Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
020811 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 II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET FEBRUARY 8, 2011 — 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. 5:30 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 real property negotiations for property owned by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The subject real property is the second lot west of the westerly terminus of Western Bypass/Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, California, and is identified as Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-110-032 and 922-210-062. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The City negotiators are Greg Butler and Will Becerra. Under negotiation are the price and terms for the acquisition of the property. 2. Conference on Real Property Negotiations pursuant to Government Code 54956.8 regarding approximately 1.5 acres of real property located on the west side of Pujol Street at 28673-28701 Pujol Street, Temecula; APN 922- 062-003 & 922-062-004 & 922-062-005). The negotiating parties are AMACL Multi -Housing Inc and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of Agency's acquisition of certain property interests through an Owner Participation Agreement for the development of affordable housing on the property. 1 3. Conference on Real Property Negotiations pursuant to Government Code 54956.8 regarding Redevelopment Agency owned property located on the north and south sides of Main Street just west of Mercedes Street, Temecula (APN 922-034-029, 030,031, 032, 033, 034 & 922-044-019, 027, 026, 029). The negotiating parties are Pelican Vista, LLC and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of a ground lease and Disposition and Development Agreement for the potential lease and development on the property. 4. Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 64966.9(a) with respect to one matter of pending litigation to which the City is a defendant. The title of the litigation is City of Temecula v. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, United States District Court Case No. CV10-07378 DSF(VBK), Central District of California. 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: 11-02 Resolution: 11-14 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Roberts Prelude Music: Justine and Derrick Tiu Invocation: Pastor Felicia Brown of Imani Church of God in Christ Flag Salute: Council Member Naggar ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Mayor's presentation to Temecula Valley Special Olympic Tennis Team Members Christopher Cole and Amanda Wetzel American Heart Month Proclamation 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. 2 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 January 25, 2011. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2010. 3 5 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Community and Environmental Transportation Accountability Program (CETAP) Funding Agreement for the State Route 79 South/Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Project (Agreement No.11-72-041-00) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the attached $5.4 million TUMF CETAP Funding Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the City of Temecula for the Construction of the State Route 79 South/Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Project (Agreement No. 11-72-041-00); 5.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. 6 Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for the Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Project No. PW09-10 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Accept the construction of the Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Project No. PW 09-10, as complete; 6.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 6.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 7 First Amendment to Professional GIS Consulting Services Agreement to enhance the City of Temecula's GIS Parcel and Centerline Data Layers RECOMMEDATION: 7.1 Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Temecula and D&W Consulting for Professional GIS consulting services in the amount of $5,650 and extending the term of the agreement to June 2011. 8 2011 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the contract with the City's current workers' compensation provider, Travelers Insurance Company, as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier for 2011 for an estimated reduced premium cost of $296,663. 4 9 Letter to County Auditor specifying how the Redevelopment Agency intends to fund the 2010-2011 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("SERAF") RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the letter to the Riverside County Auditor specifying how the Temecula Redevelopment Agency intends to fund its fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAF shift payment. 10 Resolution opposing the Governors proposal to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies and letter to the Governor and State Legislators opposing the Governor's Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA 10.2 Approve a Letter to the Governor and local Legislators opposing the Governor's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 11-01 Resolution: No. CSD 11-01 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 11 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the action minutes of January 25, 2011. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 11-01 Resolution: No. RDA 11-01 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 12 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the action minutes of January 25, 2011. 13 Funding source for AB 4X 26 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Payment RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE OBLIGATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 7 RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Next in Order: Ordinance: No. TPFA 11-01 Resolution: No. TPFA 11-01 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Ron Roberts ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Temecula Public Financing Authority 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. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR 14 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the action minutes of July 27, 2010. 9 15 Change in location for the Temecula Public Financing Authority RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TPFA RESOLUTION NO. 01-01, CHANGING THE LOCATION AND THE ADDRESS OF TPFA MEETINGS ADJOURNMENT 10 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. 16 Approval for levying an assessment for fiscal year 2011-2012 in connection with the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District (TVTBID) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Conduct a public hearing to consider protests regarding the levy of an assessment in conjunction with the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District; 16.2 Instruct the City Clerk to tabulate any written protests which might be received prior to the close of the public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed District; 16.3 If the City Clerk reports that there is riot a majority protest received regarding this District, then adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TVTBID) 17 A Major Modification to the Temecula Regional Hospital Development Plan RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 11 RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10-0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL TO CHANGE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BEDS FROM 170 TO 140 FOR PHASE I OF THE PROJECT, TO MODIFY THE BUILDING FACADES OF THE HOSPITAL TOWERS, TO RELOCATE THE TRUCK LOADING BAYS AND SERVICE YARD, TO RESTRICT SITE ACCESS TO AND FROM DEPORTOLA ROAD TO EMERGENCY VEHICLES, AND TO RELOCATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM AN OUTDOOR AREA AT THE SERVICE YARD TO AN EXPANDED INDOOR AREA AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING ON 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-001 THRU 004 AND 951-080- 007 THRU 010) CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 18 Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for fiscal year 2011-12 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Finance Committee funding recommendations for fiscal year 2011-12; 18.2 Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub -Recipient Agreements for 2010-11 funding recipients and reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the budget resolution for general administration of the fiscal year 2011-12 CDBG Funds. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 12 ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing at the Main Reception at City Hall (41000 Main Street, 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.orq 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 the Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula — 8:00 — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's web — www.cityoftemecula.orq — 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. 13 PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, cardiovascular disease is the Nation's leading cause of death and costliest disease with direct and indirect costs estimated to be $228 billion; WHEREAS, cardiovascular disease accounts for one out of three deaths Nationwide; WHEREAS, nearly 2,200 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each day, an average of one death every 39 seconds; WHEREAS, the American Heart Association's 2020 impact goal seeks to improve the cardiovascular health of all Americans by 20 percent, while reducing deaths from cardiovascular diseases and stroke by 20 percent through research, population and community level interventions, public health, and policy measures; WHEREAS, efforts of the American Heart Association encourage citizens to help save lives by calling 9-1-1 if symptoms occur, become trained in CPR, and encourage comprehensive automated external defibrillator (AED) programs in their communities; WHEREAS, the American Heart Association is celebrating February 2011 as American Heart Month and promoting education and awareness by encouraging citizens to learn the warning signs of heart attack and stroke. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ron Roberts, on behalf ofthe City Council of the City of Temecula, in recognition of the importance of the ongoing fight against heart disease, hereby proclaim February, 2011 to be, "American Heart Month" in the City of Temecula and urge all citizens to recognize the critical importance of tools and skills that will increase survival rates from cardiac arrest. By incorporating these tools into aggressive programs, we can save thousands of lives each year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this eighth day of February, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET JANUARY 25, 2011 — 7:00 PM 6:30 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council/Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section: 1) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 64966.9(a) with respect to one matter of pending litigation to which the City is a plaintiff. The title of the litigation is City of Temecula, et. al. v. Tovey/Shultz Construction, inc., et. al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 541908 (Old Town Community Theater construction litigation). 2) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of pending litigation to which the City is a defendant. The title of the litigation is Alissa Gross etc. v. Landscape Structures, Inc., City of Temecula, et. al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 538128. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Roberts Prelude Music: Joshua Jurkosky and Ron Savitt Invocation: Pastor John Ruhlman of Life Church Flag Salute: Council Member Edwards ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, Roberts PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes\012511 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of January 11, 2011. 3 List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 4 Approval of the fiscal year 2011-12 Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District (TVTBID) Advisory Board's Annual Report and Levy of an Assessment against Lodging Businesses within the TVTBID for fiscal year 2011-12 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: Action Minutes\012511 2 RESOLUTION NO. 11-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TVTBID) 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-11 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011- 12 AND FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF John Kellher, Temecula, addressed the City Council with regard to this item. 5 Roripaugh Ranch — Approval of Sixth Operating Memorandum - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE SIXTH OPERATING MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASHBY USA LLC AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR SUNWOOD RORIPAUGH RANCH LLC, BHT- RORIPAUGH WB99 LLC, AND WINGSWEEP CORPORATION, OWNERS OF LOT 7 OF FINAL TRACT MAP 29353-1, TRACT 29661-2, AND LOT 1 OF FINAL TRACT MAP 29353-1, RESPECTIVELY, WITHIN THE RORIPAUGH RANCH PROJECT Action Minutes1012511 3 6 Second Amendment to the Agreement with Proactive Fire Design & Consulting, Inc. - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Second Amendment with ProActive Fire Design & Consulting, Inc. for an additional amount of $29,000 to increase the existing contract amount to $59,000. 7 5 -Year Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services between the City of Temecula and Animal Friends of the Valleys (aka L.E.A.F.) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the five year Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services between the City of Temecula and Animal Friends of the Valleys at a cost of $247,500 annually; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional service not to exceed $30,000 annually. 8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11-01 -Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 11-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RORIPAUGH ESTATES SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS WITH OR WITHOUT A CAR WASH IN PLANNING AREA 10 UTILIZING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT At 7:54 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency. At 7:59 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. Action Minutes\012511 4 PUBLIC HEARING 14 An Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Application Nos. PA08- 0241 and PA08-0242, Islamic Center of Temecula Valley, a two -Phase Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a two-story, 24,943 square foot structure on 4.32 acres within a VL zone at the southwest corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Colibri - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — as amended — monitoring traffic and parking every five years and no amplification permitted; Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA08-0241 AND PA08- 0242, A TWO-PHASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO-STORY, 24,943 SQUARE FOOT RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON 4.32 ACRES WITHIN A VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL ZONE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND CALLE COLIBRI (APN 957-140-012) The following individuals addressed the City Council with regard to this item: • Don Krampe Murrieta • Margaret Jones Temecula • Suhail Fares USA • Katema Abu Fares USA • Rabbi Barry Ulrych Murrieta • Chapalin Balbale Murrieta • Shakeel Syed Anaheim • Paul Jacobs Temecula • Maya Barron • Suzanne Marks Los Angeles • Yosef Khen West Hillls • Raymond Johnson Temecula • Farouk Abdullah Temecula • Terrell Berry • Daphne Swedman Murrieta • Samir Bazlamit Temecula • Braden Harter Temecula • Gayle Byrne Menifee • Suzanne Rombach Temecula • Nejia Ahmed Murrieta Action Minutes1012511 5 • Basemeh Riltan Murrieta • Pastor William Rench Temecula • Ali Zamani Temecula • Lana Tomlins Murrieta • Jacquelilne Le Beau Murrieta/Temecula • Larry Slusser Temecula • Rebecca Atbhizawi Menifee • Reverend Joe Zarro Temecula • John Church Murrieta • Christine Welsh Murrieta • James Horn Menifee • Rabbi Shifren Los Angeles • Diana Serafin Murrieta • Gabe Murrieta • Karen Fazzine Murrieta • Nam -Yong Horn Menifee • Mano Bakh Wildomar • Moumer Shurrah Temecula • Charles Douglas • Mohammed Suleiman Temecula • Abe Tukhi Lake Elsinore • Mahid Elsharkawy Menifee • Nadeem Rihan Murrieta • Abdul Q. Kundi Murrieta • Deema Akari Murrieta • Farah Winchester • Monica Brett-Sorle • Sara Wardak Murrieta • Patrice Lynes Temecula • Mohammad Khaled Menifee • Amy Pina Temecula • Heather Fritzsche Temecula • Bashir Alghizawi • Michael M. Gerardi Menifee • Lane McKeener Murrieta • Alma McClung French Valley • Lorina Bennett • Brigitte Green Temecula • Richard Overton Temecula • Julie Gilbart Murrieta • Hussam Ayloush Corona • Sana Amini Murrieta • Samira Purmal Temecula • Donna Maxey • Ajmal Shaker Murrieta • Mahmoud Harmoush Murrieta • Nafissa Larson • Melanie Oberg Action Minutes\012511 6 • Leilani Allmon CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Murrieta City Attorney Thorson advised that with respect to Closed Session Item No. 1, no action was taken. With regard to Item No. 2, Mr. Thorson noted that the City Council approved a settlement with the plaintiff in the amount of $25,000 subject to court approval. ADJOURNMENT At 3:30 A.M. on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 8, 2011, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes\012511 7 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager00L CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Leah Thomas, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 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. 11- 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 $3,651,008.28 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 February, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2011, 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 01/20/2011 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 2,811,677.84 01/27/2011 TOTAL CHECK RUN 440,732.31 01/20/2011 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 398,598.13 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 02/08/2011 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,651,008.28 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,745,166.93 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDING 1,206.54 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 13,005.19 170 MEASURE A FUND 101,996.00 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 180,462.45 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 76,458.78 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 530.90 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R 6,177.00 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 7,929.88 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 5,223.28 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 808,790.72 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 236,302.15 300 INSURANCE FUND 561.20 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 34,154.50 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 14,824.27 340 FACILITIES 12,189.69 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 200.48 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 295.03 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 89.12 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 103.70 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 32.99 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 444.79 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 124.57 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 207.99 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 794.04 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 48.14 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 71.62 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 28.98 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 473.99 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 251.79 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 92.52 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 13.72 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 32.39 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 31.21 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 606.36 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 316.46 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 323.40 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 1,123.60 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 155.31 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 40.99 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 481.11 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 68.54 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 23.96 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 32.24 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 891.11 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 30.52 $ 3,252,410.15 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 240,296.12 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10,738.94 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 98,750.48 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 145.43 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 918.02 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 887.90 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 458.26 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 6,454.15 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,442.92 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 21,218.24 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 5,933.38 340 FACILITIES 8,870.59 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 91.57 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 61.08 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 72.47 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 13.39 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 147.52 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 26.58 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 38.01 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 250.34 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.02 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 11.07 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 7.03 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 166.84 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 35.63 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 20.81 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 17.81 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 41.69 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 3.50 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 154.55 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 82.94 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 224.39 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 379.21 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 9.05 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 10.00 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 213.56 