within the present project area. This resource is the structural remains of a slaughterhouse constructed in 1910 and was later demolished in the early 1990s. The slaughterhouse was originally recorded as a historic building in 1982. After its demolition, the slaughterhouse foundation was re-recorded as an archaeological site. No surface evidence of the slaughterhouse foundation was observed by surveyors as part of the present study. Evidence of recent grading suggests that no subsurface remnants of the foundation remain. A site record update was prepared on Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 29 appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR 523) forms, indicating no surface evidence of the slaughterhouse was observed in the previously recorded location. No impacts to historic resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A check of the Sacred Land File was performed by the Native American Heritage Commission and failed to indicate a presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Although no surface evidence of archaeological resources was identified by surveyors within the present project area, the proximity of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District suggests subsurface archaeological materials may be present. The nearby sites represent habitation areas on a village level, with evidence of the community structure, religious activities, subsistence activities and burial rituals. The proximity of these sites to the creek and similarly the proximity of the project area to the creek suggest that buried cultural resources may be present in the project area. Therefore, an archaeological monitor and Native American monitor would be required. The City has an agreement with Pechanga Band of Mission Indians regarding treatment and disposition and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians has requested to be notified of finds and associated reporting requirements. Associated Native American consultation is included with this document in Appendix E. With the implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, the impacts to cemeteries or other places of human interment would be less than significant. CUL-1. An archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall be present on-site during all grubbing and ground-disturbing activities. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity will be suspended until the discovery is assessed by the archaeologist and treatment is determined. In the event human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work shall cease and the county coroner shall be contacted per Greenbook and State of California law. Should the remains be identified as Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 48 hours to provide a Most Likely Descendent to determine reburial practices for the remains. CUL-2. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. CUL-3. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CUL-2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 30 CUL-4. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CUL-5. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. CUL-6. If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading; the City, the Project Archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. The City shall make the final determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. c. Directly or in&recdy destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. No known paleontological resources or unique geological features are within the project area. As such, there would be no impact to paleontological resources or geologic features. In the unlikely event paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, work would be redirected until the resource can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. d Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? No Impact. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist within the project area. However, the proximity of the Munieta Creek Archaeological District suggests that subsurface human remains may be present, since human remains are known to exist within at least one site in the District. With the implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 identified above, the impacts to cemeteries or other places of human interment would be less than significant. 6. Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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 Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 31 Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including lique- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ faction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ topsoil? 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 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 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 property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ • use of septic tanks or alternative waste water dis- posal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Information in this section is based on a Foundation Report (GEOCON 2009), which is found in Appendix F. Geology and Soils Would the project: a.i Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- niolo 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 Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. No active faults traverse the project area. The site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault and the nearest County fault zone are estimated approximately 4,600 and 300 feet east of the site, respectively. In addition, an unnamed fault strand is located approximately 500 feet west of the site. Earthquakes originating on the Whittier-Elsinore Fault, which is located approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the project site, are expected to have the greatest potential effects on the proposed bridge structure. The Whittier-Elsinore Fault is a strike-slip fault, and a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 7.5 has been estimated for this fault. While the potential for on-site rupture cannot be completely discounted (e.g., unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the site), the likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 32 to the absence of known faulting within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. a.ii Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in seismically active southern California and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region, including the Whittier-Elsinore Fault. An earthquake along any known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and consequently cause injury and/or property damage in the project area. The project would be designed to accommodate applicable seismic loading parameters through conformance with applicable regulatory guidelines. Based on the incorporation of required design specifications, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a.iii Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the phenomenon whereby soils lose shear strength and exhibit fluid-like flow behavior. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Loose, granular soils are most susceptible to these effects, with liquefaction generally restricted to saturated or near-saturated soils at depths of less than 100 feet. The majority of the site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction due to the presence of relatively shallow granitic rock and/or dense formational materials with varying amounts of fines. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be limited within the surficial alluvial deposits and upper few feet of Pauba Formation within the creek channel. Lateral spreading can be expected in liquefiable sites adjacent to slopes such as river channels or large bodies of water. The observed horizontal ground displacement typically decreases with increased distances from the open face. The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered low due to the presence of nonliquefiable materials adjacent to the creek channel. The bridge foundation would be supported by footings or piles embedded into competent materials underlying the potential liquefiable layers. Impacts related to seismic-related liquefaction would be less than significant from project implementation. a.iv Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to landslides? No Impact. No landslide-prone areas along or adjacent to the proposed route are identified. Given the absence of active faults in the project area, the potential for seismically induced landslides is very low to nonexistent. No impacts related to landslides are anticipated to occur. b. Resultin substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The location of the proposed bridge is generally underlain by undocumented fill, alluvium, undocumented fill/colluvium undifferentiated, Pauba Formation, and granitic rock. Specifically, the area east of the creek channel is underlain by undocumented fill over Pauba Formation and granitic rock; the area west of the creek channel is underlain by undocumented fill/colluvium undifferentiated over granitic rock; and the channel bed is underlain by a thin layer of alluvium over Pauba. Formation and/or granitic rock. The undocumented fill consists primarily of Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 33 medium dense, silty sand, and clayey sand with gravel. Old asphalt concrete fragments and pockets of silty clay and sandy silt are also in the fill. Approximately 2 to 5 feet of alluvium is located over Pauba Formation and granitic rock in four borings drilled within the limits of creek channel. The materials consist primarily of loose silty sand with gravel. Undocumented fill and colluvium are generally the surficial deposits over granitic rock along the western bank of the creek channel. The material consists primarily of clayey sand and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. Cretaceous-age granitic rocks of the southern California Batholith are mapped underlying the entire site. This geologic unit is primarily medium- to coarse-grained, massive, moderately to slightly weathered, and strong and hard, and exhibited good bearing characteristics for the support of the proposed bridge foundations. Intensely weathered to decomposed granitic rocks are common in upper portions of this geologic unit. Implementation of a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]) would avoid or reduce potential short-term erosion and sediment impacts. Riprap revetment is necessary to protect the abutment foundation against scour. Impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant from project implementation. 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 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact. Surface and underlying materials located at the proposed project site include undocumented fill, alluvium, undocumented fill/colluvium undifferentiated, Pauba Formation, and granitic rock. Collapsing soils are unsaturated soils that undergo a large volume change upon saturation, even without increase in external loads. Soils that generally display collapsible potential are porous and low dry density. Generally no porous or honeycomb structure was observed in collected soil samples. As previously discussed in Items 6(a)(iii) and(a)(iv), no potential impacts associated with liquefaction and landsliding would occur. Therefore, impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils are not anticipated to occur. 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 property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils possess a high swelling or shrinking potential due to change in moisture content. The common materials associated with high expansion potential are clays. The majority of the on-site soil is granular in nature and the proposed foundations will be supported by footings or piles embedded in low-expansive weathered rock. Thus, the potential for expansive soils to affect the proposed foundations is considered low. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water dis- posal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. No wastewater disposal systems involving the use of septic tanks, leach fields, or alternative sewage disposal systems that depend upon appropriate soil regimes are currently in use at the project site. No associated impacts from wastewater disposal systems would occur. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 34 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact W ould the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 35 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Would the project: a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Although the proposed project may require the disposal of spoils during construction, these spoils would be brought to a City authorized facility or utilized as fill on-site if determined suitable. Operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine use, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project would consist of vehicular traffic flow. Therefore, no long-term operational impacts would result from project implementation. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not 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. Construction-related hazardous materials (fuels, lubricants, solvents, etc.) would be used that could potentially result in adverse environmental impacts through accidental discharges associated with storage, vehicle operation (e.g., refueling), or maintenance; however, these hazardous materials would be handled and stored in accordance with the SWPPP required by the Construction General Permit. Potential impacts associated with the use of hazardous materials for project construction would be avoided. Significant project-related impacts would be avoided or adequately minimized with implementation of regulatory requirements, industry standards, and Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction activities would be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements related to water quality, including applicable elements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit and Storm Water Management Plan, NPDES Municipal Permit, City Storm Water Standards and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan guidelines, and the RWQCB Basin Plan. As stated above, the project would not result in any long-term operational impacts. As a result, no adverse substantial impacts to worker and/or public health and safety or project schedule would occur. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. In addition, the components of the proposed project would not emit or utilize hazardous material substances. Any potential impact would be avoided through implementation of regulatory requirements, industry standards, and BMPs. Therefore, no significant hazardous materials impacts to schools would result from project implementation. d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area. No known hazardous materials sites have been identified as a potential for environmental concern to the proposed project based on their proximity to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not involve demolition of asphalt- or concrete-paved surface areas is planned as part of the proposed July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 36 transportation improvement project. However, the proposed project may require the disposal of spoils during construction and these spoils would be brought to a City authorized facility or utilized as fill on-site if determined suitable. Operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine use, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The following recommendations are provided below. Therefore, no impacts associated with listed hazardous materials sites would occur. HAZ-1: If, during construction of the proposed transportation improvements, evidence of soil and/or groundwater contamination is noted in the vicinity of the project area or in the project area (e.g., noxious odors, discolored soil, oily sheen on surface of groundwater), the construction/ demolition activities shall cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection, protective clothing, helmets, goggles). Sampling of the suspect material(s) shall be performed by qualified personnel trained in hazardous waste operations to assess the volume and concentrations of contamination present. HAZ-2: If contamination is identified on a property during construction of the proposed transportation improvements, a health risk assessment shall be performed in accordance with the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Manual guidelines and appropriate remediation measures taken, as necessary, to ensure that workers and the general public are protected from exposure to hazards. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement. HAZ-3: Any contaminated soil and/or groundwater identified during construction of the proposed transportation improvement project shall be properly disposed in accordance with DEH, DTSC, and/or RWQCB regulations, as appropriate. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land-use plan, an airport land- use plan that is to be adopted, or within 2 miles of a public airport. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrips. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The proposed bridge would enhance rather than hinder or block traffic flows, and primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 37 h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. Given the proximity to wildlands located along the proposed project alignment, there is potential for exposure to wildland fires. However, the proposed project would not introduce any new features that would increase risk of loss, injury, or death. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to wildland fires would occur. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 38 S. Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ • interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ • ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff`. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ • ❑ ❑ g. 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? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. 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? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 39 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project.• a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. On July 14, 2004, the San Diego RWQCB adopted the Municipal Storm Water Permit for the portion of Riverside County within the San Diego Region, Order No. R9-2004-001 (NPDES Permit No. CAS0108766), Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the County of Riverside, the City of Murrieta, the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District within the San Diego Region. Order No. 2004-001 regulates the manner in which the Permittees manage urban runoff in the Santa Margarita watershed. Urban runoff is one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in southern California today; for this reason Order No. 2004-001 includes extensive requirements to protect receiving waters from urban runoff discharges from MS4s. This information is presented in the same format as that outlined in Section III of the Monitoring and Reporting Program of the City's Permit. Each section addresses individual components of the Permit and summarizes the progress accomplished during the reporting period. These sections include the City's Development Planning process, Construction program, Municipal program, Industrial and Commercial program, Residential program, Education program, and Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (IC/ID), respectively. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would include minimal short-term construction-related erosion/sedimentation and long-term operational storm water discharge. The short-term water quality impacts related to erosion/sedimentation would be less than significant because construction would be conducted in conformance with General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ) requirements, which includes development and implementation of a SWPPP (RWQCB9 2004). Long-term water quality impacts associated with the project resulting from the vehicles traveling on the newly paved portion of Pujol Street and the proposed bridge could include generation of minor quantities of urban contaminants that typically accumulate on roadways, such as petroleum compounds and metals from vehicle operation. These impacts would be addressed through compliance with the Municipal Storm Water Permit for the portion of Riverside County within the San Diego Region, Order No. R9-2004-001 (NPDES Permit No. CAS0108766). This order requires the City of Temecula to reduce pollutant discharges and runoff from developed areas to the maximum extent practicable such that receiving water quality objectives are not violated throughout the life of the project. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or u lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) ? No Impact. The project does not propose the use of groundwater. c. Substantially alter the existing &-ainage 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? July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 40 Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. As discussed in Item 4(c), the project would not permanently alter the course of Murrieta Creek. On-site surface runoff generated by the proposed bridge would be collected in an existing catch basin located on the south side of Western Bypass just west of the intersection with Old Town Front Street. A fossil filter would be installed in this catch basin. On-site surface runoff generated by the new impervious surface with the paving of Pujol Street would be conveyed into a proposed single grass swale before discharging into Murrieta Creek. A 6-inch asphalt concrete dike is also designed for both sides of Pujol Street. No permanent diversion of the creek would be created post-construction as the channel will be put back to its original cross section. Impacts associated with drainage patterns would be less than significant. During construction, if the water is flowing next to the embankment, the water would be diverted toward the center of the river by digging near the toe of slope and building a berm using the same material to contain the water in the middle of creek. The RSP fabric and riprap then is placed where the river bed was excavated (no dewatering is necessary) and covered with some of the soil to create the original creek bed elevation. The remaining soil will be hauled to a City authorized facility or used for the construction of embankment behind the abutment. The pier footings are below the creek bed between 8 to 16 feet below the original ground. Coffer dams (sheet piling) would be placed around the piers during construction and water would be pumped out from the center of coffer dam by placing a few well points and place concrete for the footing. A track excavator may be used to remove the soil and then place the soil back on top of the footing to cover it and bring it back to the original ground level. Any additional remaining soil will be hauled away to a City authorized facility or used in the embankment. Erosion/sedimentation from the construction associated with a preexisting developed area would be less than significant. Any erosion or siltation resulting from construction of the project would be addressed in the project SWPPP implemented in accordance with the Construction General Permit and are listed below. Proper implementation of these and similar controls would avoid any substantial erosion or sedimentation impacts. HYD - 1: Storm water runoff shall be filtered prior to discharging into a storm water conveyance system. All non-permitted discharges are prohibited from entering any storm water conveyance system year-round. HYD - 2: If soil disturbance meets or exceeds one acre, the site must be covered under the State General Construction Permit, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), a Waste Discharge Identification Number shall be provided to the City, and a SWPPP shall be implemented throughout the duration of the project. HYD - 3: During the rainy season (October 1 - April 30), clearing shall be limited to areas that will receive immediate grading. HYD - 4: All erosion and sediment controls shall be inspected, restored, repaired, or modified regularly throughout the site to protect downgrade perimeters, adjacent properties, environmentally sensitive areas, and all private and public storm water conveyance systems. If any erosion or sediment controls fail during the rainy season, more effective ones will be required in their place. HYD - 5: During the rainy season, erosion control for graded slopes shall include 100% vegetative coverage, wood mulch, stapled or pinned blankets (straw or coconut), plastic sheeting, polypropylene mats, or other measure approved by the Director of Public Works. For spray-on controls, only bonded Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 41 and stabilized fiber matrix products with minimum application rates for 3,500 pounds/acre and 10 gallon/acre, respectively shall be used for grades of 4:1 and greater. Jute netting shall not be used as a stand-alone erosion control measure. If hydroseeding is implemented, the application must allow sufficient time for adequate seed growth. HYD - 6: Sediment controls shall include desilting basins, graded berms, fiber rolls, silt fences, gravel-bag chevrons, check dams, and drainage inlet protection. HYD - 7: all on-site and off-site follow lines and drainage inlets shall be free of sediment, construction materials, construction waste, miscellaneous debris, and deteriorated erosion and sediment controls. HYD - 8: Construction waste and miscellaneous debris shall be placed in water-tight bins. Wire mesh trash receptacles will not be allowed. Wash out stations shall be provided for concrete paints and stucco and shall be lined with plastic and located away from streets, sidewalk ROW, and drainage inlets. Prior to any forecasted rain, bins and wash outs shall be covered with a lid or plastic tarp preventing any overflow into the drainage system. HYD - 9: Construction access shall be stabilized with a combination of gravel and shaker plates year- round to prevent track-out onto streets. Routine street sweeping shall be performed on all paved streets where tracking is observed. HYD - 10: Silt and debris shall be removed from check dams, chevrons, silt fences, desilting basins, streets, on-site and off-site flow lines, downgradient drainage inlets affected by a discharge from the site, and other private and public storm water conveyance systems prior to and after each storm event. HYD - 11: Desilting basins shall be constructed at the start of all grading operations and sized according to the State General Construction Permit. Water shall be filtered and drained from the basins between storm events. HYD - 12: Storm water runoff shall not be directed over any slopes without permanent downdrains installed. Temporary erosion and sediment controls are required on all exposed slopes until sufficient permanent landscaping has been established. Fiber rolls shall be installed in increments of 10 feet measured vertically on the face of slope for grades of 3:1 and greater in combination with fiber matrix products or blankets. Silt fence shall be installed at the tow of all exposed slopes 3 feet or more in height. HYD - 13: Material storage areas shall be established. Fuel tanks, portable toilets, liquids, gels, and powders shall be stored away from streets, sidewalk ROW, and drainage inlets and shall have secondary containment. Stockpiles of soil shall be protected prior to a forecasted rain. HYD - 14: All portable mixers shall have plastic under-liners to contain spillage. Gravel bags shall also be placed on the downhill side of the liners to contain discharges. HYD - 15: The discharger shall properly post and secure site areas where impounded water, due to erosion and sediment control devices or anything else, creates a hazardous condition to the public. Emergency access shall be maintained at all times. HYD - 16: No obstructions, other than sediment controls, shall be allowed at any existing public, or private storm water conveyance system, unless adequate temporary or permanent drainage facilities July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 42 have been approved by the Director of Public Works to carry surface water to the nearest practical storm drain or natural water course. HYD - 17: Fill areas shall have erosion and sediment controls implemented while being brought up to grade. These measures include, temporary downdrains (pipes or paved ditches with protected outfalls), earth berms at the top of slopes, vegetation, mulch, fiber matrix products, blankets, ponding areas, check dams, fiber rolls, and gravel bags around drainage inlets, and appropriate grading to direct drainage away from the edge of the top of slopes. HYD - 18: Slope protection must be in place during the rainy season. d Substantially alter the existing &-ainage 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? Less than Significant Impact. As previous discussed in Item 8(c), the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or vicinity and would not permanently alter the course of a stream or river. There would be an increase of impervious surfaces resulting from the project runoff quantities (0.87 acre for Pujol Street and 2.2 acres for the proposed bridge), but it is not anticipated to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or ofd site. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. There would be an increase of impervious surfaces resulting from the project runoff quantities (0.87 acre for Pujol Street and 2.2 acres for the proposed bridge), but it is not anticipated to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The existing MS4 identified to capture the runoff from the proposed bridge would be sufficient. The proposed grass swale is designed to capture the anticipated amount of runoff from the new impervious surface on Pujol Street. As discussed above, the project would add amounts of polluted runoff associated with vehicles; however, the potential for water quality impacts would be addressed through implementation of, and compliance with, the requirements of the Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. R9-2004-001, NPDES No. CAS0108766). The following measures would be implemented and therefore, water quality impacts related to storm water capacity and/or polluted runoff would be less than significant. HYD - 19: Runoff from the proposed bridge is discharged directly into a publicly-owned, operated, and maintained MS4. A fossil filter will be installed in the existing catch basin. HYD - 20: Runoff from the new impervious surface on Pujol Street will be discharged into a single grass swale located on Pujol Street and directing flow into Munieta Creek. f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. Munieta Creek is listed as an impaired water body on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies for iron, manganese, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Implementation of required BMPs during construction, as identified in the project SWPPP, would reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts to less than significant. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 43 Anticipated water quality impacts from hydrocarbons and metals as a result of vehicles traveling on Pujol Street and the Western Bypass bridge are expected to be less than significant due to the implementation of roadway pollutant control BMPs required by the Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. R9-2004-001, NPDES No. CAS0108766) g. 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. The proposed project does not involve construction of residential units. h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located along Murrieta Creek and within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2006). The proposed project includes a new bridge structure, but as previously discussed in Item 8(c), the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or vicinity and would not permanently alter the course of a stream or river. In addition, the proposed bridge would not impede 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? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the hazard exposure of a potential levee or dam failure relative to existing conditions. The proposed project does not include any activity or structure that would cause flooding impacts. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 27 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Although the southern California region is seismically active, inundation impacts from seismically induced tsunamis would be extremely rare and occur only under catastrophic conditions due to the inland location of the proposed alignment. The closest and only substantial bodies of water in the vicinity to the project site are Lake Elsinore located approximately 25 miles to the northwest, Diamond Valley Lake approximately 13 miles to the northeast, and Skinner Reservoir approximately nine miles to the northeast. Due to distances of these lakes to the project site, the project site would not be subject to inundation impacts from seiches. Based on the location and topography within and adjacent to the project area, the project site would not be subject to impacts related to inundation by mudflow. Areas directly adjacent to the east of the project site are relatively flat and urbanized with the majority composed of impervious cover. Areas directly adjacent to the west of the project site are primarily undeveloped vegetated hillsides with a few single-family residences. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 44 9. Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ❑ ❑ ❑ • or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ • plan or natural community conservation plan? Land Use and Planning Would the project: a Physically rfivide an established community? No Impact. Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. The proposed project would not divide or separate neighborhoods or physically divide an established community. It would, in fact, improve the linkages between the portions of Temecula separated by Munieta Creek. Therefore, no associated land use impacts would occur. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, including the City of Temecula General Plan and the 2008 RTIP. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The proposed project is classified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area; however, the project would not conflict with the conservation goals of the MSCHP and no impacts resulting from a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan would occur. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 45 10. Mineral Resources Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ■ ■ 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? No Impact. The project site has not been used for mineral resource recovery and is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any land use plans; therefore, it would not change the existing availability of mineral resources that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. No known locally important mineral resource recovery site is located on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site; therefore, impacts to mineral resources would not occur as a result of project implementation. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 46 11. Noise Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ • ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ■ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11 ■ ❑ ■ ■ Information in this section is based on a Noise Technical Memorandum (EDAW 2009d), which is found in Appendix G. Noise Would the project result in: a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would generate temporary, relatively short-term noise from construction of the proposed facilities (bridge and roadway), and long-term noise from the use or operation of the constructed facilities (vehicle traffic on the bridge and newly paved and connected roadways). In addition, vehicle traffic crossing Murrieta Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 47 Creek at this new creek crossing would provide the opportunity for local traffic to be diverted and redistributed in the area, especially for crossing the creek in the area and accessing I-15. The proposed project is located within Temecula; therefore, construction and operational noise is addressed in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, and enforced by the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Construction The Noise Element of the City's General Plan provides goals, plans, and policies for the City's Noise Control Ordinance but provides no limits on construction noise levels. The Noise Control Ordinance is found in the Temecula Municipal Code, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.32 Noise Control. Section 8.32.020 Construction Restricted, which prohibits construction activity : "when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of six-thirty p.m. and six-thirty a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of seven a.m. and six-thirty p.m. on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter." Title 9 of the Municipal Code, Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare, Chapter 9.20 Noise, Section 9.20.010 Intent states: "At certain levels, sound becomes noise and may jeopardize the health, safety or general welfare of city residents and degrade their quality of life. This chapter is intended to establish citywide standards to regulate noise. This chapter is not intended to establish thresholds of significance for the purpose of any analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. No such thresholds are hereby established. " Thus, the City Noise Ordinance provides no construction noise limits, nor noise thresholds for CEQA analysis, and exempts City public works/capital improvement projects from the ordinance. The principal noise sources during construction would be the operation of the diesel engines of typical construction equipment and vehicles for roadway grading and paving, and soil excavation, pile driving (standard type), and structural construction of the bridge. Grading/excavation equipment would include backhoe, compactor, dozer, excavator, loaders, rollers, and other construction equipment (i.e., generators, compressors, etc.). Bridge construction equipment would include backhoe, concrete/industrial saws, cranes, forklifts, concrete pump, and other construction equipment. Bridge construction would occur over approximately 18 months. No rock blasting or breaking is assumed to be required. Grading, excavation, and bridge construction could occur simultaneously. Short-term maximum construction noise levels of the typical equipment would be 85 to 90 dBA (a-weighted decibels) at 50 feet. With typical duty cycles of this equipment, the hourly average noise levels (Leq) at 50 feet would be approximately 7 dBA less than these maximum noise levels (78 to 83 dBA Leq). Noise levels attenuate with distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Pile driving (standard type) of bridge supports would generate short-term maximum noise levels of up to 105 dBA at 50 feet with average noise levels of up to 95 dBA Leq at 50 feet. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 48 The proposed project is a City public works/capital improvement project and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the City Noise Ordinance. However, construction activities are anticipated to occur during the days and hours allowed by the City Noise Ordinance. Since the City Noise Ordinance has no construction noise limits, nor thresholds for CEQA analysis, the construction noise generated by the proposed project would be allowable, temporary, and relatively short term. Bridge construction is estimated to occur for approximately 18 months. Roadway grading and paving activities would move daily along the roadways to be extended. The construction staging area would be active for the duration of the project. Even though there are no City construction noise thresholds, short-term maximum and average noise levels from construction, particularly from concrete/industrial saws and pile driving at the bridge, would be audible and a potential disturbance to the noise sensitive receptors, which are greater than 1,000 feet from the proposed bridge location. The maximum and average noise levels of this equipment would attenuate less than 75 dBA and 65 dBA Leq, respectively at the receptors. No persons would be exposed to excess construction noise levels, and the impact from construction noise would be less than significant. To minimize the noise effects from this equipment, the following measures are recommended to avoid or minimize construction noise impacts: NOISE-1: Equip each internal combustion engine with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. NOISE-2: Perform work that generates loud noises in staging areas, such as equipment maintenance, during the hours allowable for construction work. Staging areas should be located as far as feasible from occupied residences. NOISE-3: If traffic control and construction signs that require power for lighting or flashing are located near residences, the source of power should be batteries, solar cells, or another quiet source. Gas- or diesel-fueled internal combustion engines should not be used. To reduce potential construction-related impacts associated with pile driving, the following measures will be incorporated into the project: NOISE-4: The project contractor will implement alternate pile-driving technology, such as vibratory or sonic pile driving, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. NOISE-5: Noise control blankets or shrouds will be placed around the driving head to reduce noise generation. NOISE-6: Pile driving will be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and will not be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Operations (Post-construction) There are no applicable standards relative to the long-term noise changes that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. See Item 11(c) below for additional discussion of long-term noise impacts. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 49 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant. Heavy construction operations can cause groundborne vibration, which can affect and damage structures in proximity to the vibration source. The heaviest equipment, such as pile drivers or large bulldozers, can generate vibrations of 0.089 to 1.52 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2006). There are no applicable City, state, or federal standards for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommends maximum limits of 0.2 inches per second PPV for fragile buildings and 0.12 inches per second PPV for very fragile buildings. Pile driving operations would be occurring at the bridge location and no closer than 100 feet from the nearest building; thus, vibration would not exceed the FTA maximum limit of 0.2 inch per second PPV. Vibration from grading and paving activities would not be noticeable at 25 feet or greater. The roadway improvements would be no closer than 100 feet from the nearest building. Therefore, vibration impacts to buildings would be less than significant. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant. The City has adopted the County of Riverside Noise Control Ordinance (No. 457.73) for exterior noise standards for residential areas as 55 dBA for the maximum sound limit. The proposed project would result in vehicle traffic crossing Murrieta Creek at this location on Western Bypass, connecting with the paved portion of Pujol Street and the roadway network west of Munieta Creek. Continuous roadway traffic traveling at the speed limit would flow along this route, subjecting the residential areas at the northern end of Pujol Street to continuous through traffic, where the traffic currently stops at the pavement end of Pujol Street. Therefore, there would be a permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this location from the through traffic provided by the project. These residences do currently generate daily trips, but to and from the paved end of Pujol Street. Opening Pujol Street to continuous traffic flow would potentially establish the same average daily traffic (ADT) volumes as the existing paved portion of Pujol Street. Noise levels for future traffic and conditions on roadways can be predicted based on existing traffic characteristics (volume, speed, mix). As no project-specific traffic data were available, existing ADT levels for local roadways were collected and converted to peak hour volumes based on the peak traffic volume being 10 percent of the total ADT. The traffic mix is assumed to be 97 percent automobiles, 2 percent medium trucks, and 1 percent heavy trucks. Traffic volumes and vehicle mix data for I-15 were taken from the Caltrans Traffic Operations website. Using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model Lookup Program (TNM Lookup) and existing traffic volumes, existing peak hour noise levels of active project roadways were calculated in TNM Lookup to be approximately 58 dBA Leq along Pujol Street (north of the project area), 63 dBA Leq on Old Town Front Street, and 85 dBA Leq on I-15. These noise levels are calculated 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest traffic lane of each roadway. The nearest residential land use is the multiple-family residences along Pujol Street at the end of the paved portion. The nearest of these residences is approximately 100 feet from the edge of Pujol Street; thus, the existing peak hour noise level at the residences is calculated to be 55 dBA Leq. The existing peak hour noise level generated by traffic on I-15, 85 dBA Leq, would attenuate to approximately 59 dBA Leq at these residences, which is the estimated existing peak traffic hour noise level at this location. It is assumed that the future traffic volumes on Pujol Street would be similar to the traffic volumes reported north of the project area. Thus, to predict the future noise levels at the residences July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 50 with the project constructed and operational, the calculated existing peak hour noise level of the active portion of Pujol Street at 100 feet (55 dBA L,,) is combined with the calculated existing noise level (from I-15) at the residences (59 dBA Leq) . Therefore, the calculated peak hour noise level at the residence with the project traffic is predicted to be 61 dBA Leq. It is widely accepted that the average unimpaired human ear can barely perceive changes (increase or decrease) of 3 dBA (Caltrans 1998). Therefore, the ambient noise increase at the nearest residence would not be considered significant with implementation of the project. The City identifies acceptable noise levels for exterior uses area associated with residences and park uses in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, Table N-1. Based on Table N-1, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)/Ldn is considered acceptable for single-family and low-density multiple-family residential land uses, and 70 dBA CNEL/Ldn is acceptable for opens paces and parks. It is conservatively assumed the CNEL/Ldn is approximately 2 dBA higher than the loudest traffic hour noise level. Thus, the future noise level at the nearest residence is calculated to be 63 dBA CNEL/Ldn. As the future noise level is estimated to be below the City's compatibility noise level, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact from operational noise. In addition, traffic volumes on the roadways of nearby Murrieta Creek crossings to the north of Santiago Road (no interchange with I-15) and Rancho California (I-15 interchange) would be expected to be reduced and redistributed with the proposed Western Bypass creek crossing and its proximity with I-15. These traffic effects are to be assessed as part of a larger, regional transportation project study. d A substantial temporary or perio&c increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See discussion in Item 1 l(a) above. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project area is not within the airport land use plan of a public airport. The nearest airport is approximately 6 miles from the project area. Implementation of the project would not change the exposure of people to existing aircraft noise levels. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project area is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is approximately 6 miles from the project area. Implementation of the project would not change the exposure of people to existing aircraft noise levels. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 51 12. Population and Housing Issues Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact o Impact 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)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ • necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ • necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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)? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the development of housing and the implementation of the proposed project would not directly induce population growth. The proposed project would not provide substantial new employment that would foster migration. Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Munieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. No impacts related to population growth inducement would occur. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not remove any structures, affect existing housing, displace any residents, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No associated impacts would occur. c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsei►-here? No Impact. The project would not remove any structures, affect existing housing, displace any residents, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No associated impacts would occur. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 52 13. Public Services Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact o Impact 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: Fire protection? E] El 1 • Police protection? 11 El E • Schools? El El E • Parks? El 11 E • Other public facilities? E] 11 E • Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, needfor new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable objectives for any of the public services: a Fire protection? No Impact. Completion of the Western Bypass Bridge Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. The proposed project is a component of a larger, regional transportation project of the future Western Bypass. The proposed bridge would not result in a physical impact with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, require any new or altered fire protection services, or alter the levels of fire protection services. b. Police protection? No Impact. Completion of the Western Bypass Bridge Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. The proposed project is a component of a larger, regional transportation project of the future Western Bypass. The proposed bridge would not result in a physical impact with the provision of new or physically altered Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 53 governmental facilities, require any new or altered police protection services, or alter the levels of police protection services. c. Schools? No Impact. Completion of the Western Bypass Bridge Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. The proposed project is a component of a larger, regional transportation project of the future Western Bypass. The proposed bridge would not result in a physical impact with the provision or new of physically altered governmental facilities, require any new schools, or alter the demand for schools in the area. d Parks? No Impact. The proposed project could increase access to area parks, potentially increasing demand for park and recreation services. However, it is unlikely that any such increase would be large enough to require facility upgrades or increased services as it is primarily a local access that would be slightly enhanced with no new source of users. e. Other public facilities? No Impact. Completion of the Western Bypass Bridge Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. The proposed project is a component of a larger, regional transportation project of the future Western Bypass. The proposed bridge would not increase the demand for electricity and gas facilities. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 54 14. Recreation Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ • neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. 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? Recreation a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not induce growth or otherwise result in an increase of local residents who would need open space and park facilities. There are no publicly owned parks or recreation areas in the project construction area. The bridge would cross Murrieta Creek and Pujol Street is maintained through the City. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. b. 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? No Impact. The proposed project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No associated impacts to recreational facilities would occur. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 55 15. Transportation/Traffic Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ • ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ • f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ • g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ • supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Transportation/Traffic Would the project. a Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact. Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I-15. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant impact on Pujol Street or new vehicle trips in the area as the completion of the Western Bypass Bridge Project will provide an additional roadway July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 56 crossing of Murrieta Creek. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would occur over approximately 18 months. During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street located in an undeveloped area will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. As indicated above, the completion of the Western Bypass Bridge Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Munieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Munieta Creek directly to I-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with I- 15. This would not result in a level of service standard being exceeded for any of the local roadways and would be considered a less than significant impact. C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components and, therefore, would not affect air traffic patterns. No associated traffic impacts would occur. d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) ? No Impact. The proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The proposed project would construct a bridge to connect two existing roads. The proposed project would include design measures, such as signage, dedicated lanes, and other features, that would clearly separate traffic flow in roadways. No associated traffic impacts would occur. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Temporary construction activities would not hinder access to roadways in the project area by emergency vehicles. Operation of the proposed project would not impact emergency access. Adequate emergency access would be provided to the project site at all times. Accordingly, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. f Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Parking would not be created as part of the proposed project. There is no loss to existing parking as part of this proposed project. g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project would include pedestrian paths on both sides of the bridge. Currently, there is a dedicated bike lane and sidewalk on both sides of Western Bypass between Old Town Front Street and Munieta Creek. There are no dedicated bike lanes on Pujol Street and sidewalks are located along the existing paved portion. Operation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 57 16. Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ❑ • or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ regulations related to solid waste? Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed project would not produce wastewater. No restrooms or other facilities that would generate wastewater are proposed. No impacts associated with wastewater treatment facilities would occur. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 58 b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed project is located in a developed area served by existing water and wastewater facilities. Although the proposed project would not require water or wastewater services or any new or expanded facilities, the proposed bridge structure would support 2 water lines and 2 gas lines for future connections. Therefore, no impacts associated with water facilities would occur. c. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, some water would be needed for construction purposes, including dust control. The amount of water needed would be minimal and would not result in a need for new water or wastewater facilities. Once opened, the bridge would not consume water nor generate wastewater. On-site surface runoff generated by the proposed bridge would be collected in an existing catch basin located on the south side of Western Bypass just west of the intersection with Old Town Front Street. A fossil filter would be installed in this catch basin. On-site surface runoff generated by the new impervious surface with the paving of Pujol Street would be conveyed into a proposed single grass swale before discharging into Munieta Creek. A 6-inch asphalt concrete dike is also designed for both sides of Pujol Street. Impacts associated with storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant. d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the proposed project would consume some water for construction activities, including dust control. This would be relatively little and required only for a short period of time. The proposed project would result in no increased demand for water associated with irrigation as there is no proposed landscaping. Therefore, no impacts related to water supply would occur. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate wastewater and therefore would not affect the applicable wastewater treatment provider. No impact related to wastewater treatment capacity would occur. f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. Although the proposed project may require the disposal of spoils during construction and activities associated with clearing, these spoils would be brought to a City authorized facility or utilized as fill on-site if determined suitable. The proposed project would not generate solid waste and therefore would not affect landfill capacity. No impact related to solid waste would occur. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 59 g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. As stated in Item 16(f), the proposed project would not affect landfill capacity. Operationally, there would be no impacts to solid waste facilities. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur to applicable statutes and regulations. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 60 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ • ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ • ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ • ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of 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 an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation measures to protect limited adverse environmental effects that could occur related to biological resources and cultural resources are listed in Section VI of this IS/MND under Biological Resources and Cultural Resources. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 61 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with light and glare, biological resources, air quality, water quality, and noise. However, the project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable due to its incremental and/or short- term nature. In the case of light and glare, the project would include lighting on the proposed project adjacent to a lighted commercial/business area, and all lighting would be directional to minimize spillover into the night sky. As discussed under Air Quality, both short-term and long-term pollutant emissions would not be substantial and long-term emissions could be decreased from existing conditions. The quantities of emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. Regarding water quality, the proposed project and other projects in the area would be required to be in compliance with applicable standards and permit conditions from appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., RWQCB, City of Temecula). In the case of noise, implementation of the proposed project could lead to an increase in vehicle noise. However, as discussed in Item 11(c) of this IS/MND, these changes would likely be imperceptible, and the project would not lead to a cumulatively considerable increase in noise levels. C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in applicable sections of this IS,MND, the proposed project would not cause in any substantial adverse environmental effects on humans. Please refer to specific discussions in Section VI of this IS/MND under Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 62 FISH AND GAME DETERI•IINATION Based on the information above, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. The presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.3(d) has been rebutted by substantial evidence. ® Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption) ❑ No (Pay fee) Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 63 VII. MITIGATION MEASURES/ PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES The following mitigation measures/recommended measures and project design features would be implemented to further minimize impacts identified for the proposed project. Air Ouality AIR-1: Dust Control - The Project Contractor shall prevent dust exposure to persons or property by implementation of one or more of the following measures to prevent visible dust plumes from extending beyond the boundary of the construction area and into public space: • Physical separation of the source and receptors with a solid barrier that would prevent the transmission of dust Physical separation of the source and receptors by creation of a buffer zone and pedestrian and vehicle detours • Wetting of areas to prevent the generation of dust plumes In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2006), which would result in minimizing PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To further minimize short-term, construction-related PM emissions and off-site impacts, the following measures are recommended to reduce fugitive dust emissions: • Water all active disturbed surface areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. • Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep away access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. The Air Quality Element of the Temecula General Plan provides the following additional measures to reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions: The contractor should discontinue construction activities during first- and second-stage smog alerts. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 64 • When feasible, the contractor should utilize existing power sources (i.e., temporary power poles) to minimize the use of diesel generators. • Whenever feasible the contractor should use construction equipment with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier II, or Tier III, certification. Biological Resources BIO - 1: Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl will need to occur within 30 days prior to disturbance of the project site. Take of active nests will be avoided and, if burrowing owls are present, passive relocation outside of the nesting season is required. BIO - 2: Project impacts to riparian habitat will be implemented in the form of off-site restoration. Potential restoration areas within the drainage channels of Murrieta Creek tributaries to the east will be inventoried. Channel segments characterized by monotypical strands of giant reed (Arundo donax) will be located. Areas selected for restoration will be at least one-half acre in size. BIO - 3: Eradication/Restoration efforts will be conducted by cutting and spraying with approved herbicide glysophate (cutting stems and spraying or painting herbicide on to cut stem surface); all eradication efforts under the terms and conditions of the permit(s) will be implemented. The dead Arundo biomass can be left on site to decompose naturally over time, however, this may be a concern due to potential flood or fire hazard or aesthetics, therefore the biomass may need to be removed for native replanting if conditional to the permit(s). BIO - 4: A conceptual wetland mitigation and enhancement plan will be developed outlining the areas of mitigation and will include appropriate riparian and wetland plant palettes and species, seed mixes, and planning polygons. The conceptual wetland mitigation and enhancement plan, in addition to contract documents (i.e., restorative grading [contour grading] and landscape plans) for the project, will be prepared to provide and present sufficient wetland/riparian mitigation for the bridge construction and placement process. This mitigation plan will receive the approval of the requisite resource agencies. To accomplish the necessary mitigation, the planning documents will specify minor contour grading to improve hydrologic and ecological conditions to support wetland/riparian plant species, removal of nonnative invasive species, planting and seeding, monitoring and maintenance activities, and success standards. BIO - 5: Appropriate monitoring time frames and reporting requirements and frequency will be negotiated with the agencies. BIO - 6: No clearing of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat on-site can occur between March 1 and April 15. BIO - 7 (Drainage): The project will comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The runoff discharge into the MSHCP Conservation Area will not be altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Untreated surface runoff from paved areas will not flow into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, exotic plant materials etc. that may harm biological resources or ecosystem processes in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mechanical trapping devices to ensure that runoff does not enter the Conservation Area will be incorporated into project design and regular maintenance of these devices will occur. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 65 BIO - 8 (Toxics): Chemicals that may be potentially toxic or may adversely affect the habitat, water quality or wildlife species will not be discharged into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures to avoid discharge of chemicals, such as those used to for drainage issues will be implemented. BIO - 9 (Lighting): Night lighting will be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. Shielding will be used to ensure night lighting will not be increased within the MSHCP Conservation Area. BIO - 10 (Noise): Noise within the MSHCP Conservation Area will not exceed residential noise standards. Berms or walls will be constructed if necessary to minimize the effects of noise on the MSHCP Conservation Area. BIO - 11 (Invasives): The plant species listed in Table 6-2 (Appendix A) of the MSHCP will be avoided in all landscaping plans. These species are considered invasive, non-native plant species. BIO - 12 (Barriers): Barriers will be incorporated into project design, as feasible, to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and other appropriate mechanisms. Barrier plans will focus on the exclusion of domestic predators from the Conservation Area. BIO - 13 (Grading/Land Development): Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development will not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. BIO - 14: A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. BIO - 15: Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. BIO - 16: The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. BIO - 17: The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. BIO - 18: Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. BIO - 19: Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 66 BIO - 20: When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. BIO - 21: Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. BIO - 22: Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. BIO - 23: The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. BIO - 24: The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. BIO - 25: Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. BIO - 26: To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). BIO - 27: Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. BIO - 28: The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs. Cultural Resources CUL-1. An archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall be present on-site during all grubbing and ground-disturbing activities. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity will be suspended until the discovery is assessed by the archaeologist and treatment is determined. In the event human remains Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 67 are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work shall cease and the county coroner shall be contacted per Greenbook and State of California law. Should the remains be identified as Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 48 hours to provide a Most Likely Descendent to determine reburial practices for the remains. CUL-2. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. CUL-3. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CUL-2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. CUL-4. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CUL-5. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. CUL-6. If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading; the City, the Project Archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. The City shall make the final determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: If, during construction of the proposed transportation improvements, evidence of soil and/or groundwater contamination is noted in the vicinity of the project area or in the project area (e.g., noxious odors, discolored soil, oily sheen on surface of groundwater), the construction/demolition activities shall cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection, protective clothing, helmets, goggles). Sampling of the suspect material(s) shall be performed by qualified personnel trained in hazardous waste operations to assess the volume and concentrations of contamination present. HAZ-2: If contamination is identified on a property during construction of the proposed transportation improvements, a health risk assessment shall be performed in accordance with the July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 68 Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Manual guidelines and appropriate remediation measures taken, as necessary, to ensure that workers and the general public are protected from exposure to hazards. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement. HAZ-3: Any contaminated soil and/or groundwater identified during construction of the proposed transportation improvement project shall be properly disposed in accordance with DEH, DTSC, and/or RWQCB regulations, as appropriate. Hydrology and Water Quality HYD - 1: Storm water runoff shall be filtered prior to discharging into a storm water conveyance system. All non-permitted discharges are prohibited from entering any storm water conveyance system year-round. HYD - 2: If soil disturbance meets or exceeds one acre, the site must be covered under the State General Construction Permit, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), a Waste Discharge Identification Number shall be provided to the City, and a SWPPP shall be implemented throughout the duration of the project. HYD - 3: During the rainy season (October 1 - April 30), clearing shall be limited to areas that will receive immediate grading. HYD - 4: All erosion and sediment controls shall be inspected, restored, repaired, or modified regularly throughout the site to protect downgrade perimeters, adjacent properties, environmentally sensitive areas, and all private and public storm water conveyance systems. If any erosion or sediment controls fail during the rainy season, more effective ones will be required in their place. HYD - 5: During the rainy season, erosion control for graded slopes shall include 100% vegetative coverage, wood mulch, stapled or pinned blankets (straw or coconut), plastic sheeting, polypropylene mats, or other measure approved by the Director of Public Works. For spray-on controls, only bonded and stabilized fiber matrix products with minimum application rates for 3,500 pounds/acre and 10 gallon/acre, respectively shall be used for grades of 4:1 and greater. Jute netting shall not be used as a stand-alone erosion control measure. If hydroseeding is implemented, the application must allow sufficient time for adequate seed growth. HYD - 6: Sediment controls shall include desilting basins, graded berms, fiber rolls, silt fences, gravel-bag chevrons, check dams, and drainage inlet protection. HYD - 7: all on-site and off-site follow lines and drainage inlets shall be free of sediment, construction materials, construction waste, miscellaneous debris, and deteriorated erosion and sediment controls. HYD - 8: Construction waste and miscellaneous debris shall be placed in water-tight bins. Wire mesh trash receptacles will not be allowed. Wash out stations shall be provided for concrete paints and stucco and shall be lined with plastic and located away from streets, sidewalk ROW, and drainage inlets. Prior to any forecasted rain, bins and wash outs shall be covered with a lid or plastic tarp preventing any overflow into the drainage system. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 69 HYD - 9: Construction access shall be stabilized with a combination of gravel and shaker plates year- round to prevent track-out onto streets. Routine street sweeping shall be performed on all paved streets where tracking is observed. HYD - 10: Silt and debris shall be removed from check dams, chevrons, silt fences, desilting basins, streets, on-site and off-site flow lines, downgradient drainage inlets affected by a discharge from the site, and other private and public storm water conveyance systems prior to and after each storm event. HYD - 11: Desilting basins shall be constructed at the start of all grading operations and sized according to the State General Construction Permit. Water shall be filtered and drained from the basins between storm events. HYD - 12: Storm water runoff shall not be directed over any slopes without permanent downdrains installed. Temporary erosion and sediment controls are required on all exposed slopes until sufficient permanent landscaping has been established. Fiber rolls shall be installed in increments of 10 feet measured vertically on the face of slope for grades of 3:1 and greater in combination with fiber matrix products or blankets. Silt fence shall be installed at the tow of all exposed slopes 3 feet or more in height. HYD - 13: Material storage areas shall be established. Fuel tanks, portable toilets, liquids, gels, and powders shall be stored away from streets, sidewalk ROW, and drainage inlets and shall have secondary containment. Stockpiles of soil shall be protected prior to a forecasted rain. HYD - 14: All portable mixers shall have plastic under-liners to contain spillage. Gravel bags shall also be placed on the downhill side of the liners to contain discharges. HYD - 15: The discharger shall properly post and secure site areas where impounded water, due to erosion and sediment control devices or anything else, creates a hazardous condition to the public. Emergency access shall be maintained at all times. HYD - 16: No obstructions, other than sediment controls, shall be allowed at any existing public, or private storm water conveyance system, unless adequate temporary or permanent drainage facilities have been approved by the Director of Public Works to carry surface water to the nearest practical storm drain or natural water course. HYD - 17: Fill areas shall have erosion and sediment controls implemented while being brought up to grade. These measures include, temporary downdrains (pipes or paved ditches with protected outfalls), earth berms at the top of slopes, vegetation, mulch, fiber matrix products, blankets, ponding areas, check dams, fiber rolls, and gravel bags around drainage inlets, and appropriate grading to direct drainage away from the edge of the top of slopes. HYD - 18: Slope protection must be in place during the rainy season. HYD - 19: Runoff from the proposed bridge is discharged directly into a publicly-owned, operated, and maintained MS4. A fossil filter will be installed in the existing catch basin. HYD - 20: Runoff from the new impervious surface on Pujol Street will be discharged into a single grass swale located on Pujol Street and directing flow into Murrieta Creek. Noise July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 70 To minimize the noise effects from this equipment, the following measures are recommended to avoid or minimize construction noise impacts: NOISE-1: Equip each internal combustion engine with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. NOISE-2: Perform work that generates loud noises in staging areas, such as equipment maintenance, during the hours allowable for construction work. Staging areas should be located as far as feasible from occupied residences. NOISE-3: If traffic control and construction signs that require power for lighting or flashing are located near residences, the source of power should be batteries, solar cells, or another quiet source. Gas- or diesel-fueled internal combustion engines should not be used. To reduce potential construction-related impacts associated with pile driving, the following measures will be incorporated into the project: NOISE-4: The project contractor will implement alternate pile-driving technology, such as vibratory or sonic pile driving, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. NOISE-5: Noise control blankets or shrouds will be placed around the driving head to reduce noise generation. NOISE-6: Pile driving will be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and will not be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 71 VIII. INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION DISTRIBUTION LIST The following distribution list is provided by the City of Temecula. City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Western Bypass Bridge (1-1109-0004) DISTRIBUTION DATE: CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk, AICP CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety (X) Fire Department (X) Police Department.. (X) Parks & Recreation (TCSD) (X) Planning, Advance (X) Pi thiin_ Wnrkc ~ fV1 t.y STATE: Caitrans (X) Fish & Game : (X) Mines & Geology ) Regional Water Quality Control Board...... (X) State Clearinghouse ) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) (X) Water Resources (X) FEDERAL. Army Corps of Engineers (X) Fish and Wildlife Service... (X) ( ) Health Department ( ) Parks and Recreation- { } Planning Department ( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)...:.... (X) Riverside Transit Agency ( ) RCA (MSHCP) (X) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District (X) Inland Valley Cablevislon (X) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve (X) Southern California Gas...................... (X) Southern California Edison (X) Temecula Valley School District ( ) Metropolitan Water District ( ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation (X) Eastern Information Center ( } Local Agency Formation Comm.. ( ) RCTC ( ) Homeowners' Association ( } REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District (X) Western Riverside COG ( ) ( ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ( ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ) Aviation Division } Airport Land Use Commission ( } Engineer........ { } Flood Control (X) July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 72 IX. REFERENCES City of Temecula 2005 General Plan. EDAW 2005 Land Use Policy Map. Adopted April 12. 2009a Western Bypass Bridge Project - Air Quality Technical Memorandum. February 23. 2009b Western Bypass Bridge Project - Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. April 16. 2009c Western Bypass Bridge Project - Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. February 23. 2009d Western Bypass Bridge Project - Noise Technical Memorandum. February 23. 2009e Summary Report of Focused Surveys for the Western Burrowing Owl within the Western Bypass Project in the City of Murrieta, California, Assessor Parcel Numbers 922-110-044, 922-110-045, -021, -032 and 922-210-063, -063, -057, -011. April 16. GEOCON 2009 Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek, Temecula, California, Foundation Report. May 11. Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. 2009a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek. April. 2009b Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek and Pujol Street Access Road. April. WEST Consultants, Inc. 2008 Hydraulic Analysis and Scour Evaluation for the Western Bypass Bridge. November. Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND July 2009 Page 73 This page intentionally left blank. July 2009 Western Bypass Bridge Project - Final IS/MND Page 74 APPENDIX A Air Quality Technical Memorandum EDAW Inc 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92101 T 619.233.1454 F 619.233.0952 www.edaw.com Memorandum Date: February 23, 2009 To: William Becerra, City of Temecula From: Jeff Goodson, Environmental Engineer, EDAW Julie Wang, Project Manager, EDAW Subject: Western Bypass Bridge Project - Air Quality Technical Memorandum The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe the ambient air quality conditions, applicable air quality regulations and, potential air quality impacts of the proposed Western Bypass Bridge Project (proposed project), and recommend measures to minimize pollutant emissions of the project. The proposed project is not federally funded; no project approval or review is required by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This memorandum is prepared for the City of Temecula (City) as part of an environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the City acting as the lead CEQA agency. City and CEQA standards are used in this analysis to determine air quality impacts of the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes to implement the proposed project, which is a component of a future Western Bypass Corridor. The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (1-15) near the 1-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 (SR-79). The project area extends Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via the proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the end of pavement of Pujol Street. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). However, no channel improvements are to be implemented for the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final ACOE channel. Rock slope protection (rip-rap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of a four-lane roadway (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour. Structure depth of the bridge is to be determined; however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 2 During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of pavement of Pujol Street. Completion of the Western Bypass Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City' General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). AIR QUALITY SETTING The proposed project is located in Riverside County within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air pollution generated in the SCAB is from vehicle traffic and heavy industry. However, the regional climate, topography, and geography conditions contribute pollutant emissions from outside of the SCAB and trap them in the basin. A semipermanent, high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean (the Pacific High) produces warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, and moderate on-shore air flows in the region. Air pollution emissions from coastal areas are carried inland during the day; however, weak nighttime conditions allow pollutants to stagnate inland. This wind pattern is interrupted by infrequent but strong "Santa Ana" winds from the mountains and the desert to the northeast. The topography and geography of the SCAB is a coastal plain with broad connecting valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean and mountains, which act as barriers and trap air emissions not transported out of the area from daily onshore air flows, worsening air quality in the basin. Regional thermal inversion layers also trap the pollutants and prevent dispersion in the basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency responsible for administering state and federal air quality laws and regulating sources of air pollution in the SCAB. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) oversees the SCAB and monitors air quality conditions statewide. As required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sets and maintains federal standards for criteria air pollutants, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (USEPA 2008a). CARB sets and maintains California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) that are equal to or more restrictive than the NAAQS and include pollutants not included in the NAAQS (CARB 2008). Geographical areas are designated by USEPA and CARB as federal or state "attainment" or "nonattainment" areas, respectively for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS and CAAQS are being met. A federal nonattainment area for a pollutant, redesignated as an attainment area, may fall under a federal maintenance plan and be designated as attainment/maintenance area for that pollutant. The status and degree of the attainment designations for the criteria pollutants in the SCAB are shown in Table 1. Within the SCAB, the SCAQMD is responsible for the preparation of an air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SCAB portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain NAAQS in the SCAB. The Air Quality element of the City of Temecula General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies to comply with the AQMP (City 2005). The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 3 quality in the Basin. There are currently three versions of the AQMP (1997, 2003, and 2007). The 1997 AQMP is currently the federally approved AQMP. The 2003 and 2007 AQMP, have been adopted by SCAQMD, approved by ARB, submitted to USEPA as part of the 2003 and 2007 South Coast SIP, respectively, and are pending federal approval. Table 1 Attainment Designations for the South Coast Air Basin Attainment Designation Status Pollutant Federal State 03 (1-hour) t N tt i 03 8-hour Nonattainment - Severe 17 ona a nmen PM10 Nonattainment - Serious Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment/Maintenance Attainment N02 Attainment Attainment S02 Attainment Attainment Pb Attainment Attainment Sources: USEPA 2008b; GARB 2007 03 - ozone; PM10 - particulate material equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 - particulate material equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter; CO - carbon monoxide; N02 - nitrogen dioxide; S02 - sulfur dioxide; Pb - lead Repealed by law in June 2005 with the implementation of the 8-hour standard. Transportation measures, such as the proposed project, are analyzed for conformity to the SIP as part of regional transportation plans (RTPs) and regional transportation improvement plans (RTIPs). Regional conformity with the 2003 South Coast SIP is based a project's design and scope being consistent with the project's description in the latest approved conforming RTP and RTIP for Riverside County, prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The current approved conforming RTP and RTIP are the 2008 RTP (SCAG 2008a) and the 2008 RTIP (SCAG 2008b). The FHWA and the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) approved the air quality conformity analysis and findings for the 2008 RTP and the 2008 RTIP. The proposed project is not federally funded, and therefore, is not required to comply with the USEPA's Transportation Conformity Rule The air quality analyses of the projects in the RTP/RTIP do not include local air quality impact analyses; therefore, local impacts are analyzed at the project level. Localized emissions ("hot spots") of CO and PM are a concern in nonattainment or maintenance areas for CO and PM. The proposed project is in a federal nonattainment area for PM, and a federal maintenance area for CO. However, since the proposed project has no federal (FHWA) funding or approval, it does not meet the criteria for "projects of air quality concern"; thus, no PM2.5 hot spot analysis is required. Localized project emissions (hotspots) of CO and PM10 can be addressed by SCAQMD's Transportation Conformity requirements for "regionally significant" non-FHWA/FTA projects, including use of the Caltrans CO protocol (adopted by SCAQMD), or SCAQMD's voluntary Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) analysis. Since no Caltrans review or involvement is required for the proposed project, no Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis is required. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 4 Regional and local emissions have the potential to locally expose persons and property to substantial concentrations of dust and particulates from construction activities. The potential for human exposure is increased in areas with considerable pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The potential for impact is increasec for sensitive air quality receptors, which are typically infants, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems (asthma, etc). The project area is primarily in open space areas, except at its endpoints in the commercial area of Western Bypass at its intersection with Old Town Front Street and at the multi- family residences where paved portion of Pujol Street ends. PROJECT IMPACTS Construction As described in the project description, the proposed project would include construction activities for bridge construction and extending paved roadways. The principal sources of pollutant emissions during construction are fugitive dust and construction equipment engine exhaust. Fugitive dust would be created during roadway grading and soil excavation and stockpiling. Fugitive dust includes PMioand PM2.5, which are potential health hazards and may contribute to nuisance impacts due to deposition of dust from construction activities on buildings, vehicles, and plants. In construction equipment exhaust, the principal pollutant sources of concern are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). VOCs and NOX react in the atmosphere with sunlight to form ozone. Other secondary sources of VOCs are paving materials, paints, and solvents associated with construction. The proposed project construction does not include substantial grading of undeveloped land or extensive vehicle travel on unpaved roads. Construction of the proposed project would begin at the end of 2009/beginning of 2010 and is estimated to occur for approximately 18 months. Construction activities would include two stages: bridge construction and roadway paving, with potential overlap between stages. Project-generated emissions were modeled using a roadway construction emissions model, which includes bridge construction, provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD); and construction inputs to the model from the City. Estimated project construction emissions were compared to SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, construction-related project activities would result in pollutant emissions that would not exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds for regional emissions. Thus, project-generated construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions would not be expected to violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, construction-generated emissions would be less than significant. While particulate emissions from the proposed project would not be substantial at a regional level, there is the potential to locally expose persons and property to substantial concentrations of dust and particulates from construction activities. Dust generated by roadway grading, and bridge construction and excavation could occur in local "clouds" or plumes that could be inhaled by pedestrians, residents, vehicle occupants, or patrons of local businesses; and/or deposited on the commercial and residential properties. The project area is inhabited at the terminus of the project area on either side of the creek. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 5 Table 1 Estimated Daily Project Emissions Phase (Year) Emissions Pounds Per Day (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO PM111 PM2.1 Construction period (Dec 2009 - May 2011) Estimated Maximum Total Daily Project Emissions (Unmitigated) 7 52 26 8 3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55 Project totals may not appear as the sum of applicable phases due to rounding. Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1113; see Standard Conditions AIR-1 and AIR-2. VOC and CO emissions would occur on the days when paving, building construction, and architectural coating occur simultaneously. NOX, PM1o, and PM2 5 emissions would occur on the days when demolition and grading activities overlap. Construction activities may generate temporary odors from asphalt installation, painting, or other typical construction tasks. While these odors may not be desirable, they would not occur in the intensity or duration to be considered substantially objectionable in proximity to sensitive receptors. The impact from odor would be less than significant. Operations (Post Construction) Once constructed and operational, the bridge and roadways will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek in the area. The proposed project does not generate new vehicle trips in the area or generate operation pollutant emissions; therefore, operational emissions were not calculated using the roadway model utilized for construction emissions. Traffic in the surrounding region is anticipated to utilize this crossing and roadway to access 1-15 and SR-79, thereby diverting and reducing traffic from other local roadways, creek crossings, and 1-15 interchanges (e.g., the Rancho California Road crossing and 1-15 interchange). Thus, vehicle pollutant emissions in the surrounding region would not be substantially changed with the proposed project. Therefore, the operational activities of the proposed project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; the impact would be less than significant. Conformity of the proposed project with the SIP is required by the federal CAA. The proposed project is listed in the SCAG's 2008 RTP and 2008 RTIP and the project description of is consistent with the project description in the 2008 RTP and 2008 RTIP. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the assumptions contained in the SIP and thereby conforms to the SIP. Locally, traffic redirected on this creek crossing would result in local traffic emissions along the improved segment of Pujol Street and increased local emissions on the existing approaches to the crossing from the paved segment of Pujol Street, Old Town Front Street, and the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. Localized traffic emissions from the proposed project would EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 6 include fugitive dust, CO, and odors; however, for this project they would not occur in the intensity or duration to be considered substantial in proximity to sensitive receptors to warrant further analysis. Emission Reduction Measures The proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2006), which would result in minimizing PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. To further minimize short-term, construction-related PM emissions and off-site impacts, the following measures are recommended to reduce fugitive dust emissions, the Air Quality Element of the Temecula General Plan provides the following additional measures to reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions: • Water all active disturbed surface areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. • Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep away access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. In addition: • The contractor should discontinue construction activities during first- and second-stage smog alerts. • When feasible, the contractor should utilize existing power sources (i.e., temporary power poles) to minimize the use of diesel generators. • Whenever feasible the contractor should use construction equipment with USEPA Tier II, or Tier III, certification. 06080089 Westem Bypass Air Quality Memo. doc EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 7 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2007 2006 State Area Designations, effective July 26, 2007. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 2008 California Ambient Air Quality Standards. November 17. Temecula, City of 2005 General Plan, Noise Element. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2008a 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. Available at http://www.scag.ca. gov/rtp2008/ 2008b 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Available at http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtip/. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. August. 2006 Rule 403: Fugitive Dust (amended), website accessed on June 5. Available at hftp://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04/r4O3.pdf. 2007 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2008a National Ambient Air Quality Standards. October 20. 2008b Green Book, Criteria Pollutant Area Summary Report. December 17. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/oagps/greenbk/ancl2.htmi. EDAW I AECOM APPENDIX B Biological Resources Technical Memorandum EDAW Inc 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92101 T 619.233.1454 F 619.233.0952 www.edaw.com Memorandum Date: April 16, 2009 To: William Becerra, City of Temecula From: Shelly Dayman, Biologist, EDAW, Inc. Julie Wang, Project Manager, EDAW, Inc. Subject: Western Bypass Bridge Project - Biological Resources Technical Memorandum The City of Temecula (City) proposes to implement the Western Bypass Bridge project, which is a component of the future Western Bypass Corridor. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to demonstrate compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (Dudek 2003) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project's effects on biological resources. The project is not federally funded; therefore, no review or approval is required by the California Department of Transportation. This memorandum is prepared for the City as part of an environmental review required by CEQA, with the City acting as the lead CEQA agency. Therefore, City and CEQA standards are used in this analysis to determine biological resources impacts associated with the proposed project. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located in the southwestern portion of Temecula, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (1-15) near the 1-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway and State Route 79 (SR-79), in southwestern Riverside County, California. The project extends Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via the proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street. The site is approximately 3.1 acres. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). However, no channel improvements are to be implemented as part of the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final USACE channel. Rock slope protection (riprap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of four travel lanes (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour. Structure depth of the bridge is to be determined; however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. William Becerra, City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 2 During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of the pavement of Pujol Street. Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). PROJECT SETTING The project area is relatively level and flat with elevations ranging from 980 to 1,020 feet. The site is adjacent to and crosses the Murrieta Creek floodplain. Geographically, the project site is bounded by the southern extent of the DeLuz Mountains approximately 3,000 feet to the northwest, and the 1-15 corridor approximately 1,000 feet to the east. East of Murrieta Creek, the proposed project area is located in a commercial/industrial area near the southeast City limits in proximity to 1-15 and its interchange with Temecula Parkway and SR-79. The project area is located adjacent to commercial facilities at the intersection of Western Bypass and Old Town Front Street. Commercial land uses extend along Old Town Front Street north of the intersection and include restaurants, gas stations, an industrial facility, commercial shopping areas, office buildings, and a hotel located approximately 750 feet east of the proposed project staging area. West of the creek, the proposed project area is located in a rural area of undeveloped open space along Pujol Street. At the project's northern boundary at the paved end of Pujol Street, there are several multiple-family residential areas and a public park across the street. A neighborhood of single-family homes on large lots is located approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Pujol Street and the proposed Western Bypass extension, near the proposed bridge. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Vegetation types observed on-site are classified according to Holland (1986). Nonnative grassland is present on the west and east sides of Murrieta Creek. Plant species observed within these areas include red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), short-pod mustard (Brassica geniculata), red- stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.) Mulefat scrub is the dominant vegetation community present on-site within Murrieta Creek and plant species observed here include mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), willow (Salix sp.) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp). Other habitat types observed within the drainage include southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, open water/freshwater, and unvegetated channel. EDAW, Inc. (EDAW) conducted burrowing owl focused surveys for burrowing owl to determine the presence or absence of the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek near Pujol Street in Temecula. Suitable habitat for burrowing owl is present on-site and this EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 3 habitat is contiguous with other suitable habitat to the north and west of the project site. No burrowing owls were observed during focused surveys. IMPACTS Biological assessments were conducted to determine if the project is in compliance with the MSHCP. These assessments included impacts to burrowing owl and to riparian/riverine and vernal pool species. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl habitat was observed on-site as discussed above. Impacts to burrowing owl habitat are anticipated. To comply with Objective 6 of the Species Objectives for burrowing owl identified in the MSHCP, preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl will need to occur within 30 days prior to disturbance of the project site. Take of active nests will be avoided and, if burrowing owls are present, passive relocation outside of the nesting season is required. Assessment for Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Species Riparian habitat was observed on-site as discussed above. Impacts to riparian areas are anticipated and are unavoidable; therefore, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) will need to be prepared. The purpose of the DBESP is to minimize direct and indirect impacts to the riparian/riverine habitat on-site and the associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible. Species that are required to be addressed in areas per the MSHCP within riparian/riverine habitat include southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), least Bell's vireo (Vireo beilii pusillus), and the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentaiis). The project site is within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek flows southeast toward Temecula and near the junction of SR-79 and 1-15, Temecula Creek flows west and Murrieta Creek flows south and both drainages flow into the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River is approximately 0.5 mile to the south of the project site. Riparian habitat on-site is not wide enough or dense enough to support the western yellow-billed cuckoo, but the nearest known occurrence for this species is approximately 1 mile to the southwest. This occurrence is from the 1950s and along the Santa Margarita River. The riparian habitat on-site is too sparse for breeding habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell's vireo, but it does connect to the Santa Margarita River (less than 1 mile to the southeast) with thicker riparian vegetation. Flow was observed in the drainage in March 2009. The nearest location of least Bell's vireo to the project site is approximately 6 miles to the northwest; however, this area is now a subdivision so presumably the suitable habitat for this species was lost. No known records for southwestern willow flycatcher were found within 10 miles of the project site, but it is likely that the nearest occurrence of this species is within the Santa Margarita River. There are no known occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell's vireo within Murrieta Creek. Focused surveys for western yellow-billed cuckoo, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher are therefore not recommended and no further mitigation for riparian species are necessary. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 4 Mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, open channel, and open water were observed on the project site in association with the channel bank of Murrieta Creek. Approximately 0.45 acre of riparian habitat occurs within the permanent construction footprint and the acreage within the limits of temporary disturbance will be discussed in the jurisdictional delineation report (in preparation). The loss of approximately 0.3 acre of mulefat scrub, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.025 acre of open water/freshwater, and 0.05 acre of unvegetated channel will need to be mitigated and the details of this mitigation will need to be provided in a DBESP. The final calculations regarding permanent and temporary impacts to riparian habitat will be provided in the jurisdictional delineation report. Assessment for Vernal Pool Habitat/Fairy Shrimp The site is a riparian zone next to a highly developed area, within a 10-year floodplain with overland surface flow. No vernal pool species or habitat to support vernal pool species was observed or expected. Therefore, no habitat exists on-site for Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonr), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). MSHCP Conservation Area Identification and Objectives The site is within Independent Criteria Cell 7264 of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the MSHCP. Specifically the project is toward the southeastern and eastern portions of the cell. Cell 7264 is within Subunit 1: Murrieta Creek of the SWAP. The Criteria for Cell 7264 is the following: Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat within the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland, riparian scrub, woodland, forest and chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7166 to the north and to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7258 to the west and Cell 7355 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 70%-80% of the Cell focusing in the western portion and eastern edge of the Cell. The project site is also within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. The purpose of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 is to maintain connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (Existing Core F) to the north and Proposed Constrained Linkage 10 to the south. Constrained Linkage 13 is constrained by urban development and agricultural uses. Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area and links the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (Existing Core F) in the north to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Existing Core G) in the south. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 5 High-quality riparian habitat is important within these linkages to provide habitat for yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo. Other species important in this linkage include western pond turtle, arroyo chub, Cooper's hawk, southwestern willow flycatcher, and tree swallow. Since the project site is directly adjacent and within the area described by the MSHCP Conservation Criteria for conservation, Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines will be applied to construction and project design. These guidelines are included in Appendix F of the burrowing owl focused survey report (EDAW 2009). Special Terms and Conditions for Permit TE-088609-0 (Western Riverside County MSHCP Take Permit) According to the current site plan, approximately 0.34 acre of Riversidian sage scrub habitat is present on-site within the project limits. Therefore, to comply with the MSHCP take permit, no clearing of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat on-site can occur between March 1 and April 15. Construction As noted above, to comply with Objective 6 of the Species Objectives for burrowing owl identified in the MSHCP, preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl will need to occur within 30 days prior to disturbance of the project site. Take of active nests will be avoided and, if burrowing owls are present, passive relocation outside of the nesting season is required. Standard best management practices as outlined in Appendix C of the MSHCP will be employed during construction. A copy of these practices is included here (Appendix A). Operations As noted above, since the project site is directly adjacent and within the area described by the MSHCP Conservation Criteria for conservation, Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines will be applied to construction and project design. These guidelines are included in Appendix F of the burrowing owl focused survey report (EDAW 2009). REFERENCES Dudek. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Final Document. June. EDAW, Inc. 2009. Summary Report of Focused Surveys for the Western Burrowing Owl within the Western Bypass Project in the City of Murrieta, California, Assessor Parcel Numbers 922-110- 044, 922-110-045, -021, -032 and 922-210-062, -063, -057, -059, -011. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. EDAW I AECOM APPENDIX A STANDARD BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES STANDARD BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (from the MSHCP 2003, Appendix C) A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. 2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. 3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. 4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. 5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. 6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. 7. When stream,flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. 8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. 9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure thatpracticable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. 11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. 12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extentfeasible. 13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All_ food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). 14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. 15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs. APPENDIX C Burrowing Owl Survey Report EDAW Inc 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620, San Diego, California 92101 T 619.233.1454 F 619.233.0952 www.edaw.com April 16, 2009 William Becerra City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Summary Report of Focused Surveys for the Western Burrowing Owl within the Western Bypass Bridge Project in the City of Murrieta, California, Assessor Parcel Numbers 922-110-044, 922-110- 045, -021, -032 and 922-210-062, -063, -057, -059, -011 Dear Mr. Becerra In compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (Dudek 2003), EDAW, Inc. (EDAW) conducted burrowing owl focused surveys for burrowing owl to determine the presence or absence of the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek near Pujol Street in Temecula. The project is not federally funded; therefore, no review or approval is required by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This report is prepared for the City of Temecula (City) as part of an environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the City acting as the lead CEQA agency. Therefore, City and CEQA standards are used in this analysis to determine biological resources impacts associated with the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes to implement the Western Bypass Bridge project, which is a component of the future Western Bypass Corridor. The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (1-15) near the 1-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway and State Route 79 (SR-79) (Figures 1 and 2). The project extends Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via the proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street. The site is approximately 3.1 acres. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). However, no channel improvements are to be implemented as part of the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final USACE channel. Rock slope protection (riprap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of four travel lanes (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour (mph). Structure depth of the bridge is to be determined; however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of the pavement of Pujol Street. William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 2 Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). PROJECT SETTING AND SITE DESCRIPTION The project area is relatively level and flat with elevations ranging from 980 to 1,020 feet. The site is adjacent to and crosses the Murrieta Creek floodplain. Geographically, the project site is bounded by the southern extent of De Luz Mountains approximately 3,000 feet to the northwest, and the 1-15 corridor approximately 1,000 feet to the east. East of Murrieta Creek, the proposed project area is located in a commercial/industrial area near the southeast City limits in proximity to 1-15 and its interchange with Temecula Parkway and SR-79. The project area is located adjacent to commercial facilities at the intersection of Western Bypass and Old Town Front Street. Commercial land uses extend along Old Town Front Street north of the intersection and include restaurants, gas stations, an industrial facility, commercial shopping areas, office buildings, and a hotel located approximately 750 feet east of the proposed project staging area. West of the creek, the proposed project area is located in a rural area of undeveloped open space along Pujol Street. At the project's northern boundary at the paved end of Pujol Street, there are several multi-family residential areas and a public park across the street. A neighborhood of single-family homes on large lots is located approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Pujol Street and the proposed Western Bypass extension, near the proposed bridge. Vegetation types observed on-site are classified according to Holland (1986). Nonnative grassland is present on the west and east sides of Murrieta Creek. Plant species observed within these areas include red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), short-pod mustard (Brassica geniculata), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.) Mulefat scrub is the dominant vegetation community present on-site within Murrieta Creek and plant species observed here include mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), willow (Salix sp.) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.). Other habitat types observed within the drainage include southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and open water/freshwater and unvegetated channel. Riversidian sage scrub habitat is also present on the west side of Murrieta Creek. Within the 500-foot buffer zone surrounding the site are commercial developments to the east, residential areas to the north, and Riversidian sage scrub habitat to the west and south of the site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Burrowina Owl The BUOW is a species of special concern in California and has been declining in parts of its North American range (Haug et al. 1993; Klute et al. 2003). The BUOW is a small ground-dwelling owl found throughout western North America, Florida, Central and South America, and on several islands in the Caribbean (Haug et al. 1993; Clark 1997). To comply with Section 6.3.2, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, of the MSHCP, surveys for BUOW are required in areas with suitable habitat within the BUOW survey area. If BUOWs are observed, these owls shall be conserved in accordance with the procedures described in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Volume 1 and within the Burrowing Owl Species Account of the MSHCP. In areas with suitable habitat for this species, projects must comply with Objective 6 of the Species Account for Burrowing Owl, where preconstruction presence/absence EDAW I AECOM William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 3 surveys for BUOW must be conducted within 30 days prior to disturbance. If BUOWs are observed, take of active nests will be avoided through passive relocation outside of the nesting season. Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat To comply with Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools (MSHCP) all projects must be assessed for habitat for those species identified in this section of the MSHCP. Riparian/riverine areas are habitats dominated by trees, shrubs, forbs, mosses, and lichens, which occur near or depend on soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that contain all three indicators of wetland areas during the wet portion of the growing season (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) but usually lack vegetation and hydrology indicators during the drier part of the growing season. The determination that a site contains a vernal pool must be made on a case-by-case basis. Determinations should consider the length of time that the area exhibits upland or wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall system of a wetland. Site history, vegetation, soils, uses, weather, hydrologic records, and drainage characteristics should be used to gather evidence regarding the persistence of a site's wetness. Species that are required to be addressed in areas per the MSHCP within riparian/riverine habitat include southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trai!!li extimus), least Bell's vireo (Vireo be!!li pusillus), and the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Habitat for Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonr), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchr) must be assessed for all projects within western Riverside County. MSHCP Conservation Criteria and Obiectives The site is within Independent Cell 7264 of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), Subunit 1 Murrieta Creek of the MSHCP. The project will need to complete the Joint Project Review (JPR) process with the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). SURVEY METHODOLOGY EDAW biologists Shelly Dayman and Erik LaCoste conducted BUOW nesting season surveys. Surveys were initiated on March 1, 2009, and were concluded on March 31, 2009. Field survey notes are provided in Appendix A. Surveys were conducted according to The County of Riverside protocol (County of Riverside 2006). All suitable burrows were mapped during the habitat assessment (Figure 2). Surveys were conducted within 2 hours prior to dusk or up to 2 hours after dawn according to protocol requirements. Burrows were mapped using a Global Positioning System (GPS) in all suitable habitat during focused surveys. Plant and wildlife species detected during surveys were recorded and wildlife species observed during surveys are listed in Appendix B. The entirety of the proposed project area and a 500-foot buffer of the surrounding area were surveyed for BUOW BUOW surveys consisted of walking the entirety of the project site and buffer zone with 100% visual coverage while mapping all potential burrowing opportunities, BUOW signs, and BUOWs. Where physical access was not possible, areas were scoped for burrows, signs, or BUOWs. All observed BUOW burrows and signs are mapped in Figure 2. Site photographs were taken and are provided in Appendix C. RESULTS Table 1 provides survey dates, personnel, time, weather conditions, and recorded observations for protocol surveys for the Western Bypass Bridge project. Figure 2 displays all suitable BUOW burrows observed in 2009 surveys. No BUOWs were observed during surveys in 2009. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 4 Table 1. Burrowing Owl Focused Surveys Dates, Personnel, Time, Weather Conditions, and Observations Date Surveyors Time Weather Conditions Observations Start: 73-F, 4 to 5 mph, 10% cloud cover No BUOW 3/1/2009 Shelly Dayman 1625-1811 ° End: 70 F, 5 to 7 mph, 5% cloud cover observed Start: 57°F, 0 mph, 100% cloud cover No BUOW 3/9/2009 Erik LaCoste 0715 - 0850 End: 57°F, 2 to 4 mph, 85% cloud cover observed Start: 58°F, 6 to 10 mph, 0% cloud cover No BUOW 3!20/2009 Erik LaCoste 1815-1915 End: 56°F, 5 to 8 mph, 50% cloud cover observed Start: 44°F, 0 mph, 0% cloud cover No BUOW 3/31/2009 Erik LaCoste 0715 - 0830 End: 52°F, 0 mph, 0% cloud cover observed During the first BUOW survey (March 1, 2009), potential BUOW burrows were recorded and mapped (Figure 2). No BUOWs or definitive BUOW sign were observed. During the second protocol survey (March 9, 2009), no BUOWs or BUOW signs were observed. Several additional burrows capable of supporting BUOW were detected during the second survey and were subsequently included in later surveys. Although BUOWs were not detected, a coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica ) was detected in Riversidian coastal sage scrub habitat west of Murrieta Creek and Pujol Street during the survey (Figure 2). During the third survey (March 20, 2009), no burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign was observed. No other listed or sensitive species were detected during the third burrowing owl survey. A southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) was observed during the third survey (Figure 2) During the fourth survey (March 31, 2009), no burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign was observed. No other listed or sensitive species were detected during the fourth burrowing owl survey. Burrowing Owl Habitat BUOW habitat is present on-site on the west and east sides of Murrieta Creek within the nonnative grassland areas. These areas connect to other suitable habitat to the north of the project site (nonnative grassland and open areas). Riparian/Riverine Areas The project site is a proposed bridge crossing across Murrieta Creek. Riparian habitat is present within the project footprint and consists mainly of mulefat scrub in the channel. There is some southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, open water, and unvegetated channel present. The mulefat scrub is moderately thick within the drainage. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 5 Vernal Pool Areas The site is within and adjacent to M urrieta Creek. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted by EDAW biologist Joshua Zinn Uurisdictional delineation report currently in preparation). The site does not support vernal pools. Soils are fluvial sediments, which do not support an aquatard hardpan necessary for vernal pools. There is no vernal pool geology. The site is a riparian zone next to a highly developed area, within a 10-year floodplain with overland surface flow. No vernal pool species or habitat to support vernal pool species was observed or expected. Therefore, no habitat exists on-site for Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Other Species Observations During the burrowing owl surveys, one male coastal California gnatcatcher, a federally threatened species, was observed on March 9, 2009. This individual was observed calling from the Riversidian coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to Pujol Street on the west side of Murrieta Creek. The gnatcatcher displayed a fully developed black cap, typical of the male species during the breeding season. However, an accompanying female was not observed. A southern California rufous-crowned sparrow from the CDFG Special Animal List was observed on March 20, 2009. (CDFG 2008). This individual was observed in the same vicinity as the gnatcatcher. Locations of these species are depicted in Figure 2. a] V16111*1IQZ Burrowina Owl Suitable habitat for BUOW is present on-site and this habitat is contiguous with other suitable habitat to the north and west of the project site. No BUOWs were observed during focused surveys. To comply with Objective 6 of the Species Objectives for BUOW identified in the MSHCP, preconstruction presence/absence surveys for BUOW will need to occur within 30 days prior to disturbance of the project site. Take of active nests will be avoided and, if BUOWs are present, passive relocation outside of the nesting season is required. Assessment for Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Species Riparian habitat was observed on-site as discussed above. Impacts to riparian areas are anticipated and are unavoidable, therefore a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) will need to be prepared. The purpose of the DBESP is to minimize direct and indirect impacts to the riparian/riverine habitat on-site and the associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible. Species that are required to be addressed in areas per the MSHCP within riparian/riverine habitat include southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and the western yellow-billed cuckoo. The project site is within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek flows southeast toward Temecula and near the junction of SR-79 and 1-15, Temecula Creek flows west, and Murrieta Creek flows south; both drainages flow into the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River is approximately 0.5 mile to the south of the project site. Riparian habitat on-site is not wide enough or dense enough to support the western yellow-billed cuckoo, but the nearest known occurrence for this species is approximately 1 mile to the southwest. This occurrence is from the 1950s and along the Santa Margarita River. The riparian habitat on-site is too sparse for breeding habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell's vireo, but it does connect to the Santa Margarita River (less than 1 mile to the southeast), which has thicker riparian vegetation. Flow was observed in the drainage in March 2009. The California Natural Diversity Database EDAW I AECOM William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 6 (CNDDB) was consulted and the nearest location of least Bell's vireo to the project site is approximately 6 miles to the northwest; however, this area is now a subdivision so presumably the suitable habitat for this species was lost at this location. No known records for southwestern willow flycatcher were found within 10 miles of the project site (CNDDB 2009), but it is likely that the nearest occurrence of this species is within the Santa Margarita River. There are no known occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell's vireo within Murrieta Creek. Focused surveys for western yellow-billed cuckoo, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher are therefore not recommended and no further mitigation for riparian species are necessary. Mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, open channel, and open water were observed on the project site in association with the channel bank of Murrieta Creek. Approximately 0.45 acre of riparian habitat occurs within the permanent construction footprint and the acreage within the limits of temporary disturbance will be discussed in the jurisdictional delineation report (in preparation). The loss of approximately 0.3 acre of mulefat scrub, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.025 acre of open water/freshwater and 0.05 acre of unvegetated channel will need to be mitigated and the details of this mitigation will need to be provided in a DBESP. The final calculations regarding permanent and temporary impacts to riparian habitat will be provided in the jurisdictional delineation report. Assessment for Vernal Pool Habitat/Fairy Shrim The site is a riparian zone next to a highly developed area, within a 10-year floodplain with overland surface flow. No vernal pool species or habitat to support vernal pool species was observed or expected. Therefore, no habitat exists on-site for Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA IDENTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES The site is within Independent Criteria Cell 7264 of the SWAP of the MSHCP. Specifically, the project is toward the southeastern and eastern portions of the cell. Cell 7264 is within Subunit 1: Murrieta Creek of the SWAP. The Criteria for cell 7264 is the following: Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat within the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland, riparian scrub, woodland, forest and chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7166 to the north and to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7258 to the west and Cell 7355 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 70%-80% of the Cell focusing in the western portion and eastern edge of the Cell. The project site is also within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10 (linkage summaries are provided in Appendix D). The purpose of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 is to maintain connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (Existing Core F) to the north and Proposed Constrained Linkage 10 to the south. Constrained Linkage 13 is constrained by urban development and agricultural uses. Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area and links the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (Existing Core F) in the north to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Existing Core G) in the south. High-quality riparian habitat is important within these linkages to provide habitat for yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), yellow-breasted chat (lcteria vixens), and least Bell's vireo. Other species important in this linkage EDAW I AECOM William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 7 include western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), arroyo chub (Gila orcuttr), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperir), southwestern willow flycatcher, and tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). The project is within MSHCP Criteria Cells so the project will need to complete the Joint Project Review (JPR) process with the RCA. The purpose of this process is to determine whether projects are consistent with the MSHCP. The JPR application for this project is provided in Appendix E. Since the project site is directly adjacent and within the area described by the MSHCP Conservation Criteria for conservation, Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines will be applied to construction and project design. These guidelines are included in Appendix F. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERMIT TE-088609-0 (WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP TAKE PERMIT) According to the current site plan, approximately 0.34 acre of Riversidian sage scrub habitat is present on-site within the project limits. Therefore, to comply with the MSHCP take permit, no clearing of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat on-site can occur between March 1 and April 15. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT Qualified EDAW biologists who conducted BUOW surveys for the Western Bypass Project certify that the information in this survey report fully and accurately represents the work performed by EDAW biologists. The signatures of current EDAW biologists Shelly Dayman and Erik LaCoste, who conducted the protocol surveys are included below. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Shelly Dayman at (619) 233-1454. Sincerely, Ely Dayman Wildlife Biologist Attachments: Figure 1 - Regional Map Figure 2 - Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Erik LaCoste Wildlife Biologist abitat Map - Field Notes -Wildlife Species Detected during BUOW Surveys - Site Photographs - MSHCP Linkage Summaries -Joint Project Review (JPR) Application - Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines -Fuels Management 06080089 Miesfern Bypass Bridge BUOW Svy Rpf doc EDAW I AECOM William Becerra City of Temecula April 16, 2009 Page 8 LITERATURE CITED California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. Special Animals List. www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Spanimals.pdf. February. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. County of Riverside. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions: For the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Clark, R. J. 1997. A review of the taxonomy and distribution of the burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), p. 14-23. In: Lincer, J. L. and Steenhoff, K. (eds.). The burrowing owl, its biology and management, Raptor Research Report No. 9. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. Dudek. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Final Document. June. Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America. Edited by Poole, A. and Gill, F. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and American Ornithologists Union, Washington D.C. No. 61. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Klute, D. S., Ayers, L. W., Green, M. T., Howe, W. H., Jones, S. L., Shaffer, J. A., Sheffield, S. R., and Zimmerman, T. S. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United Sates. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Tech. Publ. No. FWS/BTPR6001-2003, Washington, D.C. EDAW I AECOM FIGURES \/_M/ I , 1*11XO Lake Elsinore Westem Bypass Bridge Project P.12006106030W Western By~z s Bri it, ' r r<r icsL 'gures4FIg ln> e~.<r (doraq) 04,09 0 Regional Map 922130016 922130011 922130006 922130007 922170001 ~ 92217_0002 922130009 _ S 922130010 a 922130017 r 922130018 r tl 922080004 't 922210060 ylI 22210060 I 922210061 . 922120017 922080006 _ 922120018 1, - y 922080007 922120019 t 'y Q 922120016 r S~ 922120008 5 ~I fJ 92211Q0m ti 922120009 - _rf 922110036 t I % - d - y 922110029 r= 'S L 92221059 922120010 tt 92221 i>} 0) 922210057 I 11 I Lr 922120011, 922120012 y tl- II I _'y 922120013 11 922110030 k 922110031 1 922120014) 92211 07 922210063 e e 1 e y' 1 Y t L7 922094002 922110038 4 r` 14 922110027 922210062 922093003 922110040 922110042 922110039 _ 922110019 = = 922110041 922110022, 922110008 922110032 922110018 922110043 922210049 922110026 . _ _ f ~t 922110021 922110010 922100023 922100022 0 ~1~ o I 922210011 t _ III 922 1004 Legend i Legend 922100010 0 Project Lir 2110044 922110013 Survey Ar 0 Project Limits ® Survey Area 922100021 - G 1 0 Staging AI 0 Staging Area Parcel Bo Parcel Boundaries 4 - 9221ooo206 r 922260006 t, 922110014 % 94o32oo07 Habitat Type Habitat Type 922100008 ~r 1~ 922260005 =5 ~ 1 - Developed/Disturbed - J= sz---o oa'' s O 1 Developer 922106627~ 9222s o3 922260)07 ti 922110012 a Q Mulefat Si _~s22zsooo2-= 92260068 940320006 Riversidia ® Mulefat Scrub 3 922260019 try 922260013 Riversidian Sage Scrub : Wildlife Obsev 92226 oo1 $ 922260001 ` 9-2zsoo17\ f= Wildlife Observations --r 922260010, ' 2260012 a Surveyed = Q Surveyed Suitable BUOW Burrow Locations 9 r 92226000;~, rte 9222600 940320005 Q California ~22260027 =11~,/~ = = J r 1922260020 0 California gnatcatcher (3/19/09) V 922260021 LJ 12 C' Rufous cr 9402400 0 Rufous-crowned sparrow (3120109) 940320004 922260026 940240C x40240002 :-nurra. T, ❑n,..Ianuar .nn ; CiT~ nt Temacula,.Januir. :nn ; Count, of Riverside 2007; ESRI 2009 Figure 2 Q 275 137.5 0 275 Feet Scale: 1:3,300; 1 inch = 275 feet Habitat Map Western Bypass Bridge Project Path: P:I2006I06080089W dernBypass&idgel5GIS1MRD18101HABFAYI3zbitatMap_090$14.mxd 0412WO9, ShahS2 APPENDIX A FIELD NOTES Burrowing Owl (BW) Survey Recorder, 5D) UntAA Add'I Person: Project: C.) Survey Sxn: GPS Unit: Survey Type: START Time: Temp (F°): END Time: Temp (F°): Number Presence W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other i} P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other c W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other Date: 3lI~OQ Map Survey of Wind/Dir: L+JVS k %GC/PCp: Joel, GL Wind/Dir: ¢e % CC/Pcp: T- BW T.c", B- Bones (from d.,.detl pellets), SSGCks Page of Burrowing Owl (SW) Survey - Other Species Observations oe,.. - k AHRI P.,en flat.' -0.1110,1 Page of Burrowing Owl (BW) Survey Recorder: I&k Project: WOO Tee t &v' lA66 GPS Unit: START Time: 011 5 END Time: D95~ I' Add'l Person: ► V A15 Date: Survey Sxn: i:✓+iv't Map Ig Jac - Survey Type: t?Uouu 1~(nUCr~ Survey of Temp (F°): 5-4- Wind/Dir: Cj % CC/Pcp: t07~ Temp (F°): 5,?- Wind/Dir: i l 61L % CC/Pcp: 0,6 ~2 Burrow Number BW Presence BW Sign Presence' (circle) Observations (note Burrow Condition, or note BW-# activity) W P T B S Other ~Vi k1~ (ld✓Jv~S O SP~✓ - no goo-i W P T B S Other 51W OT UGSr?in e fGGVJ .~~o W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other wow ( Comments CAIN ~ 06WV60_ 3a,Gclti~ & 6 fu, oL v\Io9t' o ~i vtc-~ for 15I ~~ll Cad'- ~,Jeec~;tv~c~ 5iu,~-v5 ~N1cno~~. 'BW Sign =W-Whitewash, P-Pellets, T- BW Tracks, B- Bones (from degraded pellets), S-Sticks Page ( of Burrowing Owl (BW) Survey Recorder: L Project: (~i/~Cy~'asS GPS Unit: ' START Timer END Time: / Add'I Person: on i5 Date: Survey Sxn: A U.- Map Survey Type: 1,wy P Gw--- Z7s Survey- of Temp (F°):-_ Wind/Dir: (y Pe to m % CC/Pep: Temp (F°): 5 & Wind/Dir. 5 Ape, A no,,~ % CC/Pcp: Burrow Number BW Presence BW Sign Presence' (circle) Observations (note Burrow Condition, or note BW-# activity) W P T B S Other ? {70 TDW 0Bs-ia;-i✓V`zi;5- W P T B S Other W P T B S Other Bt ~ ~tir~L l l!f% ~1~UVY1I~ 54)Lf/rcc// W P T B S Other tJ S/ ?Z (/i - ()M. 5- W P T B S Other K&M N 16 D1/~~ r~zrJ SC-e /27-,- W P T B S Other tmAhDl;V W P T B S Other W P T B S Other 7C 5 &Y1n ✓V1 Zr: r t/ ° ~il~O L W P T B S Other S:J/a,l~i7(.(J / 1,~,~P sU>°G~ yYJG(?~ W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B -S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B - S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B -S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other W P T B - S Other W P T B S Other W P T B S Other Comments =W-Whitewash, P-Pellets, T- BW Tracks, B- Bones (from degraded pellets), S-Sticks Page of i APPENDIX B WILDLIFE SPECIES DETECTED DURING BUOW SURVEYS Appendix B Wildlife Species Detected during BUOW Surveys Scientific Names Common Names Birds Order Charadriiformes Family Scolopacidae Trin a melanoleuca greater yellowlegs Order Columbiformes Pi eons, Doves, Solitaires and Dodos Family Columbidae Zenaida macroura mourning dove Order Falconiformes Diurnal Birds of Pre Family Falconidae Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Order Passeriformes Perching Birds Family Corvidae Corvus brach rh nchos American crow Family Emberizidae Aimo hila rufice s canescens Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Pi ilo crissalis California towhee Family Icteridae Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Family Sylviidae Polio tila californica californica coastal California natcatcher* Mammals Order La omor ha Rabbits, Hares and Pikas Family Le oridae S !vile us audubonii desert cottontail Order Rodentia Gnawing Mammals Family Geom idae Thomom s bottae Botta's pocket gopher Family Sciuridae S uirrels, Chipmunks, Marmots, Prairie Dogs S ermo hilus beeche i California ground squirrel *Federally/State Threatened or Endangered Species **CDFG Sensitive Wildlife Species/ Species of Special Concern APPENDIX C SITE PHOTOGRAPHS View within Murrieta Creek to the north (03/01/2009) t r may- Nonnative grasses on View from 1 ~ a a _ \ I ~ . Vu a tY STN? a s y„ View of M 1Y igl~IA~~ j ( ~ t J x t - J Y t7 Nfr ~ 4 ~ " 1°~"~~Nll~kkh ~ r $ 4 1 ~ 1 ~ k 11 e~ t ~ L t i P, l~ ~ ~ t 11 I k f:. ~ J~1 ~L ~ 'S h + ~ -1 1 , ! 'kl .ii „17 d t ` A xyy} S 4j ~ J M central portion toward the southwest (03101/2009) View of nonnative grassland area to the west of Murrieta Creek, near the southwestern area of the site (03/01/2009) APPENDIX D MSHCP LINKAGE SUMMARIES Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 1o in the south. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban Development and agricultural use and the planned land use surrounding the Linkage consists of city (Murrieta and Temecula). Therefore, care must be taken to maintain high quality riparian Habitat within the Linkage and along the edges for species such as yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the creek. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek is also important to western pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Planning Species: Cooper's hawk, yellow warbler, southwestern willow flycatcher, tree swallow, least Bell's vireo, and western pond turtle Proposed Linkage io Proposed Linkage 1o consists of an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Existing Core G (Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) in the south. Private lands compose the entirety of the Linkage, which consists of upland Habitat complementary to the riparian Linkage provided between these two Cores by Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). This Linkage, which is only somewhat constrained by existing urban Development, provides for movement between these two Cores for species such as bobcat and mountain lion. Although the Linkage is somewhat lengthy at 5.5 miles, it is also nearly a mile wide and thus provides Live-In Habitat for many species. Surrounding planned land uses are approximately evenly divided between Rural Mountainous and city (Murrieta, Temecula). In areas of the Linkage bordering Cities, treatment of edge conditions will be necessary to maintain the proper Habitat and movement functions of the Linkage. Planning Species: southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, turkey vulture, mountain quail, bobcat, mountain lion, California black walnut, and Engelman oak. APPENDIX E JOINT PROJECT REVIEW (JPR) APPLICATION WESTERN RIVERSIDE MSHCP JOINT PROJECT REVIEW PUBLIC PROJECTS DATE: 4/13/2009 PERMITTEE: The City of Temecula PROJECT NAME: Western Bypass Bridge Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Western Bypass Bridge project (project) is proposed by the City of Temecula (City). The City proposes to implement the proposed project, which is a component of the future Western Bypass Corridor. The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (1-15) near the 1-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 (SR-79). The project area extends Western Bypass Oust west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Puiol Street via the proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1.000 feet to join with the paved portion of Puiol Street. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). However, no channel improvements are to be implemented as part of the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final ACOE channel. Rock slope protection (rip-rap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of four travel lanes (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour. Structure depth of the bridge is to be determined: however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Puiol Street will be utilized as a construction staaing area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of pavement of Puiol Street. Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project. CONTACT PERSON: William Becerra A. IS THE PROJECT A COVERED ACTIVITY? (SEE SEC. 7.0 OF MSHCP) YES ~ NO ❑ List Section and page # Section 7.3.7 Flood Control Facilities B. PLAN WIDE SURVEYS 1. Does all or part of the project fall within Narrow Endemic survey area? (Fig. 6-1, Table 6-1 of MSHCP) YES ❑ NO ~ Area 1 ❑ Area 2 ❑ Area 3 ❑ Area 4 ❑ Area 5 ❑ Area 6 ❑ Area 7 ❑ Area 8 ❑ Area 9 ❑ a. Is the habitat in footprint suitable? YES ❑ NO ❑ NA ~ Survey required if habitat suitable within mapped survey area. Habitat assessment/Survey attached? 2. Does the project support Riverine/Riparian habitat or vernal pools? YES ~ NO ❑ a. If yes, is the habitat or vernal pool avoided? YES ❑ NO ~ NIA ❑ If no, must be mapped and functions and values assessed if property considered a priority acquisition for MSHCP or may affect downstream values to Covered Species in Conservation Area. A DBESP will need to be prepared for the project site. The functions and values of the riparian area were assessed in the Jurisdictional Delineation. No vernal pool habitat was observed on or adjacent to the site. b. If Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool not avoided attach Biologically Equivalent or Superior Analysis. Attached? Approximately 0.45 acre of riparian habitat occurs within the permanent construction footprint and the acreage within the limits of temporary disturbance will be discussed in the jurisdictional delineation report. The loss of approximately 0.3 acre of mulefat scrub, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.025 acre of open water/freshwater and 0.05 acre of unvegetated channel will need to be mitigated and the details of this mitigation will need to be provided in a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). DBES analysis must be submitted to Wildlife c. If suitable habitat for LBV, SWF, or WYC identified, must conduct protocol survey. Suitable habitat for LBV, SWF and WYC was determined that is not to be present on the project site or within 500 feet of the project site. The results are detailed in the burrowing owl report attached here. Wetland Delineation/Survey attached? In separate document, to be provided with JPR 3. Does the Project fall within Burrowing Owl Survey Area? (Fig. 6-4) YES ~ NO ❑ Is there suitable habitat? YES ~ NO ❑ Survey required if habitat suitable within mapped survey area. Habitat assessment/Survey attached? Survey attached. No burrowing owls were observed on the project site during the focused survey. • Conservation standard: 90% avoidance of property that provides long term conservation value until RCA makes Finding of Equivalency demonstrating species goals have been met or Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation has been made. C. URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE Demonstrate compliance as needed when Conservation lands boundaries are known. Refer to Sec. 6.1.4 Drainage The protect will comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The runoff discharge into the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Untreated surface runoff from paved areas should not flow into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, exotic plant materials etc. that may harm biological resources or ecosystem processes in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mechanical trapping devices to ensure that runoff does not enter the Conservation Area will be incorporated into project design and regular maintenance of these devices will occur. Toxics Chemicals that may be potentially toxic or may adversely affect the habitat, water quality or wildlife species will not be discharged into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures to avoid discharge of chemicals, such as those used to for drainage issues shall be implemented. Lighting Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. Shielding will be used to ensure night lighting will not be increased within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Noise Noise within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not exceed residential noise standards. Berms or walls will be constructed if necessary to minimize the effects of noise on the MSHCP Conservation Area. Invasives The plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP shall be avoided in all landscaping plans. These species are considered invasive, non-native plant species. Barriers Barriers shall be incorporated into project desian, as feasible, to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and other appropriate mechanisms. Grading/Land development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development will not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. D. PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC LAND. Does the project require "...use Public/Quasi-Public lands within the MSHCP Conservation Area in a way that alters the land use such that it would not contribute to Reserve Assembly? Yes ❑ No ~ If Yes, attach Biologically Equivalent or Superior Analysis per 10(a) permit cond.#17, submit to Wildlife agencies. 2. If PQP land use is permanent, replace acreage no less than 1:1. Acreage? E. CRITERU AREA SURVEYS Is the Project in or partially in a Criteria Area? (See Fig. 3-4 thru 3-35 or Criteria Cells layer on side in Arcview) YES ~ NO ❑ List Cell #s 7264, Independent Cell SURVEYS 1. Does the Project fall within Criteria Area Plant Survey area? (Fig. 6-2) YES ❑ NO ~ Area 1 ❑ Area 2 ❑ Area 3 ❑ Area 4 ❑ Area 5 ❑ Area 6 ❑ Area 7 ❑ Area 8 a. If yes, is the habitat suitable? YES ❑ NO ❑ NA ❑ Survey required if habitat suitable within mapped survey area. Habitat assessment/Survey attached? • Conservation standard: 90% avoidance of property that provides long term conservation value until RCA makes Finding of Equivalency demonstrating species goals have been met or Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation has been made. 2. Does the Project fall within Criteria Area Amphibian Survey Area? (Fig. 6-3) YES ❑ NO ~ If yes, survey required. Survey attached? • Conservation standard: 90% avoidance of property that provides long term conservation value until RCA makes Finding of Equivalency demonstrating species goals have been met or Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation has been made. 3. Does the Project fall within Criteria Area Mammal Survey Area? (Fig. 6-5) YES ❑ NO ~ If yes, survey required. Survey attached? • Conservation standard: 90% avoidance of property that provides long term conservation value until RCA makes Finding of Equivalency demonstrating species goals have been met or Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation has been made. F. VEGETATION MAPPING List acres of impact by habitat type (See Figure 6-6 for Rough Step Analysis Unit No.) Unit No. Map attached? Yes ~ No ❑ Included in Jurisdictional Delineation Report Coastal Sage Scrub acres 0.34 acre Desert Scrub acres n/a Grasslands acres n/a Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 0.45 acres permanent, temporary impacts to be provided in jurisdictional delineation report Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub n/a Woodland and Forests acres n/a Playas and Vernal Pools acres n/a G. COVERED ACTIVITIES IN CRITERIA AREAS OR PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC LANDS ❑ NA (Applies to roads only) 7.5.1 Siting and Design - List any required siting and design guidance implemented on project A portion of the project occurs on an existing road (Puiol Street) and includes the construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. 7.5.2 Wildlife Crossings - List any required wildlife crossing provisions incorporated into project No new wildlife crossings are anticipated. 7.5.3 Construction - List any required construction guidelines to be implemented Project will comply with BMPs. Appendix C/Best Management Practices - List any required BMPS to be implemented BMPs for this project are outlined in detail in the Western Bypass Bridge as an appendix to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. H. MITIGATION ❑ Maintenance/Safety Projects (Sec. 7.2.1, 7.3.4) exempt ❑ Transportation Infrastructure - Regional payments from Measure A, TUMF or use of Caltrans Mitigation Bank for Caltrans facilities ❑ Public infrastructure in PQP lands - purchase and dedication of Conservation Area lands at no less than 1:1 ❑ Public Facilities (other than roads, utilities as Participating Special Entities) payment of Development Mitigation Fee (commercial/industrial per acre fee) Flood Control - 3% of capital costs, may be offset by replacement or creation of Habitat ❑ Parks -1:1 replacement habitat and/or payment of Development Mitigation (commercial/industrial per acre fee) ❑ Waste - landfill tipping fees 1. CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION The project is consistent with the Western Riverside MSHCP Signature Date APPENDIX F URBANIWILDLANDS INTERFACE GUIDELINES Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban Wildlands Interface Wildlife CorridorslLinkages The project site is within an area described for conservation to maintain connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (Existing Core F) to the north and Proposed Constrained Linkage 10 to the south, the purpose of Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area and links the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve in the north to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Existing Core G) in the south. High quality riparian habitat is important within these linkages to provide habitat for yellow warbler, yellow breasted chat and least Bell's vireo. Other species important in this linkage include western pond turtle, arroyo chub, Cooper's hawk, southwestern willow flycatcher and tree swallow. The maintenance of floodplain processes and water quality along the creek through the incorporation of the following UrbanNVildlands Interface Guidelines is important to support the Conservation Criteria of Cell 7264. Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines The project site is within Cell 7264 of Subunit 1 of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Conservation Criteria for these cells describes the conservation of the Murrieta Creek channel including riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat with chaparral habitat. Since the project site is within the area described for conservation, the following mitigation measures are stipulated in order to comply with Section 6.1.4 of the MSCHP. Drainage The project will comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The runoff discharge into the MSHCP Conservation Area will not be altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Untreated surface runoff from paved areas will not flow into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, exotic plant materials etc. that may harm biological resources or ecosystem processes in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mechanical trapping devices to ensure that runoff does not enter the Conservation Area will be incorporated into project design and regular maintenance of these devices will occur. Toxics Chemicals that may be potentially toxic or may adversely affect the habitat, water quality or wildlife species will not be discharged into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures to avoid discharge of chemicals, such as those used to for drainage issues will be implemented. Lighting Night lighting will be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. Shielding will be used to ensure night lighting will not be increased within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Noise Noise within the MSHCP Conservation Area will not exceed residential noise standards. Berms or walls will be constructed if necessary to minimize the effects of noise on the MSHCP Conservation Area. Invasives The plant species listed in Table 6-2 (Appendix A) of the MSHCP will be avoided in all landscaping plans. These species are considered invasive, non-native plant species. Barriers Barriers will be incorporated into project design, as feasible, to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and other appropriate mechanisms. Barrier plans will focus on the exclusion of domestic predators from the Conservation Area. Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development will not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. APPENDIX G FUELS MANAGEMENT Compliance with Section 6.4 Fuels Management The proposed project will have MHSCP reserve areas adjacent to the project, the MSHCP reserve area is adjacent to existing developed areas, so brush management zones may have to encroach into the MSHCP Conservation Area, but this encroachment should be avoided whenever possible. APPENDIX D Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum EDAW Inc 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92101 T 619.233.1454 F 619.233.0952 www.edaw.com Memorandum Date: February 23, 2009 To: William Becerra, City of Temecula From: Cheryl Bowden-Renna, Archaeologist, EDAW, Inc. Julie Wang, Project Manager, EDAW, Inc. Subject: Western Bypass Bridge Project - Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum The purpose of this technical memorandum is to report on the completion of the archaeological investigation conducted for the proposed Western Bypass Project. This letter report was prepared following the guidelines in Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (OHP 1989). T.Y. Lin International contracted EDAW, Inc. (EDAW) to conduct a literature review for the project area and perform a cultural resources investigation within the proposed project area. A literature review was conducted by EDAW on January 16, 2007, at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) housed at University of California, Riverside. An update was conducted on December 23, 2008. The City is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes to implement the proposed project, which is a component of a future Western Bypass Corridor. The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (1-15) near the 1-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 (SR-79). The project area extends Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek via the proposed bridge to Pujol Street, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the end of pavement of Pujol Street. The proposed project would include the paved extension of Western Bypass from just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street to Pujol Street. It would include the construction of a roadway bridge across Murrieta Creek, and the paving of Pujol Street northward, to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street at the project area boundary. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). However, no channel improvements are to be implemented for the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final ACOE channel. Rock slope protection (rip-rap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of a four-lane roadway (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour. Structure depth of the bridge has not been determined; William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 2 however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of pavement of Pujol Street. Completion of the Western Bypass Project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City' General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). PROJECT PERSONNEL Rebecca McCorkle Apple, M.A., RPA, served as principal investigator and Christy Dolan provided technical review. Letter report preparation was conducted by Cheryl Bowden-Renna and Monica Strauss. Fieldwork was conducted by both Ms. Strauss and Candace Ehringer. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Attachment A. NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM The City is in the process of initiating the Native American consultation. EDAW requested a check of the Sacred Land File, which was performed by the Native American Heritage Commission, and failed to indicate a presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NACH also provided a list of groups or individuals who may have information regarding sacred sites in the area or may have concerns regarding the proposed project. The City of Temecula will communicate with any Native American individual or group that may possess knowledge regarding Sacred Sites or other sites that may be affected by the current project. NATURAL SETTING The project area is located in Temecula and crosses Murrieta Creek. Temecula is located in the central portion of the Temecula Valley in southwestern Riverside County. The Temecula Valley is a narrow northwest-southeast-trending corridor bordered on the west by the Santa Ana and Elsinore mountains. Murrieta Creek parallels the valley and is part of the 348,456-acre Santa Margarita River watershed. Originating just south of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta Creek flows southwest a distance of nearly 14 miles before joining Temecula Creek to form the Santa Margarita River just east of Temecula. In the vicinity of the project site, Murrieta Creek remains in essentially a natural state with minimal past channel construction. Here the creek is approximately 150 feet wide and is composed primarily of medium to coarse sand. The project area lies within the floodplain of Murrieta Creek. This location presents the possibility that intact cultural materials may be buried under fluvial silt deposits. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 3 Prior to urban development, natural vegetation in the area was dominated by coastal sage scrub plant communities common to the hot, dry climate of coastal southern California (Munz 1974). Typical plant species within the coastal sage scrub communities include lemonade-berry (Rhos integrifolia), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), coastal sagebush (Artemsia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonium fasciculatum), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), bushrue (Cneoridium dumosum), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). These plant species provided important food and medicinal resources that could have been used by Native Americans. In general, soils observed within the project area consisted of light tan, coarse loam to medium sandy loams belonging to the Las Posas association. Approximately 60 percent of the project area consists of soils derived from the Cajalco, Las Posas, and Wyman loams (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ WebSoilSurvey.aspx). CULTURAL SETTING A variety of syntheses of the prehistory of southern California have been proposed by such authors as Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968). The prehistory of Riverside County, specifically, is most often described by chronological sequences developed for nearby northern San Diego County (see True 1958, 1980). Prehistory The sequence begins in the Paleoindian period (11,500 to 8,500 years before present [B.P.]), a time in which adaptations were formerly believed to have been focused on the hunting of large game but are now recognized to represent more generalized hunting and gathering, with considerable emphasis on marine resources in coastal regions (Erlandson 1994). The following period, the Archaic (8500-1500 B.P.), is traditionally seen as encompassing both a coastal and an inland focus, with the coastal Archaic represented by the shell middens of the La Jolla complex (Rogers 1939) and the inland Archaic represented by the Pauma complex (True 1958, 1980). Sites associated with the Pauma complex typically contain relatively little midden and shallow or surface artifacts including bifacial manos, oval basin metates, scrapers, hammer stones, and less commonly projectile points and knives (True 1958, 1980). It is unclear whether the La Jolla and Pauma complexes represent differences between coastal and inland groups with similar technologies or whether the complexes are the result of a single group exploiting differing ecological zones as part of a seasonal round. The Late Prehistoric period (1500-200 B.P.) is marked by the appearance of small projectile points (typically of Cottonwood type) indicating the use of the bow and arrow, the common use of ceramics, and the replacement of inhumations with cremations, all characteristic of the San Luis Rey complex as defined by Meighan (1954). Village sites during the Late Prehistoric period are characterized by deep midden and the presence of bedrock mortars and pestles, indicating the use of acorns. The San Luis Rey complex is divided temporally into San Luis Rey I and San Luis Rey II, with the latter distinguished mainly by the addition of ceramics. The inception of the San Luis Rey complex is suggested by True (1966; True et al. 1974) to mark the arrival of Takic speakers from regions farther inland. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 4 Ethnohistory Prior to the Spanish arrival in southern California, western Riverside County was occupied by Takic- speaking Native Americans known to the Spanish as the Luiseno. Luiseno territory is thought to have comprised some 1,500 square miles of coastal and interior southern California (White 1963). Luiseno territory was bounded on the coast by Agua Hedionda Creek in the south and approximately Aliso Creek in the north, and it extended inland to Santiago Peak (Bean and Shipek 1978:550). The Luiseno speak a language that is placed within the Cupan group of the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan stock also known as Southern California Shoshonean (Kroeber 1925:574). Kroeber (1925) estimated a population of only 5,000 pre-contact Luiseno. White (1963) estimated that, at the time of Spanish contact, there were on the order of 50 Luiseno rancherias with an average population of some 200 people, for a total Luiseno population of about 10,000. The Luiseno lived in sedentary, autonomous villages along valley bottoms and streams near shelter coves or canyons (Bean and Shipek 1978). Each village was composed of a clan triblet. The Luiseno hunted large and small game animals. Acorns were a staple of the Luiseno diet, along with grass seeds, sage, lemonade-berry, prickly pear, and pine nuts. The ethnohistoric village of Avaxat, reportedly located near present-day Murrieta, was referenced by local historian, Tom Hudson, in his book Lake Elsinore Valley.- Its Story 1776-1977 (1978). Hudson (1978:147-148) reports the following: Murrieta's first, and largest, aboriginal village undoubtedly was "Avaxat," the Luiseno word for "cottonwood tree." Field ethnologists from the Smithsonian Institute and present-day Indians of the area have concluded that Avaxat was located on the banks of Murrieta Creek near the corner of Ivy and Hayes Streets. On both sides of the creek many artifacts have been found, especially on the alluvial fan where the home built by Mrs. Alda Tarwater Colby now stands. On the east side of the creek, located on the Buchanan property, an equal amount of stone artifacts have been uncovered. Here also a skeleton of undetermined age, imbedded in sandstone, has been unearthed. The location of Avaxat in Hudson's book is approximately 6 miles north of the project area. However, he fails to provide any references to the specific source of this information. Historic Period (Much of the following section is derived from Hudson [19781) The Luiseno made direct contact with Europeans in 1769 when Gasper de Portola's expedition arrived in southern California. The Mission San Diego Alcala was the first to be established and Mission San Juan Capistrano and Mission San Luis Rey followed in 1776 and 1798, respectively. Luiseno Indians living in the Temecula Valley were under the influence of the Mission San Luis Rey and the area became known as Rancho Temecula. With the introduction of new diseases for which the native population lacked immunity, the Luiseno population rapidly decreased during this time. The oldest known town in this portion of Riverside County is Temecula, derived from the village's aboriginal name of Temekkungna. The village was originally located approximately 1 mile south of its present townsite at the confluence of the Murrieta Creek and Temecula River. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 5 During the mid-1800s, Temecula played strategic roles in both the Mexican/American War and Civil War. In 1821, Mexico declared its independence from Spain. The new Mexican government encouraged increased settlement and trade in Alta California. After the mission system was secularized by the Mexican government, the expansion of the rancho system was based largely on former mission lands. The area of the Temecula Valley became known as Rancho Temecula. The Mexican period ended when Mexico ceded California to the United States after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), which concluded with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Rolle 1998). PREVIOUS RESEARCH Archival research of the project area was conducted by EDAW on January 16, 2007, at the EIC housed at University of California, Riverside. An update was conducted on December 23, 2008 (Attachment B). The archival research focused on the identification of previously recorded cultural resources within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project area and involved a review of historic maps and historic site and building inventories. This research provides a background on the types of sites that would be expected in the region. The research was also used to determine whether previous surveys had been conducted in the area and what resources had been previously recorded within the project limits. Previous Archaeological Investigations The results of the records search indicated that 53 previous investigations have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the current project area (Table 1). Of these, five investigations were within the project limits. These include three survey investigations (Bissell 1987; McKenna 2001 a; White 1980), one site reevaluation report (McCarthy 1988), and one geoarchaeological evaluation report (Onken et al. 2006). These investigations cover approximately 95 percent of the project area. An additional survey investigation borders on the western side of Pujol Street (Moslak 2006). Table 1 Previous Investigations within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Report Number Author Title RI- Date Arkush An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 25349, 02617 1990 Located East of Temecula in Southwestern Riverside County, California. Bissell A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Tentative Parcel 03116 1987 No. 22515, Near Temecula, Riverside County, California. Bowles Archaeological Assessment for Tentative Parcel 18254. 01426 1982 Brewer An Archaeological Assessment of Assessor's Parcel Map 02387 1988 91813-21 and Assessor's Parcel Ma 91813-32. Brock Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Butterfield Square 04758 2004 Project, 28690 Front Street, Temecula, Riverside County, California (PA-04-0231). EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 6 Report Number Author Title RI- Date Clevenger Extended Phase I Survey of CA-RIV-4707/H for the Temecula 03437 1997 Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Crotteau Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Route 15, 02070 1984 P.M.1.1/1.6. De Barros and Phase II Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-SDI-4707/H for 03440 1997 Drover Determination of Eligibility Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Project City of Temecula, Riverside County, California 08-RIV-CR-Pala Road. Dice Letter Report: Records Search Results and Site Visit for 06169 2003 Sprint Telecommunications Facility RV54XC468H (Carl's Jr.), 44515 Bedford Court, Temecula, Riverside County, California. Drover Rancho Villages Assessment District Cultural Resources 02169 1987 Elements. Drover Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resources 03628 1992 Assessment of the 340 Acre Tentative Tract 27567 Project Temecula USGS Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. Drover and Parker Rancho Villages Assessment District Sewer Lift Station: The 02547 1989 Vail Site, RIV-365, and Archaeological Test and Mitigation. Hogan Letter Report: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, 06480 2005 Parcel 23 of Parcel Map 17552, Santa Rosa Plateau Area, Riverside County, California. Horne Cultural Resources Survey of a 7.5 Acre Parcel Located at 04085 1998 the Western Edge of Temecula Valley, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02540 1989 34415, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02541 1989 24567, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02543 1989 22806, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02544 1989 24742, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Map No. 24739, 02545 1989 Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02546 1989 24741, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02563 1989 24740, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02564 1989 25019, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02567 1989 24941, Riverside County, California. Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02727 1990 25582, Riverside County, California. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 7 Report Number Author Title RI- Date Keller An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 02729 1990 25980, Riverside County, California. Keller A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Los Alamos 04646 2002 Apartment Complex (Development Plan 02151), 27.33 Acres of Land in the City of Murrieta, California. Keller A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Tract 04654 2002 Map 30169, 4.57 Acres of Land in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Keller A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Parcel 05539 2006 Map 30404, +/-5.29 Acres of Land in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Keller A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Parcel 07024 2006 Map 34699, +/-4.98 Acres of Land in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Keller A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Pujol Street 07540 2007 Apartments, Planning Application 07-022-, +-13.72 Acres of Land in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Love and Hogan Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: ATU's 04346 2000 Wireless Site C792, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Mason Cultural Resources Records Search and Field Survey Report 05733 2003 for a Verizon Telecommunications Facility: Avocado in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Mason et al. Cultural Resources Records Search and Survey Report for a 04147 1998 Pacific Bell Mobile Telecommunications Facility: CM 258-11, City of Murrieta, California. McCarthy An Archaeological Assessment of 3+ Acres of Land in the 01987 1985 Temecula Area of Riverside County. McCarthy Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 02384 1988 23987, Located in the Temecula Area of Riverside County, California. McGinnis and Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 3-Acres Proposed for 07574 2008 Murphy the Santiago Sedimentation Basin Project, Riverside County, California, APN 945-120-01, TPM No. 11125. McKenna A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed 05012 2001 Santa Margarita Outfall Project Area, Riverside County, California. Mirro Cultural Resources Records and Literature Review for the 05065 2005 Temecula Creek Inn Project, Temecula, California. Mirro Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Temecula Creek 05880 2006 Inn Property, Temecula, California. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 8 Report Number Author Title RI- Date Moslak Cultural Resources Survey for the Pujol Street 06057 2006 Condominiums, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Onken et al. Geoarchaeological Evaluation for the Murrieta Creek Flood 06877 2006 Control and Ecosystem Restoration Project, Riverside County, California. Peak and Cultural Resources Assessment of AT&T's Proposed San 03169 1990 Associates Bernardino to San Diego Fiber Optic Cable, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, California. Petersen et al. Cultural Resources Assessment: Pala Road Bridge Sewer 03436 1992 and Road Realignment Project at Temecula Creek, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California. Romano Cultural Resources Survey Report Number 14, Miscellaneous 03938 1996 Parcels Surveyed from 15 November 1993 to 1 November 1995, Scientific Resource An Archaeological /Paleontological Survey, Inventory and 00707 1979 Surveys, Inc. Assessment of the Proposed San Diego "Pipeline 5" Right-of- Way and Attendant Facilities Located in the Counties of Riverside and San Diego, California. Scientific Resource Archaeological Assessment of TR 3750, TR 3646 GPA 240. 01323 1981 Surveys, Inc. Scientific Resource Re-Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-RIV-2134, Riverside 01427 1988 Surveys, Inc. County, California. Tang et al. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, 06487 2005 Assessor's Parcel Nos. 922-170-014 and -015, in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Tang et al. Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Assessor's Parcel 06613 2006 Number 922-046-012, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Wade and Hector A Cultural Resource Survey of the Santa Margarita River from 02903 1989 Temecula to the Pacific Ocean. White Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment of the 01048 1980 Kadcor/Rancho California Property. Wildesen Archaeological Impact Evaluation - Proposed Pala Village 00111 1973 Development, Rancho California. Wilmouth Archaeological Assessment of EMWD Proposed Effluent 00513 1978 Holding Ponds and Pipeline, Rancho California Regional Plant, Riverside County, California. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 9 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The archival research indicated that one historic resource and 11 archaeological resources have been previously recorded within 1 mile of the project area. (Table 2) The single previously recorded historic resource (CA-RIV-4949/H) is located within the present project area. This resource is the structural remains of a slaughterhouse constructed in 1910 and demolished in the early 1990s. The slaughterhouse was originally recorded as a historic building in 1982 (Stewart 1983). After its demolition, the slaughterhouse foundation was re-recorded as an archaeological site (Russell 1992). Table 2 Previously Identified Cultural Resources within 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area Permanent Trinomial CA-RIV- Primary Number P-33- Site Description Date Recorded 50 000050 Village site - possibly art of Temeku 2002; 1982; 1981; 1972; 1965; 1952 270 11,443 Habitation site 1982; 1966 365 11,443 Village site - possibly part of Temeku 1988; 1972; 1965 2134 Lithic and roundstone scatter 1988, 1982 2186 Historic adobe 1981 3980 Milling station 1983 4949/H 04949 Historic slaughterhouse 1992; 1982 11,222 11222 Rock features; rock art 2001 12,517 12517 Milling station; lithic scatter 2002 12,520 12520 Milling station; rock art 2002 12,742 12742 Isolate - mano 1988 13,712 13712 Isolate - mano and hammerstone 1982 Of the 11 previously recorded prehistoric resources (CA-RIV-50, -270, -365, -2134, -2186, -3980, -11,222, - 12,517, -12,520, -12,742, and -13,712), one (CA-RIV-11,222) was recorded within the boundaries of the present project area (McKenna 2001 b). The site was previously recorded as a collection of two circular rock carvings. Three of these (CA-RIV-50, -270, and -365) are associated with the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District (National Register of Historic Places designation 33-11443, located directly adjacent the southern boundary of the present project area (King 1972). The district designation is based on the sites' association with the ethnohistoric village of Temku reportedly situated near the confluence of Temecula and Murrieta creeks. These village sites include extensive midden with associated bedrock milling in presumed clusters of prehistoric residences and one group of cremations at CA-RIV-50. Sites CA-RIV-12,517 and CA-RIV-12,520 also lie within the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District, although they are not recorded as part of the district. These sites were recorded as bedrock milling features with mortars, basins, slicks, cupules, and possible rock art. The records (Bowden-Renna et al. 2002a and 2002b) recommended that these sites be considered for possible inclusion in the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District. The remainder of the sites consists of lithic and ground scatters, milling stations, historic adobes and isolated artifacts EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 10 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS An archaeological field survey was conducted by Monica Strauss and Candace Ehringer of EDAW on February 8, 2007. The survey was conducted on foot at roughly 10-m transect intervals. Visibility during the survey effort was excellent. No surface evidence of the slaughterhouse foundation was observed by surveyors as part of the present study. Evidence of recent grading suggests that no subsurface remnants of the foundation remain. One site (CA-RIV-11,222) was recorded within the boundaries of the present project area (McKenna 2001 b). The site was previously recorded as a collection of two circular rock carvings. Surveyors were successful in relocating the site but found that, contrary to its previously mapped location, the site is actually located outside the present project area. A site record update was prepared for sites CA-RIV-4949/H and -11,222 on appropriate DPR forms. No new cultural resources were observed during the survey. SUMMARY Although no surface evidence of archaeological resources were identified by surveyors within the present project area, the proximity of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District suggests subsurface archaeological materials may be present. The nearby sites represent habitation areas in the form of villages, with evidence of the community structure, religious activities, subsistence activities, and burial rituals. The proximity of these sites to the creek and similarly the proximity of the project area to the creek suggest that buried cultural resources may be present in the project area. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist within the project area. However, the proximity of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District suggests that subsurface human remains may be present, since human remains are known to exist within at least one site within the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, an archaeological monitor and Native American monitor should be present on-site during all grubbing and ground-disturbing activities. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity will be suspended until the discovery is assessed by the archaeologist, the appropriate parties are contacted, and treatment is determined. In the event human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work shall cease and the county coroner shall be contacted per the California Public Resources Code. Should the remains be identified as Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 48 hours to provide a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to determine reburial practices for the remains. A copy of this letter report will be sent to EIC for future researchers. Attachments A Resumes B Record Search, Confidential - Limited Distribution (Bound Separately) 06080089 Western Bypass Project Cuff Res TM.doc EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 11 REFERENCES CITED Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseho. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Bissell, Ronald 1987 A Cultural resources Reconnaissance of Tentative parcel No. 22515, Near Temecula, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Bowden-Renna, C., S. Jenkins, S. Diaz, and L. Dreibelbis 2000a Archaeological Site Record 33-12517. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 2000b Archaeological Site Record 33-12520. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Erlandson, Jon M. 1994 Early Hunter Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Hudson, Tom 1978 Lake Elsinore Valley, Its Story 1776-1977. Laguna House, Lake Elsinore, California. King, Thomas F. 1972 !National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Nomination Form for the Murrietta Creek Archaeological Area (33-11443). Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 76, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. McCarthy, Daniel 1988 Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987, Located in the Temecula Area of Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. McKenna, Jeanette A. 2001 a A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed Santa Margarita Outfall Project Area, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 2001 b Archaeological Site Record 33-11222. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 12 Meighan, Clement W 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215-227. Moslak, Ken 2006 Cultural Resources Survey for the Pujol Street Condominiums, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Munz, Philip A. 1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 1989 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Onken, Jill, Kerry D. Cato, and Ann Q. Stoll 2006 Geoarchaeological Evaluation for the Murrieta Creek Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration Project, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and the Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3. Rolle, Andrew 1998 California: A History. 5`" ed. Harlan-Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois. Russell, J. 1992 Archaeological Site Record 33-4949. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Stewart, Judy 1983 Archaeological Site Record Update 33-4949. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. True. Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 2:1-29. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 13 True, Delbert L., Clemente W. Meighan, and Harvey Crow 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology 11. Berkeley. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3) :214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Traditions and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-14. White, Christopher 1980 Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment of the Kadcor/Rancho California Property. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseho Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2): 91-194. EDAW I AECOM ATTACHMENT A RESUMES RESUME 1 REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE, RPA Principal/Manager, Cultural Resources Group/ Senior Archaeologist SUMMARY Rebecca Apple has over 20 years of experience in cultural resource Expertise with CEOAINEPA requirements management and serves as senior archaeologist for EDAW. Her experience Experience with Section 106 compliance and includes managing cultural resources compliance efforts for large complex mitigation programs projects. She is knowledgeable in the procedures and guidelines associated Over 20 years experience in cultural resource with implementation of NHPA and CEQA. She has managed numerous management cultural resource projects, including prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic studies. She has directed inventories, evaluations, data recovery efforts, and EDUCATION monitoring programs. She has also prepared management plans and MA, Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1990 conducted feasibility studies. Her work frequently Includes consultation with BA, Anthropology, San Diego State University, municipal, state, and federal agencies, as well as Native American 1978 representatives and the public. As part of interdisciplinary teams, she has managed cultural resources investigations and authored cultural resource AFFILIATIONS sections for ISs, EAs, El RS, and EISs. Her experience includes cultural Society for American Archaeology resource investigations for pipelines, transmission lines, power plants, Society for California Archaeology highways, landfills, water resource facilities, military installations, and commercial and residential development. CERTIFICATIONS Register of Professional Archaeologists Certified Archaeology Consultant, County of ENERGY AND TRANSMISSION PROJECTS San Diego CONFIDENTIAL PROJECT ACADEMIC AWARDS AND Task Manager SCHOLARSHIPS CLIENT: CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT Phi Kappa Phi Responsible for oversight of archaeological and architectural surveys, Phi Beta Kappa technical reports, coordination with CEC staff, and preparation of AFC sections University Scholar, 1987 and 1988 for a 2,000-acre solar project. PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS Yuma Lateral Pipeline Project, Yuma, AZ Mapping and Managing Pathway to the Past. Project Manager Paper presented at the 22nd Annual ESRI CLIENT: North Baja LLC (TransCanada) International User Conference, San Diego, California (2002). Responsible for cultural services, conducting records searches, archival Introduction to Recent Archeological research, Native American consultation, and survey of the preferred alignment. Investigations at the Salton Sea Test Base, Identified resources included the Yuma Valley Railroad, a National Register- Imperial County California. Proceedings of eligible property. the Society for California Archaeology, Volume 12. Fresno, California (1999). Introduction to Recent Archaeological Harper Lake Cultural Resources Constraints Study, Investigations at Salton Sea Test Base, San Bernardino County, CA Imperial County, California. Paper presented Task Manager at the 32nd Annual Meeting for Society for California Archaeology, San Diego (1998). CLIENT: ENSR/Harper Lake, LLC A Lake Mojave Period Sife Near Silver Lake, Responsible for field reconnaissance and constraints analysis for a proposed California (with A. York). Presented at the 3,300-acre specific plan area. Potential development included a diary and 26th Annual Meeting ofthe Society for energy park. California Archaeology, Pasadena (1992). Recent Archaeological f . Clelaand nd in the North Las Vegas Valley (with with J.H.H. Cl and North Baja Pipeline Project, Ehrenberg, Arizona to Mexican Border M.S. Kelly). In Crossing the Borders: Project Manager Quaternary Studies in Eastern California and CLIENT: Foster Wheeler Southwestern Nevada. San Bernardino County Museum Association Special Responsible for cultural services, conducting records searches, archival Publication (1991). research, Native American consultation, survey of the preferred alignment and Preliminary Project Results ofthe San Diego alternatives, site evaluation, and data recovery. County Studies for the Southwest Powerlink Transmission Project. Presented at the 17th DeAnza Pipeline Constraints and Permitting Analysis, Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego (1983). Ehrenberg, AZ to Calexico, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: AEP Responsible for cultural services, providing information on distribution of natural and cultural resources along the proposed pipeline corridor in report EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 2 format, with accompanying maps showing these resources and other REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE constraints. SEMPRA On-call Cultural Services, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: SEMPRA Resource manager for cultural resource task orders. Most recent task order dealt with artifact curation for a City project. Imperial Irrigation District Cultural Survey, Imperial County, CA Project Manager CLIENT: Imperial Irrigation District Responsible for cultural resources component of two transmission line studies. Survey and testing were conducted in conjunction with pole replacement along the R and L transmission lines. Mead-Adelanto Transmission Line, Clark County, NV, and San Bernardino County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Cultural resource survey. Sycamore Canyon Substation to Rancho Carmel Substation 69-kV Transmission Line Project, San Diego County, CA Project Manager CLIENT: San Diego Gas & Electric Responsible for cultural resources component of a PEA document for submittal to the CPUC that evaluated the potential environmental impacts of a proposed 69-kV transmission line. Coso Known Geothermal Resource Area, Inyo County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Responsible for data recovery investigations at two geothermal well-pads located in the Sugarloaf Mountain Obsidian Source National Register District. Santa Ynez Unit Development, Santa Barbara County, CA Field Director CLIENT: Exxon Corporation Supervised data recovery excavations of a prehistoric coastal site. Big Creek Expansion Project Transmission Line, South Central, CA Data Manager CLIENT: Southern California Edison Responsible for cultural resource impact assessment of alternative routes for a proposed transmission line from the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project in the Sierras to the Los Angeles Basin. Kern River Gas Transmission Project, WY, UT, NV, and CA Task and Resource Manager CLIENT: Kern River Gas Transmission Company Inventory, evaluation, data recovery, and construction monitoring for California portion of this Class I overview. Argus Cogeneration Expansion, San Bernardino and Inyo Counties, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Kerr-McGee Supervised cultural resource survey and documentation for a water pipeline. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 3 REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Geothermal Public Power Line Project, North Central CA Resource Manager CLIENT: Sacramento Municipal Utility District Responsible for cultural resource surveys for a proposed transmission line from the Geysers Geothermal Area to Sacramento. Southwest PoweHink 500-kV Transmission Line ElRIEIS, Imperial and San Diego Counties, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: San Diego Gas & Electric Participated in Section 106 compliance activities, including data recovery, analysis, and report preparation. MILITARY PROJECTS Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan and Cultural Affiliation Study, Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, CA Co-Principal Investigator CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest and MCAS Yuma Preparing an ICRMP for CMAGR to guide cultural resources compliance efforts to facilitate CMAGR mission. ICRMP will summarize existing inventory and provide a process to streamline the inventory and evaluation process. Components of the ICRMP are a Regional Archaeological Research Design and a Cultural Affiliation Study. Archaeological Evaluation of Sites on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Principal Investigator CLIENT: U.S. Navy Southwest Division and Navy Region Southwest Responsible for National Register of Historic Places Evaluation of four archaeological sites on San Clemente Island. Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for Spring Hill and Associated Access Roads, Riverside County, CA Principal Investigator CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest and MCAS Yuma Directed archaeological resource survey of proposed facility to improve communications for aircraft and vehicles with the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR). Two sites were evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. One site appeared to contain very limited information potential and did not qualify for the NRHP. Site CA-RIV-8236 appeared to possess information relevant to addressing regional research issues and was recommended eligible for the NRHP. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command and Naval Base Point Loma Preparing an ICRMP for CMAGR to guide cultural resources compliance efforts to facilitate CMAGR mission. ICRMP will summarize existing inventory and provide a process to streamline the inventory and evaluation process. Components of the ICRMP are a Regional Archaeological Research Design and a Cultural Affiliation Study. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 4 Archaeological Survey for the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Range Central Training Area, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Imperial County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MCAS Yuma Responsible for cultural resource survey of proposed central training area on CMAGR. The 1,580-acre survey identified fours sites on R-2507S and four on R-2507 N. One of the sites on the South Range (the remains of a ranch complex) and three of the sites on the North Range (rock art, ceramics scatter, and a rock ring) were identified as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range: Cultural Resources Survey of 12 Targets and Monitoring of 14 Archaeological Sites, Riverside and Imperial Counties, CA Principal Investigator CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MICAS Yuma Directed cultural resource survey of 1,523 acres and site monitoring program on CMAGR. Inventoried site types were lithic scatters, trail segments, pot-drops, rockfeatures, and a mining area. Monitoring program included lithic scatters, rock art, cleared circles, mining complexes, and a segment of historic road. Cultural Resources Survey of Six Areas on the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, CA Principal Investigator CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MCAS Yuma Directed cultural resource survey of proposed Forward Air Reporting Position, range access, and target areas. Evaluation of 24 Sites at the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, CA Principal Investigator CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MCAS Yuma Responsible for National Register of Historic Places evaluation of 24 sites in the Chocolate Mountains. Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan, Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial and Riverside Counties, CA Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MCAS Yuma Directed archival archaeological research and field visit for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. Prepared HARP Plan for the installation. Evaluation of Two Sites, MCAS Yuma, AZ Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MCAS Yuma Evaluation of two archaeological sites near the MCAS Yuma airfield. San Clemente Island Operations Management Plan EIS, Naval Auxiliary Air Field, San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and SRS Technologies Assessed current cultural resource inventory and supplemented in specific areas. Project involved preparation of technical report documenting inventory efforts, including shipwreck study. Impact analysis conducted for existing and proposed military operations on San Clemente Island. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 5 REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Indefinite Quantity Contract for Cultural Resource Services, CA and AZ Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Contract manager for multiple task orders on a variety of projects involving archaeological surveys and archaeological evaluations throughout California and Arizona. Tasks include managing budget, overseeing staff, acting as point of contact, and preparation of final reports. Archaeological Support for Environmental Assessment of Wind Farm Project, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Prepared cultural resource portion of the EA and placed protective signs at nine archaeological sites near or adjacent to the Wind Farm construction area. Special Warfare Training and Range Survey, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Senior Archaeologist CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Performed cultural resource survey of proposed training ranges on San Clemente Island. Prepared technical report in support of an EA. Evaluation of Six Sites near the Missile Impact Range, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, North Island, Natural Resources Office Provided technical assistance for the NRHP evaluation of six archaeological sites on the Central Plateau of San Clemente Island. Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan, MCAS Yuma, AZ Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and MCAS Yuma Directed archival archaeological research and building inventory for MCAS Yuma. Lead author on Historic and Archeological Resources Protection Plan for the installation. Pumped-Hydro Storage Wind/Energy System, Naval Auxiliary Air Field, San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Relocated and recorded 76 archaeological sites in proposed water storage and wind/energy development area. Prepared existing conditions report. Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System Range Upgrade, MCAS Yuma, AZ Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Performed cultural resource survey of proposed transmission line and 17 threat emitter stations. Prepared testing plan. Cultural Resource Inventory Survey at Salton Sea Test Base, Imperial County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Conducted intensive cultural resource survey for approximately 6,000 acres and evaluation program for 170 sites. Survey and test excavations were conducted in compliance with the NHPA, NAGPRA, and other federal regulations. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 6 Historic and Archeological Resources Protection Plans, Los Angeles, REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Imperial, and San Diego Counties, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Prepared HARP Plans for the following six Naval installations: Morris Dam Test Facility, Azusa; Naval Air Facility, El Centro; Naval Shipyard, Long Beach; Point Loma Complex, San Diego; Naval Station, San Diego; and the Naval Radio Receiving Facility, Imperial Beach. Cultural Resources Technical Studies, MCAS Yuma, Yuma Training Range Complex, AZ and CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Directed cultural resource sample survey in the Chocolate Mountains Gunnery Range. Mission Trails Regional Park Explosive Ordnance Demolition Environmental Assessment, San Diego County, CA Project Manager CLIENT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Directed cultural resource survey in support of an environmental assessment addressing the removal of ordnance from the former location of Camp Elliott. Archeological Survey of Sierra I Impact Area, MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: U.S. Marine Corps Performed cultural resource survey of approximately 2,500 acres on the northern portion of MCB Camp Pendleton. WATER PROJECTS Emergency Storage Project, San Diego County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: San Diego County Water Authority Responsible for the cultural Resources Evaluation Program and Treatment Program. Assisted SDCWA with Native American consultation, implementation of a programmatic agreement, and coordination with ACOE. Project involved evaluation of over 20 cultural resources including San Vicente Dam. Under a Historic Properties Treatment Plan prepared by EDAW, research designs were prepared and carried out for prehistoric and historic period resources. Treatment measures included data recovery, site stabilization, and preparation of Historic American Engineering Record documentation for San Vicente Dam. Prepared Public Interpretive Plan. North City Water Treatment Plant, San Diego, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: City of San Diego Water Department Managed cultural resource component of the North City Water Treatment Plant EIR. Project included survey and limited testing. Balboa Park Wastewater Treatment, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: City of San Diego Participated in cultural resource documentation for a facility siting study. Mission Valley Water Reclamation Plant, San Diego County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: City of San Diego Responsible for archaeological testing and monitoring program in an area of potential archaeological sensitivity. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 7 REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE North Metro Interceptor Sewer, San Diego County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: City of San Diego Responsible for cultural resource investigations for constraints analysis of proposed sewer alignments. Freeman Junction, Kern County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Responsible for the survey of portions of 1st Los Angeles Aqueduct for cap strengthening project. Eastern Sierra Hydroelectric Relicensing, Mono and Inyo Counties, CA Field Director CLIENT: Southern California Edison Participated in assessment of 22 sites within three hydroelectric project areas. Pit 3, 4, and 5 Hydroelectric Relicensing Project, Shasta County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Directed limited data recovery efforts at six archaeological sitesthreatened by shoreline erosion prior to stabilization. Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer EIR, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: City of San Diego Conducted windshield reconnaissance and records search and prepared overviewfor proposed sewer. Pamo Dam and Reservoir, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: San Diego County Water Authority Assisted in preparation of research design and conducted archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations. Reservoir 657-2, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: Otay Water District Supervised survey and report preparation of proposed covered reservoir site in Spring Valley. Mokelumne River Hydroelectric Relicensing, Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Participated in archaeological test excavations and NRHP evaluations. TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport EIS, Clark County, NV Co-Principal Investigator CLIENT: ENSR, VHB, and Clark County Department of Aviation Responsible for cultural resource inventory of over 17,000 acres for a BLM and transfer. Class I I I survey also included Radar and Navaid facilities and retention basins. Class I studies for multiple alternatives. Project involved consultation with BLM, USFS, FAA, SHPO, Native American groups, and 106 other interested parties. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 8 5R-76 East, San Diego County, CA REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Principal Investigator CLIENT: Caltrans and SANDAG Responsible for the cultural resource inventory and evaluation program for the SR-76 East widening project. Oversawthe survey of three alternative routes for archaeological and architectural resources, along with Extend Phase I excavations, ASR, HRER, and HPSR. SR-56, San Diego County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: City of San Diego Responsible for the cultural resource evaluation program for the SR-56 El R. Evaluated 16 sites along two alternative freeway alignments. La Costa Avenue/1-5 Interchange, San Diego County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Caltrans Directed an archaeological survey of proposed interchange improvements in the City of Carlsbad. The project requires close coordination with City and Caltrans staff. SA 680/SF 728 Roadway Project Environmental Studies/EIR, San Diego County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: County of San Diego Directed the test excavation and NRHP evaluation of four sites on the proposed project alignment. These investigations addressed the potential association of the sites with the Harris Site Complex. SR-79, Riverside County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: Riverside County Transportation Commission Responsible for cultural resource investigations for widening and realigning two highway segments. Prepared cultural resource sections for ISs and coordinated archaeological survey reports, historic architectural survey reports, and historic study report. Victorville La Mesa/Nisqually Road Overpass, San Bernardino County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: City of Victorville Supervised survey and prepared positive archaeological survey report and historic property survey report. LANDFILL AND WASTE-RELATED PROJECTS Elsmere Canyon Landfill, Los Angeles County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Elsmere Corporation Directed cultural resource assessment for the EIR/EIS. Southwest San Diego Landfill Siting Study, San Diego County, CA Resource Manager CLIENT: County of San Diego Responsible for cultural resource assessments of potential landfill sites throughout the southwestern quadrant of San Diego County. Ranked the relative sensitivity of each potential site. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 9 LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Heber Dunes Ofd Highway Vehicle Park, Imperial County, CA Cultural Resources Project Manager CLIENT: State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division State Parks recently acquired Heber Dunes and is in the process of preparing a General Plan and EIR for the Park. As part of these efforts approximately 350 acres were inventoried for cultural resources. Laborde Canyon Off-Highway Vehicle Paris, Riverside County, CA Cultural Resources Project Manager CLIENT: State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division and Riverside County Economic Development Authority The areas of the SVRA that would be open to some level of OHV use would cover approximately 1,480 acres within the 2,640-acre Laborde Canyon site. EDAW was contracted to conduct environmental studies for the Laborde Canyon site, including a cultural resource records search and an intensive cultural resources pedestrian survey of the proposed OHV park. Two prehistoric sites and the Lockheed Facility (Beaumont Site No. 2) were recorded within the study area during the survey. A preliminary assessment of the complex at Beaumont Site No. 2 was made to determine eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. Data Recovery for Goat Canyon Retention Basin Border Field State Park, San Diego County, CA Cultural Resources Project Manager CLIENT: State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Conducted data recovery under stringent time constraints based on wildlife issues and construction schedule. Excavation of 50 units at CA-SDI-16,047 Locus B indicated that the site was a buried temporary camp whose occupants exploited littoral, near-shore, and terrestrial subsistence resources. Data recovery investigations successfully collected data important in local and regional prehistory. The identification of a single component locus dating to the Archaic-Late transition is an important contribution. Fairbanks Country Villas, San Diego, CA Project Manager CLIENT: Del Mar Land Management Company Prepared testing plan and implemented testing program for proposed residential development. Inmate Reception Center, San Diego County, CA Project Manager CLIENT: County of San Diego Responsible for testing and data recovery of half a city block in downtown San Diego. 343 Sansome Street, San Francisco County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Gerald D. Hines Interests Participated in archaeological data recovery excavations at a Gold Rush- period site in downtown San Francisco. North Las Vegas Land Transfer, Clark County, NV Project Archaeologist CLIENT: City of North Las Vegas Directed cultural resource survey of 4,000-acre land transfer from the BLM to the City of North Las Vegas. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 10 REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE Apex Industrial Park, Clark County, NV Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Kerr-McGee Conducted archaeological survey and NRHP evaluations for BLM land transfer. Walnut Hills Subdivision, San Diego County, CA Archaeological Monitor CLIENT: Fargo Industries Conducted archaeological monitoring of site preparation and grading in San Marcos. Alcoholism Service Center, San Diego County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Fellowship Center, Inc. Conducted archaeological survey of proposed rehabilitation center adjacent to Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside. OTHER PROJECTS Penasquitos Park, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: County of San Diego Participated in survey, including documentation of three adobes. Old Town State Historic Park, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: California Department of Parks and Recreation/FlR Participated in excavation before placement of underground utilities in San Diego. Rancho Guajome Adobe, San Diego County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: County of San Diego Participated in excavation, cataloging, and analysis for work conducted before building stabilization efforts. Anza Borrego Desert State Park, Riverside County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: California Department of Parks and Recreation Participated in resource inventory survey. Glamis Imperial Project, Imperial County, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: Glamis Imperial Corporation Conducted cultural resource survey for proposed gold mine. Fort Cady Boric Acid Mining and Processing Facility, San Bernardino County, CA Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Fort Cady Minerals Corporation Directed survey, testing, and evaluation of 24 sites in Newberry Springs. Rialto-to-El Paso Fiber Optics Cable, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA Archaeologist CLIENT: U.S. Sprint Conducted cultural resource survey along western extent of project. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 11 SELECTED REPORTS REBECCA MCCORKLE APPLE A View Across the Cultural Landscape of the Lower Colorado Desert: Cultural Resource Investigations for the North Baja Pipeline Project (with Jamie Cleland). Prepared for TetraTech and North Baja, LLC. EDAW, Inc., San Diego (2003). Cultural Resources Evaluation for the North Baja Gas Pipeline (with C. Dolan, J. Underwood, and J.H. Cleland). Prepared for Foster Wheeler Environmental, Inc. EDAW, Inc., San Diego (2001). Historical and Archeological Resources Protection Plan (HARP) for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, California (with J.H. Cleland). Prepared for U.S. Navy Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. EDAW, Inc., San Diego (2001). Archaeological Resources Evaluation Report State Route 56 Between Coast and Foothill, City of San Diego, California (with J. H. Cleland, A. York, T. Wahoff, and D. James). Prepared for the City of San Diego. KEA Environmental, Inc., San Diego (1997). Archeological Survey and Evaluation Program for the Salton Sea Test Base, Imperial County, California (with A. York, A. Pignolo, J. H. Cleland, and S. Van Wormer). Prepared for U.S. Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. KEA Environmental, Inc., San Diego (1997). Two Sides of the River. Cultural Resources Technical Studies Undertaken as Part of Environmental Documentation for Military Use of the MICAS Yuma Training Range Complex in Arizona and California (with G. Woodall, L. Peterson, and J.S. Bruder). Prepared for the Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command and MICAS Yuma. Dames & Moore Intermountain Cultural Resource Services Research Paper No. 5, San Diego (1993). Bank Stabilization at Lake Britton. Limited Data Recovery (with A. MacDougall). Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric. Dames & Moore, San Diego (1990). Kern River Pipeline Cultural Resource Survey Report (with J. H. Cleland, A.L. York, and P. Friedman). Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Dames & Moore, San Diego (1990). Sugarloaf Mountain in Prehistory: Archaeological Testing and Data Recovery for the Exploratory Drilling Program It and the Unit No. 7 Project (with J.H. Cleland and E. Nilsson). Prepared for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Dames & Moore, San Diego (1990). An Archaeological Research Design for the Evaluation of Cultural Resources in Pamo Valley, San Diego, California (with J.H. Cleland, J.R. Cook, and J. Schaefer). Wirth Environmental Services, a Division of Dames & Moore, San Diego (1985). EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME II MONICA STRAUSS Project Archaeologist SUMMARY Twelve years of experience in California Monica Strauss is a project archaeologist with experience in cultural archaeology resources management and has participated in numerous archaeological Trained in 106 National complianHistoricce Preservation Act, Secti Invest)gations throughout southern California, the Baja peninsula and the Directs field and literature research of Channel Islands. In addition to having earned a master's degree, she has prehistoric and historic southern California worked in the field of archaeology since 1995. sites Authors technical reports in support of As lead archaeologist for EDAW s Los Angeles and Pasadena offices, Ms. CEQA and Section 106 compliance Strauss directs prehistoric and historic field and research projects throughout Experience with excavation of complex the area. She manages a staff who conduct various types of cultural coastal shell midden sites resources compliance including phase I cultural resources surveys, construction monitoring, phase II archaeological investigations, and large- EDUCATION scale data recovery. Ms. Strauss prepares reports in support of CEQA and MA, Archaeology (Honors), California State Section 106 compliance as well as cultural resources components for University, Northridge, 2001 General and Specific Plans. As a result of extensive project work in the Los BA, Anthropology (Honors), California State University, Northridge, 1996 University, Angeles area, Ms. Strauss is well-versed in the history of the city. Her research interests include mid- to late- 19th century growth and development AA, Humanities, Los Angeles Pierce College, Woodland Hills, 1994 in Los Angeles and prehistoric maritime adaptation along the California coast. Ms. Strauss has specialized expertise in the analysis of groundstone tools CERTIFICATIONS and their ability to reflect shifts in resource exploitation. Register of Professional Archaeologists AFFILIATIONS REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology Central Los Angeles High School #9, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: Los Angeles Unified School District Directed staff of ten archaeologists in the data recovery of archaeological materials in connection with a 19th century cemetery in downtown Los Angeles. Currently managing the laboratory analysis of artifacts and human remains and the preparation of a technical report. Project has included construction monitoring, excavation and extensive historic research pursuant to CEQA and Health and Safety regulations. State Route 90 Connector Road and the Admiralty Way Widening Projects, Marina del Rey, CA Project Director CLIENT: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Currently conducting Phase II investigations in compliance with Section 106 review. Designing research strategy, directing testing program, coordinating with Native American groups, and conducting evaluation pursuant to Caltrans guidelines. Olive View Medical Center Emergency Services Expansion, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: Los Angeles Department of Public Works Directed a Phase I cultural resources evaluation of a portion of the Olive View Medical Center campus in Sylmar. Conducted a California Register eligibility assessment of the MacClay Highline, an underground spur of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Report and MND section with findings and recommendations for further work, pursuant to CEQA requirements. Land Ranch Community Park, Thousand Oaks, CA Project Director CLIENT: Conejo Park and Recreation District Directed a Phase I archaeological survey of the 46-acre project area. Project EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 12 MONICA STRAUSS work involved the archaeological testing at two artifact isolate locations to determine presence of sub-surface deposits. Prepared an Archaeological Resources Technical Report and EIR section with findings and recommendations for further work, pursuant to CEQA requirements. Woodland Duck Farm, Avocado Heights, CA Project Director CLIENT: San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Directed a Phase I cultural resources evaluation of the historic-era Woodland Duck Farm property. Conducted a California Register eligibility assessment for several duck farm buildings and archaeological features identified as a result of the survey. Conducted extensive background research concerning the history of the duck farm and poultry farming in general. Prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Report and MND section with findings and recommendations for further work, pursuant to CEQA requirements. San Gabriel River Discovery Center at Whittier Narrows, Los Angeles County, CA Project Director CLIENT: Los Angeles Department of Public Works Directed a Phase I cultural resources evaluation of the historic-era Discivery Center. Conducted a National Register and California Register eligibility assessment for several historic-era buildings identified as a result of the survey. Conducted background research concerning the history of the duck farm and poultry farming in general including consultation with local Native American representatives. Prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Report with findings and recommendations for further work, pursuant to NEPA and CEQA requirements. Hellman Ranch Monitoring, Orange County, CA Field Director CLIENT: City of Seal Beach Directed large-scale excavation and monitoring program under the terms of a Mitigation Plan. Coordinated twenty archaeological field personnel and worked closely with a staff of eight Native American monitors and construction crews. Field work included heavy-equipment monitoring, excavation of complex shell midden deposits and human remains, wet screening and artifact analysis. Home Depot Monitoring - Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, CA Project Director CLIENT: Twining Laboratories, Fresno Directed archaeological monitoring of Caltrans road-widening in vicinity of historic cemetery. Currently preparing negative report of findings. Coordinated with Caltrans. Van Norman Reservoir Monitoring, Los Angeles County, CA Project Director CLIENT: City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power Directed archaeological monitoring of geo-technical boring activities in the reservoir complex. Provided daily oversight of monitors and regular reports to client. Public Safety Facilities Master Plan, Los Angeles County, CA Project Director CLIENT: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Work Directed a Phase I archaeological resources evaluation of an approximately five-square block area in downtown Los Angeles. Project work involved an EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 13 MONICA STRAUSS extensive investigation of the area during the cities' early pueblo years and specifically the Zanja Madre irrigation system. Prepared technical report with findings and recommendations for further work, pursuant to CEQA requirements. San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA Project Director CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Designed research strategy and directed testing program in strict accordance with guidelines set forth by the U.S. Navy and in compliance with Section 106. Authored comprehensive technical report which considers the results of the testing program in relation to current California coast and San Clemente Island research questions and evaluates the sites for eligibility for the National Register. Ivy Street Bridge, Murrieta, CA Project Director (Cultural Resources Assessment) CLIENT: T.Y. Lin International for the City of Murrieta Conductedg Extended Phase I study in compliance with Section 106 review. Designing research strategy, directing testing program, coordinating with Native American groups, and conducting evaluation pursuant to Caltrans guidelines. Alhambra 127, County of Los Angeles, CA Project Director (Cultural Resources Assessment) CLIENT: City of Alhambra Conducted archival research in support of cultural resources assessment pursuant to CEQA requirements. Authored cultural resources technical section of Mitigated Negative Declaration. Fire Station No. 13, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: City of Los Angeles Conducted archival research and historical architectural field survey in support of cultural resources assessment pursuant to CEQA requirements. Co-authored technical report. Sepulveda Boulevard Reversible Lane, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: City of Los Angeles Directed built environment field survey and conducted archival research in support of cultural resources assessment in compliance with Section 106 and CEQA. Co-authored technical reports and consulted with Caltrans regarding effects to historical resources. Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, CA Project Director (Cultural Resources Assessment) CLIENT: City of Downey Directed field work and research in support of cultural resources assessment pursuant to CEQA requirements. Authored technical report. Lake Hodges, San Diego County, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: San Diego County Water Authority Conducted study of groundstone tool collection and authored analytical report of findings. EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 14 MONICA STRAl1SS Mid City Police Station, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Managed research and field survey for architectural evaluation of historic-era structure and prepared technical report in compliance with CEQA. Haiwee Dam, Lone Pine, CA Field Archaeologist CLIENT: City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power Participated in archaeological field survey involving the identification and recording of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and structures in preparation for the construction of a new dam. Gateway Cities, Los Angeles County, CA Project Director CLIENT: County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works Conducted 28 records searches and reported on findings, including site surveys, previously-recorded archaeological sites, and historic structures. Riverside OHV Research Assistant CLIENT: State of California Conducted field reconnaissance and documented historic-era Lockheed facility. Del Amo Blvd., Torrance, CA Project Director (Cultural Resources Assessment) CLIENT: City of Torrance Conducted records search, archaeological field survey, historic structures documentation, historic research, and coauthored cultural resources assessment documentation in compliance with Section 106. Arroyo Seco Bike Path, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works Managed all aspects of Section 106 review in accordance with Caltrans Cultural Resources Environmental guidelines. Orchestrated the research strategy, directed the field teams, and prepared cultural resources assessment documentation for approval by Caltrans and FHWA and cultural resources section for Mitigated Negative Declaration. Hellman Ranch Monitoring, Orange County, CA Field Archaeologist/Research Assistant CLIENT: City of Seal Beach Conducted archaeological monitoring and excavation of Native American burials discovered during construction of the Heron Point Development, a large housing development owned by John Laing Homes. Conducted research of prehistoric burials throughout southern California and performed comparative evaluation. Conducted in-depth analysis of large groundstone tool collection. Malibu Creek State Park, Malibu, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: California Department of Parks and Recreation Conducted records search and general research of prehistoric and historic resources within the park in preparation of General Plan. Prepared historical overview and report identifying the nature and location of cultural resources. Directed Native American consultation. EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 5 MONICA STRAUSS Los Angeles Reservoir, San Fernando, CA Field Archaeologist/Research Assistant CLIENT: City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power Conducted records search and intensive archaeological survey of portions of the Van Norman Archaeological District. Conducted research on the history of the dam, reservoir, and aqueduct complex and prepared historical overview for portion of the report. Ambassador College, Pasadena, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: Worldwide Church of God Conducted intensive research at both libraries and museums on the history of Pasadena and the development of the city's "cultural fabric." Assisted in the preparation of posters for presentation to clients and at public meetings. Chapman College, City of Orange, CA Field Assistant/Research Assistant CLIENT: Chapman University Assisted with the in-field documentation of historic structures. Consulted historic databases and libraries to define the historical evolution of the neighborhood and the design of specific buildings. Vermont Avenue Relief Sewer, Los Angeles, CA Project Director CLIENT: City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Conducted Phase I Archaeological Evaluation including records search, historic research, intensive site survey, and preparation of Technical Report. Montrose Settlements Restoration Program, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Conducted research and prepared report on the prehistory and history of the region along the coastlines of Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the eight Channel Islands with special attention to areas of cultural resource concentrations. LMXU, San Diego County, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: Confidential Conducted microlevel analysis of groundstone tool collection. Cross Valley Connector, Los Angeles County, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: Caltrans Conducted records search to identify prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the project area. Instigated contact with Native American groups to document concerns. Taylor Yard, Los Angeles County, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: California Department of Parks and Recreation Conducted records search to identify cultural resources within the project area. EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME IS MONICA STRAUSS 1-5 Manchester, San Diego County, CA Research Assistant CLIENT: Dokken Engineering for the City of Encinitas Compiled profiles on properties within project area using property description database. North Baja Pipeline Project, Ehrenberg, Arizona to Mexican Border Field Archaeologist CLIENT: Pacific Gas and Electric Excavated, surveyed, and mapped (using a submeter GPS) prehistoric sites for the installation of a natural gas pipeline going from Blythe, California, to Yuma, Arizona. San Clemente Island Testing Project, Los Angeles County, CA Field Archaeologist CLIENT: ASM Affiliates for the U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Conducted excavation; auger testing; and site mapping, recording, and relocating of archaeological sites. San Clemente Island Site Relocation Project, Los Angeles County, CA Field Archaeologist CLIENT: KEA Environmental for the U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Participated in relocation, survey, and recording of prehistoric and historic sites. San Clemente Island Eel Point Excavation, Los Angeles County, CA Field ArchaeologisUResearch Assistant CLIENT: In coordination with California State University, Northridge Conducted excavation of multicomponent shell midden site and analysis of artifactual and ecofactual components. Baja California Sur Site Survey Program, Baja California, Mexico Field Assistant CLIENT: In coordination with the University of Baja California Sur, La Paz Participated in site survey and recording, including the illustration of rock art. Center for Public Archaeology, California State University Northridge, California Lab Assistant Conducted shell, faunal, and lithic analysis, cataloging, and general curation. PROFESSIONAL PAPERS Strauss, M. 2000. Trans-Holocene Use of Milling Tools in a Maritime Environment, Eel Point, San Clemente Island. Oral Presentation at the Society for California Archaeology Meeting, Riverside, California, April. Strauss, M. and S. Dietler 2006. Bones, Beads and Bowls: Variation In Habitation And Ritual Contexts At Landing Hill. Oral Presentation at the Society for California Archaeology Meeting, Ventura, California, April. SELECTED REPORTS Archaeological Evaluation Proposal (Phase ll) of the Admiralty Site (CA- LAN047) for the State Route 90 Connector Road and the Admiralty Way Widening Projects, Marina del Rey, County of Los Angeles, CA (with J. Dietler and S. Dietler). Prepared for Caltrans District 7. EDAW, Inc. (2007). EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 17 MONICA STRAUSS Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed San Gabriel River Discovery Center at Whittier Narrows, Los Angeles County, CA (with A. Tomes and J. Dietler). Prepared for Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2007). Cultural Resources Assessment for the Woodland Duck Farm Project Avocado Heights, Los Angeles County, CA (with A. Tomes and S. Dietler). Prepared for San Gabriel River & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (2007). Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Olive View Medical Center Emergency Services Expansion, City of Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2006). Archaeological Resources Assessment and Phase 11 Testing Program for the Proposed Lang Ranch Community Park Project Thousand Oaks, CA. Prepared for Conejo Recreation and Park District (2006). Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Public Safety Facilities Master Plan Project, City of Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works (2004). An Archaeological Evaluation of Four Sites in the Quarry and Ridge Road Vicinities, San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, NRO. (2004). Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Lakewood Boulevard Improvement Project, City of Downey, CA (with A. Tomes). Prepared for City of Downey. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Proposal for Extended Phase 1 Testing of CA-RIV--1085 and CA-RIV-1086 for the Proposed Ivy Street Bridge Project City of Murrieta, CA. Prepared for Caltrans District 8. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Historic Property Survey Report. Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel at Mulholland Drive in Connection with the Proposed Sepulveda Boulevard Reversible Lane and Bike Lanes Project, City of Los Angeles, CA (with A. Tomes). Prepared for City of Los Angeles. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Historical Architectural Evaluation of the Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel at Mulholland Drive in Connection with the Proposed Sepulveda Boulevard Reversible Lane and Bike Lanes Project, City of Los Angeles, CA (with A. Tomes). Prepared for City of Los Angeles. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Lakewood Boulevard Improvement Project, City of Downey, CA (with A. Tomes). Prepared for City of Downey. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Lake Hodges: Milling Tool Analysis. San Diego County, CA (Wth R. Apple). Prepared for San Diego County Water Authority. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Historical Architectural Survey and Evaluation for the Proposal Mid-City New Police Station Project, City of Los Angeles, CA (with C. Dolan). Prepared for City of Los Angeles. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Historical Resources Evaluations Report for the Proposed Del Amo Boulevard Extension Project, City of Torrance, CA (with C. Dolan). Prepared for City of Torrance. EDAW, Inc. (2003). EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 18 MONICA STRAUSS Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Proposed Arroyo Seco Bike Path Project, County of Los Angeles (with C. Dolan). Prepared for County of Los Angeles. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Malibu Creek State Park General Plan, City of Calabasas, CA (with E. Wilson). Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Vermont Avenue Relief Sewer, City of Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for City of Los Angeles. EDAW, Inc. (2003). Montrose Settlements Restoration Project: Preliminary Planning Report. (with K. Myers) Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration EDAW, Inc. (2003). Taylor Yard State Park General Plan, Los Angeles, CA (with E. Wilson). Prepared of California State Parks and Recreation. EDAW, Inc. (2003). PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 2006. Guest lecturer at Laurel Hall Elementary and Middle School regarding archaeology in southern California, North Hollywood, CA. 2003. Volunteer lecturer and field advisor at San Clemente Island Field School. 2003. Key speaker at Seal Beach Historical Society community outreach meeting regarding findings from the Hellman Ranch Archaeological Sites, Seal Beach, CA. 2002. Guest lecturer at Rosemead Elementary School regarding career opportunities in cultural resources management, Rosemead, CA. 1998-2000. Appointment at California State University, Northridge, Anthropology Department. Directed undergraduate peer student advisement center, counseled students regarding course selection, graduation preparation, and employment opportunities. EDAW INC DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 1 CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA Staff ArchaeologistlAssistant Laboratory Director Cheryl Bowden-Renna has served as archaeologist and assistant laboratory SUMMARY director for several cultural resource firms in San Diego. With 15 years of More than 12 years of experience in cultural archaeological experience, Ms. Bowden-Renna has worked at sites resources management throughout the southwestern United States. She also has a background in Extensive survey, excavation, and monitoring accounting, database management, and has developed solid management experience and supervisory skills. GPS mapping and post processing Background in laboratory supervision and Ms. Bowden-Renna has extensive archaeological monitoring experience of management ordnance removal at the Salton Sea Test Base in Imperial County. She has also served as archaeological monitor of the test excavation for the Inmate EDUCATION Reception Center in downtown San Diego. In that role, she was responsible BA, 7 Anthropology, San Diego State University, for monitoring excavations, including the use of backhoes, during the data Square supervisor and field school, Instructor, recovery of features from an urban historic site. at Tel Dor, Israel, U.C. Berkeley AFFILIATIONS PROJECT EXPERIENCE Society for California Archaeology CALTRANS District 11 New Headquarters CERTIFICATIONS Monitor 40-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and CLIENT: DGS Federal Services Emergency Response (HAZWOPER Course Monitoring for historic and prehistoric resources during preconstruction and maintained since 1996) construction for CALTRANS 11 New Headquarters. PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS Camp Lockett Sandstone Features Adjacent to Lake Cahuilla (with S. Rose). Proceedings of the Monitor Society of California Archaeology 1998 CLIENT: County of San Diego Annual Meeting, Volume 12, Fresno (1999). Monitoring during construction of a sewage treatment facility in Campo, The Cultural Resources of the Chocolate San Diego County. Mountains (with R. Apple). Presented to the 2004 Society of California Archaeological Annual Meeting. East Miramar Housing Alternative Project Archaeologist CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar Conducted cultural resources survey, excavation, and evaluation of several sites located on MCB Miramar. Miramar Jet Fuel Crew Chief CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar Conducted cultural resources survey for proposed fuel line for the Marine Corps, San Diego County. Riverside OHV Project, Riverside County Crew Chief CLIENT: Riverside County Economic Development Authority Conducted cultural resources survey of over 1,000 acres in Riverside County, California. Coronado Monitoring Project Crew Chief/Monitor CLIENT: Sempra Energy and Utilities Monitoring of powerline trenching on Coronado Island, California. Cross Valley Survey, Los Angeles County Crew Chief CLIENT: City of Santa Clarita and Caltrans District 7 Conducted cultural resources survey in Los Angeles County, California. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 2 McAuliffe (Winterwood) Community Park, San Diego, CA CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA Crew Chief CLIENT: City of San Diego Crew chief for cultural resources survey of a proposed park. Two Crash Sites on The Barry M. Goldwater Range, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma Crew Chief CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division and Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma Crew chief for cultural resources survey of two helicopter crash sites. Cultural Resources Inventory For the Infantry Squad Battle Course (P-633), Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Crew chief for cultural resources survey and site recordation. Emergency Storage Project, San Diego County, CA Project Archaeologist, Crew Chief, Field Technician and Laboratory Analysis CLIENT: San Diego County Water Authority Conducted cultural resources survey, testing and evaluation of several large project sites within San Diego County. Valley Rainbow Transmission Line Project, Riverside and San Diego Counties Crew Chief CLIENT: San Diego Gas and Electric Crew chief for cultural resources survey and site recordation for major portions of a large transmission line project. LMXU Village Center Crew Chief CLIENT: Western Pacific Housing Crew chief for cultural resources excavation and water screening. Plum Canyon Park Project, Los Angeles County Crew Chief CLIENT: Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation Conducted cultural resources survey for a community park in Saugus, Los Angeles County, California. Escondido Tract 207A Project Archaeologist CLIENT: Elderly Development Company Conducted cultural resources survey of 1.13 acres in the City of Escondido. North Baja Gas Pipeline Project, Riverside and Imperial Counties Crew Chief and Monitor CLIENT: Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation Conducted cultural resources survey and monitoring for large pipeline project in Riverside and Imperial counties, California. Archaeological Testing and National Register Evaluation of Site CA-SDI-16,002 Near Range 210 Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA Field Director CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Field Director for test excavation of CA-SDI-16,002. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 3 CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA Ballpark Infrastructure, San Diego, CA Field Monitor CLIENT: Sverdrup, Inc. Historic monitoring and testing of downtown eastvillage area forthe proposed Ballpark. Ballpark Remediation, San Diego, CA Field Monitor CLIENT: Sverdrup, Inc. Historic monitoring and testing of downtown eastvillage area forthe proposed Ballpark. Required hazardous materials certification. Nobel Drive, San Diego County, CA Field Monitor CLIENT: Boyle Engineering Prehistoric monitoring of road extension to 1-805 interchange. SEMPRA On-call Cultural Services, San Diego, CA Field Monitor CLIENT: SEMPRA Historic monitoring and testing of downtown eastvillage area forthe proposed Ballpark. Required hazardous materials certification. Inmate Reception Center Project, San Diego County, CA Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: County of San Diego Conducted field monitoring of large machinery, including backhoes, during the data recovery of features from an urban historic site in downtown San Diego. Catalog and database management for project. Levee Bridge, San Diego County, CA Crew Chief/Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwestern Division Catalog, database management, table creation for CA-SDI-10,156 and discovery sites. Salton Sea Test Base Project, Imperial County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: U.S. Navy and OHM Remediation, Inc. Site recordation, test excavation, and monitoring of 130 prehistoric sites in the County. SR-56 EIR, Cultural Investigations, San Diego County, CA Laboratory Technician CLIENT: City of San Diego and Caltrans Cataloged 12 prehistoric sites during preparation of EIR. SR-56 Cultural Resources Testing, San Diego County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: City of San Diego and Caltrans Testing at 12 prehistoric sites. P-527 Santa Margarita/San Onofre Cultural Resources Testing and Monitoring, MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, CA Field Technician CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Monitoring water treatment pond and pipeline construction in the County. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 4 San Clemente Island Existing Conditions Study for Pumped CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA HydrostorageWind Farm Project, Los Angeles County, CA Field Technician CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Recording 80 sites on San Clemente Island. Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System Range Upgrade, MCAS Yuma, Yuma County, AZ Field Technician CLIENT: U.S. Navy, Southwest Division Phase I cultural resource survey of proposed transmission line and 17 threat emitter stations. Boulder Valley Project, San Diego County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: Private Developer Cultural resource survey of proposed reservoir and pipeline tunnels in the County. Pacific Rim Laboratory Analysis, San Diego County, CA Field Technician CLIENT: Private Developer Analyzed CA-SDI-691, a prehistoric site on Batiquitos Lagoon. Cal Terraces Laboratory Analysis, San Diego County, CA Laboratory Technician CLIENT: County of San Diego Analyzed one prehistoric site, and reanalyzed two prehistoric sites, in Otay Mesa. Elsmere Cultural Resource Survey, Los Angeles County, CA Field Technician CLIENT: Elsmere Corporation Conducted cultural resource survey of 2,200 acres in the San Gabriel Mountains. Kern River Project, San Bernardino County, CA, Beaver, Miller, and Utah Counties, UT, and Clark County, NV Field Technician CLIENT: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Excavated, surveyed, and monitored along pipeline right-of-way. Analyzed artifacts from all phases of project in Las Vegas, Nevada. Coursegold Excavation, Madera County, CA Field Technician CLIENT: Caltrans Excavated site for Caltrans road widening. Vandenberg Laboratory Analysis, Santa Barbara County, CA Laboratory Technician CLIENT: U.S. Navy Sorted artifacts and wet-screened column samples. Camelot Cultural Resource Survey, Kern County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: Private Developer Conducted a cultural resource survey of a 200-acre lot split in the Mojave Desert. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 5 5R-86 Cultural Resource Survey, Imperial County, CA CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA Crew Chief CLIENT: Caltrans Conducted a cultural resource survey of SR-86 road widening in the County. Black Mountain Ranch Excavation, San Diego County, CA Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: Private Developer Excavated and analyzed 15 prehistoric sites in the La Jolla Valley. Cannon Ranch Reaches 3 and 4, San Diego County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: City of Carlsbad Excavated and analyzed tvdo prehistoric sites in Carlsbad. Rancho San Miguel Project, San Diego County, CA Field Technicianllaboratory Supervisor CLIENT: San Diego Gas & Electric Excavated and analyzed nine sites and conducted extensive surface collections in the County. Cottonwood Canyon Laboratory Analysis, Riverside County, CA Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: Private Developer Analyzed two prehistoric sites in the County. Rancho del Rey (Spa 111) Excavation, San Diego County, CA Field Technician/laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: Private Developer Excavated and analyzed a prehistoric site in Chula Vista. Stallions Crossing Laboratory Analysis, San Diego County, CA Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: Private Developer Analyzed five prehistoric sites in Del Mar. Valley Ranch Cultural Resource Survey, Los Angeles County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: Private Developer Conducted cultural resource survey of 350 acres in Palmdale. Fairbanks Highland Cultural Resource Survey, San Diego County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: Private Developer Conducted cultural resource survey, excavation, and analysis. Eagle Mountain Cultural Resource Survey, Riverside County, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: Kaiser Mine Co. Conducted cultural resource survey of the Eagle Mountain mine and railroad to Salton Sea. Santa Margarita River Cultural Resource Survey, San Diego and Riverside Counties, CA Crew Chief CLIENT: Private Developer Conducted cultural resource survey of Santa Margarita River from Temecula to the Pacific Ocean. EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 6 Scripps Ranch North Excavation, San Diego County, CA CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA Field Technician/Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: Pardee Excavated and analyzed two prehistoric sites and one historic site in Poway. Sycamore Canyon Excavation, San Diego County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Supervisor CLIENT: County of San Diego Excavated and analyzed two prehistoric sites east of Poway. Los Campanos Excavation, San Diego County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Technician CLIENT: Private Developer Excavated and analyzed four prehistoric sites and one historic site in Valley Center. American Girl Mine Cultural Resource Survey, Imperial County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Technician CLIENT: American Girl Mine Co. Conducted cultural resource survey, excavation, and analysis of historic artifacts from a historic gold mining town in the Cargo Muchacho Mountains. Railroad Canyon Cultural Resource Survey, Riverside County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Technician CLIENT: Caltrans Conducted cultural resource survey, excavation, and analysis of a road realignment in Temecula. Edwards Air Force Base Cultural Resource Survey, Excavation, and Analysis, Kern County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Technician CLIENT: U.S. Air Force Conducted cultural resource survey, excavation, and analysis of 1,000-acre area on Edwards Air Force Base. Johnson-Taylor Adobe Excavation, San Diego County, CA Field Technician/Laboratory Technician CLIENT: County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department Excavated and analyzed the area around the Johnson-Taylor Adobe and C wing. Pacific Rim Laboratory Analysis, San Diego County, CA Field TechnicianlLaboratory Technician CLIENT: Private Developer Conducted extensive shell and lithic analysis of prehistoric sites on Batiquitos Lagoon. REPORTS Cultural Resources Survey for the Lockheed/Laborde Canyon Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Park, Riverside County, California. Prepared for the Riverside County Economic Development Authority (2004). Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Emergency Storage Project, Relocated Beeler Mitigation Shaft and Staging Area, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority (2004). Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Emergency Storage Project, San Vicente Pipeline Geotechnical Boring #102h at Slaughterhouse Canyon, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority (2004). EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 7 Archaeological Survey for Replacements of Jet Fuel USTs and Distribution CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA System, MCAS Miramar San Diego County, California (with Jackson Underwood). Prepared for the U.S. Navy, Southwest Division (2004). Evaluation of Three Cultural Resources Along the Shore of Lake Hodges, San Diego County Water Authority Emergency Storage Project (with Christy Dolan and Rebecca Apple). Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority (2003). Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Emergency Storage Project, San Vicente Pipeline Geotechnical Boring Locations and San Vicente Pipeline Tunnel Facilities, San Diego County, California (with Lori Lilburn). Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority (2003). Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey, Emergency Storage Project, San Vicente Pump Station 69 kV Transmission Line Alternatives, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority (2003). Phases I, II and III Literature Review and Cultural Resources Survey for the North City Water Reclamation System Project. Prepared for the City of San Diego. EDAW, Inc. (2002). Archaeological Survey For Two Crash Sites On the Barry M. Goldwater Range Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma (with Rebecca Apple). Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy Southwest Division and Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma. EDAW, Inc., San Diego (2002). Supplemental Cultural Resources Survey Emergency Storage Project, Geotechnical Boring Locations, San Vicente Pipeline, San Diego County, California (with Tanya Wahoff and Rebecca Apple). Prepared forthe San Diego County Water Authority. KEA Environmental, Inc. (2002). Addendum 9 to Cultural Resources Overview and Survey for the North Baja Gas Pipeline Project: Archaeological Survey of the Ripley Contractor's Yard (with Rebecca Apple). Prepared for Foster Wheeler Environmental Company (2001). Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Valley Rainbow Interconnect (with James H. Cleland and Tanya Wahoft). Prepared for San Diego Gas and Electric. KEA Environmental, Inc. (2001). Cultural Resource Survey of the McAuliffe (Winterwood) Community Park San Diego, California (with Rebecca Apple). Prepared for the City of San Diego. EDAW, Inc., San Diego (2001). Archaeological Survey for the City of Escondido Segment of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Acquisition Project (EIR 200-14) San Pasqual Valley, San Diego County California (with James Eighmey). Prepared for the City of Encinitas. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). Archaeological Survey for the City of Encinitas Segment of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Acquisition Project (EIR 200-14) Encinitas, San Diego County, California (with James Eighmey). Prepared for the City of Encinitas. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). Cultural Resource Survey of the Escondido Tract 207A City of Escondido, San Diego County, California (with Rebecca Apple). Prepared for the Elderly Development Company. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). Cultural Resource Survey of the Plum Canyon Park Project, Saugus, Los Angeles County, California (with Rebecca Apple). Prepared for the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE RESUME 8 Cultural Resource Survey for the San Diego Water Authority Moreno Lakeside CHERYL BOWDEN-RENNA Alternative Project, San Diego County, California (with R. McCorkle Apple and L. Lilburn). Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). Archaeological Monitoring of the Nobel Drive Extension and 1-805 Interchange (with R. McCorkle Apple). Prepared for Boyle Engineering. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). Cultural Resource Survey for the San Diego Water Authority, Emergency Storage Project Potential Wetlands Creation Sites, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6, San Pasqual Valley, San Diego County, California (Wth R. McCorkle Apple). Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority. KEA Environmental, San Diego (2000). Archeological Monitoring Program for Ordnance Removal at the Salton Sea Test Base, Imperial County, California (with R. McCorkle Apple and S. Rose). Prepared for the U.S. Navy. KEA Environmental, San Diego (1998). Biological and Archaeological Monitoring of Remediation Work at the Salton Sea Test Base, Imperial County, California (with R. McCorkle Apple and D. Scoles). Prepared for OHM Remediation Services Corporation. KEA Environmental, San Diego (1997). Archaeological Survey of a 129-Acre Parcel, the Devore Property, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Montecite Equities, Inc. Recon, San Diego (1990). Archaeological Testing of CA-RI V-1057, Loci A- F, Perris Valley, Riverside County, California (with S.A. Wade). Prepared for Hogle & Associates. Recon, San Diego (1990). Significance Assessment of SDI-11,463 and SDI-11,464 for the Bresa del Mar Development, San Diego County, California (Wth D.M. Cheever). Prepared for Bonsall Land, Inc. Recon, San Diego (1990). Archaeological Survey and Site Update for Carlsbad Promenade, Carlsbad, California (with S.A. Wade). Prepared for City of Carlsbad. Recon, San Diego (1990). EDAW INC DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE ATTACHMENT B RECORD SEARCH (CONFIDENTIAL - LIMITED DISTRIBUTION) BOUND SEPARATELY APPENDIX E Native American Consultation City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 February 20, 2009 Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Center Pechanga Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 Dear Mr. Macarro: Per our discussion at our informal meeting on February 11, 2009, the City of Temecula is proposing the development and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project is located in the City of Temecula on the proposed Western Bypass Corridor between Old Town Front Street and Pujol Street. It will include the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The bridge will be designed to span the improved flood control channel. Once constructed, this bridge will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. In addition, the project would include paving Pujol Street approximately 1,000 feet north from the connection with the proposed bridge and would match the existing width of the road. The purpose of our February 11 meeting was to initiate preliminary discussions regarding the project between the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians and the City of Temecula (City). Representatives from the City, T.Y.Lin International (TYLI), EDAW, Inc, and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians were in attendance. Based on this meeting, baseline engineering information was requested by Pechanga and will be provided by the City and TYLI. The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you of this project and to inform you of the progress of preliminary discussions to date. We would like to solicit your input on this proposed project and to know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. A project map, a reply form, and a self-addressed stamped envelope have been included for your convenience. Providing comments now does not limit your ability to comment at a later time. Please write or call by March 2, 2009 so that we may include your views in our report. Sincerely, Stuart Fisk, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures: Map Response form Stamped reply envelope cc. Laura Miranda, Deputy General Counsel, Pechanga Indian Reservation City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 February 20, 2009 Mark Macarro, Chairperson Pechanga Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 Dear Mr. Macarro: The City of Temecula is proposing the development and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project is located in the City of Temecula on the proposed Western Bypass Corridor between Old Town Front Street and Pujol Street. It will include the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The bridge will be .designed to span the improved flood control channel. Once constructed, this bridge will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. In addition, the project would include paving Pujol Street approximately 1,000 feet north from the connection with the proposed bridge and would match the existing width of the road. On February 11, 2009, an informal meeting was conducted to initiate preliminary discussions regarding the project between the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians and the City of Temecula (City). Representatives from the City, T.Y.Lin International (TYLI), EDAW, Inc, and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians were in attendance. Based on this meeting, baseline engineering information was requested by Pechanga and will be provided by the City and TYLI. The purpose of this letter is to notify you of this project and to inform you of the progress of preliminary discussions to date. We would like to solicit your input on this proposed project and to know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. A project map, a reply form, and a self-addressed stamped envelope have been included for your convenience. Providing comments now does not limit your ability to comment at a later time. Please write or call by March 2, 2009 so that we may include your views in our report. Sincerely, Stuart Fisk, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures: Map Response form Stamped reply envelope City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 February 20, 2009 Erica Helms, Cultural Resources Manager Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Dear Ms. Helms: The City of Temecula, is proposing the development and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project is located in the City of Temecula on the proposed Western Bypass Corridor between Old Town Front Street and Pujol Street. It will include the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The bridge will be designed to span the improved flood control channel. Once constructed, this bridge will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. In addition, the project would include paving Pujol Street approximately 1,000 feet north from the connection with the proposed bridge and would match the existing width of the road. The purpose of this letter is to notify you of this project and to inform you of the progress of preliminary discussions to date. We would like to solicit your input on this proposed project and to know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. A project map, a reply form, and a self-addressed stamped envelope have been included for your convenience. Providing comments now does not limit your ability to comment at a later time. Please write or call by March 2, 2009 so that we may include your views in our report. Sincerely, Stuart Fisk, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures: Map Response form Stamped reply envelope City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 . Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 February 20, 2009 Shasta Gaughen, Assistant Director Cupa Cultural Center (Pala Band) 35008 Pala-Temecula Road PMB Box 445 Pala, CA 92059 Dear Ms. Gaughen: The City of Temecula, is proposing the development and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project is located in the City of Temecula on the proposed Western Bypass Corr dor reet and Pujol en iir'onm ntal clearanceTown Front and con t uct otn of a new bridge otverMurrie a'llCreek.dThe bridge 'w II be designed to span the improved flood control channel. Once constructed, this bridge will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. In addition, the project would include paving Pujol Street approximately 1,000 feet north from the connection with the proposed bridge and would match the existing width of the road. The purpose of this letter is to notify you of this project and to inform you of the progress of preliminary discussions to date. We would like to solicit your input on this proposed project and to know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. A project map, a reply form, and a self-addressed stamped envelope have been included for your convenience. Providing comments now does not limit your ability to comment at a later time. Please write or call by March 2, 2009 so that we may include your views in our report. Sincerely, i Stuart Fisk, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures: Map Response form Stamped reply envelope PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS Thkal Historic Preservation 04ice 35008 Pala Temecula Rd. PMB 445 Pala, CA 92059 11h:(760)891-3591 Fax: (760) 742-4543 March 23, 2009 Stuart Fisk, AICP, Senior Planner City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Murrieta Creek bridge Dear Mr. Fisk: The Pala Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has received your notification of the project referenced above. This letter constitutes our response on behalf of Robert Smith, Tribal Chairman. We have consulted our maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation. The project is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Therefore, we have no objection to the continuation of project activities as currently planned and we defer to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. We appreciate involvement with your initiative and look forward to working with you on future efforts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760-891-3591 or by e-mail at sgau =hen(a)ya1-atribe.com. Sincerely, cuS Shasta C. Gaughen, MA Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Pala Band of Mission Indians City of TemeculaFILE COPY Community Development Planning Division 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 April 6, 2009 Mr. Joseph Ontiveros Director Soboba Cultural Resources Department P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 SUBJECT: Western Bypass Bridge Project Dear Mr. Ontiveros: Staff has considered the requests listed in your letter dated February 24, 2009 with regard to the Western Bypass Bridge Project. We highly regard culturally sensitive areas throughout the City and appreciate your comments. To properly treat cultural resources, the City has a history of working closely with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and has implemented many cultural resource and monitoring agreements with the Pechanga Tribe. Due to the Pechanga Tribe's prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant cultural resource related impacts and appropriate mitigation measures, and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the Project area, it is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the appropriate Tribe with regard to cultural resource and monitoring agreements. The City will therefore be treating the Pechanga Tribe as MILD and the lead consulting tribal entity for this project. Furthermore, the City will be entering into a cultural resource and monitoring agreement with the Pechanga Tribe and does not intend to enter into such agreements with other tribes, but will work closely with the Pechanga Tribe to ensure that any cultural resources in the Project area are handled with the utmost care and respect. Sincerely, Stuart Fisk, AICP Senior Planner RALR Projects\2009\LR09-0004 Western Bypass Bridge EA\Soboba\Response Letter.doc APPENDIX F Foundation Report FOUNDATION REPORT WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR T. Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA MAY 11, 2009 PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 GEOCON INCORPORATED Project No. 07714-22-01 May 11, 2009 T. Y. Lin International 5030 Camino De La Siesta, Suite 204 San Diego, California 92108 Attention: Ms. Roya Golchoobian GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Subject: WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION REPORT Dear Ms. Golchoobian: In accordance with your request, we, herein submit our Foundation Report for the proposed Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek in southern Temecula, California. The accompanying report presents the findings and conclusions from our study. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Yong Wang GE 2775 YW:JJV:dme (6/del) Addressee M. 2775 Exp. 6/30/10 4A41 Joseph J. Vettel GE 2401 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92 1 2 1-2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558-6900 ■ Fax )858) 558-6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES... . 1 3. PROJEC'I' DESCRIPTION 2 3.1 Background and Site Description 2 3.2 Existing Structures 2 3.3 Proposed Structure 3 3.4 Pertinent Project Information 3 4. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 4.1 Topography and Geology 3 4.2 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards 4 4.2.1 Liquefaction 4 4.2.2 Lateral Spreading 5 4.2.3 Expansive Soils 5 4.2.4 Corrosive Soils 5 4.2.5 Collapsible Soils 5 4.3 Project Site Soils 5 4.3.1 Undocumented Fill 6 4.3.2 Alluvium 6 4.3.3 Undocumented Fill/Colluvium Undifferentiated 6 43.4 Pauba Formation 7 4.4 Project Site Rocks 7 4.4.1 Cretaceous Granitic Rock 7 5. GROUNDWATER ...............................8 6. SCOUR EVALUATION 8 7. CORROSION EVALUATION 8 8. SEISMIC STUDY .9 8.1 Active Faults and Peak Bedrock Acceleration 9 8.2 Acceleration Response Spectra (ARS) Curves 10 9. AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA 11 10. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Shallow Foundations 12 10.2 Deep Foundations 13 10.2.1 Special Considerations for Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDII) Piles 15 10.2.2 Special Considerations for Driven Piles. .....16 10.3 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls 16 10.4 Wall Backfill and Approach Fill Earthwork 17 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 17 12. GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 13. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 14. DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION 18 15. CLOSURE 15.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review 15.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions 16. REFERENCES.. LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Site Plan/Geologic Map Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map Figure 4, County Fault Zones Map Figure 5, Regional Seismic Map Figure 6, Geologic Cross-Section along the Centerline of Bridge Alignment Figure 7, Recommended ARS Curve APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Table A-I, Summary of Borings Figures A-1 -A-6, Logs of Borings APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory In Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density Test Results 'Fable B-II, Summary of Laboratory Grain Size Distribution Test Results Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Test Results Table B-I V, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results 19 19 19 19 21 Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Potential of Hydrogen (pll) and Resistivity Test Results Table B-V I, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Table B-VII, Summary of Laboratory Chloride Content Test Results Table B-VIII, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B-IX, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B-X, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Test Results Figure B-1, Gradation Curve APPENDIX C Log of Testing Borings Sheets (Map Pocket) FOUNDATION REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION This Foundation Report (FR) presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek located in southern 'Temecula, California. The approximate site location is depicted on Vicinity Nlap, Figure I. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate general subsurface geology and geotechnical conditions along the proposed bridge alignment, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for use in preparing project plans and specifications. The recommendations presented herein are based on our analyses of the data obtained from exploratory borings, laboratory test results, engineering analyses, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. The logs of exploratory borings, laboratory test results, and the log of test boring (LOTB) sheets in Caltrans format are presented as Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of work for the proposed bridge included: ® Reviewing published geologic maps, aerial photographs, in-house documents, and other literature pertaining to the site to aid in evaluating geologic conditions and hazards that may be present. ® Reviewing the available project plans and information prepared by'T. Y. Lin International. ® Reviewing previous geotechnical investigations by others on the bridge alignment. ® Observing the existing site conditions and planning a field exploratory investigation program. ® Drilling 6 small-diameter borings along the proposed bridge alignment to examine and sample the prevailing soil conditions at proposed Piers 2 and 3 and Abutment 4. ® Performing laboratory tests on soil samples to evaluate density, moisture content, pH, resistivity, soluble-sulfate content, chloride-ion content, grain size distribution, Atterberg Limits, shear strength, pavement support, expansion, and compaction characteristics of the prevailing soils. ® Performing engineering analyses to evaluate seismic design criteria, foundation design criteria, slope stability, liquefaction potential, and retaining wall design criteria. ® Preparing this FR in general accordance with Caltrans Guidelines for Structures Foundation Reports, Version 2.0, March 2006. Project No. 07714-22-01 - I - May 11, 2009 The subsurface conditions at the proposed Abutment 1 were evaluated based on the previous investigations performed by Geotechnical Environmental Engineers (GEE) as well as our recent exploratory trenches in the adjacent areas. The results of these other studies were incorporated into this FR. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Background and Site Description The proposed Western Bypass Bridge is a part of the Western Bypass Corridor project to accommodate the rapidly increasing traffic demand generated by residential and commercial developments in the region. The bridge will connect Pujol Street and Old Town Front Street at the western terminus of the existing Highway 79. According to the currently available project information, the bridge will be an approximately 90-foot-wide, 288-foot-long, three-span, cast-in-place, prestressed concrete, box-girder structure. The area surrounding the proposed Western Bypass Bridge is occupied by vacant lots, commercial properties, and industry properties. The general configuration of the site consists of gentle to steep sloping terrains along the creek embankments. The layout of the proposed bridge and the locations of exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan/Geologic Map, Figure 2. 3.2 Existing Structures There are currently no existing bridge structures at the subject site. Major underground utilities include two Metropolitan Water District, large-diameter pipelines extending along the western bank of the creek channel. The pipelines run parallel to each other and were likely installed using cut-and-cove trenching methods. One of the pipelines located between Pujol Street and the Murrieta Creek channel is 99 inches in diameter. The other pipeline is 79 inches in diameter and located beneath Pujol Street. In addition, a storm drainpipe is located along the east side of the creek with its outlet located close to the northern end of the proposed Abutment 4. Current plans indicate that these pipelines and storm drain facilities will be protected in place during the proposed construction. Embankment fills on the order of 17 feet in height are expected over the 99-inch pipeline. Geocon Incorporated performed an investigation and provided geotechnical recommendations in a separate report for the design and construction of a reinforced concrete protective slab spanning over the 99-inch pipeline. Projeo No. 07714-22-01 - 2 - May 11, 2009 3.3 Proposed Structure Based on the currently available project plans and our discussion with T. Y. Lin International, the proposed bridge will be supported by a combination of spread footings and deep foundations embedded into competent granitic rock. The deep foundations would consist of 30-inch- or 48-inch- diameter, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles. Approach 'fills up to 25 feet high will be required to establish proposed grades. In addition, abutment walls, pipeline protective slab, and scow- protection are planned. 3.4 Pertinent Project Information We reviewed the following preliminary engineering documents related to the project: Geocon Incorporated, October 28, 2008, Geotechnical Evaluation, Western Bypass MWD Pipeline No. 4, Ternecula, California (Project No. 07714-22-01). 