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 68.63 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 3.02 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 10.00 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 314.97 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 6.02 398,598.13 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,651,008.28 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1627 01/20/2011 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 122,508.61 122,508.61 RETIREMENT) 1628 01/20/2011 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 11,395.87 11,395.87 SOLUTION 1629 01/20/2011 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 74,840.32 74,840.32 1630 01/20/2011 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 21,605.14 21,605.14 1631 01/20/2011 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment 2,273.08 2,273.08 SOLUTION 1632 01/20/2011 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD Support Payment 553.84 553.84 SUPPORT 143319 01/20/2011 013295 ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR property tax reimb per participation 229,802.00 229,802.00 SYSTEMS 143320 01/20/2011 013667 ACADEMY OF MUSIC, INC. entertainment:Old Town 12/31 1,200.00 1,200.00 143321 01/20/2011 001587 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS APWA mb:3/11-2/12 Butler, Greg 181.25 181.25 ASSN. 143322 01/20/2011 012985 ANDERSON & HOWARD DEC CABLING:CIVIC CENTER 8,739.65 8,739.65 ELECTRIC INC 143323 01/20/2011 011438 BAKER, BLYTHE EDEN TCSD Instructor Eamings 120.00 120.00 143324 01/20/2011 013772 BALLETX theater performance: 1/21-1/22 12,090.00 12,090.00 143325 01/20/2011 011007 BARNETT, KIRK reimb: parts/tools misc repairs 338.53 338.53 143326 01/20/2011 013265 CALIF BUILDING 4th Qtr Pymt SB1473 2010 987.00 987.00 143327 01/20/2011 000638 CALIF DEPT OF 4th Qtr Pymt: Strong Motion 2010 2,382.44 2,382.44 CONSERVATION 143328 01/20/2011 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Dec -Feb copier leases:Civic Ctr 9,013.62 9,013.62 INC 143329 01/20/2011 004017 COMERCHERO, JEFF reimb: N LC cf Denver 11/30-12/3 67.64 67.64 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 143330 01/20/2011 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH Community Health Charities Payment 66.00 66.00 CHARITIES 143331 01/20/2011 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EDC gtdy luncheon 1/27:ME,AA,CD 120.00 120.00 CORP 143332 01/20/2011 005880 EDGE DEVELOPMENT INC. DEC CONST: CIVIC CENTER 425,101.11 425,101.11 143333 01/20/2011 003665 EXCEL COMMERCIAL Dec long distance phone svcs 53.55 53.55 143334 01/20/2011 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK sttlmnt: 13 the Musical Jan '11 14,583.48 14,58348 143335 01/20/2011 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES JC Regist:NLC cfwash,DC 3/12-16 420.00 001048 ROSAS CANTINA GY lunch:city hall moving/cleaning day 73.83 RESTAURANT 001060 HYATT JC htl: NLC cf Denver, CO 11/30-12/3 803.78 007744 SUPERSHUTTLE JC shuttle fee: NLC cf Denver, CO 25.00 013995 C V S PHARMACY GY emp recognition pgrm 12/16/10 694.60 007287 UNITED AIRLINES JC baggage fee: NLC cf Denver, CO 25.00 007287 UNITED AIRLINES JC baggage fee: NLC cf Denver, CO 25.00 007045 GOURMET ITALIA GY meal:Sister City visitors 276.32 006942 ONTARIO AIRPORT JC parking: NLC cf Denver, CO 72.00 2,415.53 143336 01/20/2011 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 50.00 50.00 143337 01/20/2011 013990 FRIDDLE, LISA refund:CPR/AED 8250.101 50.00 50.00 143338 01/20/2011 011967 FULL VALUE ENTERTAINMENT sttlmnt: Live at the Merc 1/14 167.30 167.30 143339 01/20/2011 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT entertainment:Old Town holidays 700.00 700.00 143340 01/20/2011 013552 GANDS PRODUCTIONS LLC sttlmnt: Country at the Merc 1/8 856.50 sttlmnt: Country at the Merc 1/15 409.50 1,266.00 143341 01/20/2011 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC sttlmnt: A Little Klezmer 1/2 2,410.50 2,410.50 SOCIETY 143342 01/20/2011 008081 HALL & FOREMAN INC DEC DESIGN SVC:PAVEMENT REHAB 363.79 363.79 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 143343 01/20/2011 004188 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES Dec pavement rehab:citywide 56,992.50 56,992.50 143344 01/20/2011 012523 HAZEN, CHERI refund:rm rental:Library 48.00 48.00 143345 01/20/2011 000194 IC MA RETIREMENT -PLAN ICMA Retirement Trust 457 Payment 4,088.88 4,088.88 303355 143346 01/20/2011 004984 INDEPENDENT ROOFING 12/3 ROOF INSPECT:CIVIC CENTER 650.00 650.00 CONSULTANT 143347 01/20/2011 013668 K Z C CONSTRUCTION, INC Dec const:citywide drain impry 66,672.00 66,672.00 143348 01/20/2011 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 10/4-11/28 geotech svcs: 79N 176.50 176.50 143349 01/20/2011 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS City Seal logo decals:city fleet/signs 761.25 761.25 143350 01/20/2011 012269 MARQUEZ, JOSEPH reimb:Global Yth Jst Las Vegas 12/6-9 318.66 318.66 143351 01/20/2011 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY Fence install & repair:hary park 7,995.00 7,995.00 143352 01/20/2011 004508 NAGGAR, MICHAEL S. Reimb: Councilmember mtg 1/14/11 17.07 17.07 143353 01/20/2011 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION NAT'L ELECT. CODE BOOKS:BLDG & 155.56 155.56 ASSN SAFETY 143354 01/20/2011 013319 NEWTANGRAM LLC FURNITURE & INSTALL:CIVIC CENTER 1,329.94 1,329.94 143355 01/20/2011 002292 OASIS VENDING Misc kitchen supplies:civic center 553.95 MISC KITCHEN SUPPLIES:FOC 218.34 772.29 143356 01/20/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAINT 301.06 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Traffic 18.43 319.49 143357 01/20/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE &SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 36.57 36.57 143358 01/20/2011 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 771.35 771.35 143359 01/20/2011 011861 PLUMBMASTER INC. Drinking fountain parts:var park sites 456.39 456.39 143360 01/20/2011 013991 PRIEBOY, JILL refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 150.00 150.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 143361 01/20/2011 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN Dec plan check srvcs:fire prevention 143362 01/20/2011 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL Dec uniform/Or mts/twl rentals:city SUPPLY 143363 01/20/2011 004272 RANCHO ARMY NAVY STORE Swift Water Rescue Supp: Sta 73 143364 01/20/2011 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER Dec var water meters:TCSD svc lev C DISTRICT Dec water meters:41000 Main St Dec various water meters:TCSD Fac Dec various water meters:TCSD & PW Dec various water meters:Mercedes Dec various water meters:Fire Stns Dec Floating Meter- Com:PW Dec various water meters:Mercedes Dec water meter:28922 Pujol St 6,394.23 6,394.23 1,498.14 1,498.14 151.05 151.05 8,234.03 2,333.21 1,379.83 1,126.32 781.81 475.06 154.83 127.73 108.87 14,721.69 143365 01/20/2011 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN City vehicle repair/maint: Medics 175.46 MERCURY City vehicle repair/maint: Medics 77.24 252.70 143366 01/20/2011 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Electrical supplies: various park sites 2,909.75 Electrical supplies: various park sites 665.28 Electrical supplies: various park sites 626.22 Electrical supplies: library/crc 147.68 Electrical supplies: various park sites 91.11 Electrical supplies: library 49.33 Electrical supplies: various park sites 38.98 Credit:items returned/various parks -2,343.78 2,184.57 143367 01/20/2011 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL Herbicide applications:City R -O -Ws 8,500.00 8,500.00 MANAGEMENT 143368 01/20/2011 003698 RIVERSIDE CO ECONOMIC Team Riverside Co 528140 500.00 500.00 143369 01/20/2011 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 9/23/10-10/20/10:law enforcement 1,414,899.94 DEPT Nov '10 Booking Fees 3,291.00 1,418,190.94 143370 01/20/2011 013827 RYAN MONTELEONE Channel clean-up:Vallego 48,513.00 EXCAVATION INC Channel clean-up:Vallejo 5,178.00 53,691.00 143371 01/20/2011 013169 SCHINSKY, WILLIAM C. Dec exhibit id & cataloging:vail ranch 1,198.50 1,198.50 143372 01/20/2011 013992 SEM, PETER refund:Teach Yourself Korean Bk 23.94 23.94 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 143373 01/20/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 143374 01/20/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 143375 01/20/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 143376 01/20/2011 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 143377 01/20/2011 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Description Amount Paid Check Total SUPPORT PAYMENT 700.27 700.27 SUPPORT PAYMENT 200.00 200.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 Jazz © the Merc 01/06/11 Jazz © the Merc 01/13/11 143378 01/20/2011 000645 SMART& FINAL INC MISC SUPPLIES:CSD CANDYLAND PARTY 143379 01/20/2011 013993 SMITH, JUSTIN refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 143380 01/20/2011 002718 SO CALIF CITY CLERKS ASSN general mtg 1/27 M.Ballreich/G.Flores 143381 01/20/2011 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Jan 2-01-202-7330:LS-1 allnite Dec 2-01-202-7603:LS-1 allnite Dec 2-02-351-5281:CRC Dec 2-20-798-3248:42081 Main St Dec 2-28-171-2620:40820 Winchester Dec 2-10-331-2153:28816 Pujol St Dec 2-30-608-9384:28582 Harveston Dec 2-29-974-7899:26503 Ynez LS -3 143382 01/20/2011 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 143383 01/20/2011 001505 STEFFEN, SUE 143384 01/20/2011 003840 STRONGS PAINTING 143385 01/20/2011 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION & 143386 01/20/2011 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 143387 01/20/2011 013688 TORREY PINES BANK Carpet cleaning srvcs:mpsc 12/7 reimb:misc supplies/city mgr dept Painting srvcs:wedding chapel Nov 10 Bus. Impry District Asmnts Jan high speed intemet:32364 overland acct# 4110170281 Edge/Civic Cntr 0607 378.00 283.50 661.50 85.72 85.72 150.00 150.00 80.00 80.00 76,317.30 27,965.29 4,102.28 856.42 684.51 623.19 503.12 196.11 385.00 94.56 350.00 91,142.95 44.95 111,248.22 385.00 94.56 350.00 91,142.95 44.95 10,933.17 10,933.17 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 143388 01/20/2011 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 143389 01/20/2011 004261 VERIZON 143390 01/20/2011 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC 143391 01/20/2011 013985 WORDEN, TAYLOR B. 62.00 62.00 Jan xxx-1341 gen usage:Theater 347.72 Jan xxx-3910 gen! usage:1 st St irrig 40.87 Jan xxx-9661 general usage 40.87 Jan xxx-1941 gen usage:PTA CD TTACSD 37.45 Dec long distance phone svcs Dec long distance phone svcs Dance Grant participant 10/27/10 143392 01/20/2011 013994 YE, YUN QIN refund:Comp Jr Tennis 1407.101 58.46 19.67 300.00 466.91 78.13 300.00 30.00 30.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 2,811,677.84 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 01/20/2011 2:49:04PM CITY OF TEMECULA 80 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 2,811,677.84 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1633 01/25/2011 003577 CALIF STATE BOARD OF sales & use tax return: Jan -Dec '10 7,457.00 7,457.00 1634 01/24/2011 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) UI & ETT 4th qtr '10 2,649.60 2,649.60 143393 01/27/2011 008552 ADKINS DESIGN CONSULTING Dec graphic design svc:Theater 1,845.16 1,845.16 143394 01/27/2011 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES piano tuning: theater 170.00 170.00 143395 01/27/2011 006915 ALLIES PARTY EQUIPMENT equip rental: winterfest 188.59 188.59 143396 01/27/2011 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC (69) BOOK PURCHASE: LIBRARY 1,620.83 1,620.83 143397 01/27/2011 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION guardrail repair:rainbow cyn rd 3,415.00 SRVS INC storm drain maint:john warner rd 3,765.00 7,180.00 143398 01/27/2011 002363 C C PO A '11 CCPOA mb:Salazar/Thomas 60.00 60.00 143399 01/27/2011 005321 CALIF ASSOC OF CODE Undst Foreclosure/Compl:Cole, T 25.00 25.00 143400 01/27/2011 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks rental/refill:TCSD 58.15 58.15 143401 01/27/2011 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Jan copier leases: Library 2,836.52 2,836.52 INC 143402 01/27/2011 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel: Police 1,318.48 1,318.48 143403 01/27/2011 005417 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY First aid supplies:PW vehicles 336.63 336.63 143404 01/27/2011 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS alarm repair:pd mall storefront 80.00 80.00 143405 01/27/2011 013286 CONNEXON TELECOM INC Dec emergency routing svc 320.00 320.00 143406 01/27/2011 013379 COUSSOU, CELINE TCSD Instructor Earnings 240.10 240.10 143407 01/27/2011 013560 CROWN BUILDING MAINT CO Dec janitorial svc:pd old town 250.00 INC Dec janitorial svc:harveston park 131.84 Dec janitorial svc:city facilities 4,077.02 4,458.86 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 143408 01/27/2011 012600 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES DEC CNSLT SVC:BUTTERFIELD STG INC RD 143409 01/27/2011 003962 DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES NOV DESIGN SVC:MARG RD INC RIGHT/VVAY 143410 01/27/2011 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Jan restroom svc:VaiI Ranch pk SRVCS 143411 01/27/2011 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING INC Amount Paid Check Total 1,236.10 1,236.10 3,750.00 3,750.00 52.88 52.88 Fuel for City vehicles: Code Enf/Pln 397.81 Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 1,754.00 Fuel for City vehicles: B&S 263.38 Fuel for City vehicles: CC/Info Sys 77.33 Fuel for City vehicles: PW LD/npdes 140.22 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Traffic 279.29 Fuel for City vehicles: PW CIP 219.30 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Maint 1,447.33 4,578.66 143412 01/27/2011 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER Jan water meter:39569 Serahina Rd 24.57 24.57 DIST 143413 01/27/2011 013730 ECORP CONSULTING INC Sept bio study:walcott estates 7,000.00 7,000.00 143414 01/27/2011 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 12/7-20 city express mail services 353.35 353.35 143415 01/27/2011 011967 FULL VALUE ENTERTAINMENT sttlmnt: Live at the Merc 1/21 408.10 408.10 143416 01/27/2011 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC Dec power washer maint:Stn 73 128.33 128.33 143417 01/27/2011 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT DJ/MC svc: winter wonderland 350.00 350.00 143418 01/27/2011 013932 GIRL SCOUTS OF SAN refund:Santa's light parade 4444.201 25.00 25.00 GORGONIO Page:2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 143419 01/27/2011 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES: MPSC 47.27 INC OFFICE SUPPLIES: CRC Office supplies: Finance Office Supplies: Records Mgmt Office Supplies: Info Sys OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCSD Office Supplies: City Clerk Office supplies: B&S Office supplies: Planning Office Supplies: Fire Office supplies: CM 143420 01/27/2011 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE gfoa mb 3/11-2/12:GR/RG/PB/HS OFFICERS 143421 01/27/2011 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies: Theater Hardware supplies: CH/Civic Ctr MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES: TVM Hardware supplies: Code Enf/BS Hardware supplies: TCSD Parks Hardware supplies: Info Sys HARDWARE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFI, Hardware supplies: Aquatics Hardware supplies: Library Hardware supplies: Maint Facility Hardware supplies: Ch Museum Hardware supplies: CRC Hardware supplies: PW Maint Hardware supplies: Fire 143422 01/27/2011 013758 HENRY, JOE Theater performance: 2/4/11 143423 01/27/2011 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD LCD MONITORS:TRAFFIC OPS CENTER 107.46 28.55 124.43 35.06 201.18 1,482.30 255.51 78.17 55.41 1,443.45 295.75 4,154.54 840.00 840.00 19.88 895.38 9.78 26.15 851.84 70.27 117.90 12.69 54.19 47.15 132.39 205.37 258.48 813.37 3,514.84 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,557.33 3,557.33 143424 01/27/2011 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, misc tools/equip: civic center 109.78 THE misc tools/equip: civic center 802.10 911.88 143425 01/27/2011 001517 HORIZON HEALTH DEC EAP SVCS: HR 734.80 credit:billing Dec units 159 not 167 -35.20 699.60 143426 01/27/2011 013645 I C E ENGINEERING DEC CONST: JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 156,355.75 156,355.75 143427 01/27/2011 013695 INLAND EMPIRE SHRED IT 1/10 DOC SHRED SVC:PD MALL 15.00 OFFICE 1/3 doc shred svc: Civic Ctr 50.00 65.00 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 143428 01/27/2011 003571 INTL ASSN OF PLUMBING AND '10 CA plmb/mech code cf 2/18:MT Amount Paid Check Total 165.00 165.00 143429 01/27/2011 003571 INTL ASSN OF PLUMBING AND '10 CA plmb/mech code cf 2/17:HO 165.00 '10 CA plmb/mech code cf 2/17:JY 165.00 '10 CA plmb/mech code cf 2/17:BC 165.00 495.00 143430 01/27/2011 012285 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY misc maint supplies: crc 95.43 95.43 143431 01/27/2011 001091 KEYSER MARSTON Dec cnslt svc:affordable housing 4,130.01 4,130.01 ASSOCIATES INC 143432 01/27/2011 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC equip repair & maint:radar lidar 218.00 218.00 143433 01/27/2011 012945 LABELLE- MARVIN INC Dec material tst svc:Santiago Rd 2,547.50 2,547.50 143434 01/27/2011 004176 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 1/15-2/4 Long distance & Internet svcs 741.00 741.00 L LC 143435 01/27/2011 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC MEDICAL SUPPLIES: PARAMEDICS 255.03 credit: returned product -18.29 MEDICAL SUPPLIES: PARAMEDICS 368.46 MEDICAL SUPPLIES: PARAMEDICS 68.09 MEDICAL SUPPLIES: PARAMEDICS 822.97 1,496.26 143436 01/27/2011 013967 MAILCOM MAILING SERVICES Bus Lic Renewal Mailing 2011 3,712.85 3,712.85 143437 01/27/2011 004141 MAINTEX INC 143438 01/27/2011 005816 MARAIA, LAURA J. 143439 01/27/2011 004307 MARINE BIOCHEMISTS cleaning & maint supplies:prks/mpsc/crc 540.03 Vacuum:civic center 2,120.61 2,660.64 refund:Multisport Camp 1825.202 40.00 40.00 Jan water maint srvcs:Hary/Duck Pond 143440 01/27/2011 013311 MATERIAL HANDLING SUPPLY Maint supplies: csd INC Maint supplies: csd 143441 01/27/2011 000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC credit:billing adj/PB1127 & PB1129 DEC PURCH & INSTALL:TRAFFIC SI( DEC PURCH & INSTALL:TRAFFIC SIc 143442 01/27/2011 009606 MGT OF AMERICA INC State mandate cost claim srvcs:fin 3,900.00 3,900.00 69.95 80.71 150.66 -177.84 38,067.37 16,194.92 54,084.45 6,400.20 6,400.20 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 143443 01/27/2011 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. Description TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 143444 01/27/2011 013724 MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION Res Impry Prgrm: Bobst 143445 01/27/2011 001214 MORNINGSTAR Spotlight & tech srvcs:holiday parade PRODUCTIONS, LLC 143446 01/27/2011 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Dec newspaper subscr:MPSC Amount Paid Check Total 143447 01/27/2011 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS PRINTING SRVCS:FINANCE/INFO SYS DIV PRINTING SRVCS:PLANNING PRINTING SRVCS:PLANNING PRINTING SRVCS:FINANCE Office supplies:childrens museum PRINTING SRVCS:PUBLIC WORKS PRINTING SRVCS:PUBLIC WORKS Misc office supplies:pd mall office Misc office supplies:pd mall office Misc office supplies:pd old town office Misc office supplies:pd mall office Business cards:K-9 Dep. Cramer PRINTING SRVCS:FIRE PREVENTIO PRINTING SRVCS:CITY COUNCIL/EC PRINTING SRVCS:FINANCE/CITY CC 143448 01/27/2011 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Computer supplies:police DIV 402.50 252.00 42.00 696.50 1,800.00 1,800.00 622.05 622.05 29.90 29.90 786.62 183.68 128.80 108.66 25.19 144.41 699.22 173.51 104.92 19.25 41.81 50.98 36.88 1,136.23 133.90 3,774.06 57.58 57.58 143449 01/27/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:City Mgr 375.31 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:City Mgr 143450 01/27/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 143451 01/27/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAINT CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAI CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAI CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAI City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW CIP City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW CIP 270.09 645.40 309.36 192.16 36.57 177.61 36.57 36.57 36.57 104.75 267.97 80.07 36.57 36.57 788.84 562.50 Page:5 apChkLst 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 143452 01/27/2011 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 143453 01/27/2011 013692 PATIO WORLD 143454 01/27/2011 006389 PAULSON PAINTING 143455 01/27/2011 013955 POTOCZAK, CHRISTINE 143456 01/27/2011 003697 PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 143457 01/27/2011 009066 RADAR SHOP INC, THE 143458 01/27/2011 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 143459 01/27/2011 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 143460 01/27/2011 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING 143461 01/27/2011 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT 143462 01/27/2011 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 143463 01/27/2011 004498 REPUBLIC INTELLIGENT 143464 01/27/2011 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONTROL 143465 01/27/2011 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHNOLOGY (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Bldg & Safety Patio Funiture:civic center Res Impry Prgm: Issleib reimb:high hopes prgm supplies 11/8-12/19 dsgn srvcs:mur creek RADAR GUN MAINT & REPAIR:POLICE Dec var water meters:TCSD svc Iev C Jan 01-04-47210-0:41951 Moraga Rd Dec 01-31-61237-2:calle elenita Indscr Dec var water meters:30650 Pauba Dec var water meters:30650 Pauba rd Jan water meters:30875 rncho vista Dec var water meters:TCSD & PW Reprographic srvs:pavement rehab Electrical supplies:harveston lake/parks Electrical supplies:theater Herbicide applications:City ROW'S Rental equip:old town new years eve Dec traffic signal repair & maint:PW Dec street light maint:old town & bridge Nov encroachment permit:S.Gertrudis Dec radio rentals:police/prk rngrs 47.43 4,260.58 375.00 160.23 7,817.62 675.00 6,129.61 58.87 17.61 17.19 155.99 421.04 953.21 127.89 637.08 117.80 11,475.00 82.66 936.03 483.48 100.87 1,550.19 143466 01/27/2011 013998 ROSAS, ALEX refund:belly dancing 3001.101 48.00 47.43 4,260.58 375.00 160.23 7,817.62 675.00 7,753.52 127.89 754.88 11,475.00 82.66 1,419.51 100.87 1,550.19 48.00 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 143467 01/27/2011 013827 RYAN MONTELEONE EXCAVATION INC Description Amount Paid Check Total Storm drain maint:via lobo rd 44,540.00 Road maint & repairs:liefer rd 4,342.00 Road maint & repairs:liefer rd 1,835.00 50,717.00 143468 01/27/2011 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL MISC LIGHTING SUPPLIES: THEATER 194.48 194.48 LIGHTING 143469 01/27/2011 010089 SECURITAS SECURITY SRVCS Dec security srvcs:Harv. Lake Park 910.00 910.00 USA 143470 01/27/2011 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz a@ the Merc 01/20/11 472.50 472.50 143471 01/27/2011 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW Sign for Civic Center Prkg Structure 27.19 27.19 143472 01/27/2011 000645 SMART & FINAL INC SUPPLIES: DOG HOUSE PROGRAM 122.35 122.35 143473 01/27/2011 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Dec 2-26-887-0789:28757 Harveston 1,593.28 DEC 2-30-296-9522:31035 RANCHO l 400.29 Dec 2-27-560-0625:32380 deerhollow 2,664.69 Dec 2-30-099-3847:29721 Ryecrest 21.84 Dec 2-31-419-2659:26706 Ynez TC1 90.55 Dec 2-29-974-7568:26953 Ynez TC1 58.65 Dec 2-28-331-4847:32805 Pauba LS3 288.10 Jan 2-28-904-7706:32329 overland LS: 254.88 Dec 2-00-397-5059:Comm Sery Utl 7,053.42 12,425.70 143474 01/27/2011 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Jan 055-475-6169-5:PBSP 83.96 Jan 015-575-0195-2:32211 wolf vly 486.08 570.04 143475 01/27/2011 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FY 10/11 oper. fees:City Hall 293.21 FY 10/11 emissions fees:City Hall 109.00 402.21 143476 01/27/2011 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST Pest control services: rrsp 1/11 84.00 CONTROL INC Pest control: crc 12/10 124.00 208.00 143477 01/27/2011 005786 SPRINT Nov 26 -Dec 25 cellular usage/equip 5,384.66 5,384.66 143478 01/27/2011 012789 STUART, JENNIFER SARAH TCSD Instructor Earnings 2,633.75 2,633.75 143479 01/27/2011 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC Jan sweeping srvcs:parking garage 500.00 500.00 143480 01/27/2011 010924 T & D COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Cabling:ice rink in Old Town 1,379.22 1,379.22 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 01/27/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 143481 01/27/2011 010493 TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER Feb lease pmt: Police Mall Storefront ASSOC LP Amount Paid Check Total 1,458.33 1,458.33 143482 01/27/2011 013997 TEMECULA VALLEY GIRLS refund:Tournt dep:PHBSP ball field 1,000.00 1,000.00 143483 01/27/2011 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith srvcs:food pantry 458.22 458.22 CENTR 143484 01/27/2011 011090 TEMECULA VALLEY Transportation srvcs:mpsc 10/18 212.40 212.40 TRANSPORTATION 143485 01/27/2011 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Feb high speed internet:MPSC 44.95 Feb high speed internet:41000 main st 3,475.63 Jan high speed internet:32211 wolf vly 102.17 3,622.75 143486 01/27/2011 013999 TOBAN, YANETH refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 150.00 150.00 143487 01/27/2011 004145 TW TELECOM Jan City phones general usage 5,721.62 5,721.62 143488 01/27/2011 004261 VERIZON Jan xxx-0074 general usage 216.66 Jan xxx-5275 gen usage:Tem PD DSL 39.05 Jan xxx-5072 general usage 1,743.90 Jan xxx-8573 general usage 37.65 Jan xxx-5473 gen usage:Moraga Rd 37.65 Jan xxx-0073 general usage 90.66 Jan xxx-2372 gen usage:wlf crk pk irrig 37.55 Jan xxx-0682 gen usage:OT sound sys 215.89 Jan xxx-7562 gen usage:lrrig controller 39.79 Jan xxx-3143 gen usage:PD overind of 45.49 Jan xxx-0714 gen usage:PD mall alarrr 66.54 Jan xxx-3564 general usage 37.75 Jan xxx-6084 general usage 36.45 2,645.03 143489 01/27/2011 004789 VERIZON ONLINE 143490 01/27/2011 013613 WORTHINGTON, PAULA 143491 01/27/2011 014000 YBARRA, LISA Jan -Feb Internet svcs:Library 114.82 Jan -Feb Internet svcs:Tem PD DSL 42.99 Jan -Feb Internet svcs:City Hall 269.99 427.80 reimb:candyland/father-daughter dance 126.00 126.00 refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 150.00 150.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 440,732.31 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 01127/2011 10:57:24AM CITY OF TEMECULA 101 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 440,732.31 Page:9 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ,44 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2010 PREPARED BY: Rudy Graciano, Revenue Manager RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2010. 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 December 31, 2010. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2010 Investments Par Value City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary December 31, 2010 Market Value Book % of Value Portfolio Term City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA, 92590 (951)694-6430 Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts Letter of Credit Local Agency Investment Funds Federal Agency Callable Securities Federal Agency Bullet Securities Investments 38,872,237.27 1.00 42,223,234.55 14,000,000.00 20,71 7,000.00 115,812,472.82 38,872,237.27 1.90 42,279,502.01 14,185,940.90 20,969,91 5.28 38,872,237.27 1.00 42,223,234.55 14,000,090.00 20,688,461.52 33.57 0.00 36.47 12.09 17.87 116,297, 695.56 115,783,934.34 100.00% 1 1 1 1,441 802 1 1 1 1,103 313 0.434 0.090 0.456 1.974 1.635 0.440 0.000 0.462 2.002 1.657 318 190 0.843 0.854 Cash and Accrued Interest Passbook/Checking (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase Subtotal Total Cash and Investments 3,966,811 65 119,779,284.47 3,966,811.65 3,966,811 65 7.01 7.01 3,966,818.66 3,966,818.66 120,264, 514.22 119,750,753.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 318 190 0.843 0.854 Total Earnings December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return [ 20_i7 119,875, 094.52 0.80% Reporting period 12/01/2010-12/31/2010 Run Date: 01/31/2011 -15:56 674, 66575 137, 034, 459.32 0.98% Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept6.42 Report Ver. 5.00 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2010 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 1 2221 6003-2 CITY COP RE2 ASSURED GUARANTY 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1 104348008-1 01-2 IMP 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348006-4 01-2 RESA2 First American Treasury 26.14 26.14 26.14 0.000 0.000 1 104348016-3 01-2 RESB2 First American Treasury 63.72 63.72 63.72 0.000 0.000 1 104348000-4 01-2 SPTAX2 First American Treasury 106.74 106.74 106.74 0.000 0.000 1 94669911-2 03-1 ACQA2 First American Treasury 4,530.51 4,530.51 4,530.51 0.000 0.000 1 94669921-3 03-1 ACQB3 First American Treasury 2,118.47 2,118.47 2,118.47 0.000 0.000 1 94669902-3 03-1 BON D3 First American Treasury 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-3 03-1 RES A3 First American Treasury 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-2 03-1 RES B2 First American Treasury 4.48 4.48 4.48 0.000 0.000 1 94669900-4 03-1 SPTAX1 First American Treasury 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-2 03-2 ACQ 2 First American Treasury 75,444.17 75,444.17 75,444.17 0.000 0.000 1 793593009-2 03-2 EMW D 2 First American Treasury 4,229.47 4,229.47 4,229.47 0.000 0.000 1 793593007-2 03-2 IMP 2 First American Treasury 5,102.18 5,102.18 5,102.18 0.000 0.000 1 793593016-4 03-2 LOC 2 First American Treasury 4.23 4.23 4.23 0.000 0.000 1 793593010-2 03-2 PWADM2 First American Treasury 4,175.50 4,175.50 4,175.50 0.000 0.000 1 793593006-2 03-2 RES 2 First American Treasury 367.94 367.94 367.94 0.000 0.000 1 793593000-3 03-2 SPTX2 First American Treasury 1,179,993.25 1,179,993.25 1,179,993.25 0.000 0.000 1 744727011-2 03-3 ACQ2 First American Treasury 81,818.43 81,818.43 81,818.43 0.000 0.000 1 744727002-2 03-3 BOND 2 First American Treasury 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727007-2 03-3 CITY2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727009 03-3 EMW D 1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727006-3 03-3 RES3 First American Treasury 8.66 8.66 8.66 0.000 0.000 1 744727000-4 03-3 SP TX 4 First American Treasury 8.18 8.18 8.18 0.000 0.000 1 94686001-2 03-4 ADMIN2 First American Treasury 5,261.74 5,261.74 5,261.74 0.000 0.000 1 94686005-1 03-4 PREP1 First American Treasury 15.75 15.75 15.75 0.000 0.000 1 94686000-1 03-4 RED1 First American Treasury 2.31 2.31 2.31 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-2 03-4 RES2 First American Treasury 10.29 10.29 10.29 0.000 0.000 1 786776002-2 03-6 BON D2 First American Treasury 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776007-2 03-6 IMP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776006-2 03-6 RES2 First American Treasury 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.000 0.000 1 786776000-3 03-6 SP TX3 First American Treasury 12.92 12.92 12.92 0.000 0.000 1 95453510-2 88-12 BON D2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 95453518-4 88-12 GI4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 1 2221 6003-4 CITY COP RE4 First American Treasury 730.91 730.91 730.91 0.000 0.000 1 122216008-3 CITY COPCIP2 First American Treasury 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 1 2221 600 0-2 CITY COPLPF2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INTI First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94 43 41 61-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Run Date: 01/31/2011 - 15:56 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 Report Ver. 5.00 CUSIP Investment # Issuer Average Balance City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2010 Purchase Date Par Value Market Value Page 3 Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 107886008-2 107886001 107886000-2 107886018-3 107886010-2 107886016-2 107886030-2 107886027-2 107886020-2 107886028-2 107886026-2 SYSRDA 10 DS 1 SYSRDA 10A CIP2 136343018-2 136343000-1 94432360-2 94432363 793593011-1 793593009-1 793593007-1 793593010-1 793593006-3 122216008 122216003-1 107886008-1 107886018-2 107886030-1 107886027-1 107886028-1 107886026-1 107886006 94434166 SYS95453516-1 RDA 06 CIPA2 RDA 06 PRIN RDA O6A INT2 RDA 06B CIP3 RDA O6B INT2 RDA 06B RES2 RDA 07 CAPI2 RDA 07 ESC2 RDA 07 INT2 RDA 07 PROJ2 RDA 07 RES2 RDA 10 DS 1 RDA 10A CIP2 RDA 10B CIP2 RDA 16B-INT1 TCSD COP INT 02001 03-2-1 ACQUI 03-2-1 EMWD 03-2-1 IMPRO 03-2-1 PW AD 03-2-3 RESER CITY COP CIP CITY COP RE1 RDA 06 CIP-1 RDA 06 CIP-2 RDA 07 CAP -1 RDA 07 ESC -1 RDA 07 PRO -1 RDA 07 RES -1 RDA 06 RES A RDA TABS RES 95453516-1 First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury First American Treasury Financial Security Assurance CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun MBIA Surety Bond MBIA Surety Bond USBANK Subtotal and Average 38,608,364.30 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 245,900.14 245,900.14 0.00 0.00 202,115.00 202,115.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,913.54 1,913.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,394.96 19,394.96 2,531.10 2,531.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 28,984,371.36 28,984,371.36 1,563,369.42 1,563,369.42 115, 907.97 115,907.97 308,508.52 308,508.52 3, 608, 960.51 3,608,960.51 0.00 0.00 791,836.06 791,836.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 558,449.03 558,449.03 1,104,938.11 1,104,938.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 38,872,237.27 38,872,237.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 245, 900.14 0.00 202,115.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,913.54 0.00 0.00 19,394.96 2,531.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 28,984,371.36 1,563,369.42 115,907.97 308,508.52 3,608,960.51 0.00 791,836.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 558,449.03 1,104,938.11 1.00 1.00 0.00 38,872,237.27 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.456 0.462 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.434 0A40 1 Letter of Credit 104348006-1 Run Date: 01/31/2011 - 15:56 02008 ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE Subtotal and Average 1.00 07/01/2010 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2010 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity 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 731,458.96 731,458.96 731,458.96 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,885,779.79 3,885,779.79 3,885,779.79 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 927,827.52 927,827.52 927,827.52 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 744727007-1 03-3 CITY 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 786776007-1 03-6 IMP 1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 4,532,252.96 4,540,931.54 4,532,252.96 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 18,209,870.27 18,244,739.44 18,209,870.27 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 SYSRDA 10 DS 2 RDA 10 DS 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,267,717.43 1,267,717.43 1,267,717.43 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 SYSRDA 10A CIP1 RDA 10A CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 547.37 547.37 547.37 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 SYSRDA 10 CIP 1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 6,025,112.84 6,025,112.84 6,025,112.84 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 6,642,667.41 6,655,387.12 6,642,667.41 0.462 0.456 0.462 1 Subtotal and Average 44,618,395.84 42,223,234.55 42,279,502.01 42,223,234.55 0.456 0.462 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 31331J2P7 01156 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/17/2010 1,000,000.00 989,340.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 1,416 11/17/2014 31331J4T7 01159 Federal Farm Credit Bank 12/16/2010 1,000,000.00 997,310.00 1,000,000.00 1.350 1.332 1.350 1,080 12/16/2013 3133XVF63 01147 Federal Horne Loan Bank 10/26/2009 1,000,000.00 1,013,440.00 1,000,000.00 2.100 2.071 2.100 846 04/26/2013 3133724V3 01158 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/30/2010 1,000,000.00 995,620.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 1,094 12/30/2013 3136F9CB7 01088 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/11/2008 2,000,000.00 2,138,740.00 2,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 800 03/11/2013 3136F9DP5 01090 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/27/2008 1,000,000.00 1,070,280.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 816 03/27/2013 31398AYN6 01134 Federal National Mtg Assn 07/28/2009 1,000,000.00 1,013,760.00 1,000,000.00 3.000 2.959 3.000 1,304 07/28/2014 3136FJNN7 01148 Federal National Mtg Assn 11/18/2009 1,000,000.00 1,013,720.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 1,417 11/18/2014 3136FPNTO 01153 Federal National Mtg Assn 10/18/2010 1,000,000.00 993,880.00 1,000,000.00 0.625 0.616 0.625 1,021 10/18/2013 3136FPPR2 01154 Federal National Mtg Assn 10/14/2010 1,000,000.00 989,330.00 1,000,000.00 1.150 1.134 1.150 1,199 04/14/2014 3136FPQV2 01155 Federal National Mtg Assn 10/28/2010 1,000,000.00 990,230.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1,123 01/28/2014 3136FPZD2 01157 Federal National Mtg Assn 12/03/2010 1,000,000.00 978,770.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 1,432 12/03/2014 31398A7A4 01160 Federal National Mtg Assn 12/30/2010 1,000,000.00 1,000,620.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 1,094 12/30/2013 Subtotal and Average 12,225,806.45 14,000,000.00 14,185,040.00 14,000,000.00 1.974 2.002 1,103 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 31331YG46 01092 Federal Farm Credit Bank 04/21/2008 2,000,000.00 2,014,520.00 1,993,700.00 2.625 2.703 2.740 110 04/21/2011 31331Y3P3 01105 Federal Farm Credit Bank 07/15/2008 1,000,000.00 1,023,250.00 998,140.00 3.500 3.514 3.563 275 10/03/2011 31331Y3N8 01111 Federal Farm Credit Bank 07/30/2008 1,000,000.00 1,017,670.00 999,000.00 3.625 3.610 3.661 195 07/15/2011 31331GE47 01135 Federal Farm Credit Bank 07/29/2009 1,000,000.00 1,032,570.00 997,500.00 2.250 2.284 2.316 940 07/29/2013 31331GG37 01137 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/04/2009 1,000,000.00 1,029,160.00 1,000,000.00 2.150 2.121 2.150 765 02/04/2013 31331GZ44 01144 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/15/2009 1,000,000.00 1,016,390.00 1,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 1.550 653 10/15/2012 3133XRRU6 01101 Federal Horne Loan Bank 07/03/2008 1,000,000.00 1,016,980.00 998,570.00 3.625 3.626 3.676 181 07/01/2011 3133XSWM6 01124 Federal Horne Loan Bank 01/23/2009 1,000,000.00 1,017,360.00 1,000,000.00 2.100 2.071 2.100 387 01/23/2012 Run Date: 01/31/2011 - 15:56 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2010 Page 5 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Bullet Securities 3133XTN85 01125 Federal Horne Loan Bank 05/07/2009 1,000,000.00 1,009,470.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.479 1.500 310 11/07/2011 3133XTXC5 01130 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/11/2009 1,000,000.00 1,024,910.00 1,000,000.00 2.250 2.219 2.250 527 06/11/2012 3133XVEM9 01150 Federal Horne Loan Bank 11/04/2009 1,000,000.00 1,018,130.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 690 11/21/2012 3133XVRS2 01151 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/16/2009 1,000,000.00 1,005,900.00 999,750.00 1.000 0.998 1.012 361 12/28/2011 313588CM5 01-2RESA10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 440,785.00 440,714.47 440,361.36 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 01-2REXB10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 202,860.00 202,827.54 202,665.03 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 313588CM5 01-2SPTAX10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 136,950.00 136,928.09 136,818.37 0.200 0.400 0.406 59 03/01/2011 31398AYM8 01139 Federal National Mtg Assn 08/10/2009 1,000,000.00 1,018,680.00 991,250.00 1.750 2.024 2.052 587 08/10/2012 313588CM5 03-01 RESA10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 864,730.00 864,591.64 863,898.91 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 03-01 RESB10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 223,160.00 223,124.29 222,945.52 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 313588CM5 03-01 SPTAX10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 153,125.00 153,100.50 152,977.83 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 03-02LC10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 1,671,155.00 1,670,887.62 1,669,548.85 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 313588CM5 03-04PRE10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 4,060.00 4,059.35 4,056.10 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 03-04RED10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 10,405.00 10,403.34 10,395.00 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 313588CM5 03-04RES10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 96,550.00 96,534.55 96,457.21 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 03-06RES10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 338,200.00 338,145.89 337,874.96 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 313588CM5 03-06SPTAX10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 55,860.00 55,851.06 55,806.31 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 03-1 ACQ 10 Federal National Mtg Assn 12/15/2010 13,000.00 12,997.92 12,994.74 0.200 0.392 0.397 59 03/01/2011 313588CM5 03-3RES10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 2,173,200.00 2,172,852.29 2,171,111.34 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 31358BCM5 03-3SPTAX10 Federal National Mtg Assn 09/09/2010 332,960.00 332,906.73 332,639.99 0.200 0.203 0.206 59 03/01/2011 Subtotal and Average 20,686,363.50 20,717,000.00 20,960,915.28 20,688,461.52 1.635 1.657 313 Run Date: 01/31/2011 - 15:56 Total and Average 119,875,094.52 115,812,472.82 116,297,695.56 115,783,934.34 0.843 0.854 190 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash December 31, 2010 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 6 Retention Escrow Account SYSAAA#1202 AAA#1202 COMMUNITY BANK 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 4110170281 EDGEDEV TORRY PINES BANK 07/01/2010 1,637,552.70 1,637,552.70 1,637,552.70 0.000 0.000 1 23303800 PCL CONST Wells Fargo Bank 07/01/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Passbook/Checking Accounts SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula SYSFIex Ck Acct Flex Ck Acct Union Bank of California SYSGen Ck Acct Gen Ck Acct Union Bank of California SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2010 2,810.00 2,810.00 2,810.00 0.000 0.000 1 07/01/2010 30,822.45 30,822.45 30,822.45 0.000 0.000 1 2,288,319.83 2,288,319.83 2,286,319.83 0.000 0.000 1 07/01/2010 7,306.67 7,306.67 7,306.67 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 Accrued Interest at Purchase 7.01 7.01 1 Subtotal 3,966,818.66 3,966,618.66 Run Date: 01/31/2011 - 15:56 Total Cash and Investments 119,875,094.52 119,779,284.47 120,264,514.22 119,750,753.00 0.843 0.854 190 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through December 31, 2010 Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $ 26,502,326.52 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 397,245.48 101 STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND 599,311.03 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 3,892,291.87 150 AB 2766 FUND 554,469.21 165 RDA AFFORDABLE HOUSING 20% SET ASIDE 11,083,562.42 170 MEASURE A FUND 7,779,302.51 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 881.39 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 72.83 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 234,895.92 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 10,386.52 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 136,147.35 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 819,838.31 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 11,986,486.25 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4,636,892.66 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,009,645.95 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 30,748,424.57 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 248,732.65 300 INSURANCE FUND 825,384.50 310 VEHICLES FUND 969,464.19 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 716,626.28 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 381,670.16 340 FACILITIES 284,818.18 370 CITY 2008 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 794,857.88 380 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,944,140.15 390 TCSD 2001 COPS DEBT SERVICE 98,923.71 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 33,175.63 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 803,345.00 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,259,132.92 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 121,428.17 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,818,069.85 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 412,123.36 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 7,830,011.16 501 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 0.05 502 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 2 WINCHESTER 21,230.20 503 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLAND 7,859.54 504 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 4 VINEYARDS 0.09 506 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 6 WOODCREST 1,929.98 509 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 9,026.94 510 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 126.34 511 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 0.06 512 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 0.95 516 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 40,502.34 517 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 0.08 519 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 25,506.78 520 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 47,106.12 521 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 12.20 522 SERVICE LEVEL "C" XONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 0.08 523 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 4,259.59 524 