2. Geocon Incorporated, November 14, 2008, Preliminary Foundation Report, Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek, Temecula, California (Project No. 07714-22-01). 3. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineers, January 1996, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Western By-Pass Corridor Project from Ranch Califor-rsia Road to State Highway 9 South and Vincent Moraga Drive Extension, City of "Ternecula, California (Work Order No. 324502.00). 4. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineers, May 1996, Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Western Bypass Corridor, West Abutment - Murrieta Greek Bridge, City of Temecula, California (Work Order No. 212604.00). 5. T. Y. Lin International, undated, Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek, General Plan and Foundation Plan. 6. West Consultants, Inc, November 2008, Hydraulic Analysis and Scour Evaluation f6r the Western Bypass Bridge, Temecula, California. 4. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Topography and Geology The general topography of the site consists of gentle- to steep-sloping terrain along the creek embankments. Surface elevations of the existing site range from a high of approximately 1,020 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the existing Pujol Street to a low of approximately 974 feet (MSL) in the Murrieta Creek channel. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 3 - May 11, 2009 Site geology is referenced from the Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California (Tan, S. S. and M. P. Kennedy, A Digital Database, 2000) and depicted on Regional Geology Map, Figure 3. The site and near vicinity are located in the area underlain by active and old alluvial floodplain deposits, Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, and Cretaceous-age Granodiorite of Rainbow. The late Holocene-age active alluvial floodplain deposits (Qa) were generally mapped within the limits of Murrieta Creek channel and are characterized as unconsolidated to locally poorly consolidated sand and gravel deposits. The Pleistocene-age (younger than 500,000 years old) alluvial floodplain deposits (Qoa) were generally mapped in the area east of the creek as the surficial deposits. In general, the deposits are moderately well-consolidated, poorly sorted, permeable floodplain deposits. The Pauba Formation (Qp) is light-brown moderately well-indurated, extensively crossbedded, channeled and filled sandstone and siltstone that contains occasional intervening cobble-and-boulder conglomerated beds. The bedrock unit of Granodiorite of Rainbow (Kr) is medium- to coarse-grained, massive, crystalline rock. This unit is mapped along the west side of the creek channel as the surficial unit in the project area. The site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults. A seismic study including the regional active faults and their impacts to the subject site in accordance with Caltrans procedure is provided in Section 8. The County Fault Zones Map and the Regional Seismic Map are presented on Figures 4 and 5, respectively. No landslides were observed during our site investigation and none are known to exist at a location that would impact the proposed bridge. Slope stability along the proposed bridge alignment is discussed in Section 11 of this report. 4.2 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards In addition to Section 4. 1, the following sections discuss other potential geologic hazards evaluated for the project including liquefiable soils, expansive soils, corrosive soils, and collapsible soils. 4.2.1 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits located beneath the groundwater table lose strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground accelerations, characteristics of the subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and depth to groundwater. A majority of the site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction due to the presence of relatively shallow granitic rock and/or dense formational materials with varying amounts of fines. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be limited within surficial alluvial deposits, and upper few feet of Project No. 07714-22-01 -4- May 11, 2009 Pauba Formation within the creek channel. The thicknesses of these liquefiable zones may range from few feet to approximately 10 feet. The bridge foundations will be supported by footings or piles embedded into competent materials underlying the potential liquefiable layers. The presence of potential liquefiable layers has been incorporated into our foundation recommendations. 4.2.2 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading can be expected in liquefiable sites adjacent to slopes such as river channels or large bodies of water. The observed horizontal ground displacement typically decreases with increased distances from the open face. The potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered low due to the presence of non-liquefiable materials adjacent to the creek channel. 4.2.3 Expansive Soils Expansive soils possess a high swelling or shrinking potential due to change in moisture content. The common materials associated with high expansion potential are clays. The majority of the on-site soil is granular in nature and the proposed foundations will be supported by footings or piles embedded in low-expansive weathered rock. Thus, the potential for expansive soils to affect the proposed foundations is considered low. 4.2.4 Corrosive Soils On-site soils are not considered corrosive in accordance with Caltrans guidelines. A detailed discussion is provided in Section 7 of this report. 4.2.5 Collapsible Soils Collapsing soils are unsaturated soils that undergo a large volume change upon saturation, even without increase in external loads. Soils that generally display collapsible potential are porous and low dry density. Generally no porous or honeycomb structure was observed in collected soil samples. Surficial soils described as loose will be removed and recompacted as outlined in Section 10.4. Thus, the potential for collapsible soils on site is considered low. 4.3 Project Site Soils The area planned to receive the proposed bridge is generally underlain by undocumented fill, alluvium, undocumented full/colluvium undifferentiated, Pauba Formation, and granitic rock. Specifically, the Project No. 07714-22-01 - 5 - May 11, 2009 area east of the creek channel is underlain by undocumented fill over Pauba Formation and granitic rock; the area west of the creek channel is underlain by undocumented fill/colluvium undifferentiated over granitic rock; and the channel bed is underlain by a thin layer of alluvium over Pauba Formation and/or granitic rock. Approximate subsurface conditions are depicted on the Geologic Cross-Section along the Centerline of Bridge Alignment, Figure 6. The soil conditions encountered are described in detail below and on logs of test borings and L.OTB sheets presented in Appendices A and C, respectively. 4.3.1 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill (Qudf) was encountered in two borings drilled in the proposed Abutment 4 area during the current investigation. The undocumented fill encountered in borings consists primarily of medium dense, silty sand and clayey sand with gravel. Old asphalt concrete fragments and pockets of silty clay and sandy silt were also encountered in the fill. The existing condition of undocumented fill is unsuitable for direct support of the proposed bridge structure or new structural fills. The bridge foundation should transmit loads to the underlying geologic formation. Remedial grading consisting of removal and recompaction of the existing undocumented fill will be required in the areas planned to receive new improvements. The extent of removal to expose competent soils will vary but will generally be within 10 feet. For excavation purposes, the undocumented fill can be considered as a Cal-OSHA Type B soil where water is not freely seeping and should be considered a Type C soil if water is freely seeping. All excavations and trenches should be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations for the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements. 4.3.2 Alluvium Approximate 2 to 5 feet of alluvium (Qal) was encountered over Pauba Formation and/or granitic rock in four borings drilled within the limits of creek channel. The materials consist primarily of loose silty sand with gravel. On site alluvium is wet or saturated and should be considered a Type C soil that is unsuitable for the support of the proposed structures. 4.3.3 Undocumented Fill/colluvium Undifferentiated Undocumented till and colluvium (Qudf/Qcol, undifferentiated) is generally the surticial deposits over granitic rock along the western bank of the creek channel. Based on our field observation and trenching adjacent to the existing water pipelines, the materials consist primarily of clayey sand and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. Similar materials were also referred to as artificial fill, Project No. 07714-22-01 - 6 - May 11, 2009 alluvium, old alluvium, and colluvium in the previous investigation reports by GEE. The thicknesses of the materials range from a new feet near the channel bed to approximately 15 feet over the existing rra water pipeline. The existing condition of undocumented fill and colluvium is unsuitable for direct support of the proposed bridge structure and embankment fill. The bridge foundation should transmit loads to the underlying geologic formation. Grading consisting of removal and recompaction of the existing fill will be requited in the areas planned to receive new improvements. For excavation purposes, the undocumented fill and colluvium can be considered as a Cal-OSHA 'T'ype B soil where water is not fieely seeping and should be considered a Type C soil if water is freely seeping. All excavations and trenches should be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations for the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements. 4.3.4 Pauba Formation Pauba Formation (Qps) was encountered in four borings during our current investigation. The material encountered in these borings consists primarily of medium dense to dense silty sand, clayey sand and stiff to very stiff silt, clayey silts, and silty clay with varying amounts of gravel. Approximately 2 to 3 feet of loose silty sand was also encountered in the upper portion of Pauba Formation in our Borings B-2, B-3 and B-4. This loose upper portion of the Pauba Formation may require remedial grading in the form of removal and recompaction where improvements are planned. 4.4 Project Site Rocks Cretaceous-age granitic rocks of the Southern California Batholith are mapped underlying the entire site. The rocks are expected to be in varying degree of weathering from decomposed to relatively Fresh and should possess good to excellent hearing characteristics. Detailed descriptions of the granitic rock encountered in our exploratory locations are presented in Section 4.4.1. 4.4.1 Cretaceous Granitic Rock Cretaceous-age granitic rock (Kgr) was encountered below the surficial alluvium and/or Pauba Formation in all exploration locations. This geologic unit encountered was primarily medium to coarse-grained, massive, moderately to slightly weathered, strong and hard, and exhibited good bearing characteristics for the support of the proposed bridge foundations. Intensely weathered to decomposed granitic rocks are common in upper portions of this geologic unit. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 7 - May 11, 2009 5. GROUNDWATER Groundwater levels encountered in our borings are summarized in Table 5 below. The table also includes the approximate boring elevations. The approximate locations of these borings are depicted on Site Plan/Geologic Map and Geologic Cross-Section A-A', Figures 2 and 6, respectively. TABLE 5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS Boring ID Boring Elevation (MSL) Depth to Groundwater Groundwater Elevation (MSL) B-1 992.2 feet ± 15.0 feet 977.2 feet t 13-2 989.2 feet ± 13.0 feet f 976.2 feet 13-3 980.4 feet f 1.5 feed 978.9 feet t 13-4 979.7 feet t_ 3.0 feet t 976.7 feet t B-5 975.6 feet f 0.5 feet f 975.1 feet f B-6 976.1 feet 1.5 fee C t 974.6 feet t The groundwater elevations are expected to fluctuate with the water level in the creek channel. The presence of groundwater will affect the foundation constructions in zones below the groundwater level. 6. SCOUR EVALUATION Scour potential at the project site should refer to the project hydrology/hydraulic report. 7. CORROSION EVALUATION According to Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Version 1.0, September 2003), a site is considered corrosive to foundation elements if chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater, or the pH is 5.5 or less. The current Caltrans' Memo to Designer 3-1 also indicates that a site is considered corrosive when pH is 5.5 or less, or when the soil has a minimum resistivity of less than 1000 ohm-centimeters, and either contains a chloride concentration of 500 ppm (or greater) or a sulfate concentration of 2000 ppm (or greater). potential of Hydrogen (pH), resistivity, chlorides content, and soluble-sulfate content tests were performed on one sample selected at random to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to subsurface structures. These tests were performed in accordance with California "Test Method Nos. 643, 417, and 422. The results are summarized in Table 7, which indicates that the site need not be considered a corrosive environment in accordance with Caltrans criteria. The results are presented in Appendix B and should be considered for design of underground structures. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 8 - May 11, 2009 TABLE 7 SOIL CORROSION TEST SUMMARY Location Boring Sample Top Resistivity I P11 Chloride Sulfate [ & Sample No. Depth (feet) (0111n centimeters) Content (ppm) Content (ppm) I B3-1 0 to 2.5 3,100 8.5 60 20 Proposed improvements in contact with the ground should be designed and constructed in accordance with the Caltrans Standard Specifications and good construction practices. Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, we recommend that further evaluations by a corrosion engineer be performed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion on corrosion sensitive structures in direct contact with the soils. 8. SEISMIC STUDY 8.1 Active Faults and Peak Bedrock Acceleration Seismic design parameters are provided in accordance with Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Version 1.4, June 2006). Information from local source is also reviewed. A fault map based on the Riverside Courtly Transportation and Land Management Agency Geographic Information System (TT MA GIS), is shown on County Fault Zones Map, Figure 4. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault and the nearest County Fault Zone are estimated approximately 4,600 and 300 feet east of the site, respectively. In addition, an unnamed fault strand is mapped approximately 500 feet west of the site. We further identified active faults near the site in accordance with the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map (1996) and A Technical Report to Accompany the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map (1996). Earthquakes originating on the Whittier-Elsinore (WEE) Fault which is located approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the project site are expected to have the greatest potential effects on the new structure. The Regional Seismic Map per Caltrans' procedure is shown on Figure 5. The WEE Fault is a strike-slip fault, and a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) magnitude of 7.5 has been estimated for this fault, For the purposes of bridge design, a maximum earthquake event along the WEE Fault is expected to generate a horizontal, peak bedrock acceleration (PBA) at the project site of approximately 0.6g, where "g" represents the acceleration due to gravity. Based on the current available project information, the finish grade along the bridge alignment will likely consists of shallow granitic bedrock at the proposed Pier 2 location. Relatively thick fill, colluvium, and/or Pauba Formation are expected over granitic rock at the other supports locations. We recommend Soil Profile Type B for areas underlying by granitic rock or thin fills (less than 10 feet) Project No. 07714-22-01 -9- May 11, 2009 over granitic rock, and Soil Profile Type C for areas with relatively thick fill, colluvium, and/or Pauba Formation over granitic rock. 'fable 8.1 summarizes the recommended seismic design parameters in accordance with Caltrans procedures: TABLE 8.1 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameters Recommended for Design Controlling Fault Whittier-Elsinore (WEB) Style of Fault Strike-Slip Distance from Fault to Site Approximately 3,000 feet east Maximum Credible Earthquake Magnitude (MCE) 7.5 Peak Bedrock Acceleration (PBA) 0.6g Soil Profile Type B and C The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone as established by the State Geologist around known active faults. The presence of faulting was not encountered during the field investigation. 8.2 Acceleration Response Spectra (ARS) Curves Based on the current available project information, the finish grade along the bridge alignment will likely consists of shallow granitic bedrock at the proposed Pier 2 location. Thick embankment fills on the order of 30 feet or more are expected to be placed over granitic bedrock west of the creek. Approximately 20 to 40 feet of undocumented fill, alluvium, and colluvium are expected over granitic rock at the proposed Pier 3 and Abutment 4 east of the existing creek channel. In conjunction with the MCE and PBA defined by Caltrans Map and Report, the standard ARS curve of Elastic Response Spectra Curve (5% damping) for Soil Profile Type C (M=7.25±0.25) is selected for the site. The Soil Profile Type B can also be used for the seismic design of Pier 2 foundation from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Since the project site is located within 15 kilometers (10 miles) of the WEE Fault, the spectral acceleration on the standard ARS curves should be magnified as follows, depending on the fundamental period (T) of vibration of the structure: ® Spectral acceleration magnification is not required for T<=0.5 seconds. Increase the spectral accelerations by 20% for T>=1.0 seconds. ® Spectral acceleration magnification for 0.5<=,r<=1.0 can be determined by linear interpolation. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 10 - May 11, 2009 The modified ARS curves are presented on Figure 7. Since alluvium thicker than 250 feet is not encountered at the site, further modification of spectral ordinates on the ARS curves should not be required. 9. AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA No existing structures are present at the subject site and thus As-Built foundation data are not available. 10. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS According to current Caltrans' guidelines, foundation design for abutments and bents are based on Working Stress Design (WSD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), respectively. The proposed bridge may be supported by a combination of spread footings and Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles foundation system. Specifically, the proposed Abutment I and Pier 2 may be supported by spread footings and the proposed Pier 3 and Abutment 4 may be supported by CIDH piles. The foundation information from structure design is summarized in Table l0A below. Dimensions of the spread footings are summarized in Table 10B. Based on the discussion with the designer, deep foundations consist of a group of thirteen 48-inch-diameter CIDH piles are been considered. The design loads of these piles from structure design are presented in Table 10C. Our recommendations are presented in the following sections. TABLE 10A FOUNDATION DESIGN DATA Support Design Foundation Type Cut-Off Permissible Estimate of Maximun No. Method Considered Elevation (ft) Settlement under Factored Compression Service Load (iu)" Loads (kips) Abut I WSD Spread Footing 978.50 1 10535 Pier 2 LRFD Spread looting 967.00 1 7676 Pier 3 LRFD 48" CIDH (13) 964.75 1 6032 Abut4 WSD 48"CIDI-I (13) 980.75 1 6240 'nased on Caluans' cunnent paactice, the total permissible settlement of one inch for multi-span structures with continuous spans or mulli- colunm bents, one inch for single span structures with diaphragm abutments, and two inches for single span struef ues with seat abutments. Different permissible settlement under services loads may be allowed if structure analysis verifies that required level of serviceability is met. Maximum factored loads are estimated based on: Strength Limit State for piers and Scrvice-1 Limit State for abutments. TABLE 10B DESIGN LOADS FROM STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS ' 13OF Elevation Footing Size (ft) Support No. Finished Grade (1 f) (ft) s - L Abut 1 992.00 978.00 22' 94'-3" Ner2 975.00 967.00 9' 811-1" Project No. 07714-22-01 - I I - May 11, 2009 TABLE 10C DESIGN LOADS FROM STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR 48-INCH CIDH PILES Strength Limit State Extreme Event Limit State Support No. Service-1 Limit State Total Load Max per Pile Cmnpression Max per Pile 'Pension Max per Pile Compression Max per Pile Tension Max per Pile Pier 3 N/A 614 kips 0 kips 411 kips 0 kips Abut4 480 kips N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.1 Shallow Foundations Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings, shallow foundations are considered appropriate for the support of proposed Abutment 1 and Pier 2. Foundation recommendations regarding other bridge supports and retaining walls/wingwalls are presented in Sections 10.2 and 10.3, respectively. The existing undocumented fill/colluvium at proposed Abutment 1 and alluvium at Pier 2 should be removed to expose competent granitic rock. In general, the bottom of footings should be embedded at least 4 feet into granitic rock. The maximum allowable bearing capacity of approximately 10,000 pounds per square feet (psf) is recommended for spread footings in competent granitic rock. Foundation design recommendations for spread footings in Caltrans LRFD format are presented in Table 10.1. TABLE 10.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS WSD (LRFD Service-1 _ L,RPD Footing Size (ft) Bottom of Mininuun Limit State Load S i Strength Extreme Event Support Fooling Footing Cmnbination) erv ce ~i,=0.45 01,-1.00 No Elevation Embedment - - (ft) Depth (ft) Permissible Allowable Permissible Factored Gross Factored Gross B L Gross Contact Gross Bearing Net Contact Nominal Bearing Nominal Bearing Stress (I(sf) Capacity (kSf) Stress (IoSo Resistance (I(st) Resistance (kso Abut 1 22' 94'-3" 987.00 4 15 10 N/A N/A N/A Pier2 9' 81'-1" 967.00 4 N/A N/A ]0 9 20 Notes: I. Recommendations are based on the foundation geometry and the loads provided by S(niclmb Design in the Foundation Design Data sheet.I'he footing contact aica is taken as equal to the effective footing area, where applicable. 2. See M'I'D 4-1 for definitions and applications of recommended design parameters. Settlement of spread footings in competent granite imposing the maximum allowable bearing pressure is not expected to exceed '/2 inch. The differential settlement between two consecutive spread footings is expected to be less than '/4 inch. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 12- May 11, 2009 10.2 Deep Foundations Deep foundations consisting of a group of thirteen 48-inch-diameter CIDH piles are being considered for each support at Pier 3 and Abutment 4. The CIDH piles will develop support by both end bearing and shaft resistance in Pauba Formation and granitic rock at depth. Foundation recommendations and pile data tables are presented in Tables 10.2.1, 10.2.2, and 10.2.3 in accordance with Caltrans' LRFD procedure for bridge foundations. TABLE 10.2.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PIER 3 Service- Required Factored Nominal _ I 'total Resistance (kips) Cut-off Limit Permissible Strength Limit Extreme Event Design 'Fit) Specified Tip ' State El i El ti Support No rype Pile Elevation Support evat ons eva on (ft) Load Settlement (ft) (ft) (kips) (inches) C Comp. 'T'ension peY WO WO Support 934.80 (a-1) Pier 3 48" CIDH 964.75 6032 1 614 0 411 0 945.70 (a-11) 943.75 (c) 934.30 (d) Notes: 3. Design lip elevations are controlled by: (a-I) compression (strength limit), (a-11) compression (extreme event), (o) settlement, and (d) lateral load. 4. The specified tip elevation shall notberaised above the design tip elevations for lateral load and tolerable settlement. 5. Design tip elevation for lateral load is typically provided by structural design. TABLE 10.2.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ABUTMENT 4 7~ppo, F111,Typ, Cut-off Elevation LRFD Service-1 Limit State Load per Support P (M138) LRFD Service-I Limit State Total Load per Pile (kips) Nominal Resistance (ki s) Design Tip Elevations (ft) Specified 'T'ip Elevation (ft) (ft) Total Permanent (Compression) p 929.60 (a) Abut 4 48" CIDH 980.75 6240 5928 480 960 940.72 (c) 929.60 Notes: L Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a) compression, (c) settlement, and (3) lateral load, respectively. 2. The specified lip elevation shall not be raised above the design lip elevations for lateral load and lolcrable settlement. 3. Design tip elevation for lateral load is typically provided by structural design. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 13 - May 11, 2009 TABLE 10.2.3 PILE DATA TABLE ort No Su Pile T e Cut-off Nominal Resistance (kips) Design 'Pip Specified 'Pip pp yp Elevation (ft) Compression Tension Elevations (ft) Elevation (ft) 934.80 (a) Pier 3 48" CID11 964.75 880 0 943.75 (c) 934.80 (d) _ 929.60 (a) Abut 4 48" CIDH 980.75 960 0 940.75(c) 929.60 Notes: 1. Design tip elevations for Pier 3 are controlled by: (a) compression, (c) settlement, and (d) lateral load. 2. Design tip clevations for Abutment 4 are controlled by: (a) compression, (c) settlement, and (d) lateral load. 3. The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for lateral load and tolerable settlement. 4. Design tip elevation for lateral load is typically provided by structural design. Based on the current Caltrans guidelines (Memo to Designers 3-1, July 2008, LRFD version), the design tip elevation for lateral load should be typically provided by Structure Design. We understand that the specified pile length should not be less than the critical length for which greater lengths do not results in a significant reduction in deflection at the pile top. Our recommended soil and pile parameters for LPILE analyses including the soil unit weights, soil friction angles, soil modulus, soil shear strength, and soil strain value are provided in Tables 10.2.4 and 10.2,5 below. TABLE 10.2.4 RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR L-PILE ANALYSIS PIER 3 Soil Soil Model Elevation (ft) Unit Weight Friction It Compressiv Cohesion Layer (LPILE) Top 13otUnn (Pci) Angle (pei) a Stength (;,)Si) (psi) E, I Sand 980 978 0.0694 29 25 2 Sand 978 970 0.0333 30 20 3 Sand 970 960 0.0362 34 60 4 Strong Rock 960 955 0.0391 800 5 Strong Rock 955 0.0781 1500 References: Borings B-3 and 134. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 14- May 11, 2009 TABLE 10.2.5 RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR L-PILE ANALYSIS ABUTMENT4 Soil Soil Model Elevation (ft) Unit Weight Friction K Compressiv Cohesion Layer (LPILFs) Top Bottom (Pei) Angle (e) (Pei) a Strength (Pei) (psi) 1-,u I Sand 990 980 0.0694 32 80 2 Sand 980 976 0.0694 _ 33 50 3 Sand 976 967 0.0333 34 60 4 Silt 967 956 0.0362 32 60 2.78 0.005 5 Sand 956 941 0.0362 36 125 6 Strong Rock 941 936 0.0391 800 7 Strong Rock 936 0.0781 1500 References: Borings B-3 and 134. Assuming two rows of pile are planned at each support with a center-to-center spacing of 3 pile diameters, p-multipliers of 0.7 and 0.5 are recommended for row 1 and row 2 piles to account for reduced lateral resistance due to pile-soil-pile interaction per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (2007). The p-multipliers may be increased to 0.8 and 0.6 for row 1 and row 2 assuming piles are installed in a staggered pattern. Settlement of piles imposing the design load is expected to be less than 3/A inch. Settlements should be essentially complete shortly after completion of the bridge superstructure. 10.2.1 Special Considerations for Cast-In-Drilled-Hale (CIDH) Piles I3xcavations for CIDH piles should be possible with casing and wet method drilling techniques. In general, weathering of the granitic rock decreases with depth but is highly variable. The contractor should be aware that difficult drilling could be encountered if less weathered materials are encountered. The contractor should have appropriate excavating tools for drilling decomposed to slightly weathered rock. The contractor should establish an appropriate working platform for the installation of CIDH piles in the creek channel. CIDH pile installations below groundwater level will likely require wet construction methods. Because the CIDH piles will develop some support in end hearing, all loose material should be removed from the borehole prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Experience indicates that backspinning the auger does not sufficiently clean the borehole. A flat cleanout plate will be necessary. If boreholes are left open overnight or for extended periods of time, cleaning and/or re- drilling of the hole will be necessary. The concrete should be placed in such a way as to minimize segregation of the aggregate. Tremies should be utilized for concrete placed below groundwater. Initial set of the concrete should be achieved before an adjacent borehole is drilled. Casing, if used should be Project No. 07714-22-01 - 15 - May 11, 2009 removed as concrete is placed. The level of the concrete should be maintained above the level of the bottom of the casing. 10.2.2 Special Considerations for Driven Piles Deep foundations with driven piles are not selected by current design due to the potential for refusal at relatively shallow depths below the pile cut-off elevation at the proposed Pier 3 location. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for special considerations if driven piles are selected during final design. 10.3 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls Abutments and wingwalls are typically unrestrained retaining walls that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 36 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications 3.20.1. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil (unit weight of 125 pef) should be added. Soil placed for retaining wall backfill should meet the requirements outlined in Section 10.4 of this report. An allowable hearing capacity of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used provided wall footings are at least 18 inches wide and founded 12 inches below adjacent grades bearing entirely in structural fill. Lateral loads can be resisted by an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted fill soils. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. A portion of the retaining wall near the north end of Abutment 4 will be constructed very close to the existing storm drain outlet. Demolish and/or reconstruction of the existing drainage facilities is not part of the proposed plan. Due to the space restrains, alternative foundation types consist of CIDH and/or driven piles are being considered for the support of the wall. The use of CIDII piles would have less impact to the existing drains as compared with driven piles. All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces. The drainage system should consist of weepholes or backdrains. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular backfill material with no hydrostatic forces. If Project No. 07714-22-01 - 16- May 11, 2009 conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations. 10.4 Wall Backfill and Approach Fill Earthwork All grading should be performed in conformance with Sections 6-3, 19-3, 19-5, and 19-6 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications or equivalent. Backfill placed behind abutment walls, retaining walls and wing walls should have a very low to low expansion potential. The extent and placement of the low-expansive soils should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications 19-5.03. Backfill should have an Expansion Index (El) no greater than 50 and a Sand Equivalent of 20 or greater. Ponding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Backfill placed within the full width of the embankment and within 150 feet of the abutment is considered structural backfill. All structural backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557-02 or CTM 216. All compaction on the project should be based on these test methods. All other backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Near surface, loose undocumented fill soils at abutment locations are not adequate for the support of new fill loads, and partial removal and recompaction will be necessary prior to the placement of structural backfill and foundation construction. In the areas planted to receive embankments, the surficial loose, soft, or wet soils should be removed to expose competent materials and recompacted. The removal depths may be on the order of few feet near Abutment 1 and range up to 10 feet near Abutment 4. Removals near Abutment 4 should not undermine existing roadway improvements east of the planned bridge. Actual removal depths should be evaluated in the field and may be extended at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer if soft, loose, or wet material is encountered. Surface settlements can be expected where substantial thicknesses of new fill will be placed. We understand up to 30 feet of embankment fill will be placed to raise the approach ramp near Abutment 1. Settlements will occur both as a result of compression in existing fill beneath the new fill, and as a result of compression within the new fill itself. Total settlement of embankment fills within is estimated to be less than one inch assuming that new 'fills are granular in nature. Settlement is expected to be essentially complete shortly after placement. No settlement period is considered necessary. 11. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Planned earthwork will include fill slopes along the bridge alignment. Assuming that fill materials meet Caltrans specifications for structure backfill, 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) fill slopes should have a Project No. 07714-22-01 - 17- May 11, 2009 factor of safety greater than 1.5 against deep-seated and shallow failures under static loading and a factor of safety greater than 1.1 under pseudo-static (seismic) loading. Consideration should be given to the use of surface treatments to minimize surficial erosion until adequate erosion-resistant vegetation can become established. All roadway drainage should be directed to appropriate collection and discharge facilities to prevent run-off from flowing over the tops of slopes. 12. GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER This report is prepared based on the currently available project information including the proposed structure and foundations described in Sections 3.3, 10. 1, and 10.2, respectively. The minimum pile tip elevations for proposed Pier 3 and Abutment 4 are listed in recommended pile data table (Table 10.2.3). 13. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Areas to be developed should be cleared and stripped of obstructions, trees, bushes, grass, roots, and the upper few inches of soil containing organic debris. Soils/organics removed by stripping can be transported off-site or stockpiled for use in landscaping. Existing drainage and utility lines or other existing subsurface structures that are not to be utilized, if any, should be removed, destroyed or abandoned in compliance with applicable regulations. For excavation purposes, the undocumented fill and colluvium can be considered as a Cal-OSHA Type B soil where water is not freely seeping and should be considered a Type C soil if water is freely seeping. On-site alluvium and the upper portion of Pauba Formation are wet and/or saturated and therefore can be considered as a Cal-OSHA Type C soil. All excavations and trenches should be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations for the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements. For temporary construction purposes, a maximum slope ratio of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) may be used for 'T'ype B soil up to 20 feet in height. Overexcavation in cohesionless sand will require 1'h:l slope or flatter. The Contractor should provide appropriate shoring systems such as sheet piling or soldier beams for any other unsupported excavations not meeting Cal-OSHA requirements. Recommendations concerning vertical shoring systems can be provided upon request. Temporary excavations should be in compliance with applicable governing agency regulations. The Contractor should also execute a monitoring program for structures in proximity to deep excavations so that appropriate modifications to Project No. 07714-22-01 - 18 - May 11, 2009 the excavation/shoring system can be implemented to minimize the surface deflection or structure damage in a timely manner, if warranted. The contractor should also provide a temporary dewatering system if excavations extend below the groundwater elevation. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. CIDI-I pile drilling should also be observed by a representative of Geocon. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 14. DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION The recommendations contained in this report are based on specific project information regarding structure type, location, and design loads that have been provided by T. Y. Lin International. If any changes are made during final project design, Geocon should review those changes to determine if these foundation recommendations are still applicable. Any questions regarding the above recommendations should be directed to the attention of Mr. Yong Wang, 858-558-6900, at the San Diego Office of Geocon. 15. CLOSURE 15.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review Geocon should review the grading plans and foundation plans prior to final design submittal to determine whether additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. 15.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Project No. 07714-22-01 - 19- May 11, 2009 The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Our professional services were performed in accordance with generally acceptable geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the site area at this time. No warranty is provided, express or implied. Project No. 07714-22-01 -20- May I I, 2009 16. REFERENCES AASHTO, 2007, LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 4th Edition. 2. California Department of Transportation, 1996, California Seismic Hazard Map. 3. California Department of Transportation, 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0. 4. California Department of Transportation, March 2006, Guidelines for Structures Foundation Reports, Version 2.0. 5. California Department of Transportation, 2001, Highway Design Manual. 6. California Department of Transportation, 2006, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.4. 7. California Department of Transportation, 2006, Standard Specifications. 8. California Division of Mines and Geology, Geology of San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Bulletin 200, 1975, Reprint 2001. 9. Geocon Incorporated, October 28, 2008, Geotechnical Evaluation, Western Bypass MWD Pipeline No. 4, Temecula, California (Project No. 07714-22-01). 10. Geocon Incorporated, November 14, 2008, Preliminary Foundation Report, Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creels, Temecula, California (Project No. 07714-22-01). H. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineers, January 1996, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Western By-Pass Corridor Project from Ranch California Road to State Highway 9 South and Vincent Moraga Drive Extension, City of Temecula, California (Work Order No. 324502.00). 12. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineers, May 1996, Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Western Bypass Corridor, West Abutment - Murrieta Creek Bridge, City of fernecula, California (Work Order No. 212604.00). 13. Tan, S. S. and M. P. Kennedy, 2000, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Database. 14. T. Y. Lin International, undated, Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creels, General Plan and Foundation Plan. 15. West Consultants, Inc, November 2008, Hydraulic Analysis and Scour Evaluation for the Western Bypass Bridge, Temecula, California. 16. Youd, L. T., Idriss, I. M., et al., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report fi-om 1996 NCEE'R and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance ofSoilr, Journal of Geotechnical and Gepenvironmental. Lngineerin , October 2001. 17. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. Project No. 07714-22-01 -21 - May 11, 2009 14'0 r''4T r~ ro HORCA Si-q- 1 (l Y ~fA F nG Fs ' v 1 A fany ~y Q' ry 0 CO r0 r; 2 g~DGECINF CT v j` a o ~P 04' QF-"• ~ e`~ CUpeNo SOURCE: 2007 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 'Map @ Rand McNally. R1.08-S-100, reproduced with permission. It is unlawful to copy NO SCALE or reproduce, whether for personal use or resale. without permission' N VICINITY MAP INCORPORATED WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS OVER MURRIETA CREEK 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 KC / RA DSK/GTYPD DATE 05 - 11 - 2009 PROJECT NO. 07714 - 22 - 01 FIG. 1 Vrc~np My, YNI4TEIAMI_GEOTE0.M1, CEOTECH RUBEMCE000N1n0910>71b2901W[STEItN6VPN5SDETAIISIGVicinlylMrydwg ) ONZN, • C/ o v V. 00 n IV !t ! Jm 9i 1 \ 1 /664 , ` t r 1 r Kgb SOURCE: TAN, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Database. 46 o~ 0V Vj) ay p o 1 ' n F 8o 3 75 1y 1 QP l Sa N 49 1 ' 1040 rt a C °a , U. 0 CG. ,Q • t . • oa pQPti Qoa V~ atio o \ A VE ~`\J map Kr 1 ym 1008 r WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA I 1 1 NO SCALE EXP1. W'10N01 MIPUNIIS MOIILRNSL RII(CI1iIM LIDSiIS '-In-w lh, 11 h ul u.utgancJ and Jcp)lulnl -hmn, mul 11 "if 1." c• +t d I+u.,l Iu"I mJ allu+nd Plam and on htll lulx+.nld a ntldi rJ 1111+. 4nl , "0, dewlnpnrt-uu,uun-ccul.m Elude,. Aclnc alllna I Ilani plain &P-il, I Ime Iluhkcnch Uhnul lalawd t,. FEZ ImA1% pnrly can,ol Iuted ind aural graccl dcfxwt> In ucti%c tilmiol 11mlPIram QIk IanJnli is dolmas l lhrh,cene to Plu%tocencl land+hde dump and 1. all do P1 IIc. 01.1) S1. RH( IAl, DI I10SI1 S • Sedim nnn unit, that n im I 1,-1, w ".11d ncd and d10111~ lu mmlcr d) n ell dl. cocd Old r k" I der,t"n It,., upP r urlrc that ¢ ggxJhc nod nl Iy t Jccdnpr IPcJ rcnic rit Inlud Qup Illder Jhnlal plain I p d: tllu t cn t unc rlh n I c -1 c c.-l U111 m Ilaakh ncll wmnlidawd.lwurl},+nd. p.t r,. J,b I I n. IhmJ Pima F IauhaPnnun'-ndt t l n 111ut n) Iiglnhr>unmd,~,.t,h PP acl inlunl J mmm% h r b IJed horn l dnnlhll t and sihl n fit;,[ IcIN cattle wnRlum la h d.. Pautctl nu~l r t t l 1 11'1, .1 +t1 II ndm al,l UI'l Dwrll,mtcJ 10 DRIK'K I \1 11, I nnudlnrilr ratR Ih 1l a. t 17n I. I, b,.: r. Kr El;nurhuntc. mcJnnn I e v p1 ram 11 r1 u (muo 11 nl • uuchclJr I Il r to unlsl Mi >lk humblende-bra t It hgd grim,di ndc. couru• h nxduan gramed. tonalncuntiludcdI(-rclaccuwl-11o,thhnmbirnrk-hnill ton KI co:uw•gramed.lihhlgra), bahhr unJtrlJctl rm Luc u I Mhr,llc I iuut •hornhlcndc by F7--:bthbrc arncgranted. dark pay. ma-1, 1ldau lc mic anti ntciawdua rat ua nek un mdcd R r l i w. 'n d IOm luuwcll I ,rod I r ncht ih+eu Il.nh buar In I'mi R ,I .,aa 1'.w old" thin 1! 11 ""o", 11 lm.. t. t.. lrc bra, 16+'.v,,0. GEOCON (low) INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121.2974 PHONE 858 558.6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 PROJECT NO. 07714 - 22.01 FIGURE 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATE 05.11 -2009 SITE Ak FAULT ZONES F] PARCELS /V ALEWIST PRIOLD /V RfVETr510lE QTY r_OUNTY !FAULT ZG1416- 0 ELSINORE FAJJL7 ZONE TENECTAA IMPOWANT' This intonratlon G mode aaabblo rte ntigh the Ri.*tSidg County ©eNrephq: lgl0rm8lktq Srpslem. the inlamyaban m lar relemccc purpwas orly a rt owd to to Load ap bA:;a Rt.xl IMxmslit h oily aW a tril irWded to mpiaae any ram,ded documents or mhor puhirr retards. GnnlArt apprnpriale County Oa tarlmanl nr Aganry, it nemss rry. Felererre Ic r-.urc" dkcuments and "k wccis may he naoussary aryl m adtisnaLk GEO CON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECU .CALIFORNIA 'DATE 5-11-2009 (PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 IFIG. 4 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY GIS ~fr 4-11 LEGEND: 0.7p. Peak Acecle nltit in Coninul 0.fig Peak Ac cc le ratinn Contour r1.`tt Peak Azcele ratinit Contour 0.1g Peak A.xelrratiun Contour 0.3g Peak A,-ueIrratiun Contour 0,2g Peak A;cxlerllit n contour 0 IV Pack APl'e. It-ti it IjI Contour Special SCnIn": sotIll''' lSSSj Faults with F'alltt ('nclrs iNWI, State Ilighwa?s County Bt)undury I-atitude & L}neitude Ref: California Seismic hazards Map 1996, Lalliana, Mulachin NOT TO SCALE ~GEOCON INC0RPORATE 1) to GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DATE 5-11-2009 PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 FIG. 5 WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1080 EXISTING ,M GROUND SURFACE 1040 /v STREET Ti3 AS O / ? Q (COI T~2 T 1 C 1000 MWD K w g MWD 960 PROPOSED BRIDGE 1 PIER 2 PROPOSED G/RADE PIE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B-5 B-6 (Pr jecter Q (Projected (Projected) QaI Kgr 3 r Bated) b-2 Qudf Qps Kgr 1080 1040 m lL z O 1000 C w 960 242+00 242+40 242+80 243+20 243+60 244+00 244+40 244+80 245+20 245+60 246+00 246+40 STATION NUMBER (Feet) GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION ALONG THE CENTERLINE OFBRIDGE ALIGNMENT SCALE: V = 40' (Horiz. = Vert.) GEOCON LEGEND EB T4 B-1 (Projected) B- Projec ed) ( f I . T _Y ud ....UNDOCUMENTED FILL ~,g LI$AflQcol.... ....UND000MENTED FILL/COLLUVIUM UNDIFFEREN I IATED Qal.... ALLUVIUM C1(ps.... PAUBA FORMATION Kgr.... GRANITIC ROCK B-61 ....APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Geocon, 2009) T-31 ,,..APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Geocon, 2008) T-3~ APPROX. LOCATION OF TEST PIT (GEE, 1996) b-3~ APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (GEE, 1996) .....APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT (Queried Where Uncertain) ® ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER 246+80 247+20 247+60 GEOCON ~j INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 2974 PHONE 858 5586900 - FAX 858558-6159 PROJECT NO. 07714 - 22 - 01 FIGURE 6 DATE 05-11 2009 %SECTN (UPD.".TED 04.0720M dlw 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 ci 1.0 Q 0.8 - CL % Cn 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Period (s) Reference: Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.4, 2006 GEOCON _ INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DATE 5-11-2009 PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 FIG. 7 l WEE -Modified ARS forType B, Mw 7.25±0 .25, PBA 0.6g • ! - WEE -Mo dified ARS for Type C, Mw 7.25±0 .25, PBA 0.6g \ a - a \ a APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on March 11 and 12, 2009, and consisted of drilling six exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan and Geologic Cross-Section A-A' (Figures 2 and 5) and listed in Table A-I. TABLE A-I SUMMARY OF BORINGS Approximate Boring Location t B i D th f Boring No. Alignment Station No. Offset (feet) Elevation (feet) ) or ng ep ( ee B-I Western Bypass 246+72 32L 992.2 60 B-2 Western Bypass 246+69 53 R 989.2 45 B-3 Western Bypass 245+66 44 L 980.4 23 B-4 Western Bypass 245+82 44 R 979.7 25 B-5 Western Bypass 244+50 44 L 975.6 7 B-6 Western Bypass 244+66 44 R 976.1 75 The borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 7 to 60 feet below ground surface using a Wolverine drill rig (Pendrill mounted on Unimog as developed by Marl Technologies, Inc., Model M5) equipped with hollow-stem augers. Soil samples were collected from near the ground surface and at approximately 5-foot intervals to the total depths explored. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained by driving an approximately 3-inch outside diameter (OD) split-spoon sampler (modified California sampler) into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows from a 140 pounds hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 6-inch-long by 2/2-inch-diameter brass sample tubes to facilitate sample removal and laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed by driving a 2-inch OD split-spoon sampler 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil conditions encountered during the field investigation were visually examined, classified and logged in general conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488-00) and the Soil and Rock Logging Classification Manual (Field Guide) produced by the State of California Department of Transportation Engineering Center, Office of Structural Foundations. The logs of the borings drilled are presented here (B-1 through B-6). The logs depict the various soil types encountered and indicate the depths at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the borings drilled along the proposed improvements, as well as the boring logs, are depicted on the Log of Test Boring Sheets in Appendix C. Project No. 07714-22-01 - May 11, 2009 PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 .stA BORING B 1 z w" ~ o DEPTH E > Q SOIL o C Q Z u- co j H IN SAMPL NG p °z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) -992 DATE COMPLETED 03-11.2009 H N w O ° n'. Iw- 0 FEET T D (Uses) W m 11 O Q p EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG MIS) BY: K. COX d ¢ ° p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ° BI-1 SC UNDOCUMPNTGD FHA, 2 Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; some gravel B1-2 28 132.5 8.5 4 / B1-3 23 6 -Asphalt concrete approx. 2 inches 8 ~ ~f 10 B1-4 SM PAUBA FORMATION 19 - { { Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 12 { 14 { I T. I B 1-5 { -Becomes saturated, fine- to coarse-grained 12 16 { 20 BI-6 { -No recovery 10 22 { I. 24 { { - - Bl-7 ML Very stiff, saturated, gray, SILT, micaceous 16 26 - 28 30 B 1-8 17 95.9 26.9 32 34 - Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1, Rage 1 of 2 0%714-22-01.GPJ ❑ SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 91 STANDARD PENETRATION l"EST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ® CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: IHE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. ~~"'CC~~1//''``p C'V®N 0.JIJ'J ll \Jltl PRO.IFCT NO. 07714-22-01 W BORING R 1 o W ~ o DEPTH MPLE } p Q SOIL F- G Q LL N Z W D ~ N SA No. ? ELEV. (MSL.)_ 992 DATE COMPLETED 03-99.2009 a US FEET (Uses) an w m ¢ 0 O J cD EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG PAS) BY: K. COX a ° v MATERIAL DESCRIPTION BI-9 SM Dense, saturated, gray, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 35 36 . { 38 { ~I { f 40 B1-10 { 46 42 4 E 44 BI-11 { .I 43 46 . -Silt tense at 46 feet 48 j ! ~7-} 4 50 B1-12 . 4S 114.0 15.6 52 I T77 ( Ir I t t 54 BI-13 { -Very dense 60111 " 56 fi t t GRANITIC ROCK + Moderately weathered, gray, strong GRANITIC ROCK 58 t f B1-14 + + 50/0" 60 BORING TERMINATED AT 60 FEET DUE TO REFUSAL Groundwater encountered at 15 feet Backfilled with cuttings and bentonite chips Figure A-1, 07714-2201.GPJ Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ® STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) IM DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IW CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TI MES. GIuJOCO SOW Z IA PROJECT NO 07714-22-01 BORING R 2 0w~ } 9 W Z DEPTH SAMPLE O0 < O SOIL Q Q MU Ii W U H N Ld IN NO. z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) -989 DATE COMPLETED 03-11-2009 w Ln O ° a v O z FEET (uses) W w m ¢ :2 O J ¢ EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG MS) BY: K. COX a- v ° MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 132-1 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL {I 4 ~ Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND, some gravel 2 t B2-2 ~ 30 4 I - 132-3 -Silty clay pocket 12 8 8 {~l 10 - - - - -----------y-------------------- i 1025 5 0 132-4 cs Soft, moist, black, Sand SILT, or an . SP PAUBA FORMATION 12 Loose, moist, dark olive brown, fine to coarse SAND -Becomes saturated 14 B2-5 9 18 18 - 20 B2-6 CL Stiff, saturated, dark gray, Silty CLAY 19 22 24 g2-7 17 28 ML Very stiff, saturated, gray, Clayey SILT - 28 30 B2-8 Ell- S_tiff-, _saturated__ , ___Silty__CLAY__________.____-- grayish brown, - 1-5 _ _96-.2_ _29-.6- 32 . I_ SM Dense, saturated, dark olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 34 Figure A-2, 2-4 Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 2 07714.22'01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS 11 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I0 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ® CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT TI 1E SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. Cy®N GE®i.slV > non m07 KIn n771A.99-M W BORING B 2 0 ^ F } ; ¢ ¢ o solL a a ~ . W I ° z W p cuss ELEV. (MSL.) -989 DATE COMPLETED 03-99-2009 O ° H H (uscS) z w J , LU ¢ v 2 O J O ¢ EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG MS) BY: K. COX CC ° 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 24 GRANITIC ROCK Slightly weathered, gray, strong, GRANITIC ROCK 50/0" BORING TERMINATED AT 45 FEET DUE TO REFUSAL Groundwater encountered at 13 feet Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings °'C1 Figure M-2, e7714.22-e,.GP, " Log of Boring B 2, Page 2 of 2 p 34 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 10 STANDARD PENETRATION' TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 9-4 1 el DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ® CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE®CO PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 W BORINGB 3 a'- ~ o } V~ WM DEPTH IN SAMPLE _i SOIL CLASS N W u N No O Z ELEV. (MSL.) -980 DATE COMPLETED 03-12.2009 w a Z FEET (USCS) Z W J s m O J ¢ EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG M5) BY; K. COX a I o 0 - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B3-I SM ALLUVIUM { . Loose, moist, dark olive brown, Silty, fine to course SAND, some gravel 2 -Becomes saturated and medium dense at 1.5 feet B3-2 . { ` 17 4 {I B3-3 SM -No recovery 5 6 PAUBAFORMATION { Loose, saturated, dark olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 8 {t~ 0 II34 T ~I -Becomes medium dense; no recovery 19 12 14 t B3-5 22 16 { ( t 18 + + GRANITIC ROCK + Slightly weathered, dark olive gray, strong, GRANITIC ROCK 20 63-6 + t + 56/9" 115.0 11.6 + + 22 + 133-7 + + 50/01, BORING TERMINATED AT 23 FEET DUE TO REFUSAL Groundwater encountered at 1.5 feet Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1 oT/142201 GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS gEl SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ® S'T'ANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) Im DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Ll CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE'. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GL'l®isO t4l NA& PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 BRING B 4 Z W ~ Wo M 2I- DEPTH IN SAMPLE O o 3 SOIL CLASS Q H U W U ~ W ` NO. Z ELEV. (MSL.) -980 DATE COMPLETED 03.12-2009 W r? o a ~ 0 T F_ 0 (uses) W Be m ¢ a ~ v EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG MS) BY: K. COX a " o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 844 ~ { SM ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 2 B4-2 10 .I. ry ' -Becomes saturated at 3 feet 4 { ~f B4-3 SM PAUBA I'ORMA'I'ION 9 6 { .I ~ ~ f Loose, saturated dark olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 8 77 F 10 64-4 { { -Becomes medium dense at 10 feet 25 106.3 14.4 12 " 14 II { ~1 l B4-5 { - I -No recovery 25 16 { - 20 4 IE B4-6 + + GRANITIC ROCK t Slightly weathered, dark olive gray, strong, GRANITIC ROCK 22 + + + + + _ 24 + 84-7 BORING TERMINATED AT 25 PELT DUE TO REFUSAL 50/2" Groundwater encountered at 3 feet Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings P Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1 07714-22-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS ❑ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ® STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ® CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE~t®C,~V V®N ltl 4Jf 24 90 20 PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 cc BORING B 5 z ^ ° DEPTH } F Q SOIL 0U ~ ~ N`^ W o W z SAMPLE Q O 3 class cc Q I- N ~ C) W FEET NO. z ELEV. (MSL.) -975 DATE COMPLETED 03-12-2009 Y 0 w a 1- j =O (uses) , W m ¢ ~ O EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG M5) BY: K. COX a o U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 SM ALLUVIUM { Loose, wet, dark olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 2 - t t GRANITIC ROCK B5-1 } Slightly weathered, dark olive gray, strong, GRANITIC ROCK 50/1" 4 t t t t t 6 + t t B5-2 BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET DUE TO REFUSAL 50/2" Groundwater encountered at 6 inches Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings Figure A-5, 07714 22 01 GPJ Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I ...SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ® ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GL`a O C O PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 BORING B 6 z w o r U to Q O U Z w F- DEPTH SAMPLE O SOIL cuss Q Q X H N Z LL w U ~ W NO. O z ELEV. (MSL.) -976 DATE COMPLETED 63-11-2069 O a z O FEET (uses) _ Z w M 20 J 0 ¢ EQUIPMENT WOLVERINE (UNIMOG MS) BY: K. COX m CC to ° cD MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 136-1 SM ALLUVIUM - { I Loose, moist, dark olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND, some gravel 2 . -Becomes saturated 136-2 + + GRANITIC ROCK 50/0" I- Slightly weathered, gray, strong, GRANITIC ROCK 4 + + II6-3 } } 50/2" 6 + B6-4 + + 5012" BORING TERMINATED AT 7'h FEET DUE TO REFUSAL Groundwater encountered at 1.5 feet Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings Figure A-6, OAI4-22 01 GPJ Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 11 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL- ifl STANDARD PENETRATION' TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: IHE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTI IER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE®C®1V APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests in general accordance with California Test Methods (CTM) and generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). We performed the following tests: ® In-Place Dry Density and Moisture Content: ASTM D2937 (CTM 226) - 7 tests ® Grain Size Distribution: ASTM D422 (CTM 202 and 203) - 3 tests Atterberg Limits: ASTM D 4318 - 3 tests ® Direct Shear: ASTM D 3080 - 3 tests ® Expansion Index: ASTM D 4829 - 1 test ® Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content: ASTM D 1557 - I test. R-value: ASTM D 2844 (California Test Method 301) - 1 test ® pH and Resistivity: CTM 643 - 1 test ® Sulfate Content: CTM 417 - 1 test ® Chloride Content: CTM 422 - 1 test Test results are presented on the following tables and figures. Brief descriptions of the laboratory testing conditions and procedures are presented below: ® In situ moisture content and dry density tests were performed on seven selected tube samples. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2937 (CI'M 226). Results are presented in Table B-I and on the Logs of Test Borings (LOTBs) in Appendix C. ® Grain size distribution analyses were performed on three collected soil samples in accordance with ASTM D422 (CTM 202 and 203). Tests results are summarized in Table B-II. Grain size distribution curves are depicted on Figure B-1. ® Atterberg Limits tests were perforated on three collected soil sample in accordance with ASTM D4318. Test results are summarized in Table B-III. ® Direct shear tests were performed on three selected soil samples in accordance will) ASTM D3080-03. Test results are summarized in Table B-IV. ® Soil corrosion parameters (pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride content) tests were performed on two selected soil samples in accordance with CTM 643, 417 and 422. Test results are summarized in Tables B-V, B-VI, and B-VII. ® Expansion Index test was performed on one soil sample in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The results were summarized in Table B-VIII. o Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content testing was performed on one soil sample in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Test results are summarized in Table B-IX. Project No. 07714-22-01 - B-1 - May 11, 2009 ® R-value test was performed on one selected soil sample in accordance with ASTM D 2844 (California'T'est Method 301). Test results are summarized in 'Table B-X. The remaining soil samples are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and analysis if needed. Unless otherwise notified, all samples will be disposed of 30 days from the date of this report. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY IN SITU MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 2937/CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 226) Boring/Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Dry Density (pct) Moisture Content dry wt.) B 1-2 2.5 132.5 8.5 111-8 30 95.9 26.9 BI-12 50 114.0 15.6 132-4 10 102.5 5.0 B2-8 30 96.2 29.6 133-6 20 115.0 11.6 B44 10 106.3 14.4 TABLE B-II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422) Boring/ Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) 'Yo Gravel 0/o Sand % fines USCS Classification BI-3 5 11.5 55.7 32.8 SC B2-6 20 0 15.9 84.1 CL 134-1 0 5.1 71.3 23.6 SM TABLE B-III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 4318) Boring/ Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index USCS Classification B2-3 5 30 19 11 CL 132-6 20 50 24 26 CL 1341 0 NP NP NP SM Project No. 07714-22-01 ..13-2 - May 11, 2009 TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 3080) Boring/ Sample Depth Dry Density Moisture Cohesion (pst) Angle Shear Resistance Sample No. (feet) (pet) Content (degrees) 131-8 30 95.9 26.9 150 34 BI-12 50 114.0 L5.6 500 40 133-6 20 128.0 7.5 1000 43 TABLE B-V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS (CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643) Boring/ Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) pH Resistivity (ohm centimeters) B3-1 0 to 2.5 8,5 3100 TABLE B-VI SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS (CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417) Boring/Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Water-Soluble Sulfate, ppm (o/6) B3-1 0 to 2.5 20 (0.0020) TABLE B-VII SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS (CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 422) Boring/Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Chloride lon Content, ppm ('%o) 83-1 0 to 2.5 60 (0.0060) TABLE B-VIII SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829-03 Moisture Content Densit ( ct) Dr Ex ansion Index Sample No. Before 'rest After Test y p y p B2-1 8.3 14.8 117.5 1 Project No. 07714-22-01 - B-3 - May 11, 2009 TABLE B-IX SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-02 Maximum Optimal]) Sample No. Description Dry Density (pct) Moisture content dry wt.) B3-1 Dark Olive Brown, Silty SAND (SM) 136.1 6.8 TABLE B-X SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS ASTM D2844-01 Sample No. R-Value BI-1 51 Project No. 07714-22-01 ..13-4 - May 11, 2009 PROJECT NO. 07714-22-01 GRAVEL SAND COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLOY U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 16 30 56 1-1/2" 3/4° 3/8" 10 0 0 190 2 0 III 40 100 90 I I I I 1 80 I I I I I I = 70 C3 I I w I I I 60 m I I I I I I I 1 W z 50 LL I I I t I I Z v 40 I I I Lu I I L ~ 30 - I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I i 10 I I I 0 I I 4 - I f 10 - - 1 0.1 0.01 0.003. GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL PI ® B1-3 5.0 (SC) Clayey SAND ® B2-6 20.0 (CL) Silty CLAY 50 24 26 ® 84-1 0.0 (SM) Silty SAND GRADATION CURVE WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 07714-22 01,GPJ Figure B-1 GE®CON APPENDIX APPENDIX C LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEETS FOR WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07714-22®01 APPENDIX G Noise Technical Memorandum EDAW Inc 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92101 T 619.233.1454 F 619.233.0952 www.edaw.com Memorandum Date: February 23, 2009 To: William Becerra, City of Temecula From: Jeff Goodson, Environmental Engineer, EDAW Julie Wang, Project Manager, EDAW Subject: Western Bypass Bridge Project - Noise Technical Memorandum The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify the ambient noise environment in the project area including noise sources and sensitive receptors, applicable noise regulations, noise levels from the construction and operation of the proposed Western Bypass Bridge Project (proposed project), and noise impacts to sensitive receptors; and to recommend measures to minimize noise levels from the project. The project is not federally funded; and therefore, no review or approval is required by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This memorandum is prepared for the City of Temecula (City) as part of an environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the City acting as the lead CEQA agency. Therefore, City and CEQA standards are used in this analysis to determine noise impacts of the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes to implement the proposed project, which is a component of the future Western Bypass Corridor. The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City, approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 15 (1-15) near the 1-15 interchange with Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 (SR-79). The project area extends Western Bypass just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street, west across Murrieta Creek to Pujol Street via the proposed bridge, and paves Pujol Street north approximately 1,000 feet to join with the paved portion of Pujol Street. The proposed bridge will be designed to span the flood control channel of Murrieta Creek, scheduled for improvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). However, no channel improvements are to be implemented as part of the proposed project. Roadway approach fills will not encroach on the final ACOE channel. Rock slope protection (rip-rap) will protect the bridge abutments. The bridge would be 288 feet in length and consist of four travel lanes (the extension of Western Bypass) and pedestrian paths along both sides of the bridge. The total bridge width would be 90 feet based on the City's standard for a Major Arterial and a roadway design speed greater than 45 miles per hour (mph). Structure depth of the bridge is to be determined; however, the project design would include pile bridge supports into the creek's channel. Pedestrian and roadway lighting would be provided on the bridge in accordance with City standards. William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 2 During bridge construction, the unpaved portion of Pujol Street will be utilized as a construction staging area for storage of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials. After bridge construction, this unpaved segment will be paved as a two-lane road from its intersection with Western Bypass approximately 1,000 feet north to the existing end of pavement of Pujol Street. Completion of the proposed project will provide an additional roadway crossing of Murrieta Creek, providing traffic access from the undeveloped area west of Murrieta Creek directly to 1-15 and SR-79 at the Temecula Parkway/SR-79 interchange with 1-15. The proposed project is a component of the Circulation Element of the City' General Plan and is identified as a City public works/capital improvement project (City 2009). NOISE SETTING The project area is relatively level and flat, and is adjacent to and crosses the Murrieta Creek floodplain Geographically, the project site is bounded by the southern extent of DeLuz Mountains approximately 3,000 feet to the northwest, and the 1-15 corridor approximately 1,000 feet to the east. East of Murrieta Creek, the proposed project area is located in a commercial/industrial area near the southeast City limits in proximity to 1-15 and its interchange with Temecula Parkway/SR-79. The project area is located adjacent to commercial facilities at the intersection of Western Bypass and Old Town Front Street. Commercial land uses extend along Old Town Front Street north of the intersection and include restaurants, gas stations, an industrial facility, commercial shopping areas, office buildings, and a hotel located approximately 750 feet east of the proposed project staging area. West of the creek, the proposed project area is located in a rural area of undeveloped open space along Pujol Street. At the project's northern boundary at the paved end of Pujol Street, there are several multi-family residential areas and a public park across the street. A neighborhood of single-family homes on large lots is located approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Pujol Street and the proposed Western Bypass extension, near the proposed bridge. Noise sensitive receptors are generally humans associated with activities or land uses that may cause them to be stressed by substantial interference from noise. Land uses typically associated with sensitive receptors include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, education facilities, and libraries. Recreation areas are classified as noise sensitive land uses by the FHWA. Noise sensitive receptors of the project area include the several multi-family residential areas and the public park at the project's northern boundary along Pujol Street; the hotel along Old Town Front Street, approximately 750 feet east of the proposed project staging area; and the neighborhood of single-family homes, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the bridge. The dominant existing source of noise in the project vicinity is the distant traffic noise on the high- volume, high-speed 1-15, approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest residence of the project area. Additional sources include vehicular traffic on the adjacent low-speed, low-volume collector roadways including Old Town Front Street, Temecula Parkway, and Pujol Street. Traffic noise levels are based on traffic volumes, vehicle mix, and traffic speeds. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in 2008 were 157,000 ADT on 1-15, 8,205 ADT on Old Town Front Street north of Temecula Parkway, and 2,549 ADT on the paved portion of Pujol Street south of Main Street (City 2008). The speed limit posted on Old EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 3 Town Front Street and Pujol Street is 30 mph. The intersection adjacent to the project is signalized, and busy with vehicle ingress and egress off of 1-15 including heavy trucks to the gas stations/convenience stores at the intersection. Additional less frequent noise sources would be aircraft flyovers. The nearest airport is the French Valley Airport, a public, small aircraft airport located approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. IMPACTS The proposed project would generate temporary, relatively short-term noise from construction of the proposed facilities (bridge and roadway), and long-term noise from the use or operation of the constructed facilities (vehicle traffic on the bridge and newly paved and connected roadways). In addition, vehicle traffic crossing Murrieta Creek at this new creek crossing would provide the opportunity for local traffic to be diverted and redistributed in the area, especially for crossing the creek in the area and accessing 1-15. The proposed project is located within the City of Temecula; therefore, construction and operational noise is addressed in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, and enforced by the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Construction The Noise Element of the City's General Plan provides goals, plans, and policies for the City's Noise Control Ordinance but provides no limits on construction noise levels. The Noise Control Ordinance is found in the Temecula Municipal Code, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.32 Noise Control. Section 8.32.020 Construction Restricted, which prohibits construction activity " when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of six-thirty p.m. and six-thirty a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of seven a.m. and six-thirty p.m. on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter." Title 9 of the Municipal Code, Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare, Chapter 9.20 Noise, Section 9.20.010 Intent states: "At certain levels, sound becomes noise and may jeopardize the health, safety or general welfare of city residents and degrade their quality of life. This chapter is intended to establish citywide standards to regulate noise. This chapter is not intended to establish thresholds of significance for the purpose of any analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. No such thresholds are hereby established. " EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 4 Thus, the City Noise Ordinance provides no construction noise limits, nor noise thresholds for CEQA analysis, and exempts City public works/capital improvement projects from the ordinance. The principal noise sources during construction would be the operation of the diesel engines of typical construction equipment and vehicles for roadway grading and paving, and soil excavation, pile driving (standard type), and structural construction of the bridge. Grading/excavation equipment would include backhoe, compactor, dozer, excavator, loaders, rollers, and other construction equipment (i.e., generators, compressors, etc.). Bridge construction equipment would include backhoe, concrete/industrial saws, cranes, forklifts, concrete pump, and other construction equipment. Bridge construction would occur over approximately 18 months. No rock blasting or breaking is assumed to be required. Grading, excavation, and bridge construction could occur simultaneously. Short-term maximum construction noise levels of the typical equipment would be 85 to 90 dBA (a- weighted decibels) at 50 feet. With typical duty cycles of this equipment, the hourly average noise levels (Leq) at 50 feet would be approximately 7 dBA less than these maximum noise levels (78 to 83 dBA Leq). Noise levels attenuate with distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Pile driving (standard type) of bridge supports would generate short-term maximum noise levels of up to 105 dBA at 50 feet with average noise levels of up to 95 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The proposed project is a City public works/capital improvement project, and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the City Noise Ordinance. However, construction activities are anticipated to occur during the days and hours allowed by the City Noise Ordinance. Since the City Noise Ordinance has no construction noise limits, nor thresholds for CEQA analysis, the construction noise generated by the proposed project would be allowable, temporary, and relatively short-term. Bridge construction is estimated to occur for approximately 18 months. Roadway grading and paving activities would move daily along the roadways to be extended. The construction staging area would be active for the duration of the project. Even though there are no City construction noise thresholds, short-term maximum and average noise levels from construction, particularly from concrete/industrial saws and pile driving at the bridge, would be audible and a potential disturbance to the noise sensitive receptors, which are greater than 1,000 feet from the proposed bridge location. The maximum and average noise levels of this equipment would attenuate less than 75 dBA and 65 dBA Leq, respectively at the receptors. No persons would be exposed to excess construction noise levels, and the impact from construction noise would be less than significant. To minimize the noise effects from this equipment, the following measures are recommended to avoid or minimize construction noise impacts: • Equip each internal combustion engine with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. Perform work in staging areas that generate loud noises, such as equipment maintenance, during the hours allowable for construction work. Staging areas should be located as far as feasible from occupied residences. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 5 • If traffic control and construction signs that require power for lighting or flashing are located near residences, the source of power should be batteries, solar cells, or another quiet source. Gas- or diesel-fueled internal combustion engines should not be used. To reduce potential construction-related impacts associated with pile driving, the following measures will be incorporated into the project: • The project contractor will implement alternate pile-driving technology, such as vibratory or sonic pile driving, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. • Noise control blankets or shrouds will be placed around the driving head to reduce noise generation. • Pile driving will be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and will not be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Operations The City has adopted the County of Riverside Noise Control Ordinance (No. 457.73) for exterior noise standards for residential areas as 55 dBA for the maximum sound limit. The proposed project would result in vehicle traffic crossing Murrieta Creek at this location on Western Bypass, connecting with the paved portion of Pujol Street and the roadway network west of Murrieta Creek. Continuous roadway traffic traveling at the speed limit would flow along this route, subjecting the residential areas at the northern end of Pujol Street to continuous through traffic, where the traffic currently stops at the pavement end of Pujol Street. Therefore, there would be a permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this location from the through traffic provided by the project. These residences do currently generate daily trips, but to and from the paved end of Pujol Street. Opening Pujol Street to continuous traffic flow would potentially establish the same ADT volumes as the existing paved portion of Pujol Street. Noise levels for future traffic and conditions on roadways can be predicted based on existing traffic characteristics (volume, speed, mix). As no project specific traffic data was available, existing ADTs for local roadways were collected and converted to peak hour volumes based on the peak traffic volume being 10 percent of the total ADT. The traffic mix is assumed to be 97 percent automobiles, 2 percent medium trucks, and 1 percent heavy trucks. Traffic volumes and vehicle mix data for 1-15 were taken from the Caltrans Traffic Operations web site. Using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Lookup Program (TNM Lookup) and existing traffic volumes, existing peak hour noise levels of active project roadways were calculated in TNM Lookup to be approximately 58 dBA Leq along Pujol Street (north of the project area), 63 dBA Leq on Old Town Front Street, and 85 dBA Leq on 1-15. These noise levels are calculated 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest traffic lane of each roadway. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 6 The nearest residential land use are the multiple-family residences along Pujol Street at the end of the paved portion. The nearest of these residences is approximately 100 feet from the edge of Pujol Street, thus the existing peak hour noise level at the residences is calculated to be 55 dBA Leq. The existing peak hour noise level generated by traffic on 1-15, 85 dBA Leq, would attenuate to approximately 59 dBA Leq at these residences, which is the estimated existing peak traffic hour noise level at this location. It is assumed that the future traffic volumes on Pujol Street would be similar to the traffic volumes reported north of the project area. Thus, to predict the future noise levels at the residences with the project constructed and operational, the calculated existing peak hour noise level of the active portion of Pujol Street at 100 feet (55 dBA Leq) is combined with the calculated existing noise level (from 1-15) at the residences (59 dBA Leq) . Therefore, the calculated peak hour noise level at the residence with the project traffic is predicted to be 61 dBA Leq. It is widely accepted that the average unimpaired human ear can barely perceive changes (increase or decrease) of 3 dBA (Department 1998). Therefore, the ambient noise increase at the nearest residence would not be considered significant with implementation of the project. In addition, Pujol Street is an interim connection for the Western Bypass; therefore, impacts to residences are not considered permanent. The City identifies acceptable noise levels for exterior uses areas associated with residences and park uses in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, Table N-1. Based on Table N-1, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn is considered acceptable for single family and low-density multiple-family residential land uses and 70 dBA CNEL/Ldn is acceptable for opens paces and parks. It is conservatively assumed the CNEL/Ldn is approximately 2 dBA higher than the loudest traffic hour noise level. Thus, the future noise level at the nearest residence is calculated to be 63 dBA CNEL/Ldn. As the future noise level is estimated to be below the City's compatibility noise level, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact from operational noise. In addition, traffic volumes on nearby Murrieta Creek crossings to the north including Santiago Road (no interchange with 1-15) and Rancho California (1-15 interchange) would be expected to be reduced and re-distributed with the proposed Western Bypass creek crossing and its interchange with 1-15. These traffic effects are to be assessed as part of a larger, regional transportation project study. Vibration Heavy construction operations can cause ground-borne vibration, which can affect and damage structures in proximity to the vibration source. The heaviest equipment, such as pile drivers or large bulldozers, can generate vibrations of 0.089 to 1.52 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2006). There are no applicable City, state, or federal standards for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommends maximum limits of 0.2 inches per second PPV for fragile buildings and 0.12 inches per second PPV for very fragile buildings. Pile driving operations would be occurring at the bridge location and no closer than 100 feet from the nearest building; thus, vibration would not exceed the FTA maximum limit of 0.2 inches per second PPV. Vibration from grading and paving activities would not be noticeable at 25 feet or greater. The roadway improvements would be no closer than 100 feet from the nearest building. Therefore, vibration impacts to buildings would be less than significant. EDAW I AECOM William Becerra, City of Temecula February 23, 2009 Page 7 Aircraft Noise The project area is not located in proximity of a private air strip or within the airport land use plan of a public airport. The nearest airport is approximately 6 miles from the project area. Implementation of the project would not change the exposure of people to existing aircraft noise levels. 06080089 Wesfem Bypass Noise Memo. doc REFERENCES California Department of Transportation (Department) 1998 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. Technical Noise Supplement. October. City of Temecula (City) 2005 General Plan, Noise Element. 2008 Average Daily Traffic Volumes for the City of Temecula roadways provided by the City. 2009 Correspondence with William Becerra, City Engineer. February 12. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 2006 Transit Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment (Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06). May EDAW I AECOM RESOLUTION NO. 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE PROJECT (PW06-04) AND APPROVING THE PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural History. A. The Western Bypass Bridge Project (PW06-04) is identified within FY 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program. On May 23, 2006 City Council approved a consultant agreement for the proposed project that provides preparation and development of the Environmental Document, Plans, Specifications, and Estimate. B. The Western Bypass Bridge Project (PW06-04) is a component of the future Western Bypass corridor. It will extend the Western Bypass from just west of its intersection with Old Town Front Street to Pujol Street. The proposed 288 foot bridge will span Murrieta Creek and provide four travel lanes and pedestrian access along both sides. Pujol Street will be extended approximately 1000 feet and serve as an interim connection for the Western Bypass as more specifically described in the Initial Study for the project ("Project"). Section 2. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project. Based upon the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. 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. The public comment period commenced on June 10, 2009 and expired on July 09, 2009. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City Clerks' office, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. C. Four written communications were received prior to the September 8, 2009 public meeting on the Project and a response to all of the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the City Council and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. One of the correspondences was a letter received from the State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research documenting the City's circulation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to various State agencies for review as required by CEQA. D. The City Council has reviewed the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Measures, all documents in the administrative record, and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the September 8, 2009 public meeting on the Project. E. Based upon the whole record before it, the City Council finds that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be adequately and feasibly mitigated; and (3) the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. F. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project. The Director of Public Works is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA. Section 3. Approvals. The City Council hereby approves the Western Bypass Bridge Project (PW06-04) and authorizes the Director of Public Works to proceed with the preparation of Plans and Specifications for this Project. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of September, 2009. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk H e~ O it Z a I I I 47 ,~P PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: WESTERN BYPASS BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK PRIORITY: Project Type: Circulation Description: The City will construct a new bridge crossing Murrieta Creek at the Western Bypass / Temecula Parkway. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.660 Scope of Project: Project includes finalizing and updating the existing bridge design, constructing the bridge, the approache s roadways, curb and gutters sidewalk, storm drain facilities, environmental studies and mitigation. Completed project will tie so uther n leg of Western Bypass. Benefit: Project will improve traffic safety and circulation. New bridge will meet Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) Murrieta Creek Improvement Project needs. Project Cost: Actuals Total Project to Date 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Cost Administration $ 57,312 $ 134,923 $ 135,000 $ 327,235 Acquisition $ 76,000 $ 76,000 Construction $ 10,384,985 $ 10,384,985 Construction Engineering $ 311,550 $ 311,550 Design $ 232,785 $ 409,382 $ 642,167 Environmental $ 20,000 $ 129,600 $ 149,600 MSHCP $ 519,249 $ 519,249 Totals $ 290,097 $ 640,305 $ 11,480,384 $ - $ - $ - $ 12,410,786 Source of Funds: Capital Projects Reserves $ 290,097 $ 210,923 $ 135,000 $ 636,020 Reimbursements/Other (Developer) $ 3,983,705 $ 3,983,705 TUMF (wRcoG) $ 429,382 $ 7,361,679 $ 7,791,061 Total Funding: $ 290,097 $ 640,305 $ 11,480,384 $ - $ - $ - $ 12,410,786 Future O & M Cost: $ 6,000 Annually 83 ITEM NO. 1 0 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: Planning Application PA02-0311, Crowne Hill Reserve, Disbursement and Release Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Disbursement and Release Agreement ("Agreement") by and between the City of Temecula and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association regarding disbursement of bond monies the City obtained from Insurance Company of the West in the amount of $1,168,000 and settlement agreement monies the City obtained from PFF Bank and Trust in the amount of $300,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND: On May 22, 2008, Crowne Hill Reserve 28, LLC, ("Developer") notified the City of Temecula of its intention to convey the Crowne Hill Reserve development, a planned gated community consisting of 28 lots for single-family residences, to PFF Bank. The Developer thereafter discontinued maintenance and completion of 10 remaining vacant houses, including the model home and project wide improvements remained incomplete. Since the Developer failed to complete various common area and landscaping improvements within the development as contemplated by the Conditions of Approval for the project, the City immediately commenced action to obtain all bonds secured for incomplete development improvements. Specifically, staff pursued bonds from Insurance Company of the West (ICW) including $1,029,000 secured to complete landscaping, perimeter fencing and an equestrian trail, and $139,500 secured to complete a drainage ditch within the Development. After over a year of negotiations, ICW tendered the full amount of both bonds totaling $1,168,500 in August of 2009. Simultaneously, staff negotiated with PFF Bank (now owner by default of the remaining incomplete houses within the development) to obtain an additional $300,000 towards the cost of any development improvements. Upon receipt of $300,000, PFF Bank will obtain building permits and complete and sell the unfinished structures. Finally, staff is also in negotiations with Gulf Insurance related to performance bonds for Public Works for certain concrete, asphalt, and water line issues estimated at a cost no greater than $400, 000 and the outcome of negotiations with Gulf Insurance is still pending. Excluding these Gulf Insurance Bonds, the City will collect $1,468,500 on behalf of the Crowne Reserve Development. Disbursement of all monies collected by the City of Temecula will be directed by the Disbursement and Release Agreement which, upon execution, immediately provides approximately $50,000 "seed" money to the Homeowners' Association to commence construction on uncompleted common area improvements as contemplated by the Homeowners' Association as priorities (the "Homeowners' Association Work List" attached to the Disbursement Agreement). Upon completion of Homeowners' Association's Work List Priority #1 "Wolfe Street Drainage", the City shall disburse to the Homeowners' Association an additional $800,000 to fund the remaining items on the Homeowners' Association Work List which includes completion of perimeter fencing, common area irrigation/landscaping, drainage basin debris removal, and the Equestrian Trail (as may be modified by the Homeowners' Association). Simultaneously, Staff will continue to pursue monetary settlement of the Gulf Insurance Bonds for Public Works improvements including street cap and correction of a main water line. In the event that the City cannot obtain settlement of the Gulf Bonds for the infrastructure improvements, the HOA will commence construction of these improvements and, upon completion, any remaining balance of funds available for disbursement will be released to the Homeowners' Association, less payment of the City's attorneys' fees and $100,000 retention. The $100,000 retention will be released to the Homeowners' Association upon final inspection by the City of all community improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: The City Attorneys' fees incurred in the recovery of $1,168,000 from the surety bond and the $300,000 bank settlement (approximately $60,000) will be deducted from the disbursements. ATTACHMENTS: Disbursement and Release Agreement Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release by and between the City of Temecula, PFF Bank & Trust and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association Exhibit B - Homeowners' Association Work List DISBURSEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This Disbursement and Release Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into on the latest day of execution, and is by and between the City of Temecula ("CITY"), and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association ("HOA"). The CITY and HOA may hereafter be referred to collectively as the "Parties." 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with reference to the following recitals of essential facts: 1.1 On or about June 24, 2003, the CITY approved Tract Map 26941 for the Crowne Hill Reserve, a planned gated community to consist of 28 lots for single family residences (the "PROJECT"). To secure performance of certain conditions of approval, Crowne Hill Reserve 28, LLC ("DEVELOPER") tendered to the CITY, as beneficiary, four performance bonds issued by Gulf Insurance Company, bearing the following bond numbers: BE 2640111, BE 4217697, BE 2640112, and BE 2640113 (collectively the "GULF BONDS"). 1.2 In July, 2003 and 2007, the CITY entered into three improvement agreements with the DEVELOPER for the completion of the PROJECT. To secure performance under those improvement agreements, the DEVELOPER tendered to the CITY, as beneficiary, three performance bonds issued by Insurance Company of the West, bearing bond numbers 1850322, 2209001, and 2209002 ("ICW BONDS"). 1.3 Thereafter, the DEVELOPER sold 18 lots on the PROJECT to various individuals and/or entities. Those individuals and/or entities (or their successors) are now members of the HOA. Prior to the completion and sale of the remaining nine (9) lots, the DEVELOPER failed to complete various common area and landscaping improvements on the PROJECT contemplated under the various conditions of approval and improvement agreements identified in Recitals 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. The last lot, "Lot 16," located at 33056 Wolfe Street, is currently a model home, and through a foreclosure, is now owned by JP Morgan/Chase. 1.4 The CITY then tendered claims on the ICW BONDS and GULF BONDS. On or about June 2, 2009, the CITY entered into an agreement with ICW whereby ICW paid $1,168,500.00 to the CITY in exchange for exoneration of its performance obligations under the ICW BONDS (the "ICW SETTLEMENT"). ICW's agreement to pay the CITY was caused by IOW's determination that the present cost to complete the improvements would be approximately $450,000.00 greater than the penal sums of the respective ICW BONDS. The CITY is continuing to seek performance and/or payment under the GULF BONDS from Travelers (successor to Gulf Insurance Company) for certain concrete, asphalt, and water line issues estimated to be no greater than $400,000.00 for completion. 1.5 DEVELOPER also defaulted on certain loan(s) made by PFF BANK & TRUST, and in a judicial foreclosure action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County Page 1 of 6 of Riverside, bearing civil case number RIC 510273, entitled PFF BANK & TRUST v. CROWNE HILL RESERVE 28, LLC, et al., Steven M. Speier was appointed the Receiver ("RECEIVER") in that action to take possession, custody and control of Lots 3, 5, 17-21, 24 and 26 of Tract 26941 of the PROJECT ("UNCOMPLETED LOTS"). On April 21, 2009 SA California Group, Inc. successor in interest to BANK foreclosed on the unsold lots. 1.6 The building permits issued for the construction of single-family residences on the UNCOMPLETED LOTS expired at various times during the past several years. The CITY would not re-issue the building permits to BANK without payment of the $450,000.00 shortfall set forth in Recital 1.4 hereof. The BANK contended that it was not obligated to pay any money that may be owed by DEVELOPER to the CITY or the HOA. After significant negotiations, BANK promised to pay $300,000.00 the CITY in exchange for the CITY's re-issuance of those building permits (the "BANK SETTLEMENT"). The BANK, CITY, and HOA entered into a Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement, a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 1.7 The various uncompleted common area improvements referenced in these recitals are all private property, owned by the HOA and/or individuals, entities who currently own various lots within the PROJECT. As such, the HOA desires to contract with contractor(s) to finish those uncompleted common area improvements, and the CITY is willing to reimburse the HOA with the settlement funds described in Recitals 1.4 and 1.6 hereof, less legal fees and costs incurred by the CITY in prosecuting the various claims described in this Agreement, totaling not less than $58,921.43 as of August 26, 2009. 2. Terms and Conditions of Disbursement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the Parties, and to avoid the necessity for future litigation, and without any admission of liability, the Parties seek to memorialize the terms and conditions of disbursement of the funds from the ICW SETTLEMENT and the BANK SETTLEMENT, and possibly monies from any resolution of the CITY's claims under the GULF BONDS, as well as memorialize the respective rights, releases and obligations of the Parties towards the final completion of the PROJECT: 2.1 Immediately upon the full execution of this Agreement, the CITY shall pay Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), based upon the express representation by the HOA that it shall diligently and promptly commence construction of the uncompleted common area improvements on the PROJECT listed in Exhibit "B." In the event that the CITY cannot obtain performance under the GULF BONDS, and/or obtains monetary settlement under the GULF BONDS, then the HOA shall also perform the uncompleted items under the underlying improvement agreements, and the HOA shall have reimbursement rights for that work performed as identified under this Agreement. The improvement obligations of the HOA identified in Section 2.1 hereof are collectively referred to herein as the "IMPROVEMENTS." 2.2 The HOA is solely responsible for hiring competent contractor(s) to perform the Page 2 of 6 IMPROVEMENTS. The HOA agrees it is solely responsible for payment obligations to the contractor(s) for work performed to complete the IMPROVEMENTS. Upon the completion of Item 1 of Exhibit "B" (i.e., entitled "Wolfe Street Drainage) to the satisfaction of the CITY's Public Works Director, the City shall disburse to the HOA an additional Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000.00) to fund the HOA's completion of the IMPROVEMENTS. Upon resolution of the CITY's claim under the GULF BONDS, the CITY shall disburse to the HOA the balance of the funds available for disbursement under this Agreement, less (1) the deduction for legal fees described in Recital 1.7 hereof, and any additional legal fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the CITY's claim on the GULF BONDS, and (2) One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) retention. Under no circumstances shall the CITY's disbursement obligations under this Agreement exceed the $1,168.500.00 ICW settlement; the $300,000.00 settlement with the BANK; monies, if any, obtained in the resolution of the CITY's claim under the GULF BONDS; less the legal fees and costs identified in Recital 1.7 hereof, and any additional legal fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the CITY's claim on the GULF BONDS. 2.3 Upon the completion of the IMPROVEMENTS, the HOA shall promptly notify the CITY. The CITY shall have the right (but not the obligation), at its sole expense, to conduct. an inspection of the PROJECT to verify performance of the IMPROVEMENTS. Upon verification of the full performance of the IMPROVEMENTS, the CITY shall immediately disburse the $100,000.00 retention described in Section 2.2 hereof to the HOA. 2.4 The CITY" and HOA agree that this Agreement is not intended in any way to benefit any third parties, such as contractor, subcontractor, materialmen or laborer related to the IMPROVEMENTS, and agree that none of the work performed for the IMPROVEMENTS trigger any obligations to pay prevailing wages under Labor Code 1775 et seq, as the IMPROVEMENTS all constitute private party work and source of funding for the reimbursement is solely from the settlements with private parties, i. e., the BANK, ICW, and 2.5 Subject to the CITY's approval, the HOA has the right to modify the equestrian trail outlined in the conditions of approval for Tract No. 26941. To the extent that is the CITY's authority to approve such modification, and provided the modification is acceptable by any outside governing bodies, the CITY agrees to accept modifications to the conditions of approval for Tract No. 26941 in order to modify the equestrian trail as may be proposed by the HOA within the PROJECT. 3. Release of Claims. In consideration of the various promises and obligations of the Parties set forth in this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree to the following releases of claims: 3.1 Except for the obligations set forth in, created by, arising out of or reserved by this Settlement Agreement, the HOA fully and forever releases, discharges, and dismisses all Page 3 of 6 claims, demands, actions, causes of action and rights, in law or in equity, in the nature of an administrative proceeding or otherwise (known, unknown, contingent, accrued, inchoate or otherwise), which it may have against the CITY, and all of its present and former officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys and assigns, arising out of and/or related in any way to the issuance of any building permit, certificate of occupancy, and any and all other CITY approvals necessary or required for the finalization and occupancy of Lot 16. 3.2 In the event that CITY obtains Travelers' commitment to perform the final asphalt cap to the streets at the PROJECT, the HOA acknowledges its desire for that work to be performed regardless of completion of the IMPROVEMENTS, Lot 16 or any of the BANK- owned lots, and therefore, the HOA fully and forever releases, discharges, and dismisses all claims, demands, actions, causes of action and rights, in law or in equity, in the nature of an administrative proceeding or otherwise (known, unknown, contingent, accrued, inchoate or otherwise), which it may have against the CITY", and all of its present and former officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys and assigns, arising out of and/or related in any way to the completion of the asphaltic cap to the streets at the PROJECT. 4. lVaiver of Statutoi-v Rielhts. Ea familiar with California Civil Code Section 1542, A general release does not ext( not know or suspect to exist executing the release, which, materially affected his or her s, its any respective release but of affect its decision to exec those injuries, damages or hereby acknowledge that it is as follows: claims which the creditor does s or her favor at the time of wn by him or her, must have ent with the debtor. application of California Civil Code Section 1542 as to i of the Parties acknowledges that this means that if it. amages, or losses out of the matters described in its currently aware and which if known would materially ve release, it would not be able to make any claim for to the releases described in this Agreement. 5. Indemnification. The HOA shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (including the appointment of competent defense counsel and expert(s), if necessary) the CITY, its officials, agents and employees from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense, for any damage whatsoever, including without limitation death or injury to any person and injury to any property, claims of unpaid wages (prevailing or not) resulting from any acts or omissions of the HOA or any of its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors in connection with the IMPROVEMENTS and/or this Agreement. The foregoing shall not apply to claims or actions caused by the sole negligence of City, its officers or employees. 6. Insurance Requirements. Promptly upon the execution of this Agreement, the HOA shall obtain an additional insured endorsement naming the City, its officials, employees Page 4 of 6 and agents as additional insureds from and against claims, demands, causes of action, liability, costs and expenses for injury to or death of persons, or loss or damage of arising from or connected with the IMPROVEMENTS under this Agreement in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,440,400.40) combined single limit for each occurrence or Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate. 7. Governing Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in the county where the PROJECT is located. 8. Further Assurances. Each of the Parties shall execute all instruments and documents and take all actions as may be reasonably required to effectuate this Settlement Agreement. 9. Attorneys' Fees. Each of the Part that they may have incurred prior to entering in event of a dispute related to and/or arising out of shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and 10. Time of Essence. Time is of the Settlement Agreement. 11. 1V writing executed modification is s12. the Agreement, is terms as are in statement of t understandings, matter, which p shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs this Settlement Agreement; however, in the s Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party respect to each provision of this Settlement Agreement may be modified only by a contract in this Settlement Agreement against whom enforcement of such ►r Understandings/Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement contains nt between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Settlement nded as a final expression of such Parties' agreement with respect to such ied in this Settlement Agreement, is intended as a complete and exclusive terms of such agreement, and supersedes all negotiations, stipulations, reements, representations and warranties, if any, with respect to such subject ,de or accompany the execution of this Settlement Agreement. 13. Interpretation. Whenever the context so requires in this Settlement Agreement, all words used in the singular shall be construed to have been used in the plural (and vice versa), each gender shall be construed to include any other genders, and the word "person" shall be construed to include a natural person, a corporation, a firm, a joint venture, a trust, an estate, or any other entity. 14. Partial Invalidity. Each provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. If any provision of this Settlement Agreement or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is, to any extent, deemed to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Settlement Agreement, or the Page 5 of 6 application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected by such invalidity or unenforceability, unless such provision or such application of such provision is essential to this Settlement Agreement. 15. Successors-in-Interest and Assigns. The Parties hereto, and each of them, shall not assign or delegate to any other person this Settlement Agreement or any obligations under this Settlement Agreement. Subject to any restriction on transferability contained in this Settlement Agreement, this Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors-in-interest and assigns of the parties hereto, and each of them. Nothing herein shall create any rights enforceable by any person other than the Parties hereto, except for the rights of the successor-in-interest and assigns of the Parties hereto, unless such rights are expressly granted in this Settlement Agreement to other specifically identified persons. 16. Drafting Ambiguities. The rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Settlement Agreement. 17. Counterparts & Facsimile Signatures. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in whole or in counterparts together which shall make up the entire Settlement Agreement. Facsimile signatures to this Settlement Agreement shall be accepted by the Parties the same as original wet signatures. Dated: r By: Attest:z Susan Jones, City Clerk Shawn Nelson, City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA Dated: ABy: Name: Its: CROWNE HILL RESERVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Page 6 of 6 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ("Settlement Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Temecula ("CITY"); PFF Bank & Trust, and the Court appointed "RECEIVER" (defined herein) (unless stated otherwise, PFF Bank & Trust and the RECEIVER are collectively referred to herein as the "BANK"); and Crowne Hill Reserve Homeowners' Association ("HOA"). The CITY, BANK, and HOA may hereafter be referred to collectively as the "Parties." 1. Recitals. This Settlement Agreement is made with reference to the following recitals of essential facts: 1.1 On or about June 24, 2003, the CITY approved Tract Map 26941 for the Crowne Hill Reserve, a planned gated community to consist of 28 lots for single family residences (the "PROJECT"). To secure performance of certain conditions of approval, Crowne Hill Reserve 28, LLC ("DEVELOPER") tendered to the CITY, as beneficiary, four performance bonds issued by Gulf Insurance Company, bearing the following bond numbers: BE 2640111, BE 4217697, BE 2640112, and BE 2640113 (collectively the "GULF BONDS"). 1.2 In July, 2003 and 2007, the CITY entered into three improvement agreements with the DEVELOPER for the completion of the PROJECT. To secure performance under those improvement agreements, the DEVELOPER tendered to the CITY, as beneficiary, three performance bonds issued by Insurance Company of the West, bearing bond numbers 1850322, 2209001, and 2209002 ("ICW BONDS"). 1.3 Thereafter, the DEVELOPER sold 18 lots on the PROJECT to various individuals and/or entities. Those individuals and/or entities are now members of the HOA. Prior to the completion and sale of the remaining ten (10) lots, the DEVELOPER failed to complete various common area and landscaping improvements on the PROJECT contemplated under the various conditions of approval and improvement agreements identified in Recitals 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. The CITY then tendered claims on the ICW BONDS and GULF BONDS. On or about June 2, 2009, CITY entered into an agreement with ICW whereby ICW promised to pay $1,168,500.00 in exchange for exoneration of its performance obligations under the ICW BONDS. ICW's agreement to pay the CITY was caused by ICW's determination that the present cost to complete the improvements was considerably greater than the penal sums of the respective bonds in an amount estimated at approximately $450,000.00. The CITY is continuing to seek performance and/or payment under the GULF BONDS from Travelers (successor to Gulf Insurance Company) for certain concrete, asphalt, and water line issues estimated to be no greater than $400,000.00 for completion. 