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 24 HARVESTON 60,779.13 525 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 2.37 526 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADE 0.07 527 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 27 AVONDALE 0.06 528 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 77,020.47 529 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 29 GALLERYPORT 2,475.43 530 SERVICE LEVEL "C" ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES 32,590.77 Grand Total: $ 120,264,514.22 Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Ole -r CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Community and Environmental Transportation Accountability Program (CETAP) Funding Agreement for the State Route 79 South/Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Project (Agreement No.11-72-041-00) PREPARED BY: Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the attached $5.4 million TUMF CETAP Funding Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the City of Temecula for the Construction of the State Route 79 South/Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Project (Agreement No. 11-72-041-00); and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement BACKGROUND: The State Route 79 South/Interstate 15 (SR 79 South/I-15) Ultimate Interchange Project will modify the existing freeway interchange and ramp system to improve access at the 1-15 and Temecula Parkway/SR 79 South intersection. The existing southbound off -ramp will be replaced with a new far side exit loop ramp, which is paired with a new southbound on-ramp, and a new bridge structure to accommodate the configuration of the new off -ramp. The northbound off -ramp will be widened to provide four (4) lanes at the ramp intersection. The northbound on-ramp will be widened to provide a three (3) lane ramp meter entrance at the ramp intersection and a two (2) lane entrance to the 1-15. Total construction costs are currently estimated at $24.3 million. The existing construction budget identifies $8.9 million from the SAFTEA-LU and Senate Bill 621 (Indian Gaming) programs, a $10 million contribution from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and over $5.4 million from the TUMF Regional Arterial program. However, due to the economic downturn and its impact on development, the current TUMF Regional Arterial program does not have sufficient revenues to obligate $5.4 million for this project, and no other resources are available to fill the void created by the deficiency in TUMF Regional Arterial funds. As a result, the City appealed to RCTC for consideration in utilizing TUMF CETAP funds to bridge the $5.4 million gap in construction funding. The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process, or CETAP, is a component of the larger Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), a comprehensive planning process to determine the future placement of roads, buildings, and open space within Riverside County. The TUMF CETAP funding program represents revenues that were made available to RCTC through the implementation of the TUMF program to fund equally the Regional Arterial System and development of New Transportation Corridors identified in CETAP. To receive TUMF funding, CETAP corridors must also be designated on the TUMF Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The CETAP "Winchester to Temecula Corridor" segment extends from the I-15/SR 79 South interchange northward to the 1-15/1-215 split and on to the 1-215, terminating at Newport Road. RCTC staff was very receptive of the City's request and acknowledged their support in funding construction activities that are eligible for CETAP funds and meet the intention of providing mobility improvements within the Winchester to Temecula Corridor. At its Commission Workshop in January 2010, RCTC committed to working with the City to explore all funding options for the construction of Phase 1. On September 8, 2010, RCTC formally approved the recommendation to program $5.4 million of TUMF CETAP funds as a replacement for the previous TUMF Regional Arterial funds, and authorized the execution of the attached agreement with the City for the construction of the Phase 1 improvements. The project is scheduled to begin construction in FY 2011-12, however all programmed funding sources will be evaluated during the coming CIP budget process. The commencement of construction will depend upon the viability of all programmed funding sources. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon City Council approval and execution of the attached agreement, the City may submit invoices to RCTC for the reimbursement of TUMF CETAP funds up to $5.4 million for costs associated with the right-of-way, relocation of utilities, and construction of the SR 79 South/1-15 Ultimate Interchange Project. This agreement with RCTC for TUMF CETAP funds replaces the construction funding previously programmed within the TUMF Regional Arterial program. ATTACHMENTS: TUMF CETAP Agreement (Agreement No.11-72-041-00) Agreement No. 11-72-041-00 AGREEMENT FOR THE FUNDING OF TUMF REGIONAL COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE REGIONAL SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS AND ARTERIALS WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SR 79 SOUTH @ I-15 ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE PROJECT 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this _ day of , 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and the CITY OF TEMECULA ("City"). RCTC and City are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 5, 2002 the voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan requires cities and the County in western Riverside County to participate in a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program to be eligible to receive Local Streets and Roads funds generated by Measure A. 2.4 The Plan further requires that the first $400 million in revenues from TUMF be made available to RCTC to fund equally the Regional Arterial System and development of New Transportation Corridors identified through the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). To receive TUMF funding, CETAP corridors must also be designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials as established in the October 2002 TUMF Nexus Study, as most recently amended in October 2009, and as may be amended in the future. 2.5 The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) has been selected to administer the overall TUMF Program pursuant to applicable state laws including Government Code 17336.01200\5800098.1 1 Sections 66000 et seq. and has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RCTC dated July 10, 2003, and revised on September 10, 2008 regarding the allocation of the TUMF Regional Funds to be made available to RCTC for programming. 2.6 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to distribute TUMF Regional Funds, identified by RCTC for CETAP corridors, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Work. This Agreement is intended to distribute TUMF Regional Funds allocated to CETAP Corridors to the City for right of way acquisition and construction (the "Work") on the State Route 79 South @ I-15 Ultimate Interchange Project (the "Project"). The Work, including a timetable and a detailed scope of work, and the Project, including a depiction of the Project from the Project plans, are more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The Work is, pursuant to Section 3.15 below, subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC. 3.2 RCTC Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to distribute to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed Five Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,400,000), to be used exclusively for reimbursing the City for eligible Work expenses as described herein ("Funding Amount"). The City acknowledges and agrees that the Funding Amount may be less than the actual cost of the Work, and that RCTC shall not contribute TUMF Regional Funds in excess of the maximum TUMF share for the phase/project identified in Appendix F of the TUMF Nexus Study. 3.2.1 Eligible Work Costs. The total Work costs ("Total Work Cost") may include the following items, provided that such items are included in the scope of work attached as Exhibit "A": (1) City and/or consultant costs associated with direct Work coordination and support; (2) funds expended in preparation of preliminary engineering studies; (3) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Work; (4) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (5) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (6) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by City or consultants; (7) City costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Work contracts; (8) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City; and (9) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. 3.2.1.1 Right -of -Way Acquisition. The Parties acknowledge that in order to protect the City's ability to deliver the Project in a timely cost effective manner, the City may purchase parcels ofproperty in advance of the completion of the Project's final design (PS&E). The Parties acknowledge that acquired parcels or remnants purchased in advance of final design may not ultimately be required for the Project. Upon completion of the Project's final design, the City shall 17336.01200\5800098.1 2 provide RCTC with a detailed list of all parcels purchased by the City for which it received TUMF Regional Funds pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall identify any parcels or remnants thereof which were acquired using TUMF Regional Funds and are not required for construction of the Project. A preliminary list shall be submitted to the RCTC 30 days before the issuance of bid documents for construction of the Project and a final list shall be submitted to the RCTC no later than 30 days following the recording of the Certificated of Completion for the Project. 3.2.1.2 Valuation and Repayment of Any Property Remnants. Upon receipt of the City's final list, RCTC shall meet with the City for the purpose of identifying any parcel or reasonably usable remnant of a parcel for which TUMF Regional Funds were expended that may reasonably be developed for other use by the City and/or sold. The Parties shall confer in good faith to agree upon the disposition of such parcels and remnant parcels and their fair market value as of a date agreed to by the parties, but in no event later than the date of completion of the Project. "Fair Market Value" shall have the definition set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.320 and "remnant" shall have the definition set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.410. Nothing herein shall preclude the City and RCTC from beginning the meetings earlier in the event both parties agree that the parcel or remnant will not be used for the Project. 3.2.1.3 Reimbursement for Unused Parcels. Following recordation of the Certificate of Completion for the Project, the City shall be responsible for promptly reimbursing RCTC for any TUMF Regional Funds which were used to acquire parcels which are completely unused in the Project. If City funds other than TUMF were used to purchase the Parcel, those local funds shall be considered in determining the reimbursement amount. 3.2.1.4 Appeal to Commission. In the event of a disagreement between the Parties regarding the reimbursement of TUMF Regional Funds under this section 3.2.1, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding excess right-of-way and value pursuant to this section shall be final. 3.2.2 Ineligible Work Costs. The Total Work Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the City without reimbursement: (1) City administrative costs; (2) City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (3) any City fees attributed to the processing of the Work; and (4) expenses for items of work not included within the scope of work in Exhibit "A". 3.2.3 Increases in Work Funding. The Funding Amount may, in RCTC's sole discretion, be augmented with additional TUMF Regional Funds if the TUMF Nexus Study is amended to increase the maximum eligible TUMF share for the Work. Any such increase in the Funding Amount must be approved in writing by RCTC's Executive Director. In no case shall the amount of TUMF Regional Funds allocated to the City exceed the then -current maximum eligible TUMF share for the Work. No such increased funding shall be expended to pay for any Work already completed. For purposes of this Agreement, the Work or any portion thereof shall be deemed complete upon its acceptance by RCTC's Executive Director. 17336.01200\5800098.1 3 3.2.4 No Funding for Temporary Improvements. Only segments or components of the Work that are intended to form part of or be integrated into the Work may be funded by TUMF Regional Funds. No improvement which is temporary in nature, including but not limited to temporary roads, curbs, or drainage facilities, shall be funded with TUMF Regional Funds except as needed for staged construction of the Work. 3.3 City's Funding Obligation to Complete the Work. In the event that the TUMF Regional Funds allocated to the Work represent less than the total cost of the Work, the City shall provide such additional funds as may be required to complete the Work as described in Exhibit "A". 3.3.1 City's Obligation to Repay TUMF Regional Funds to RCTC. In the event that: (i) the City, for any reason, determines not to proceed with or complete the Work; or (ii) the Work is not timely completed, subject to any extension of time granted by RCTC pursuant to Section 3.15; the City agrees that any TUMF Regional Funds that were distributed to the City for the Work shall be repaid in full to RCTC. The Parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to establish a reasonable repayment schedule and repayment mechanism which may include, but is not limited to, withholding of Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues. The City acknowledges and agrees that RCTC shall have the right to withhold any Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues due the City, in an amount not to exceed the total of the funds distributed to the City, and/or initiate legal action to compel repayment, if the City fails to repay RCTC within a reasonable time period not to exceed 180 days from receipt of written notification from RCTC that repayment is required. 3.4 Work Responsibilities of the City. The City shall be responsible for the following aspects of the Work, in compliance with state and federal law provided that such items are included in the Project scope of work attached as Exhibit "A": (i) development and approval of plans, specifications and engineer's estimate (PS&E), environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, and obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to commencement of the Work ; (ii) all aspects of bidding, awarding, and administration of the contracts for the Work; (iii) all construction management of any construction activities undertaken in connection with the Work, including survey and material testing; and (iv) development of a budget for the Work prior to award of any contract for the Work, taking into consideration available funding, including TUMF Regional Funds. 3.5 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until: (i) the date RCTC formally accepts the Work as complete, pursuant to Section 3.2.3; (ii) termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9; or (iii) the City has fully satisfied its obligations under this Agreement, "including full repayment of TUMF Regional Funds to RCTC as provided herein". All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.6 Representatives of the Parties. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. The City hereby designates Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager, or his or her designee, as the City's representative to RCTC. The City's representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all 17336.01200\5800098.1 4 activities of the Work under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Work. 3.7 Expenditure of Funds by City Prior to Execution of Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent or preclude the City from expending funds on the Work prior to the execution of the Agreement, or from being reimbursed by RCTC for such expenditures. However, the City understands and acknowledges that any expenditure of funds on the Work prior to the execution of the Agreement is made at the City's sole risk, and that some expenditures by the City may not be eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement. 3.8 Review of Services. The City shall allow RCTC's Representative to inspect or review the progress of the Work at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated for cause or convenience as further specified below. 3.9.1 Termination for Convenience. 3.9.1.1 Notice. Either RCTC or the City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, for convenience by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. 3.9.1.2 Effect of Termination for Convenience. In the event that the City terminates this Agreement for convenience, the City shall, within 180 days, repay to RCTC in full all TUMF Regional Funds provided to the City under this Agreement. In the event that RCTC terminates this Agreement for convenience, RCTC shall, within 90 days, distribute to the City TUMF Regional Funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from the City regarding the Work at the time of the notice of termination; provided, however, that RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 3.14.2, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information. This Agreement shall terminate upon receipt by the non -terminating party of the amounts due it under this Section 3.9.1.2. 3.9.2 Termination for Cause. 3.9.2.1 Notice. Either RCTC or the City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, in response to a material breach hereof by the other party, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. The written notice shall provide a 30 day period to cure any alleged breach. During the 30 day cure period, the Parties shall discuss, in good faith, the manner in which the breach can be cured. 17336.01200\5800098.1 5 3.9.2.2 Effect of Termination for Cause. In the event that the City terminates this Agreement in response to RCTC's uncured material breach hereof, RCTC shall, within 90 days, distribute to the City TUMF Regional Funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from the City regarding the Work at the time of the notice of termination. In the event that RCTC terminates this Agreement in response to the City's uncured material breach hereof, the City shall, within 180 days, repay to RCTC in full all TUMF Regional Funds provided to the City under this Agreement. Notwithstanding termination of this Agreement by RCTC pursuant to this Section 3.9.2.2, RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 3.14.2, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information. This Agreement shall terminate upon receipt by the non -terminating party of the amounts due it under this Section 3.9.2.2. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Work are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform the Work. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Progress Reports. RCTC may request the City to provide RCTC with progress reports concerning the status of the Work. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. In addition to the indemnification required under Section 3.10, the City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its subcontractors. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable 17336.01200\5800098.1 6 attorneys' fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Work. RCTC's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the City or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights RCTC may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of this Agreement. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Work. 3.13 Insurance. The City shall require, at a minimum, all persons or entities hired to perform the Work to obtain, and require their subcontractors to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to the City and RCTC. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Work, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Work or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, and their respective officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Work and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC and City, and/or their respective officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 17336.01200\5800098.1 7 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Procedures for Distribution of TUMF Regional Funds to City. 3.14.1 Initial Payment by the City. The City shall be responsible for initial payment of all the Work costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Work costs, the City shall submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of eligible Work costs. Each invoice shall be accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to the City, and documents evidencing the City's payment of the invoices or demands for payment. The City shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly. 3.14.2 Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice from the City, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Work costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the City within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the City for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the City may appeal RCTC's decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to RCTC's Executive Director. The City may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the full RCTC Board, the decision of which shall be final. Additional details concerning the procedure for the City's submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto. 3.14.3 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Work audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the City in an amount in excess of the maximum eligible TUMF share of the Work, as determined by the TUMF Nexus Study, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible Work costs, the City shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within 30 days of notification by RCTC. 3.15 Work Amendments. Changes to the characteristics of the Work, including the deadline for Work completion, and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of ROTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, provided that extensions of time for completion of the Work shall be approved in the sole discretion of RCTC's Representative. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require or allow completion of the Work without full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; "CEQA") and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4231 et seq.), but the necessity of compliance with CEQA and NEPA shall not justify, excuse, or permit a delay in completion of the Work. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may 17336.01200\5800098.1 8 be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of any Work performed at a job site. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its contractors relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City or construction related to the Work. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Work under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the Parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The Parties represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: 17336.01200\5800098.1 9 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ATTN: Shawn D. Nelson City Manager RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Mailing address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the Parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the Parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any contractor shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Work shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or contractor, whichever is applicable. The City or contractor shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Work and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. 17336.01200\5800098.1 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION City of Temecula By: By: Gregory S. Pettis Chair APPROVE AS_T-O,1 O. By: Bes : eger to the Riverside County nsportation Commission 17336.0120015800098.1 11 Shawn D. Nelson City Manager ATTEST: By: Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney The Project: EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK, FUNDING AND TIMETABLE State Route 79 @ I-15 Ultimate Interchange The Project will modify the existing interchange and ramp system to improve access at the Interstate I-15 and Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 South intersection. The existing southbound off -ramp will be replaced with a new far side exit loop ramp, which is paired with a new southbound on- ramp, and a new bridge structure to accommodate the configuration of the new off -ramp. The northbound I-15 off -ramp will be widened in order to provide four (4) lanes at the ramp intersection. The northbound on-ramp will be widened to provide a three (3) lane ramp meter entrance at the ramp intersection and a two (2) lane entrance to the I-15. Scope of Work: Right -of -Way Phase: Utility Relocation — All work involved in the protection, removal, and/or relocation of utility facilities necessary to clear and certify the Right of Way. This work includes coordination with utility companies to identify conflicts, establish liability, study altematives, and develop relocation plans, as well as performing right of way engineering, appraisals, and acquisitions necessary for physical relocation. It also includes physical relocation activities such as construction contract advertising and awarding, construction, construction management, inspection, and material testing. Construction Phase: All work involved in constructing the freeway, local road, and interchange improvements described above. Activities include construction contract advertising and awarding, construction, construction management, inspection, and material testing. FUNDING: PHASE TUMF CETAP LOCAL OTHER TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $1,400,000 $ $ $1,400,000 CONSTRUCTION $4,000,000 $ $18,900,000* $22,900,000 TOTAL $5,400,000 $ $18,900,000 $24,300,000 *Represents a combination of State Indian Gaming Revenues (SB621); Federal SAFTEA-LU funds; and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indian contributions 12 17336.01200\5800098.1 TIMETABLE: 17336.01200\5800098.1 13 START END PA&ED FEB 2005 OCT 2009 PS&E JAN 2009 JUN 2011 RJW JAN 2009 DEC 2012 CONS JUL 2011 DEC 2012 13 INDEX OF PLANS SHEET No. DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET AND LOCATION MAP TYPICAL SECTIONS KEY MAP LAYOUTS PROF iLE5 PROFILES AND SUPERELEVATION DIAGRAMS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS TEMPORARY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANS, DETAIL CONTOUR GRADING DRAINAGE PLANS, PROFILES & DETAILS UTILITY PLANS CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS STAGE CONSTRUCTION PLANS TRAFFIC HANDLING PLANS & QUANTITIES PAVEMENT DELINEATION PLAN, DETAILS & QUANTITIES SIGN PLANS, DETAILS & QUANTITIES SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES RETAINING WALL PLANS PLANT LIS_ HIGHWAY PLANTING PLANS IRRIGATION PLANS LANDSCAPE DETAILS ELECTRICAL PLANS REVISED & NEW STANDARD PLANS STRUCTURE PLANS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON STATE HIGHWAY & QUANTITIES X -X I-15/512-79 SOUTHBOUND OFF RAMP (SEP) Br No. 56-0653K THE STANDARD PLANS LIST APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT 15 INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE TO BIDDERS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS BOOK. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Sta 160+40 PM 3.03 Begin Work Sta 150+00 To Esco0di00 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN TEMECULA AT ROUTE 15/ 79 SEPARATION TO BE SUPPLEMENTED 80 STANDARD PLANS DATED MAY 2006 I -15/5R-79 SB OFF RANP (5EP BY= -No. 56-0653K BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Sta 90+00 PM 19.6 i9T5 ,351,3ct S1,"i'.[ ri 3.0/4.0, , t X% 19.6/19.8 Chi. iR/LR/t'8' COL End Work IIIk cR K $t0 220+00 _ d ROUTE 15 150 TE8ECULA CREEK UC 95% SUBMITTAL 12/06/2010 Sx TILL 0022655 THE SS 100 CLASSES) PE CIi IED IX INE "AO1I0E i0 BIOOEfl S:' 40 0 sd 4%. �O 2C0 _ R-79 UC TEMECULA END CONSTRUCTION Sta 110+00 PM 19.8 NO SCALE 200 NEC Rd T0' urrietE BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Sta 215+00 PM 4.07 FFENTEEFo [oix90190666EFTC LANS 2.202.2 0222 R80 CONSULTING CITY 0E TEMECULA 14725 ALTON P062 43200 BUSINESS Pk Dr!! IRVINE, CA 92618 TEMECULA CA 92589 CONTRACT No. 08-432304g PROJECT 10 0800000668 T.,, scrw 2 'ln 2010 02L TR irvs 6F.a 3. E )s: 41470//885.007.CA. COV/ UNIT 0000 I PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 0800000668 1 EXHIBIT "A-1" GUIDANCE for COMPLETION OF EXHIBIT A The following list of items generally identified as eligible or ineligible for TUMF Regional Funding reimbursement are consistent with those used to develop the costs for improvements in the first NEXUS Study prepared by WRCOG. In general, all improvements, with the exception of sidewalks, must be within the curbs of the roadway and extend no further than the curb returns at intersections. In addition, all improvements on or connecting to interstate and state route facilities shall be consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards. Items which are typically considered eligible include: • Asphalt concrete pavement, up to 16' per lane, to accomplish a 12' travel lane and ancillary treatment and appropriate base materials • Concrete curb and gutter and associated drainage — paved roadway shoulders and swale may be used as a substitute • Class II Bike Lanes • Paved and painted 14' median, may be used as a dual left turn lanes • Traffic signals at intersections with state highways and major arterials which are also on the TUMF Network • Pavement striping and roadway signing as required. Items which are not typically considered eligible include: • Portland Cement pavement or other aesthetic pavement types (except at intersections) • Major rehabilitation or overlay of existing pavement in adjacent roadway lanes • Raised Medians • Parking Lanes • Landscaping • Lighting • Class I Bike Lanes 19336.01200\5800098.1 15 EXHIBIT "B" PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES 1. RCTC recommends that the City incorporate Exhibit `B-1", or substantially similar provisions, into its contracts with any subcontractors to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices by contractors to the City and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of City contractor costs. 2. Each month the City shall submit an invoice for eligible Work costs incurred during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC's Executive Director with a copy to RCTC's Programming and Planning Manager. Each invoice shall be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit `B-2". 3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor used by the City for the Work, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall also include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts expended by each contractor or consultant for the month and for the entire Work to date. All documentation from the City's contractors should be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "B-3". 4. If the City is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by City staff for eligible Work costs, the City shall detail the same level of information for its labor and any expenses in the same level of detail as required of contractors pursuant to Exhibit "B" and its attachments. 5. Charges for each task and milestone listed in Exhibit "A" shall be listed separately in the invoice. 6. Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the City Representative or his or her designee which reads as follows: "I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the consultants or contractors listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 17336.01200\5800098.1 16 7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, without interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be paid. 8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) the City has obtained a Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or consultant used on theWork; (ii) the City has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment; and (iii) the City has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC. 17336.01200\5800098.1 17 EXHIBIT "B-1" ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION For the satisfactory perfouuance and completion of the Work under this Agreement, City will pay the Consultant compensation as set forth herein. The total compensation for this service shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT ) ($ INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ) without written approval of City's City Engineer ("Total Compensation"). 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Work will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Consultant's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Work under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULIIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is , and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. 17336.01200A5800098.1 18 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs The Decimal ratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Consultant Firm's Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. Total Multiplier (sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIxED FEE. A Fixed Fee of shall be paid to Consultant for Consultant's complete and satisfactory performance of this Agreement and all Services required hereunder. City shall pay the Fixed Fee in monthly installments based upon the percentage of the Services completed at the end of each billing period, as determined in the sole discretion of the City's Representative, or his or her designee. Consultant shall not be entitled to and shall forfeit any portion of the Fixed Fee not earned as provided herein. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE insert charges 1 Per Diem $ /day Car mileage $ /mile Travel $ /trip Computer Charges $_/hour Photocopies $/copy Blueline $ /sheet LD Telephone $ /call Fax $ /sheet Photographs $ /sheet Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Consultant's office nearest to City's office must have City's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 17336.01200\5800098.1 19 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Consultant's adjustments to individual compensation. The Consultant shall notify City in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES Principal Project Manager Sr. Engineer/Planner Project Engineer/Planner Assoc. Engineer/Planner Technician Drafter/CADD Operator Word Processor sanaple_J $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour $ .00 - $ .00/hour 2.3 The above rates are for the Consultant only. All rates for subconsultants to the Consultant will be in accordance with the Consultant's cost proposal. 3. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Consultant shall submit an invoice for Work performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to City's City Engineer with two (2) copies to City's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by City's Representative. 3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Work, shall be listed separately. The 17336.01200\5800098.1 20 charges for each individual assigned by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to City such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subconsultants or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's Representative or an officer of the film which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 4. PAYMENT 4.1 City shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after receipt by City of an original invoice. Should City contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. The final payment for Work under this Agreement will be made only after the Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. 17336.01200\5800098.1 21 EXHIBIT "B-2" SAMPLE COVER LE 11 ER TO RCTC Date Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Accounts Payable Re: Project Title - Invoice # Enclosed for your review and payment approval is the City of 's invoice for professional and technical services that was rendered by our consultants in connection with the TUMF Regional CETAP Corridor Improvements per Agreement No. effective (Month/Day/Year). The required support documentation received from each consultant is included as backup to the invoice. Invoice period covered is from Month/Day/Year to Month/Day/Year. Total Authorized Agreement Amount: $0,000,000.00 Total Invoiced to Date: $0,000,000.00 Total Previously Invoiced: $0,000,000.00 Balance Remaining: $0,000,000.00 Amount due this Invoice: $0,000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the consultants listed. By: Name: Title: cc: 17336.01200\5800098.1 22 EXHIBIT "B-3" SAMPLE LETTER FROM CONTRACTOR TO CITY Month/Date/Year Attn: Accounts Payable Invoice # For [type of services] rendered by [contractor name] in connection with [name of project]. This is per agreement No. XX -XX -XXX effective Month/Date/Year. Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year. Total Base Contract Amount: $000,000.00 Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable) $000,000.00 TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $000,000.00 Total Invoice to Date: $000,000.00 Total Previously Billed: $000,000.00 Balance Remaining: $000,000.00 Amount Due this Invoice: $000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed, By: Name: Title: 17336.01200\5800098.1 23 Item No. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for the Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Project No. PW09-10 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer — CI P Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer - CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the construction of the Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Project No. PW 09-10, as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; and 3. Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On June 8, 2010, the City Council awarded a construction contract to ICE Engineering in the amount of $429,402.50 to complete the Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Project No. PW 09-10. The work for Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road project consisted of a base bid that included rehabilitating the pavement on Jedediah Smith Road between Temecula Parkway and Cabrillo Avenue; Additive Bid No. 1 which consisted of rehabilitating the pavement on Cabrillo Avenue between Jedediah Smith Road and Vallejo Avenue; and Additive Bid No. 2 which consisted of rehabilitating the pavement on Vallejo Avenue between Cabrillo Avenue and Ynez Road. On September 28, 2010, the City Council approved Contract Change Order Number 4. This change order approved additional pavement rehabilitation, slurry sealing, and roadway striping reconfiguration on Santiago Road between Ynez Road and Interstate 15 (1-15). This work was added to fully utilize the Proposition 1B funds, Transportation Bond/ Local Streets and Roads. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All work will be warranted for a period of one (1) year from December 14, 2010, the date the City obtained "beneficial use" of the project improvements. The retention for this project will be released pursuant to the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 7107. FISCAL IMPACT: The Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Project No. PW 09-10 is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and is funded with Proposition 1B funds, Transportation Bond/Local Street & Roads. The base amount of the construction contract was $429,402.50; contract change orders totaled $201,507.10, contract item under runs totaled $17,800.80, which results in the total cost of the project of $613,108.80. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41040 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to ICE Engineering, 19042 San Jose Avenue, City of Industry, CA. 91748 to perform the following work of improvement: ROAD RECONSTRUCTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD, PROJECT NO. PW 09-10 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on February 8, 2011. That upon said contract The Hanover Insurance Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: ROAD RECONSTRUCTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD, PROJECT NO. PW 09-10 6. The location of said property is: Jedediah Smith Road between Temecula Parkway and Cabrillo Avenue, Cabrillo Avenue between Jedediah Smith Road and Vallejo Avenue, Vallejo Avenue between Cabrillo Avenue and Ynez Road, and Santiago Road between Ynez Road and Interstate 15 (1-15), Temecula, California 92592. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of February, 2011. City of Temecula STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ss ) Susan W. Jones M MC, City Clerk I, Susan W. Jones M MC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8" day of February, 2011. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk C:\Program Files \Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\989332. doc From: 6268106043 Page: 3/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:53 PM 1- r om :1 UE ENGINEERING INC, ti ti 810 6U4S U1/21/2011 1 : Gb #2S4 p . UUS/UUn S r � BOND NUMBER: 1941164 PREMIUM INCLUDED IN ORIGINAL PERFORMANCE BOND CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND FOR PROJECT NO PWO9-10 ROAD RECONSTRUCTION AT JEDED1AH SMITH ROAD KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: ICE ENGINEERING, INC., 19042 San Jose Ave., Unit L, City of Industry, CA 91748 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S a CORPORATION hereinafter called Principal, and (fig in whether Corporation, Pat tie or flcrvidlia# THE HANQVER.INSURANCE COMP.NY,. 333 City Blvd. West,17th Floor, Orange,' CA 92868 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY hereinafter called SURETY, are held and limily bound unto CITY OF TElvIECUTA, hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of SIXTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TEN AND 88/100 DOLLARS and GENTS ($ 61, 310.88 ) in lawful money of the United States, Said sum being not less than ten (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula underthe terms of the Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents- THE CONDITION OF THIS O.BLIGATlON is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 8TH day of JUNE , 2010, 20DEX a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO PWO9- 10,ROAD RECONSTRUCTION. AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of one (1) year after approval of the final estimate on Said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period;. and 4.-1NHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was the final esfi pproved on __-- ANIJARY -.11 .. Z011 2111Xx - w.• NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCK at if within one year from the date of approval of the final estimate, on said job pursuant to the Cc iract, the work doe under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor' workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying 011t.:Of the. terms of said Contract, -:or it Shalt appear that:def ctive Materials were.: furnished thereunder, then this: obligation shall remain . in full4orce andtue, otherwise this •'` instrument shall be void.• As a part of the obligation secured herebyand in- addition :to the face amount specified_, cots and reasonable expenses and fees. shall be inctuded,: including reasonable-attomeys.fees incurred by the City of. Temecula insuc ssfully__enforcing this obligation, all .tri be taxed as costs and includedin anyjudgment rendered_ .. • klAiNTENANCE130NO This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com From: 6268106043 Page: 4/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:53 PM 1-rom:lUE ENGINEERING 1NU. 626 81U 6U48 U1/21/2011 12:86 #2284 N.UU4'00n The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, .and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the Specifications. Signed and sealed this 11 day of JANUARY, 2011 2.1212X (Seal) SURETY THE HANOVER INSURANCE C By: YUNG T. MULLICK (Name) ATTORNEY -.IN -FACT APPROVED AS TO. FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney PRINCIPAL; ICE ENGINEERING, INC.,' By: R Theo Nguyen (Name) President (Title) f 6� Gordon Kline Jr. (Name) (Title . if 5^eeNtelty ) Attach Notarial Acknowtedgerr►ent or Jurat for both the Surety and Principal Scunatures MAINTENAIICE stD -- • .. J 'w This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com • From: 6268106043 Page: 5/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:54 PM I-rom:lUL ENGINEERING INU. 626 81U 6U48 U1/21/2011 12:86 #2284 N.UUb/UU8 ALL-PTJRPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of L0 s Pc. In s ' On oktAtAAtiki Ali '7 [ 1 , before me, 7,c oc j So , N � y ? t;b 1►� DATE personally appeared 4. V\ , who proved to me on the SS. basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. TRACY SOOC COMM. # 1804694 m NOTARY W18UC.CA FFORNIA Y! Los ANGELES CONTY MY COMM. Elm. JUNE 28, 2012 PLACE NOTARY SEAL IN ABOVE SPACE 1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY'S SIGNATURE samesamEssimsonammiminimm OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is optional_ However, it may prove valuable and could prevent fraudulent attachment of this form to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OFATTACH"F'D DOCUMENT /ate 4k TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT O INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER oteati-s' ❑ PARTNER(S) 1 TITLE(S) ❑ ATTORNEY -1N -FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) O GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER OTHER 43 03 a 0 c. This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com From: 6268106043 Page: 6/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:54 PM I-rom:lUL ENGINEERING INU. 626 81U 6U48 U1/21/2011 12:86 #2284 P.UU6/UU8 ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Los 1`4vl y-ZQS On A LO. vy 2-I, 2,00 DATE personally appeared SS. before me, gat C So0 . basis of satisfactory evidence to be comm .# 1804694 NOTARY r�uC ORsIA N ,. 3 Las A> ks CounIr — MY CORM. $XP. Jun 2$,.2©12 (idre( olA 141 i I& L j c . , who proved to me on the the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY'S SIGNATURE PLACE NOTARY SEAL IN ABOVE SPACE OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is optional. However, it may prove valuable and could prevent fraudulent attachment of this form to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) O INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER ❑ PARTNER(S) p ATTORNEY--IN-FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: \L '. i s p1.'e4 k y TITLE(S) SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR. ENTITY(IES) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT RR Ik4' TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER OTHER 4 E 0 0. This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com From: 6268106043 Page: 7/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:55 PM I-rom:lUL ENGINEERING INU. 626 81U 6U48 U1/21/2011 12:86 #2284 P.UU//UU8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Orange On JANUARY 11, 2011 before me, JENNIFER C. GIBONEY, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared YUNG T. MULLICK who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person() whose name() is/; subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heMmalmy executed the same in his/bet/dmif authorized capacity(, and that by hisiituaddsetix signature(s) on the instrument the person(), or the entity upon behalf of which the person() acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF P paragraph is true and corre JURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing WITNESS my hand and; (Seal) JENNIFER C. MONEY 8 COW, • 1797084 NODE P CAI ORMA ;; ORANGE COUNT'?" E ,13 NyCgigiavinsMAY2,2012 This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com From: 6268106043 Page: 8/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:55 PM I-rom:lUL LNGINLLHING INU. 626 81U 6U48 U1/21/2011 12:86 #2284 P.UU8/UU8 THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA POWERS OF ATTORNEY CERTIFIED COPY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY and MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, both being corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, do hereby constitute and appoint James W. Moilanen, Jennifer C. Glboney, Yung T. Mullick and/or P. Austin Neff of Mission Viejo, CA and each is a true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-fact to sign, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver for, and on its behalf, and as its act and deed any place within the United States, or, if the following line be filled in, only within the area therein designated any and all bonds, recognizances, undertakings, contracts of indemnity or other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, as follows: Any such obligations in the United States, not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 ($10,000,000) in any single instance and said companies hereby ratify and confirm all and whatsoever said Attomey(s)-in-fact may lawfully do in the premises by virtue of these presents. These appointments are made under and by authority of the following Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of said Companies which resolutions are still in effect: "RESOLVED, That the President or any Vice President, in conjunction with any Assistant Vice President, be and they are hereby authorized and empowered to appoint Attomeys-in-fact of the Company, in its name and as its acts, to execute and acknowledge for and on its behalf as Surety any and all bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, waivers of citation and all other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, with power to attach thereto the seal of the Company. Any such writings so executed by such Attomeys-in-fact shall be as binding upon the Company as if they had been duly executed and. acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company in their own proper persons." (Adopted October 7, 1981 - The Hanover Insurance Company; Adopted April 14, 1982 — Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company; Adopted September 7, 2001 - Citizens Insurance Company of America) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have caused, these presents to be sealed with their respective corporate seals, duly attested by a Vice President and an Assistant Vice President, this 29' day of April, 2010. 'ftiEHANOVER iI1S'JRANCE`COMPA3'tY '... MASSACHUSETTS•BAY:INSUNANCECC±MPANY ClTtZE SURANCE:COMPANY O!` AMERICA: THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ) COUNTY OF WORCESTER ) ss. On this 29th day of April 2010-, before me came the above named Vice President and Assistant Vice President of The Hanover Insurance Company, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described herein, and acknowledged that the seals affixed to the preceding instrument are the corporate seals of The Hanover Insurance Company Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America, respectively, and that the said corporate seals and their signatures as officers were duly affixed and subscribed to said instrument by the authority and direction of said Corporations. *WI Palt Coareamilli of ejYw Notary Pati& My commission expires on November 3, 2011 I, the undersigned Assistant Vice President of The Hanover Insurance Company, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Original Power of Attorney issued by said Companies, and do hereby further certify that the said Powers of Attorney are still in force and effect. This Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of The Hanover Insurance Company, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and Citizens Insurance Company of America. "RESOLVED, That any and all Powers of Attomey and Certified Copies of such Powers of Attomey and certification in respect thereto, granted and executed by the President or any Vice President in conjunction with any Assistant Vice President of the Company, shall be binding on the Company to the same extent as if alt signatures therein were manually affixed, even though one or more of any such signatures thereon may be facsimile." (Adopted October 7, 1981 - The Hanover Insurance Company; Adopted April 14, 1982 Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company; Adopted September 7, 2001 - Citizens Insurance Company of America) GIVEN under my hand and the seals of said Companies, at Worcester, Massachusetts, this 11 day of JANUARY , 20 11. - THE HANOVER OVER INSURANCE COMPANY MASSACHEISETTS BAY INSLIRAKE CA1APAt'4:' Ctl t a StNSt3..t Y: ERICA f Pres This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com From: 6268106043 Pae: 2/8 Date: 1/21/2011 12:45:53 PM 1- r om :1 I;;L LNG1NLLPANG 1N6. 626 810 6043 01/21/2011 12:86 #'' 4 P.002/008 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW09-10 ROAD RECONSTRUCTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD This is to certify thatIc5E, ,\1n.5,2%►({hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, khat he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, toots, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the budding, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW09-10, ROAD RECONSTRUCTION AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ON JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD BETWEEN TEMECULA PARKWAY AND CABRILLO AVENUE, ON CABRILLO AVENUE BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND VALLEJO AVENUE, AND ON VALLEJO AVENUE BETWEEN CABRILLO AVENUE AND YNEZ ROAD The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code §7100, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: I hi By: CONTRACTOR 6,3r " i, LIP % Print Name and Title RELEASE" . .::. R-1 .. _ \CT\PROJECEST i\ 1 badirocawn at keytun ssmiat l -11) gpacadac This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://vvww.gfi.com Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager etOL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: First Amendment to Professional GIS Consulting Services Agreement to Enhance the City of Temecula's GIS Parcel and Centerline Data Layers PREPARED BY: John De Gange, GIS Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Temecula and D&W Consulting for Professional GIS consulting services in the amount of $5,650.00 and extending the term of the agreement to June 2011. BACKGROUND: On November 10, 2009 the City Council approved a Professional Consulting Services Agreement with D&W Consulting in the amount of $63,370.00 to enhance the city's GIS parcel and centerline layers (IS 09-02). This project has rectified the anomolies built into the geometric component of the County's GIS parcel and centerline data. During the later stages on the work for this project it was determined that all recorded lot line adjustmens and parcel mergers also needed to be included in the adjustments to these layers. This additional work will be perfomed by the consultant at a cost of $2,000.00. The second part of the amendment to this agreement is a request on behalf of the Community Development Department for 2,355 parcels to be added the orignal project to insure that areas adjacent to the Temecula sphere of influence which are under consideration for future annexation be added to the area being enhanced, at a cost of $3,650.00 for a total cost of $5,650.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this amended agreement have specifically been appropriated within the 2010-11 GIS Budget for Fiscal Year Budget as part of the Information Systems Internal Services fund. ATTACHMENTS: The First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with D&W Consulting FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND D & W CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL GIS CONSULTING SERVICES TO CORRECT INACCURACIES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S GIS PARCEL AND CENTERLINE DATA LAYERS THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of January 5, 2011 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and D & W Consulting, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On November 10, 2009, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional GIS Consulting Services to correct inaccuracies in the City of Temecula's GIS Parcel and Centerline Data Layers", in the amount of SIXTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS. ($63,370.00). b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2011, increase the payment in the amount of $5,650.00, revise the Written Notice section to notify Consultant of the Temecula City Hall address change, and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. follows: 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as "This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2011 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 4. of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: follows: "The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms 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 FIRST Amendment amount shall not exceed Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($5,650.00) for additional GIS Consulting Services for a total Agreement amount of Sixty Nine Thousand and Twenty Dollars ($69,020)." 4. Section 13 of the Agreement entitled "NOTICE" is hereby amended to read as "Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt 1 showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Use this Address for a Delivery Service: City of Temecula or Hand -Deliveries ONLY Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 5. Exhibit `A' and `B' 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. 6. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA D & W Consulting (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: By: By: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Jerry A. Wagner, President Ronald J. Wagner, Vice President D & W Consulting Jerry Wagner 1920 North Ukiah Upland, CA 91784 909 946 6477 jwagner@dwconsulting.biz 3 FSM Initials: Date: ATTACHMENT A PROFESSIONAL GIS CONSULTING SERVICES TO CORRECT INACCURACIES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S GIS PARCEL AND CENTERLINE DATA LAYERS 4 D &WConsulting August 17, 2010 Mr. John Degange City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula, California 92589 Subject: New Parcels to be converted Mr. John Degange; D&W Consulting is pleased to be able to supply you with this proposal for a professional GIS consulting services to convert 2355 parcels surrounding the City and its sphere of influence. t The parcels to be converted are shown in orange. The same process will be used on these parcels that was used to convert the Gray area of the map. This project includes converting the parcels, tract boundaries, and centerlines. 1920 North Ukiah Way • Upland, California • 91784-1620 Phone: 909 946-6477 • Fax: 909 608-2066 www.dwconsulting.biz 5 — 2 — September 13, 2010 The City needs to pull the associated Tract/Parcel Maps (TMPM) approximately 198 and Assessor Parcels Maps (APM) for this project. Tract/Parcel Maps PM 10016 PM 14463 PM 10390 PM 14600 PM 10551 PM 14601 PM 10791 PM 14721 PM 10793 PM 14950 PM 10868 PM 14987 PM 10988 PM 15176 PM 11228 PM 15201 PM 11255 PM 15216 PM 11256 PM 15339 PM 11347 PM 15345 PM 11348 PM 15356 PM 11383 PM 15357 PM 11429 PM 15561 PM 11436 PM 15748 PM 11625 PM 15784 PM 11640 PM 15902 PM 11853 PM 16010 PM 11897 PM 16011 PM 11947 PM 16023 PM 12097 PM 16251 PM 12194 PM 16257 PM 12478 PM 16749 PM 12494 PM 16750 PM 12580 PM 16899 PM 12653 PM 17128 PM 12835 PM 17143 PM 12877 PM 17478 PM 12962 PM 17756 PM 13228 PM 17866 PM 13321 PM 17957 PM 13453 PM 17972 PM 13511 PM 18017 PM 13545 PM 18156 PM 13733 PM 18204 PM 13867 PM 18593 PM 13890 PM 18723 PM 14030 PM 18742 PM 14039 PM 18773 PM 14041 PM 19171 6 PM 19177 PM 19332 PM 19808 PM 19809 PM 20071 PM 20307 PM 20462 PM 20615 PM 20864 PM 21046 PM 21099 PM 21111 PM 21386 PM 21436 PM 21622 PM 21623 PM 21658 PM 21842 PM 21938 PM 22062 PM 22088 PM 22311 PM 22312 PM 22313 PM 22314 PM 22456 PM 22688 PM 23294 PM 23360 PM 23884 PM 24378 PM 24415 PM 24416 PM 24567 PM 24576 PM 24687 PM 24740 PM 24742 PM 24941 PM 25052 PM 25054 PM 25123 PM 25155 PM 25226 PM 25303 PM 25938 PM 26096 PM 26114 PM 26160 PM 26379 PM 26961 PM 27435 PM 27738 PM 28289 PM 28366 PM 28814 PM 29232 PM 29608 PM 29911 PM 30950 PM 31340 PM 31425 PM 31752 PM 31753 PM 32015 PM 32305 PM 32615 - 2 - September 13, 2010 PM 32888 PM 33656 PM 34701 PM 4867 PM 4895 PM 5065 PM 5136 PM 5341 PM 5463 PM 5506 PM 5613 PM 5891 PM 5977 PM 6336 PM 6428 PM 6465 PM 6564 PM 6835 PM 7335 PM 7566 PM 7837 PM 7885 PM 8811 PM 9374 PM 9375 PM 9543 PM 9639 PM 9743 TR 10429 TR 12129 TR 24831 TR 26050 TR 29473 TR 29473-1 TR 29554 TR 29554-1 TR 29554-2 TR 29554-3 TR 29554-4 TR 29554-5 TR 29851 TR 29962 TR 30347 TR 30347-1 TR 30347-2 TR 30347-3 TR 30885-1 TR 30885-2 TR 30885-3 TR 6410 SANTA CARMELITA VALE LA QUINTA UNIT 17 In addition to the TMPM's the City needs to pull APM's for the properties that do not have a TMPM. Assessor Parcel Maps 47217 91720 94302 94319 47218 91721 94303 94321 47601 91722 94305 94322 47602 91723 94306 94323 91707 91730 94307 94324 91708 91823 94309 94325 91709 92759 94311 94326 91710 92760 94312 95102 91711 94023 94313 95104 91718 94027 94314 95106 91719 94028 94318 95107 7 September 13, 2010 95109 95121 96525 96545 95110 95122 96527 96546 95114 95126 96530 96617 95115 96403 96539 96638 95117 96405 96544 The City needs to pull these APM's for the properties that have had a lot line adjustment. 47221 94317 95127 96629 47609 94320 95128 96630 47634 94327 96523 96631 91711 94328 96524 96632 92761 95103 96526 96634 94005 95105 96528 96635 94006 95108 96529 96637 94012 95111 96531 96639 94017 95112 96542 96640 94019 95116 96543 96641 94020 95118 96621 96642 94023 95119 96622 96643 94028 95120 96624 96645 94029 95123 96625 96646 94304 95124 96626 96647 94310 95125 96627 96648 94316 95126 96628 96649 D&W Consulting has evaluated the work and feel that we can to the work for the same per parcel cost as the original project. The original project was for 41,000 parcels and $63,370 or a per parcel cost of $1.55 per parcel. Our fee for this work is $3,650 and will take approximately six weeks to complete the work after receipt of the TMPM's and APM's. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 909 210-9415. Sincerely, D�JI consulting A. Wagner 8 orisulting June 9, 201.0 Mr. John Degange City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula, California 92589 Subject: Phase 1, 2, and pilot areas lot line adjustment Mr. John Degange; D&W Consulting is pleased to be able to supply you with this proposal for a professional GIS consulting services to enter lot line adjustments to Phase 1 & 2 and the Pilot areas. During the project it was determined that not all of the lot line adjustments had been made. The City was having difficulties in obtaining digital lot line adjustment records. The only adjustments being made were ones identified by edit process where lot lines and fence lines from the ortho did not match. A meeting between D&W and City was held to resolve the issue before too much work moved forward. Phase 1 & 2 had already been delivered and phase 3 was in the edit process. The agreed upon process was to use a lot line adjust file from the Assessor's office to show where the Assessor's GIS team made lot line adjustments. The Assessor Maps were pulled to show these adjustments and the necessary changes would be made to the parcels. D&W adjusted our process to included the lot line adjust to the City at no additional cost for the 20,858 parcels in Phase 3 & 4. However, for Phase 1 & 2 and the Pilot areas, they would have to be reworked for an additional cost. D&W's cost to review and adjust the 19,259 parcels all ready completed is $2,000.00. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 909 210-9415. Sincerely, consulting A. Wagner 1920 North Ukiah Way • Upland, California • 91784-1620 Phone: 909 946-6477 • Fax: 909 608-2066 9 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND D & W CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL GIS CONSULTING SERVICES TO CORRECT INACCURACIES IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S GIS PARCEL AND CENTERLINE DATA LAYERS (IS RFP No. 09-02) THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of November 10, 2009, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and D & W Consulting, a Corporation in the State of California, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on November 10, 2009, and shall remain and continue in eflect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than January 1, 2011, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for one (1) additional year term. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond January 1, 2012. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in the Scope of Work attached herein as Attachment "A". 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all time faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Attachment "B", Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed $63,370.00 unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant will submit invoices pursuant to the Payment Schedule attached herein as Attachment `B". Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non- disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultants fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, District, and/or Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, District and/or Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City that it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultants exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City of Temecula: To Consultant: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 -or- City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 D & W Consulting Attention: Jerry A. Wagner 1920 North Ukiah Way Upland, CA 91784 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 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( d ards, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: D & W Consulting (Teo Signatures if required by corporate papers) By: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney agner, President Ronald J. Wagner, Vice President CONTRACTOR D & W Consulting Jerry Wagner 1920 North Ukiah Way, Upland, CA 91784 (909) 946-6477 jwauner@dwconsultino.biz ATTACHMENT A Tasks to be Performed / Scope of Work Scope of Work Professional GIS Consulting Services to Correct Inaccuracies in the City of Temecula's GIS Parcel and Centerline Data Layers IS 09-02 Task 1: Kick-off Meeting A kick-off meeting will be held at the beginning of the project. The key team players from D&W and the City will attend this meeting. The kick-off meeting has these goals to accomplish. o Introduction of the Project Team o D&W Consulting Team ❑ City of Temecula Team o Identify team members roles ❑ Project expectations ❑ Keys to project success o Review project approach o Determine Pilot area (Worst Area Possible) o Review Schedule o Schedule for picking up drawings o Conversion schedule o Review project milestones o Delivery schedule o Establish dates for monthly meetings o Invoicing and payments o Review PARS (problem and resolutions form) Task 2: Inventory Tract / Parcel Maps Verification and sorting shall be done for the received source data. The source condition and completeness will be checked in accordance to the check protocol. D&W requests that all maps be scanned in a PDF, jpeg, tiff image or other compatible format. D&W will maintain a separate GIS database to track the status of the maps at various stages of project. This database will be accessible to all the team members of the project. Tract / Parcel Maps that are missing will be identified for review with the City. D&W will meet with the City to locate missing maps. We will review the existing parcel base to determine the best approach for adjusting those parcels. Task 3: Conversion Specifications D&W Consulting will develop detailed conversion specifications for the conversion of the parcel base and centerlines. D&W will define the parameters of the conversion effort and the 1 tools required to carry out the work well in advance of the start of work. A review of the data requirements and source information will define the detail aspect and methodology of the conversion process. This review is important to the preparation for data entry, the modification of programs used for data entry, and the validation after entry has been completed. These constraints will be project/client specific and will be determined with the active participation of the client. A conversion specification document is prepared for the project and reviewed by the Project Team. The specifications reflects the agreed upon measures for data acceptance and cartographic standards by the City. The database design will address data fields associated with existing datasets, standards and requirements. This document contains information regarding data quality and specifies the acceptable data quality standards for digital deliverables. All delivered data will be evaluated on its degree of conformance to the database design, scope of work and fulfillment of the acceptance criteria. Comparison of delivered data will be against the source information supplied to D&W by the City of Temecula. Task 4: Pilot Project City staff and D&W will meet to review the Pilot Project specifications. A pilot area will