1.4 DEVELOPER also defaulted on certain loan(s) made by PFF BANK & TRUST, and in a judicial foreclosure action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, bearing civil case number RIC 510273, entitled PFF BANK & TRUST v. Page 1 of 5 CROWNE HILL RESERVE 28, LLC, et al., Steven M. Speier was appointed the Receiver ("RECEIVER") in that action to take possession, custody and control of Lots 3, 5, 17-21, 24 and 26 of Tract 26941 of the PROJECT ("UNCOMPLETED LOTS"). 1.5 The building permits issued for the construction of single-family residences on the UNCOMPLETED LOTS expired at various times during the past several years. The CITY and HOA contend that the BANK is the successor-in-interest to the DEVELOPER with respect to the UNCOMPLETED LOTS, and as such, the BANK is obligated to pay the $450,000.00 shortfall identified in Recital 1.3 hereof. The CITY and HOA further contend that the BANK is not entitled to the re-issuance of those expired building permits until the BANK secures full performance the remaining obligations under the improvement agreements for the PROJECT and conditions of approval under Tract Map 26941. The BANK disputes the CITY's and HOA's respective contentions. 1.6 By this Settlement Agreement, the Parties intend to effect a final settlement of (a) disputes and contentions identified in Recital 1.5 hereof; (b) disputes, if any, between them relating to rights and/or obligations, if any, under the ICW BONDS and GULF BONDS; and (c) any claims, demands, causes of action, disputes or otherwise, relating to the CITY's entering into the agreement with ICW identified in Recital 1.3 hereof (collectively the "DISPUTES"). 2. Terms of Settlement and Mutual Release. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained in this Settlement Agreement and other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the Parties, and to avoid the necessity for continued or future litigation, and without any admission of liability as to any of the Parties, it is hereby agreed among the Parties as follows: 2.1 Within two weeks of the full execution of this Settlement Agreement and approval by the court identified in Recital 1.4 hereof (whichever occurs later), PFF BANK & TRUST shall deliver a fully negotiable settlement draft in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), made payable to "City of Temecula," to Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 S. Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, attention: B. Tilden Kim, Esq. The CITY shall hold this amount in trust until the CITY reaches a formal agreement with the HOA for expenditure this amount, and the monies from the settlement of the claims relating to the ICW BONDS identified in Recital 1.3 hereof, towards the completion of various common area and landscaping improvements for the PROJECT. 2.2 In exchange, upon confirmation of the clearance from the issuing bank of the settlement sum identified in Section 2.1 hereof, and subject to the payment of all applicable fees relating to the re-issuance of the building permits for the UNCOMPLETED LOTS, the CITY shall take all necessary steps to re-issue those building permits immediately. 3. Release of Claims. In consideration of the various promises and obligations of the Parties set forth in this Page 2 of 5 Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree to the following releases of claims: 3.1 Except for the obligations set forth in, created by, arising out of or reserved by this Settlement Agreement, the Parties fully and forever releases, discharges, and dismisses all claims, demands, actions, causes of action and rights, in law or in equity, in the nature of an administrative proceeding or otherwise (known, unknown, contingent, accrued, inchoate or otherwise), which each may have against each other, and all of its present and former officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys and assigns, arising out of and/or related in any way to the DISPUTES. 3.2 The Parties agree that the CITY, as beneficiary under the GULF BONDS, has the sole discretion to continue pursuing its claims under those bonds, and that the CITY has the sole authority to resolve those claims. If the CITY cannot seek GULF's performance under those bonds, and instead obtains a monetary settlement, the CITY shall make those monies, if any, available to the HOA for completion of the uncompleted conditions of approval under Tract Map No. 26941. 4. lVaiver of Statutoi-N, Riehts. Each of the Parties hereby acknowledge that it is familiar with California Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which, if known by him or her, must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. Each Party hereby waives application of California Civil Code Section 1542 as to its respective release. In doing so, each of the Parties acknowledges that this means that if it should suffer any additional injuries, damages, or losses out of the matters described in its respective release but of which it is not currently aware and which if known would materially affect its decision to execute its respective release, it would not be able to make any claim for those injuries, damages or losses relating to the DISPUTES. 5. Representation and Warranties. Except as otherwise set forth in this Settlement Agreement, each of the Parties hereby represent and warrant that they have not previously assigned or transferred in any manner, or purported to have assigned or transferred in any manner, any of the claims described in the DISPUTES. Each of the Parties further represent and warrant that this Settlement Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation on each of them, and that the individual executing this Settlement Agreement on their behalf has the authority to enter into and execute this Setttlement Agreement on their behalf. 6. Admission of Liability. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability by any of the Parties. Page 3 of 5 7. Governing Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in the county where the PROJECT is located. 8. Further Assurances. Each of the Parties shall execute all instruments and documents and take all actions as may be reasonably required to effectuate this Settlement Agreement. 9. Attorneys' Fees. Each of the Parties shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs that they may have incurred prior to entering into this Settlement Agreement; however, in the event of a dispute related to and/or arising out of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 10. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to each provision of this Settlement Agreement. 11. Modification. This Settlement Agreement may be modified only by a contract in writing executed by the Parties to this Settlement Agreement against whom enforcement of such modification is sought. 12. Prior Understandines/Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement, is intended as a final expression of such Parties' agreement with respect to such terms as are included in this Settlement Agreement, is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of such agreement, and supersedes all negotiations, stipulations, understandings, agreements, representations and warranties, if any, with respect to such subject matter, which precede or accompany the execution of this Settlement Agreement. 13. Interpretation. Whenever the context so requires in this Settlement Agreement, all words used in the singular shall be construed to have been used in the plural (and vice versa), each gender shall be construed to include any other genders, and the word "person" shall be construed to include a natural person, a corporation, a firm, a joint venture, a trust, an estate, or any other entity. 14. Partial Invalidity. Each provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. If any provision of this Settlement Agreement or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is, to any extent, deemed to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Settlement Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected by such invalidity or unenforceability, unless such provision or such application of such provision is essential to this Settlement Agreement. 15. Successors-in-Interest and Assiens. The Parties hereto, and each of them, shall not assign or delegate to any other person this Settlement Agreement or any rights or obligations Page 4 of 5 under this Settlement Agreement. Subject to any restriction on transferability contained in this Settlement Agreement, this Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors-in-interest and assigns of the parties hereto, and each of them. Nothing herein shall create any rights enforceable by any person other than the Parties hereto, except for the rights of the successor-in-interest and assigns of the Parties hereto, unless such rights are expressly granted in this Settlement Agreement to other specifically identified persons. 16. Drafting Ambiguities. The rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Settlement Agreement. 17. Comitemarts & Facsimile Signatures. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in whole or in counterparts together which shall make up the entire Settlement Agreement. Facsimile signatures to this Settlement Agreement shall be accepted by the Parties the same as original wet signatures. Dated: Attest: Susan Jones, City Clerk Dated: Dated: STEVEN M. SPEIER, RECEIVER Dated: By: By: Shawn Nelson, City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA By: Name: Its: PFF BANK & TRUST By: Name: Its: CROWNE HILL RESERVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Page 5 of 5 Exhibit "B" CROWNE RESERVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION WORK LIST 1. Wolfe Street Drainage: Complete Drainage Improvement along Wolfe Street to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. Perimeter fencing: For the northerly area that borders the park site and the southerly area that borders the school and park site the fencing shall be completed consistent with the Crown Reserve development as either wrought iron, or a combination block wall and wrought iron. 3. Common area Irrigation I Landscaping: All Homeowners' Association maintained landscaping and irrigation shall be repaired or replaced and continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. Irrigation shall be repaired or replaced and installed to insure that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 4. Drainage Basins: Drainage Basins shall be cleared of debris, overgrown weeds, or pests and continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. 5. Equestrian Trail: For the easterly portion of the project that runs along the City boundary, the Homeowners' Association shall fence the proposed equestrian trail by installing split rail fencing. At the Homeowners' Association's discretion, other fencing materials, as approved by the Planning Director, can be provided. The equestrian trail shall be kept free of weeds and continuously maintained by the Homeowners' Association to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM NO. 11 ACTION MINUTES of AUGUST 25, 2009 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 8:24 PM. CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 16 Action Minutes.- Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the action minutes of August 11, 2009. 17 Approval of the Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for City Hall Parkinq Lot Improvement - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Approve the specifications for the Project; 17.2 Authorize the Community Services Department to solicit constructions bids for the City Hall Parking Lot Improvement. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 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. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM NO. 12 ACTION MINUTES of AUGUST 25, 2009 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting convened at 8:25 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Ron Roberts ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 18 Action Minutes:- Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Agency Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve the action minutes of August 11, 2009. 19 Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Aareement with Nichols. Melbura & Rossetto for Additional Services associated with the Old Town Infrastructure Project - Parking Structure and Office/Retail - PW06-070 D) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Agency Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto (NMR) for additional services associated with obtaining LEED Certification of the Old Town Infrastructure Project, Parking Structure and Office/Retail in the amount of $159,388 and authorize the Chairperson to execute the amendment. 20 Annual Agreements for Consulting Services with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for Real Estate Economic Services and Affordable Housing Consulting Services for Fiscal Year 2009-10 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) - Agency Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the amount of $65,000 to provide as-needed Real Estate Economic Consulting Services for Fiscal Year 2009-10 and authorize the Redevelopment Chairperson to execute the agreement; 20.2 Approve an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the amount of $60,000 to provide as-needed Affordable Housing Consulting Services for Fiscal Year 2009-10 and authorize the Redevelopment Chairperson to execute the agreement. RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT At 8:26 p.m., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 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. Ron Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM NO. 13 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: September 8, 2009 SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Appointment PREPARED BY: Cheryl Domenoe, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Appoint an applicant to serve an un-expired term on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission through October 10, 2010. BACKGROUND: Commissioner Christopher Curran resigned effective July 17, 2009. The City Clerk's office has followed the Council's established procedure for filling Commission vacancies by advertising the openings in the local newspaper. Notices were also posted at various locations within the City and on the City's Web page. When the deadline was reached for accepting applications, the applications were forwarded to the subcommittee comprised of Mayor Edwards and Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero for review and recommendation. Both Mayor Edwards and Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero have recommended the appointment of John-Paul Hannum to serve the un- expired term through October 10, 2009. All applicants are registered voters and live within the city limits of the City of Temecula. Attached are copies of the applications that were received by the filing deadline of August 10, 2009. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Six (6) Applications for Appointment City of Temecula ii 2a_,I_n 43200 Business Park Drive Commission AppointmenJ91 Temecula, CA 92590 wwwcityaftemeeula.org; Application -I'V¢D (961):694'-6444 JG a 7 2009 p Pieese cheek one.. F----J. Planning Community Services, Public Traffte Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 13 Are you a City Registered Voter? yes NAME: James D. Dent OCCUPATION.. Refired Polims"gmt ADDRESS- 41791 Caseades; Coubt T ~l 9 12-S 11 DAYTIME PHONE: (951)506-6639 EVENING. PHONE: Same EMPLOYER NAME. City 01S'anDiego-PeiceDepartnent EMPLOYER ADDRESS: E-MAIL Educational Background/Degrees: See Attached List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: See Attached List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): See Attached State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) See Attached I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Date: 8 ---7 -Q 9 Please etur to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (951) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE City of Temecula Commission Appointment Application Public Traffic Safety James D. Dent 41791 Cascades Court Temecula, California 92591 I spent the majority of my Law Enforcement career in the area of Traffic Safety, Accident Investigation, Traffic Law Enforcement and Education. Since moving to Temecula from San Diego I have found a community that takes great pride in its Roadways and Traffic Safety issues. I feel that I could contribute to these ideals and give further to the community that I now call home. Please accept the following information as my resume for consideration for this position on the Public Traffic Safety Commission. 1969-1994 San Diego Police Department Assignments: 1969-1971 Patrol Duties 1971-1972 Accident Investigation 1972-1975 Motorcycle Officer 1975-1982 Detective Hit & Run Detail 1982 Promoted to Sergeant 1982-1984 Supervisor Patrol 1984 1985 Supervisor Communications Division . 1985-1986 Supervisor Traffic Division 1986-1989 Supervisor Motorcycle Unit 1989-1994 Supervisor Training and Development Division Specific Related Duties: Investigate Traffic Collisions Enforce DUI and Traffic Related Violations Make Traffic Safety Recommendations Follow-up Investigations of Fatal and Felony Collisions Supervise Accident Investigations Supervise Speed Enforcement Units Supervise Special Details such as Presidential Visits, Olympic Events, Runs and Stadium Events (Chargers, Padres, SDSU etc.). Supervise In-Service Training Unit Courses taught at The San Diego Police Academy, Southwestern College and Miramar College: Basic Accident Investigation Hit & Run Investigation Crime Scene Investigation Interview and Interrogation Techniques Verbal Judo Community Orientated Policing Cultural Awareness Educational Background: Teaching Credential Earned at San Diego State University Since I moved to the City of Temecula I have served on the Temeku Hill Board of Directors for a total of seven years. I served three years as President and three years as Vice President and currently serve as Treasurer. In addition I am currently serving as the President of the Temeku Hills Men's Golf Club. Thank you for considering my application for the Public Traffic Safety Commission. es D. Dent City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 03-I)-09 A09:26 IN Commission Appointment Application rwC~u~;f 1G 10 2009 C. =-es:Fea913~' 's. viease check one. 0 Planning 0 Community Services Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 9 Are you a City Registered Voter? yes NAME: Mark Garcie OCCUPATION: Fire Captain ADDRESS: 40529 Calle Medusa Temecula California 92591 DAYTIME PHONE: 951-764-9683 EVENING PHONE: 951-308-1347 EMPLOYER NAME: Caifomia Department of Forestry& Fire Protection (CALFIRE)/Riverside Co. Fire EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 210 West San Jacinto Ave. Perris CA 92570 E-MAIL -ks=ic@yahoo-- Educational Background/Degrees: Public Safety/Fire Protection/Public Administration Eduction Background List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Rancho School Site Council (2 years), Chaperret HS School Site Council (present) California Joint Apprentice Committee - site SubJAC committee member (9 years)-Fire Training, Education and Certification program List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): California Professional Firefighters; International Association of Firefighters (Local 2881); International Wildland Firefighters; SAFER; California State Training Officer Association (SoCal section of CalChiefs) State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) I have lived in this city for a number of years, my children attend school here in town and my family long term investments and interests are within this town. I feel that my background and experience can assist me dealing with safety issues. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Date: 9- 5- City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (951) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE City of Temecula Public Traffic Safety Commission Appointment Statement As stated on the application, I have lived in this city for over 9 years with my family. Our three daughters attend school here in town and our family's investment and future is within this city. For the last 23 years, I have been a career firefighter, however, prior to that I spent 5 years as a part-time/non-career firefighter, working on a seasonal or Paid-on-Call (PCF). I have attended expensive training regarding various types of emergency incident management, public administration and leadership courses over the last 28 years. Further, I have enjoyed a good working relationship with Law Enforcement over the years. I feel that my experience, combined with my personal commitment to maintain this city at it present level in the term of a quality place for families to live and people to enjoy life, is a great asset to this Commission. I have the ability to apply my knowledge of emergency operations and combine hat with the real world needs of a resident of Temecula, and I believe that I can find and maintain a balance that can be applied effectively. Attached is a list of courses and training which I believe would enhance my abilities to address various issues that may present themselves to this Commission: CALJAC/CSFM Fire Officer - I National Fire Academy Fire Service Supervision Incident Command System (ICS) 100 & 200 CSFM/CSTI ICS 300 & 400 ICS 700 / 800 (AIIMS) Critical Incident Response & Management (WMD) Disaster Preparation & Management/Critical incident Response Nat. Fire Academy Emergency Response to Terrorism Nat. Fire Academy Awareness of Command and Control Decision Making at Multiple Alarm Incidents FEMA/DHS Professional Development Series: IS-139 Exercise Design IS-230 Principles of Emergency Management IS- 235 Emergency Planning IS-240 Leadership IS-241 Decision Making & Problem Solving IS-242 Effective Communication IS-244 Developing and Managing Volunteers Basic Operational Risk Management NFA Community Safety Educator Basic Operational Risk Management Standards of Conduct for Supervisors Leadership & Team Building for Supervisors WMD Course Instructor (CPF) Texas A & M Terrorism Management & WMD course Texas A & M Terrorism Incident Command course Office of Emergency Services Hazardous Material Incident Commander References: Gary Becks - Retired Battalion Chief Rescue Task Force Director - 619-424-7415 Colin Bell - Assistant Fire Chief Federal Fire, Ventura County 805-914-4818 Pat Dennen - Fire Chief San Bernardino County FD 909-387-5948 Jerry Sack - Fire Chief (ret.) Miramar Federal Fire Department 858-577-6848 Dave Updike - Fire Management Officer Mountain Conservatory 310-985-5230 Shirl Coons - CALJAC 916-648-1717 Bob Uribe Battalion Chief FFD SD Pine Valley: 619-473-8445 / FFD (cell) 619-884-0832 Jeff Robinson - Battalion Chief Cleveland National Forest / USFS 619473-9607 Vince O'Neal - Battalion Chief/South Ops California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection 951-526-3943 Jamie Wood - Fire Chief Federal Fire Department, Southwest Region 619-524-2522 Mike Massone - Fire Apparatus Engineer 5' District VP, CPF 951-235-0549 Eric Perry - Fire Captain California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection 951.533-2071 08-05-09 A11:28 IN 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 For proper, consideration;,lyou must enrrently be ac resident of the' A City of Temecula and, a Registered Voter within the City_ Limits of the egy of Temecula - 1 . y Please check one: 0 Planning Community Services x~ Public Traffic Safety City of Temecula Commission Appointment Application mvcm JC - 5 2009 CLERKS uEPT_ Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 21 Are you a City Registered Voter? yes_ NAME: John-Paul A. Hannum OCCUPATION: Peace officer, sergeant ADDRESS:. 43960 Alencon Court. Temecula. CA 92592 DAYTIME PHONE: 951.3720401 EVENING PHONE: 951.377.0401 EMPLOYER NAME: California Highway Patrol - Office of Inspections EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 16791 Davis Avenue, Riverside, CA 92518 E-MAIL ronapa-ffi- @yahmc= Educational Background/Degrees: Bachelor of Science - Forestry/Natural Resources Management (1998) Paramedic Certification (2000) List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): C14P - Chairperson for Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities (2008 - current) State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) See attached. 1 understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. re: Date: 01 0L-I 01 Please return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (951) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Commission Members: I am contacting you to express my interest in the current opening for the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. Please accept this letter as my formal request for consideration from you to be appointed to the commission. Attached is my application and resume for your review. My career in public service began in the fire service in 1992, when I joined the Explorer/Volunteer Firefighter Program in Temecula. Through training and continued education, I achieved the rank of Volunteer Fire Apparatus Engineer. In 1996 I was hired as a Firefighter with CAL FIRE and worked as a seasonal firefighter for the following three years. While working for CAL FIRE, I used the opportunity to establish my professional skills as a firefighter, and support myself while completing my undergraduate education. Upon receiving my bachelor's degree in Natural Resources Management, with an emphasis in Fire Management, I attended Victor Valley Community College Paramedic program. After successfully finishing the Paramedic program, I chose to pursue a career in law enforcement. In the year 2000, I applied and was accepted to the California Highway Patrol Academy. I have worked in various areas/capacities throughout the state as an officer. Throughout my career, I continually have pursued ways to improve my education and stay current in specialized training. This includes the nine core courses for my Fire Officer Certificate that I completed in 1999. In 2006, I promoted and achieved the rank of Sergeant within the CHP. In 2008, I was selected to be the CHP chairperson for the Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities (ACPD). Through my training and tenure as a supervisor with the CHP, I have received my POST Supervisory Certificate. Also in 2008, I renewed my Paramedic license and now work part-time for American Medical Response as a Paramedic. All these experiences have allowed me to interface with many different professionals from various public safety agencies. I have a total of 17 years working in the field with my CUP, paramedic and previous fire service experience. All of these experiences have allowed me the opportunity to lead and manage in a variety of situations. The diversity of these assignments has given me the experience and confidence to lead and motivate others, and be an effective problem solver. I have lived permanently in the City of Temecula since 1988 and have seen great progress in public/traffic safety. I am excited about the possibility of volunteering my timetexperiences as a member of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission in order to continue making Temecula a safe environment for its citizens and all that travel through. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, cbk J-P Hsnnum John-Paul A. Hannum 43960 Alencon Court, Temecula, CA 92592 GOAL Obtain a position on the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission EDUCATION CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO Bachelor of Science, Natural Resources Management - December 1998 Emphasis: Fire Management VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, VICTORVILLE Paramedic - April 2000 RELEVANT COURSE WORK AND SPECIALIZED TRAINING • LAPD Police Performance Auditing (2009) • State Fire Marshal Rescue Systems 1(1999) • POST - Supervisory Certificate (2008) • State Fire Marshal Confined Space Awareness(1999) • Field Training Officer and CMTO (2004) • ICS 100, 110, 130, 190, 200, 300 (1998) • Intermediate Accident Investigation (2002) • State Fire Marshal Driver/Operator IA & 111 (1996) • Radar Training (2002) • State Fire Marshal Firefighter I (1995) • Advanced Drug Training (2001) • CDF Basic Wildland Firefighter Academy (1996) • State Fire Marshal Trench Rescue (2000) • Volunteer Fire Apparatus Engineer (1996) • State Fire Marshal Command IA & 111 (1999) • I-Zone Firefighting Methods (1996) • State Fire Marshal Instructor IA & 111 (1999) • SIDS, Communicable Disease Awareness (1996) • State Fire Marshal Investigation lA & IB (1999) • CSTI Hazardous Materials Operational (1994) • State Fire Marshal Prevention IA & IB (1999) • Defensive Driver Training (1994) CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Administrative Sergeant / Acting Lieutenant, Office of Inspections, 2009; • Lead inspector for Area evidence inspections • Review completed inspection reports • Supervise and evaluate employees • Chairperson of Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities • Materials management • Complete projects / administrative assignments for Commander CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Sergeant, East Los Angeles Area, 2007 - 2009; Santa Rosa Area, 2006 - 2007 • Supervised and evaluated employees • Investigated citizens complaints and adverse actions • Member of Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities • Daily, monthly and yearly scheduling of employees • Community service projects and public education services AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE Paramedic, Riverside Division, 2008 - Current (Part-time) • Respond to medical aides and traffic collisions • Evaluate and treat sick/injured patients • Administer medications and supervise crew members CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Officer, San Diego and Santa Fe Springs Areas, 2000-2006 • Ensured public safety and provide service, Category I motorcycle rider • Enforcement of vehicle and penal code • Associate member of Special Investigations Unit - 2005 • Emergency traffic and or incident management • Vehicle patrol, accident investigation, fast aid, apprehension, and arrest of suspected violators • Assisted the motoring public CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION Firefighter I, Butte and San Luis Obispo Ranger Units (Seasonal through 19%-1999) • Responded to emergency and non-emergency incidents • Provided structural, wildland, and vehicle fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials management, and general public assistance • Trained volunteers and complete special assignments • Supervised 60 Emergency Paid Call Firefighters at Paso Robles Air Attack Base • Retardant Mix Master, Ramp Manager, Hotel Coordinator, Dispatcher CDF / RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Volunteer Fire Apparatus Engineer, Temecula, Battalion 15 (1992-1996,1999) • Responded on Schedule A and B apparatus, worked on major campaign fires, out of county assignments • Responded to alarms on truck, engine, squad, and breathing support John-Paul A. Hannum 43960 Alencon Court, Temecula, CA 92592 Sean Dakin, Battalion Chief CAL FIRE / City of Temecula Fire Marshal 951-506-5106 Ernie Sanchez, Captain California Highway Patrol / Office of Inspections 951-660-3113 Erik Hostetter, Local Business Owner Hostetter Sand and Gravel 951-232-5574 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 Commission AppointnpA Q~®09 Application Rjr"ftlpr Please cheek One. F l Planning Community Services xQ Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Are you a City Registered Voter? _ NAME: Joseph J. Kresl, Jr. OCCUPATION: senior Project Manager ADDRESS: 42234 Camino Merano, Temecula, CA. 92592 DAYTIME PHONE: (760) 427-6325 EVENING PHONE: (951) 587-8531 EMPLOYER NAME: Straub Construction, Inc. EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 202 West College St., Ste.#201, Fallbrook, CAB E-MAIL JJK=d@v"i-net Educational Background/Degrees: Please see attached Resume for all educational background/degrees. List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: NONE List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): I have coached youth recreational and high school roller/ice hockey intermittently for the last 7 years. State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged,) PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. re•vF~~ • f - I Date: v Please return to City Cleric's Office, 43 00 Business Park Drive (951) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE ATTACHMENT TO COMMISION APPOINTMENT APPLICATION SUBJECT: Why I wish to serve/am qualified to serve on the commission Since I moved to Temecula approximately six years ago, I have admired/respected how efficiently and effectively the City is run. I would like to contribute to that success by serving on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, where my extensive experience, background, and abilities can be utilized for the City. I have worked in the construction industry for over 20 years. I have managed multi-million dollar projects and have worked with numerous people from both public agencies and private industry companies, on a daily basis, in the process of completing my assigned projects. I am very good in dealing with people of all backgrounds and fully understand that decisions are made based on the facts or information presented and not based on "personal/emotional" interests or views. I have to negotiate/administer issues on a daily basis and because of this I have become very experienced at resolving problems/issues. My extensive background would bring to the commission a person who has "dealt" with various people representing various interests. I am a problem solver, not a problem creator! I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute, in order to help ensure the City continues to develop/grow in a way that is true to its past, present, and future plans/traditions. Professional references: Ron Guerriero, Commissioner, City of Temecula Planning Commission For other references, please see attached Project Reference Listing Friday, September 19, 2008 Honorable Mayor Mr. Mike Naggar Councilmember's Roberts, Comerchero, Washington and Edwards I am pleased to support Joe Kresl for a position on the Temecula Traffic and Public Safety Commission. I have known Joe Kresl for 5 years and have found him to be a family man, honest, educated, and a professional individual. He possesses a great knowledge of planning, development, infrastructure, and community involvement that makes him a perfect candidate for this position. He has watched our community grow and is excited to become a part of the ongoing planning for our community. Joe has been asking me for years how he could become involved in city government, and I believe this is the opportunity he has been waiting for. I feel strongly that Joe Kresl will be an outstanding member of the commission and his years of development and planning experience will benefit our city. Please give Joe the opportunity to serve the Council and citizens of Temecula. Respectfully Submitted e? /Z Ron Guerriero JOSEPH J. KRESL, JR. 42334 Camino Merano Temecula, CA. 92592 (951) 587-8531 JJKresl@verizon.net Dear Madam/Sir: Please accept this letter as expressed interest in an Executive/Senior Management position with your firm. My resume is enclosed for your review and consideration. I have excellent qualifications to bring to this position, including over 20+ years of progressively responsible experience in all aspects of operations management, construction/project management, business administration, financial control, and personnel management. I offer proven abilities, enthusiasm, and strong determination that qualify me to be a significant asset to your organization. At your earliest convenience, I look forward to discussing my qualifications with you during a personal interview. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joseph J. Kresl, Jr. Enclosure PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2008-Present STRAUB CONSTRUCTION, INC., FALLBROOK, CALIFORNIA Senior Project Manager Responsibilities include ongoing Project Management for the Federal Government, which includes: pre-construction phase, continuous project management, administration, and project close-out. The types of projects responsible for consist of. expansion, and new construction. 2003-2008 EDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC., TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Construction Manager Responsibilities include ongoing Project Management for various school districts, which includes: pre-construction phase, continuous project management, administration, and project close-out. The types of projects responsible for consist of. modernization, expansion, and new construction. 2002-2003 MD ENTERPRISES, INC., ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA Director of Project Management Hired to administer the day-to-day operations of the newly established Project Management Division. Overall responsibilities include: Oversight/management of all projects throughout the State of California, budget monitoring by project, contract administration, receivables, payables, personnel, estimating, site coordination, problem solving, interfacing with clients, subcontractors, and government agencies. Establish policies and procedures for this new division. 2001-2002 BERNARDS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, SAN FERNANDO, CALIFORNIA Project Manager Responsibilities include Project Management for various ongoing projects for the San Bernardino Unified School District, which includes: pre-construction phase, continuous project management, administration, and project close-out. The types of projects responsible for consisted of. modernization, expansion, and new construction. 1997-2001 AURORA MODULAR IND., RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Director of Project Management During my first year with this modular/construction company ($50-60M in annual sales) I held the position of a Sales/Project Manager. Due to my background, experience, and performance I was tasked to create/develop the "Field Operations Division". Within the first year I "organized" the Project Management Dept. to track projects with "formal" schedules, proper documentation, tracking reports, routine status meetings, established more customer interaction, hands-on problem solving, better cost tracking, adherence to procedures, and faster "close-out" of projects. In the Customer Service Dept. I established policies and procedures for responsiveness of service requests, customer follow-up, staffing requirements, minimum tool/equipment requirements, and timely completion of service calls. In the Shipping Dept. I developed procedures for better customer and subcontractor coordination in shipment of the prefabricated buildings, a "last-look" quality check, complete/correct "ship-loose" materials, and most importantly "on-time" delivery of buildings to site location(s). Overall responsibilities include: Oversight of $18-21M (average) in concurrent projects, site construction, budget and monitoring of budget, equipment and material acquisitions, personnel, contract administration, interfacing with clients and subcontractors, billing submissions and follow-up, problem resolution, on-site inspections/coordination, and interaction with government agencies. 1996-1997 COMPLETE COACH WORKS, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Project Manager Planned, directed, and coordinated activities of designated projects to ensure that goals or objectives of projects were accomplished within prescribed time frames and funding parameters. Streamlined the process of project tracking through the use of "formal" schedules, periodic project reviews, proper staffmg requirements for each phase of the project, direct and coordinate activities of project personnel, establish procedures, review project status reports and make adjustments if necessary, resolve problems, client interaction, and confer with government agencies. 1987-1995 KINGDON & SONS, INC., MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Vice-President/General Manager Full administrative responsibility for daily operational procedures of this pipeline construction company, in the corporate office and on-site at all projects. Began with the company deeply distressed financially and successfully turned it around to a profitable corporation. Financial accountability for all receivables, payables, and budget monitoring by project. Handle all purchasing of equipment, supplies and materials, maintaining inventory control and minimum costs. Hold periodic safety meetings and adhere to all regulatory mandates of OSHA. Also, accountable for personnel management, contract administration, interfacing with clients, subcontractors, suppliers, estimators, & government agencies. 1983-1987 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, VARIOUS LOCATIONS NCO of Communications/Navigations Systems Quality Assurance Inspector Honorable Discharge PROFESSIONAL LICENSES California State Contractors License - A - General Engineering Contractor B - General Building Contractor HAZ- Hazardous Substances Removal Certification ASB - Asbestos Abatement Certification HIC - Home Improvement Certification REFERENCES Excellent references available upon request. JOSEPH J. KRESL, JR. 42234 Camino Merano Temecula, CA. 92592 (951) 587-8531 JJKresl@verizon.net PROJECT REFERENCE LIST Straub Construction (2008 to Present) - "The references listed below are projects I managed directly and represent total various/single project amounts. All projects were located in Southern California. Camp Pendleton, California - - CONTACT: Greg Matula, ROICC Engineering Technician (760) 224-4047 FIOC Phase 3 Project (CURRENTLY UNDER CONST.) - $50M EDGE Development (2003 to 2008) - "The references listed below are projects I managed directly and represent total various/single project amounts. All projects were located in Southern California. Temecula Valley Unified School District - - CONTACT: Dave Gallaher, Former Director of Facilities Currently Chief of Facilities with Hayward Unified School District (510) 305-0920 Temecula Valley High School - New Theater Site Work (Nov. 2007) - $1.2M Temecula Valley High School -New Gym, Pool, & Site Work (Sep. 2007) - $23.3M Crowne Hill Elementary School (Aug. 2005) - $17M Bella Vista Middle School (Aug. 2004) - $19M Alamos Elementary School (Aug. 2004) - $13M Temecula Elementary School Expansion/Modernization (Jan. 2005) - $6M Barnett Elementary School Wing "E" Expansion (Oct. 2004) - $3M Misc. work at various sites throughout the District - $1.5M Murrieta Valley Unified School District - - CONTACT: Britt Rees, Director of Construction (951) 813-9038 Dorothy McElhinny M.S. (Dec. 2008) - $39.6M Murrieta Mesa H.S. (Dec. 2008) - $100AM Lake Elsinore Unified School District - - CONTACT: Mike Sattley, Former Director of Facilities Currently Project Manager with HCH Construction Managers (951) 677-9819 Lake Elsinore High School Storm Drain (Mar. 2007) - $1.1M Lakeland Village Middle School (Aug. 2006) - $27M Ronald Reagan Elementary School (Aug. 2005) - $13M Butterfield Elementary School Modernization/Expansion (Aug. 2005) - $3.5M Page 1 of 1 Corona-Norco Unified School District - - CONTACT: Don Lussier, Construction Coordinator (951) 736-5048 Bernice Jameson Todd Elementary School (Nov. 2007) - $19.3M Riverside Unified School District - - CONTACT: Orin Williams, Director of Facilities (951) 788-7102 Arlington & North High Schools' New Science Wings (Sep. 2004) - $5M Ramona High School Science Wings' Modernization (Sep. 2004) - $IM Bernards Brothers (2001 to 2002) - "The reference listed below is the project I managed directly and represent total various/single project amounts. The project was located in Southern California. San Bernardino Unified School District - - Kitchen Remodels at various sites - $6M Aurora Modular (1997 to 2001) - "The references listed below are projects I managed directly and represent total various/single project amounts. All projects were located in Northern & Southern California. Hayward Unified School District - - $7.4M Pomona Unified School District - - $3.5M Palmdale School District - - $2.6M Montebello Unified School District - - $2.1 M Saugus Union School District - - $1.9M Palm Springs Unified School District - - $1.9M Westminster Unified School District - - $13M Claremont Unified School District - - $1.1M San Marcos Unified School District - - $ LOM Kingdon & Sons, Inc (1987 to 1995) - "The references listed below are projects I managed directly and represent total various/single project amounts. All projects were located in Southern California. City of Corona - - Water Lines/Pump Station - - $1.5M Pacific Scene Development Co. - - Water & Sewer Lines, Storm Drains - - $IM Various Developers - - Water & Sewer Lines, Storm Drains, & Fire Lines - - $15K - $800K City of Hesperia - - Water Lines - - $700K City of Rialto - - Water Lines/Sewer Repairs - - $50K - $600K City of Ontario - - Water Lines - - $100K - $500K City of Pomona - - Water Lines - - $350K Riverside Highland Water Co. - - Water Lines/Water Line Emergency Repairs - - $25K - $300K City of Moreno Valley - - Water Lines - - $300K Additional Professional References - Fred Gualda Carl Larson George Weins Principal Architect Construction Administrator Principal Architect MGPA Architects NTDStichler Architects WLC Architects (760) 929-1500 (858) 565-4440 (909) 987-0909 Page 2 of 2 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Commission Appointment Temecula, CA 92590 A (ication www.cityoftemecula.org pp (951) 694-6444 C-0 EIVIEOD 6 2000 Please check one. 0 Planning 0 Community Services Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 5 yrs Are you a City Registered Voter? yes NAME: HOWARD H SMITH OCCUPATION: so rwAREENGiNEER ADDRESS: 42554 DRENNON COURT TEMECULA CA 92592 DAYTIME PHONE: 619-253-3881 EVENING PHONE: 951-303-0643 EMPLOYER NAME: AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 777 FRONT STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 E-MAIL h-&@-h-- Educational Background/Degrees: MBA GLOBAL BUSINESS - UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS BS INFORMATION SYSTEMS - UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Adjunct Professor - Southern States University - San Diego. List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): Microsoft Certified Professional. State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) Please see attachment. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information ntwooses. Date: 09 -(QS , iZ: Please return toNC1Ty Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (951) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to. P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92569-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE ATTACHMENT - PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION APPLICATION APPLICANT - HOWARD SMITH DATE: 08105/2009 As one former Temecula mayor commented to me, "Temecula is a city built on volunteer citizenry." I wish nothing more than to contribute my time and effort to work with other volunteers on behalf of our diversified community. I believe I am qualified because of my extensive negotiations skills as a business owner and university professor. I hope to work with committee members to make recommendations to the city council on issues of public safety. As a past president of Temecula Crowne Hill Community Association, I learned also on how to work with board members, the city and the diverse citizens of the community. '1'-! ) 9 PC1 :39 IN City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Commission Appointment Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org Application (951) 694-6444 R' EIVED For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the~~ 10 City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula CI Y CLERK5 DEPT Please check One. Q Planning 0 Community Services 0 Public Traffic Safety Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Two Are you a City Registered Voter? Yes NAME: Scott R. Swanson y~ OCCUPATION: Program Manager ADDRESS: 32216 Corte Chatada I Pr uAl 9 1 Z~~ DAYTIME PHONE: (H) 951-699-2287 EVENING PHONE: (C)951-240-9329 EMPLOYER NAME: Sullivan International Group EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 409 Camino del Rio South, San Diego E-MAIL xun@awan -riiiy- Educational Background/Degrees: See Attached sheet List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: None List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): Project Management Institute-Certified Project Management Professional Civil Air Patrol - LL Colonel Disabled American Veterans-Life Member State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific.(You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) See attachment: Letters of recommendation attached from: Gary Youmans, Kent Demuth, Bernie Bramante. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. re: te:~ C?~--d Please return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (951) 694-6444 (OR) Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) I believe I am the right choice for the open Public Traffic Safety commission position. i have a background in emergency services and emergency services management including continuity of government operations and planning. My training includes both formal training by FEMA and the USAF and 30+ years of practical experience through Civil Air Patrol and a 20 year career in the USAF as a Rescue Helicopter Pilot. My wife and I choose Temecula as our new home after I retired from the USAF and we both have enjoyed being active in the local community. To serve as a commission member is my opportunity to use my skills and experience to better serve the City and our community. Commission Appointment Application-Scott R. Swanson 10 Aug 2009 Educational Background/Degrees: Bachelors of Applied Science-Aviation Management University of Minnesota SPECIALIZED TRAINING Federal Emergency Management Agency-Emergency Management Institute • Introduction to Incident Command System ICS-100 • ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents ICS-200 • ICS-300: Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents • ICS-400: Advanced ICS Command and General Staff-Complex Incidents • National Incident Management System (NIMS), An Introduction ICS-700 • Search and Rescue Management Course-Air Force Rescue Coordination Center Commission Appointment Application-Scott R. Swanson 10 Aug 2009 Gary Youmans 32206 Corte Chatada Temecula, CA 92592 August 6, 2009 To City Council of Temecula: My friend and neighbor, Scott Swanson, has expressed a strong interest in serving on the City of Temecula's Public/Traffic Safety Commission. After 20 years of serving our country as a USAF officer and pilot, Scott would like to now serve his community. I've been an active member of this community for nearly 20 years, and I am currently the Public/Traffic Safety Commission Chair, so I am familiar with the skills needed to make effective and successful contributions. I have known Scott for over a year and am impressed with his integrity, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to roll up his sleeves and get the job done - in fact, any job that needs to be done. With his background in emergency services, disaster relief, and continuity of government operations, I believe Scott would be an excellent addition to the Commission and be able to add a great deal of value to the City of Temecula. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss Scott in greater detail. Respectfully, 4 Gary YgrnjnI s Bernardo D. Bramante 44765 Rutherford Street Temecula, CA 92592 951-795-0087 August 7, 2009 RE: Mr. Scott Swanson To Whom It May Concern: It has been my pleasure to have known Scott for the past two years. His wife Tamara and I serve on a committee together within the local Rotary Club of Temecula. I have had many occasions to meet him socially and to enter into conversations with Scott regarding his personal experiences within the USAF and his current career. Both he and I served as officers and as pilots. I have come to appreciate the depth and vastness of Scott's background in emergency services management and leadership that he gained during his career in the USAF. Understanding some of the important responsibilities he took on while in the service I was impressed with both his sense of being a team player and being a superb manager of people. If the City of Temecula needs a man to tackle the issues of traffic and safety in our community, Scott is the right man for the job. It is without hesitation that I recommend Scott for the position on the Public Safety/Traffic Commission. Bernardo D. Bramante Oak Grove Center - Mei Habitat for Humanity - i 2008 Man of the Year, R 2008-09 First Annual Re 2007-08 Rotary Club RO of the Board ber of the Board ide County Third District ant Rotary Service Above Sel'Award of the Year Award August 10, 2009 To City Council of Temecula: I am writing on behalf of Scott Swanson regarding his interest to serve on the City of Temecula's Public/Traffic Safety Commission. I have known Scott for about a year, first meeting Scott though his wife, who is a fellow Rotarian and have socialized with him since then, I have found him to be a man of commitment, hard worker and strong character. From my relationship with him and his wife, I know they are committed to this community and have no problem stepping up to help our community where ever needed. Scott has served his country in the US Air force as an Officer and Pilot for over 20 years. He currently serves his community as a lt. Colonel and Pilot in the Civil Air Patrol. Both of these require a commitment, understanding and dedication to service. Scott is no stranger to emergency services planning and operations and has what it takes to get things done. I believe Scott's experience with emergency and government service would make Scott a valuable addition to the Commission. Please feel free to contact me at either of the phone numbers listed below. Sincerely, li;Axcl Kent Demuth 44562 Villa Helena St Temecula, CA 92592 Phone: 951-225-8011 Cell: 630-854-5506 August 10, 2009 To City Council of Temecula: I am writing on behalf of Scott Swanson regarding his interest to serve on the City of Temecula's Public/Traffic Safety Commission. I have known Scott for about a year, first meeting Scott though his wife, who is a fellow Rotarian and have socialized with him since then. I have found him. to be a man of commitment, hard worker and strong character. From my relationship with him and his wife, I know they are committed to this community and have no problem stepping up to help our community where ever needed. Scott has served his country in the US Air force as an Officer and Pilot for over 20 years. He currently serves his community as a lt. Colonel and Pilot in the Civil Air Patrol. Both of these require a commitment, understanding and dedication to service. Scott is no stranger to emergency services planning and operations and has what it takes to get things done. I believe Scott's experience with emergency and government service would make Scott a valuable addition to the Commission. Please feel free to contact me at either of the phone numbers listed below. Sincerely Kent Demuth 44562 Villa Helena St Temecula, CA 92592 Phone: 951-225-8011 Cell: 630-854-5506