be identified for the project. It is recommended that the pilot area be one that has considerable inaccuracies in the current parcel base and missing source documentation. This will allow D&W the opportunity to show the City the entire process of conversion. The pilot project will be reviewed in detail with the City to determine that the final product meets the needs of the City. Any changes or modifications will be discussed by the team for agreement on the best approach for moving forward. The pilot will be accepted by the City before the project moves forward. Task 5: Adjust Conversion Specifications The purpose of the pilot project is to determine if the resulting product meets the needs of the City. The conversion specifications are adjusted to any changes or modifications made during the pilot phase. The final document is reviewed with the City for their acceptance. Task 6: Conversion of the Remaining City Based on the success of the pilot project, the remaining portion of the City will undergo conversion. The process D&W will use is identified in the steps below. Step 1: COLO Tract / Parcel Map Boundaries and Creating Closure Report COGO techniques will be used to create the parcel basemap to ensure the degree of conformity of measurements to the true or actual value of the quantity being measured. The purpose of maintaining accuracy of the parcel basemap is to ensure a graphic feature within the database approximates the feature in the real world. The digitization 2 process will be done in COGO software in an Autodesk environment. In this step, tract/parcel map boundaries and parcel boundaries are created exactly as shown on the source map. The given Survey data are entered into a "COGO" program as a sequential set of bearings, distances, and curve parameters (radius, length, etc.). Each subdivision map and parcel boundaries are COGO'd into vector data using tract / parcel maps. If the sources are not available, other data determined by the City and D&W will be used for capturing parcel information. At this stage no attempt is made to correct any closure or other problems, which occurs with the data given on the source material. The data produced at this stage will be a digital representation of the information contained on the source maps (tract maps, parcel maps) for COLO. All data derived from Tract/Parcel Maps, and other source documents shall mathematically close within 1 part in 10,000, or 0.05', whichever is greater. This includes boundary, centerline, right-of-way, lot lines, and other lines as required. Q.A.: Once the traverse is completed, the software will generate the closure report for each traverse automatically. The generated report is linked to the document from which it was produced to serve as a basis for internal QA. Every COGO'd image will be cross-referenced to the closure documents. Step 2: Closing Subdivision and Parcel Boundaries Closure is performed on all of the subdivision and parcel boundaries in this step. The subdivision and parcel gets closed based on the data provided. We expect the following four situations may arise during this process. a) The subdivision and parcel is closed to .05 feet or 1:10000. In this case we will close the boundaries. b) The subdivision and parcel does not close within .05 feet or 1:10000 and if the error is repeated twice, then the allowable tolerance is (0.1). Using standard survey practices will solve such discrepancies. This will be done with the help of a Licensed Land Surveyor and/or Civil Engineer who can practice land surveying. The location, magnitude and justification of the created gap will be documented in the error report. c) The subdivision and parcel does not close to 0.1 (twice the allowable limit). This error will be treated as blunders and does not fall within the normal variances of surveying measurements or drafting measurements. In this case our technical team will make a resolution on how to close the subdivision and make a record of that resolution in a "flag" attribute field of the database. The resolution of the discrepancy will be informed to the city. 3 Q.A.: A program will run to verify the closures prior to progressing to the next step Step 3: COLO Centerlines In this stage, right of way, centerlines, original lot lines are captured. The digitized linear features are COGO'd into the vector data by using sub divisional tract maps and parcel maps. This stage involves in -filling the interior of the subdivision boundary framework created to this point. All lots and street centerlines are either COGO'd or computed using precision input. Q.A.: The technician checks all the line work classification. This ensures that all graphics are COGO'd and/or entered using computation methods according to the agreed upon accuracy standards. Step 4: Digitizing non-COGO features The purpose of this step is to convert the data that are remaining such as parcels without tract/parcel maps, by using heads up digitizing and adjusting the parcels to match the orthophotography. This stage will complete the capturing of all data from the images that can either be COGO'd or computed into place. Step 5: Quality Control of COLO and non-COGO data The most important aspects of any project is the quality of the finished product. In general, the quality must be as good as the original maps used to create the model. D&W has developed specific software tools for in-house use. These tools are developed with various techniques to assure uniformity of data input, value checking and graphic placement. The quality check process is divided into two methods, which include visual check and database check. Checking the data captured from the hard copy plot or monitor as appropriate by comparing one to one carries visual check. The database check is the one performed on the digital file for checking the validity of the attribute and consistency etc. In this process, a QC error report will be generated for error rating. If the error's fall within the allowable limit, then our engineers will modify the data and if the error's reach the limit then the file is rejected and it will go to the Digitization step for re -digitizing and correction. A program will be run to verify closures of COGO'd parcels and sub divisional boundaries prior to progressing to the next step. 4 Step 6: Adjusting data to the orthophotography The purpose of this step is to adjust the parcel data to the orthophotography. Mapping control points will be used to develop the base map. For this step control points will be pulled from the orthophotography for each tract. G&W will validate that the control points used in the analysis have been verified as being consistent with mapping control. Prepare plots of the area of conflict with symbols of the mapping control points to indicate the magnitude and direction of error. The County centerline will be adjusted to the COGO'd centerlines. This will allow for the attributes and segments to stay in tack. Q.A.: All files will be reviewed by a technician to ensure the correct scaling and rotation to the mapping control points. Step 7: Check-in the Control Points We will make a record of the locations of all control points prior to any adjustments. We will record the position of these points because they provide the primary method of controlling and constraining the remainder of the data. From this point, changes and adjustments to any COGO data will be precisely tracked. This will allow complete recreation of the data construction process. A check-in report has the X and Y locations of these points within plus or minus 2 feet prior to adjustment will be created. Errors within allowable tolerances will be adjusted to fit mapping control precisely. Step 8: Data Clean up The Purpose of this step is to correct dangles and overlaps within the Phase Area. Upon completion of data capture, this data will be cleaned with the required tolerance. Topological errors like duplicate features, dangles, pseudo nodes and others shall be identified and fixed. For this step internally developed tools such as dangle check, duplicate check and slivers check will be executed to ensure the required quality. a) If the error is less than the allowable tolerance, the subdivision will arbitrarily be adjusted to correct the overlap. b) If the error is more than the allowable tolerance, the gaps and overlaps will be systematically adjusted so that the error at any one point is not greater than the tolerance limit. in-house built tools will be used to distribute the difference evenly over an area so that any single distance between two points is not changed more than the allowable limit. 5 c) If the error is considered as a blunder, we will review the data to identify obvious blunders or errors. If we can confidently make a modification, we will do this and it will be documented. d) Finally, if the error is a blunder and we are unable to confidently resolve the problem, we will refer the situation to the City. Q.A.: The technician reviews the results of the Centroids Placer process to ensure that all lots have Centroids within them. Task 7: Delivery During the kick-off meeting D&W Consulting will schedule delivery meetings for delivering the parcels. There will be four deliveries made to the City. • Delivery 1 — Pilot project • Delivery 2 — First 10,000 parcels • Delivery 3 — Second 10,000 parcels • Delivery 4 — Third 10,000 parcels • Delivery 5 — Remaining parcels The deliveries will be scheduled so that the City has time to review and check all data before the next delivery. 6 Deliverables Over the course of the project D&W will make several deliverables to the City of Temecula. The deliverables will be as follows: o Schedule o Conversion Specifications o Pilot Geodatabase o Revised Conversion Specifications o PAR's o Final Geodatabase o Monthly Project Status Reports o Monthly Invoices ATTACHMENT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment Schedule 10% $ 6,337.00 Payment made at beginning of project kickoff 20% $ 12,674.00 Payment made at the completion of the Pilot Project (Task 4) 20% $ 12,674.00 Payment at acceptance of/: of project completion 40% $ 25,348.00 Payment at completion and acceptance of project 10% $ 6,337.00 Payment within 30 days following completion and acceptance of services for the project 100% $ 63,370.00 Total Amount for Consulting Services Contract Consultant's price rate and units/project hours are specified within the scope of work o9-237 ACGI4E& CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP ID KP DSWCO-1 DATE IMM/DD YYWI 11/02/09 PRODUCER MERIDIAN INSURANCE SERV. INC . 4501 E . LA PALMA AVE . STE . 150 ANAHEIM CA 92807 - Phone: 714-693-9100 Fax: 714-693-9108 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED DOW Consulting,Inc. Mr. Jerry A. Wgner 1920 North Ukiah Way Upland CA 91784 INSURER A: St. Paul /Travelers X INSURER B: State compensation Inc. Fund LIABILITY COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITY INSURER C: 10/05/09 INSURER D: EACH OCCURRENCE INSURER E: X THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. TNSRylDO'LPOLICY LTR INSRC TYPE OF INSURANCE NUMBER DATE EFFECTIVE (MM/DD/YY) POLICY EXPIRATION DATE (MMIDD/YY) LIMITS A X GENERAL LIABILITY COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITY 6526H046 AM BEST A +15 10/05/09 10/05/10 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1 , 000 , 000 . X PUAMAGSUHwtrUene $ 300,000 CLAIMS MADE X OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000 X Hired & Non -Owned PERSONAL BADV INJURY $ X GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000/ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000. — POLICY PRO LOC ECT X AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per acc(dent) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ GARAGE LIABILITY ANY AUTOOTHERTHAN AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY'. AGG $ EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION $ $ 7 $ —1 $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOWPARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below 1767967-04 03/01/09 03/01/10 H H - X TORY LIMITS I UER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 / E. L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 OTHER DESCRIPTION Computer services OF OPERATIONS 1 LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS processing,data preparation and processing CANCELLATION V"' V^ V`V` CITYOFT / SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN City of Temecula /M� /1l` 6 W bib1' NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO 50 SHALL Mr. John Degange - IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula CA 92589 REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Kevin J. Cassidy / vaT,nu ,nob ACORD 25 (2001108) • ACO' CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DDIYYYV) 11/05/2009 PRODUCER 3K Insurance Solutions 27712 Pasatiempo Mission Viejo, CA. 92692 Kevin Cassidy 949-683-3903 THIS CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC // INSURED D & W. Consulting, Inc. 1920 North Ukiah Way Upland, CA. 91784 INSURER A: Lloyds Of London INSURER B INSURER C: INSURER 0: INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWTHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR ADD'❑ INSR d TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXPIRATION /Y DATE (MWODYYY) LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCEDA $ REN i ED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ CLAIMS MADE OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL 8 ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: n JECT I LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ nPOLICY AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ GARAGE LIABILITY ANY AUTOOTHER AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ THAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONLY: AGG $ EXCESS / UMBRELLA LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE EACH OCCURRENCE $ nOCCUR AGGREGATE $ DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION $ $ _ $ WORKERS EMPLOYERS' ANY OFFICER/MEMBER (Mandatory II yes, SPFCIAL PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE describe COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY YIN EXCLUDED' WC STATU- I OTH TORY LIMITS ER EL. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ In NH) under PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER Professional Liability 11/05/2009 10/25/2010 Limit $ 1,000,000. ✓/ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS I VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS Computer processing, data preparation and processing services. V ` City of Temecula Mr. John Degange 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA. 92589 /�+ / (t)- (0( b1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POUCIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE at- ACORD 25 (2009/01) ©1988.200 ACORD ORATION. All r is reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 71- dq__259 ------, "® - - -- AEl .CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE . DATE IMMIDD/YYYY) 1v01r2o10 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE. DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE .POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF. INSURANCE DOES NOT. CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,. AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies. may -require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not conferrights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER : - - - - Meridian Insurance Services, Inc.PHONE o - - 4501 E. La Palma Ave ste.150. �jTi' . %%�� CONTACT . NAME:- Devin Cassidy - .. ... - .. .. - IA/C. No. Extl• 949-683-3903 - _ A1C. Not: 949-713-5911 EMAIL Aooaess: kcassidy(�cox•net J p Anaheim, CA. 92807 ' 01- lJ jiFeil ���C11,T - .. .. : A1f1V .0 ^010 .RooucFJT =Tip.. H:. ... ... INSURERS) AFFORDING COVERAGETrave INSURERA : Travelers Ins. Co. - - .'NAIC0 ._. 1 INSURED L D & W Consulting, Inc. f,' ,INSURER _ 'r / � 1920 Ukiah Way (atf;IAWCEI EnT INSURER a: (� f ' INSURER - - 10/05/2010 t Upland, CA. 91784 - - INSURER D : $ 1 1 1 111 1 INSURER E : - - - INSURER F : • REVISION NUMBER: vTHIS ,IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF: INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. •NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT. WITH RESPECT. TO WHICH - THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE•ISSUED OR -MAY PERTAIN; THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE•POLICIES-DESCRIBED HEREIN .15 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, . -EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS:OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS . ITR - TYPE OF INSURANCE AINBR SUER WVD : .POLICY NUMBERPOUCY EFF IMMIDD/YYYY) Y EXP IMMIDDIYY'M - .. - LIMITS A - _ GENERAL X LIABILITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL UABIUTY , . X j OCCUR . Auto ' ^ :' (� f ' - 6526H046 . - - - 10/05/2010 10/05/2011 - - _ - . EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1 1 1 111 1 •a .,, . O PREMISES Ea occurrence 11 1,11 - CLAIMS -MADE 1 .MED EXP (Any one person) S 100. X Hired and. Non Owned PERSONAL & ADV INJURY .- .. :. GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2000.000. GEMLAGGREGATE LIMITAPPLIES PER: POLICY JECT P1 LOC PRODUCTS = COMP/OP AGG S. - . S - - - AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY - ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS - SCHEDULED AUTOS - - HIRED AUTOS - NON -OWNED AUTOS r- - I - - - _ _ - - - --- - - - _ - - -- COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT- (Ea accident) 8 BODILY INJURY.(Per person) $ • _ - - • BODILY INJURY (Per aaident) $ . PROPERTY -DAMAGE- (Per accident)-- - UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB u OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE [ .. .. .. .. - - - EACH OCCURRENCE - 5 . AGGREGATE - DEDUCTIBLE •- RETENTION S $ .S - - WORKERS COMPENSATION - - - AND EMPLOYERS' UABIUTY -- ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNEECUTIVE Y / N R/EX OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? - (Mandatory. In NH) - If yes. desaibe under PROVISInNS helnw - - NIA - . : - _ _ _ _ WC STATU-- - OTH- OBY UNITS - E ' - E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E - - - E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE= S DISEASE POLICY LIMIT $ E.L. - S SPFCIAI I—F DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS f LOCATIONS I VEHICLES. (Attach ACORD 101,Addltlonal Remarks Schedule, H more apace Is required) - - - - - • . Computer processing , data preparation and processing services. . '. r% 11r1VNI G.rim/LA/cm '. - City Of Temecula Mr. John Degange 43200 Business Park Dr. - Temecula, CA. 92589 // //�'11 - ��V 11G .. .. —'••---------:- .SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORhPn REPRESENTATI - 'k._ . :' ACORD 25(2009/09) .. .. ll-ILWO-LUV7h vvn�vrv+r.v... y...a.w... ...... The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORb A I9 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE . fY) DATEM YYY 71/03/2011 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS, A MATTER OF' INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO, RIGHTS UPON. THE CERTIFICATE HOLDEgFIR ISS CERTIFICATE DOES `NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR ,NEGATIVELY,,AMEND„ EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED, BY THEIPOLICIES BELOW., THIS CERTIFICATEOF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT,BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURERS) AUTHORIZED ;a REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.- ,. , ,' '' •z` IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL. INSURED the policy(les)must tie endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and' conditions of the policy,, certain policies may require an endorsement. A,statemenrton this certificate does not conferights to the; certificate'hoider inaieuofsuch-endorsement(s), ,".PRODUCERS .. 3 K insurance Sok/tions 25108 Marguerite Parkway Ste A-226 -Mission Viejo„ CA. 92692 ,,CONTACT - , NAME: Kevin Cassidy: .: 949=683-3903 i -(A, No): 949-713-591.1 (AiCn PHONE E.di (AM, ,E-MAIL- ADDRESS:. 'PRODUCER. LOLSJ_Q_MER ID O. '. NSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC Si INSURED D & W Consulting, Inc. 1920 Ukiah Way Upland, CA. 91784 ' INSURER A: Travelers Ins. Co. LIABILITY OCCUR INSURERS': - INSURER C 10/05/2010 INSURER D:. EACH OCCURRENCE. 'INSURER :E.: .. 'INSURER F: _ ..-.. - _... COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION, NUMBER: THIS `IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN; ISSUED. TO THE INSURED, NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POOCY PERIOD' INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDINGANY REQUIREMENT,• TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT, WITH RESPECT TO' VAMICH THIS CERTIFICATE,MAY BE ISSUED OR ,MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE,^TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCHPOLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN' MAY HAVE BEEN'REDUCED.,BY'PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDLSUBR INSR:.WVO POLICY. NUMBER " POUCY,EFF (MMIDD/YYYY) -POUCY;EXP (MM/DO/YYYY1..- LIMITS Y' GENERAL•LIABIUN X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY OCCUR ' - 6526F1046 10/05/2010 10/05/2011 EACH OCCURRENCE. $ 1.000 000 $ 3Ojj.,OQO. -OAMAGETTO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) CLAIMS -MADE 1—)—(1 MEDEXP(Any one person) $ $ 5 000 PERSONAL BADV INJURY . GENERAL AGGREGATE. ;?$ '2;000,000r' GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPCIES'PER: PRO,jEcr LOC •:POLICY PRODUCTS'- COMP/OP"AGC" :$ .0911000. -. -. $ AUTOMOBILE _ J LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED: AUTOS - ( µ COMBINED SINGLELIMIT (Ea accident) $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per. accident) $ S UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS UAB OCCUR ( CLAIMS -MADE 1-• EACH. OCCURRENCE" $ AGGREGATE $ DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION $.. ' $ _. $ AND EMPLOYES'RS COMPENSATION ILII .AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVEN OF FICER/MEMBER. EXCLUDED? (Mandatoryin NH)r It, yes.: describe ord. SPFCIAt PR avIcIONS nrtaur - / A - WCSTATU- € LOTH- LOTH - TORY LIMITS I ^�EB_ E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE{ :$ _ ^---• --~^ E L. DISEASE - POLICY, UMIT' ;:$ __ _ ;DESCRIPTION Computer equlied l OF OPERATIONS /LOCATIONS / VEHICLES'(Attnch'ACORO,#B-1 Add(tional RemarIts`Schodute, 11 more. aPamreQ , I. -processing, date: preparation'+and processing seivices: CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Temecula Mr. John Degange 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA. 92589 CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED .POLICIES, BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,'NOTICE WILL BE DEUVEREO 84 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. . . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Kevin Cassidy ACORD'25 (2009109) © 1988- 2009 Ar D: CORPORATION XII' rights reserved. The ACORD name andlogo are registered marks of ACORD Accwpr E TIFICATE OF LIABILITY'INSURANCE OATE(MMIDDIYYYY) 11101/260 'W THIS.CERT3FICATE IS, ISSUED:AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER 'THIS,,,,. CERTIFICATE DOES NOT,AFFIRMATWELY_ OR -NEGATIVELY 'AMEND, EXTEND'OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THCPOLICIES.'', .'', w TE OF—INSURANCE DOES NOT CA CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING, INSURERS) AUTHORIZED , BELOW: THIS, CERTIFICAOUCER,THE'CERTIFICATE HOLDER. ' -REPRESENTATIVE t)R�PRO : IMPORTANT: " If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed, If SUBROGATION"IS WAIVED, subject to,the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require. an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to "the certificateholder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCERPRODUCERNTACT 3 K Insurance Solutions 25108 Marguerite Pkwy Ste A-226 MissionViejo, CA. 92692 CO NAME: mewl Cassidy. PHONE 1 FAX Jt1_ e i tIL.949_685--89.03__ _� wo : 949-713-5911 .POLICYEFF, " �'(MMlODNYYY) .� _-_,_(A1C, E-MAIL MAIL ADDRESS:. knnssjdyaccuxx.net .:. PRODUCER SS)SIQ-ME A. # INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A -i Lloyds of London NAIC S %✓ INSURED D & W. Consulting, Inc. 1920 Ukiah Way Upland, CA. 91784 INSURER e : State'Fund ins. Co. . INSURER 'C : 0 INSURER D : DAMAGE TO RENTED " PREMISES (Ea ...Yenta) INSURER E : INSURER F : MED EXP (Any one person) • est ►n'laaoco: THIS IS' TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES. OF"INSURANCE LISTED_ BELOW HAVE "BEEN ISSUED TO INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY; REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION,OF ANY -CONTRACT; CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR. MAY PERTAIN; THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE, POLICIES; EXCLUSIONS AND, CONDITIONS OF.SUCH POLICIES- LIMITS SHOWN`MAY HAVE,BEEN REDUCED BY_ THE INSURED OR"OTHER"DOCUMENT DESCRIBED 'PAID CLAIMS. ' POLICY EXP (M M1DDlYYYYI NAMED ABOVE FOR THEIPOLICY'PERIOD +' WITH°'RESPECT' TO WHICH THIS. HEREIN ISS SUBJECT" TO ALL THE TERMS,:' - - LIMITS INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADOL INSR SUER WVU POLICY NUMBER .POLICYEFF, " �'(MMlODNYYY) .._..: ..-. . GENERALUABIUTY I COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY I} OCCUR r " j f EACH OCCURRENCE ' 0 DAMAGE TO RENTED " PREMISES (Ea ...Yenta) $ CLAIMS -MADE MED EXP (Any one person) $ - JPERSONAL GEN'L &-ADV INJURY 0 I GENERAL AGGREGATE $ AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: 1 POLICY'.. CT r l LOC PRODUCTS -. COMP/OP AGG $. -.0 AUTOMOBILE _._ LIABIUTY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS r- t -- i COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) ,�. BODILY INJURY (Per person). $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident). $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per, accident) $ $ S ..: UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESSUAB OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE 1 f -"-'" ..........,. EACHOCCURRENCE 0 AGGREGATE, _ $ DEDUCTIBLE. RETENTION S .. .. $. / "` B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORtPARTNERJEXECUTIVE Yd N' OFFICER/MEMBER'EXCLUDED? LY I (Mandatory in NH)DISEASE It yes; describe under SPFCIAIPROVISIONS + tun N /A r`,. 1767967-09: O3fO1t2O1 O WCSTATU- 9TH- 03/01/2011- TORY I (MIT, I X ('„FR $ '" 1,800OOO,. E. L. EACH ACCIDENT - EA EMPLOYEE' 0 1,000,000.', - L. DISEASE - POLICYLIMIT/0 1.000 000; A Professional Liability F 1 DBM004499 .40/25/2010 '1 012 512 0 1 1' Limit " $1,000,000. 7 DESCRIPTION' OF OPERATIONS 1 LOCATIONS i VEHICLES (Attach ACORO.101, Additional. Remarks Saha.., H: mole space is required) Computer processing, date preparation and processing services. CERTIFICATE:' HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Temecula Mr. John Degange 43200 Business Park D . j/1251/0 Temecula, CA. 92589 ACORD 25 (2009109) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN" ACCORDANCE WITH, THE POLICY. PROVISIONS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE - Kevin Cassidy l 01988- 2009 AGORD Q6 PORATION. AMI rt ifs reserved. The ACORD'name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Managerea, CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Grant Yates, Deputy City Manager DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: 2011 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal PREPARED BY: Denise Lanier, Senior Human Resources Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the contract with the City's current workers' compensation provider, Travelers Insurance Company, as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier for 2011; for an estimated reduced premium cost of $296,663. BACKGROUND: The City's insurance broker, Mike Bush of Brown & Brown of California, Inc., requested several market quotes and looked into workers' compensation pools. Mr. Bush was requested to explore all areas in an effort to ensure that the market carriers knew that the City was serious about obtaining the best coverage at the lowest rate. All market carriers were contacted with only Travelers Insurance Company providing a reasonable quotation. The Travelers Insurance Company premium for the 2011 plan year has decreased by $14,468 due primarily to changes in the City's experience modification and a reduction in base and schedule rates and premium discount factors. Travelers Insurance Company appreciates the City as a valuable customer and understands the City's Safety Program operates to insure minimal losses throughout the plan year. Based on the above listed quote, City staff recommends the City's workers' compensation coverage remain with Travelers Insurance Company for the 2011 Plan Year. The Travelers Insurance Company quote reflects the estimated amount for the contract year and may be higher or lower depending on actual audited payroll. Staff believes the quote reflects the best that can be expected for the 2011 contract year. Our Loss Prevention Program will remain under the leadership of the City's Safety Committee who continues to do a great job. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is requested, as adequate funds are available within the current budget. Workers Compensation Insurance Proposal Submitted For: City of Temecula Y 4 WWII how NSURANCEC.. Policy Term: 2-1-11 to 2-1-12 Submitted by: Mike Bush Senior Vice President 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Thank you for inviting us to develop and present a Risk Solution Program to you. We welcome the opportunity to become involved with your company. We have worked to identify your needs and concerns, and to develop a program for your insurance. Brown & Brown, Inc. is the seventh largest independent agency organization nationally) The company provides a variety of insurance products and services to corporate, institutional, professional and individual clients. Headquartered in Daytona Beach and Tampa, Florida, Brown & Brown is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (BRO) and has been included in Forbes' list of the "200 Best Small Companies in America". The company handles clients' premiums in excess of $1 Billion annually and has approximately 1,500 employees. While size is not the sole criteria for choosing an insurance agent, it does enable us to offer our clients clout in the marketplace and unmatched service capability. Please feel free to visit our website at www.bbinsurance.com. This brief description of insurance coverage is being provided as an accommodation only and is not intended to cover or describe all policy terms. For more complete information on the scope and limits of coverage please refer to the policy document. Specimen policy form(s) are available upon request. l As listed in Business Insurance magazine, July 17, 2008 edition 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Brown & Brown of California — Spectrum Service Brown & Brown of California is happy to offer all clients a full suite of service not only for your business but also for your personal insurance needs. Spectrum Service provides protection in the following areas: Employee Benefits Medical, dental, vision and life and disability for your employees. Personal Homeowners, auto, collectibles and more. Financial Planning Consultative financial planning 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Account Service Team No matter how comprehensive or price competitive your insurance program k, it is still people who must service it to insure that coverage will respond when needed. Mike Bush Account Executive (714)221-1853 phone (714) 221-4143 fax mbush@bbsocal.com email Mike Bush is responsible for overseeing all aspects of your program. Peggy L. Coleman Account Manager (714)221-1883 phone (714) 221-4183 fax pcoleman@b bsoca I.com Judith Villalobos (Backup) Account Manager (714)221-1828 phone (714)221-4128 fax jvillalobos@bbsocal.com Peggy L. Coleman will assist with the daily servicing of your account, including endorsements, certificate requests, client services, program design, accounting, quality assurance and market relationships. Feel free to contact anyone on this list if you have questions or concerns regarding your insurance policy. 201102mb Tem WC Proposal IMPORTANT NOTICE DISCLAIMER Disclaimer: This proposal/policy presented is based upon the exposures to loss made known to the agency. Any changes in these exposures (i.e. new operations, new products, additional state of hire, etc.) need to be promptly reported to our agency in order that proper coverage(s) may be put in place. The proposal contains only a general description of the coverage(s) and does not constitute a policy / contract. For complete policy information, including exclusions, limitations and conditions, refer to the policy document. Specimen policy forms and endorsements are available upon request. Non -Admitted Carrier Taxes: $N/A Fees: $N/A Minimum Earned Premium: N/A % Higher Limits may be available upon request V Premiums may be subject to audit Premiums include Terrorism Coverage Policy Type Workers Compensation Carrier Travelers Insurance Company Rating A+: XV; Admitted Please read your policy for specific details. The information obtained from A.M. Best's Rating is not in any way a warranty or guaranty by Brown & Brown, Inc. of the financial stability of the insurer and this information is current only as of the date of publication. 201102mb Tem WC Proposal A.M. Best Rating of Proposed Carriers General Rating: These rating classifications reflect BEST's opinion of the relative position of each company in comparison with others, based upon averages within the Property - Casualty insurance industry. They are reflective of overall company services and standing within the industry. ++, Superior 134 Very Good C++, C+~= Fair A, A- Excellent B',. Good C, C .E °�' Marginal Financial Size Category: The financial Size Category is an indication of the size of an Insurer and is based on reported Policyholders' surplus plus conditional or Technical Reserve Funds, such as mandatory securities valuation reserve, other investment and operating contingency funds and/or miscellaneous voluntary reserves in liabilities. Financial Size Category (in Thousands) Class I Up to $1,000 Class II $1,000 to $2,000 Class III $2,000 to $5,000 Class IV $5,000 to $10,000 Class V $10,000 to $25,000 Class VI $25,000 to $50,000 Class VII $50,000 to $100,000 Class VIII $100,000 to $250,000 Class IX $250,000 to $500,000 Class X $500,000 to $750,000 Class XI $750,000 to $1,000,000 Class XII $1,000,000 to $1,250,000 Class XIII $1,250,000 to $1,500,000 Class XIV $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 Class XV $1,750,000 to $2,000,000 201102mb Tem WC Proposal This information has been provided to you so that consideration is given to the financial condition of our proposed carriers. The financial information disclosed is the most recent available to Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. Brown & Brown does not guarantee financial condition of the insurers listed above. Claims Reporting Guidelines Make Brown & Brown, Inc. aware of any and all incidents immediately after they occur, whether it be an auto accident, a theft, slip & fall, even a minor incident that appears will have no future activity. Do not wait for a police report. Gather as much concrete information as possible. For example, police reports, company incident reports, conversation logs, medicals and pictures - anything that may assist in the handling of your claim. Send this information either by mail, e-mail or fax to: Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. 500 N. State College Blvd. Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868 (714)221-1883 (714) 221-4196 fax pcoleman@bbsocal.com If you have any questions or incur any problems, please call our office and we will be glad to assist in any way we can. 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Named Insureds The following are named insureds on your policies: City of Temecula (Discuss) Temecula Community Services District Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula Temecula Public Financing Authority Please verify the accuracy of each name on this list and update if needed. Location Schedule: Loc # Bldg. # Address All City operations Description 201102mb Tem WC Proposal PREMIUM SUMMARY Name: City of Temecula Worker's Compensation $296,663 plus State Mandated Fees ($16,405) (Last Year) $31 1,131 plus State Mandated Fees ($14,623) Premiums include Terrorism PREMIUM PAYMENT OPTIONS Payment up front OR 25% due at inception and 25% due at the 4th, 7th and 10th month 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Workers Compensation LIMITS Coverage A: Coverage B: Workers Compensation Employers Liability X All States Endorsement Statutory $1,000,000 DECLARATIONS States Covered: CA Experience Modification: 124% PAYROLL ESTIMATES Code Classification Rate Payroll Per Proposal Subject to Annual Audit 201102mb Tem WC Proposal AN EXPLANATION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE A - Workers' Compensation agrees to pay the benefits required under the Workers' Compensation Law. COVERAGE B - Employer's Liability provides coverage for your legal liability to employees not covered by the act. It is possible that you might sub -contract certain operations. Compensation laws provide that the principal contractor is responsible for compensation to the employees of uninsured sub -contractors. In determining compensation premiums, you will be charged premium for coverages in connection with employees of sub- contractors unless the sub -contractors have insured this obligation and have furnished satisfactory evidence of such insurance. For your protection, you should obtain certificates of insurance from all sub -contractors doing work for you. The policy is written subject to audit, and payroll records should be kept in such a manner as to show any overtime paid. OPTIONAL ENDORSEMENTS All States Endorsement In the event the insured undertakes operations in any state not designated in the declarations, other than Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia, or Wyoming, the company agrees to reimburse the insured for all compensation and other benefits required under the workers' compensation or occupational disease law of such states. U.S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Endorsement Affords workers' compensation benefits for any employee injured while participating in any operations subject to the U.S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Voluntary Compensation Endorsement Pays on behalf of the insured for any employee's injury which would have rendered the insured liable for compensation if the injured employee and the insured had been subject to the workers' compensation law. 201102mb Tem WC Proposal WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION Your experience modification for the current year 2011, February 1st is 1 24%. The modification was 1 16% for 2010. THis MODIFICATION WAS DEVELOPED BY THE California workers' compensation insurance rating bureau BASED UPON YOUR INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS EXPERIENCE FOR THE FOLLOWING YEARS: 2009 2008 2007 Historical Experience Modifications 2011- 124% 2010 — 116% 2009 — 94% (Revised to 92% Effective 9-22-09) 2008 — 82% (Revised to 78% in September 2008) 2007 — 86% (Revised to 85%) 2006 — 79% 2005 — 74% 2004 — 74% 2003-81% 2002 — 83% 2001 — 68% 201102mb Tem WC Proposal MARKETS APPROACHED AND RESULTS Travelers Insurance Company Midwest Insurance Company Everest National Insurance Company Republic Indemnity Company Hartford Insurance Companies Insurance Company of the West American International Group Companies (AIG) American Home Assurance Alaska National Berkshire Hathaway Companies All Insurance -ACE Insurance Company Tower Insurance Company Chubb(Federal) Insurance Company Benchmark Insurance Company 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Quotation Provided Declined (Not Competitive with Travelers) Declined (Not a target class) Declined (Not yet a Municipal Market- even without Fire & Police) Declined (Class of Business) Declined (Class of Business) Declined (Loss History w/AIG) Declined (Class of Business) Indication -Premium range of $500,000 Declined (Not Competitive with Travelers) Declined (Losses & Lack of Appetite for Municipalities) Declined (Class of Business) Declined (Class of Business) Applied Insurance Company Not Competitive with Travelers (Will offer 3 Year Retro Program only) Crum and Forster Insurance Company Indication -High $300,000 (Just under $400,000) Employers Insurance Company Declined (Class of Business - $648,000 before credits) Halcyon Insurance Company Declined (Underwriting Guidelines) Delos Insurance Company & Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Company Declined (Excluded Class Codes 9410, 9420, 7382) Majestic Insurance Company Declined (Underwriting Appetite) Preferred Employers Insurance Company Declined (Nature of Operations) Companion Insurance Company Indication -$400,000 Approximate Seabright Insurance Company Indication -$400,000 to $425,000 201102mb Tem WC Proposal AREAS OF MAJOR CONCERN (ADDRESSED BY BROWN & BROWN, INC. AND COMPENSATION CARRIER) 1. Safety Committee A. Carrier Loss Control Support B. Film Library Available C. Attendance by Brown & Brown, Inc. (Discuss) 2. Written Safety Program (Review and Update) 3. Reserve Reviews (Frequency Discuss) 4. Claims Recordkeeping A. Ease of Reporting B. Exchange of Information 5. Accident Investigation 201102mb Tem WC Proposal TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Best's Rating and Financial Size: A+: XV; Admitted II. Location: Orange, CA III. Strong Points: • Loss Prevention • California Workers' Compensation Specialty Company • Currently provides Municipal General, Public Official E & 0 and Automobile Liability for the City IST. Review Services Per Areas of Major Concern Section 201102mb Tem WC Proposal CURRENT PROGRAM 201102mb Tem WC Proposal CURRENT PROGRAM @ 2010 PAYROLL ESTIMATE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Policy Period: 02-01-2010 to 02-01-2011 Estimated Annual Premium: $31 1,131 plus State Mandated Fees ($14,623) Type of Policy: One Year Classification Code 2009 Payroll Rate Premium Municipal (non -manual) 9410 $9,331,358 2.29 213,688 Municipal (all other) 9420 $2,196,726 6.98 153,331 Clerical 8810 $5,401,775 .58 31,330 Bus Drivers 7382 $18,486 9.70 1,793 Total: $16,948,345 Subtotal: $400,142 (X) Increased Limits Factor (N/A): N/A (Actual) Modification: x 1 .16 Modified Premium: $464,165 (X) (Approx.) Premium modifier (Including Schedule and Premium Discount Factors) (65.8951%:) $305,862 (+) Terrorism: + 5,084 (+) Expense Constant: + 185 Estimated Total Premium: $311,131 (Approx.) California Admin. & Fraud Assessment: + 8,401 California CIGA Fee: + 6,222 Subject to Annual Audit 201102mb Tem WC Proposal PROPOSAL 201102mb Tem WC Proposal Commercial Insurance Proposal Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 rown rown INSURANCE rfra This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Coverage can not be considered bound until a binder has been received. January 25, 2011 PROPOSAL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Policy Period: 02-01-2011 to 02-01-2012 Estimated Annual Premium: $296,663 plus State Mandated Fees ($16,405) Type of Policy: One Year Classification Code 2011 Payroll Rate Premium Municipal (non -manual) 9410 $8,256,646 1.71 141,189 Municipal (all other) 9420 $2,102,617 6.82 143,398 Clerical 8810 $5,153,863 .55 28,346 Bus Drivers 7382 $27,167 11.03 2,997 Total: $15,540,293 Subtotal: 315,930 (X) Increased Limits Factor (N/A): N/A (Actual) Modification: x 1.24 Modified Premium: 391,753 (X) (Approx.) Premium modifier (Including Schedule and Premium Discount Factors) (74.4898%:) 291,816 (+) Terrorism: 4,662 (+) Expense Constant: 185 Estimated Total Premium: $296,663 (Approx.) California Admin. & Fraud Assessment: 7,594 California CIGA Fee: 8,811 rfra This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Coverage can not be considered bound until a binder has been received. January 25, 2011 Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 rown rown INSURANCE Note: 2011 Payroll clown 8.31% (.9169 factor under 2010 2011 Rates down 2.72% (.9728 factor) and Modification up 6.9% (1.069 factor) (average) from 2010 2011 Premium down 4.65% (.9535 factor) from 2011 P/R Rates Modification Premium (.9169) X (.9728) X (1.069) = 9.535 Subject to Annual Audit This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Coverage can not be considered bound until a binder has been received. January 25, 2011 (Approx) 2010 Rates (Approx) 2011 Rates Code Without Modification With Modification 1.16% Without Modification With Modification 124% 9410 1.53 1.77 1.29 1.60 9420 4.69 5.44 5.18 6.42 8810 .39 .45 .42 .52 7382 6.52 7.56 8.38 10.39 Note: 2011 Payroll clown 8.31% (.9169 factor under 2010 2011 Rates down 2.72% (.9728 factor) and Modification up 6.9% (1.069 factor) (average) from 2010 2011 Premium down 4.65% (.9535 factor) from 2011 P/R Rates Modification Premium (.9169) X (.9728) X (1.069) = 9.535 Subject to Annual Audit This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Coverage can not be considered bound until a binder has been received. January 25, 2011 Commercial Insurance Proposal Brown & Brown of CA, Inc. • 500 N State College Blvd, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868 • (800) 228-7975 rown rown INSURANCE® Important Information Compensation: In addition to the commissions or fees received by us for assistance with the placement, servicing, claims handling, or renewal of your insurance coverages, other parties, such as excess and surplus lines brokers, wholesale brokers, reinsurance intermediaries, underwriting managers and similar parties, some of which may be owned in whole or in part by Brown & Brown, Inc., may also receive compensation for their role in providing insurance products or services to you pursuant to their separate contracts with insurance or reinsurance carriers. That compensation is derived from your premium payments. Additionally, it is possible that we, or our corporate parents or affiliates, may receive contingent payments or allowances from insurers based on factors which are not client -specific, such as the performance and/or size of an overall book of business produced with an insurer. We generally do not know if such a contingent payment will be made by a particular insurer, or the amount of any such contingent payments, until the underwriting year is closed. That compensation is partially derived from your premium dollars, after being combined (or "pooled") with the premium dollars of other insureds that have purchased similar types of coverage. We may also receive invitations to programs sponsored and paid for by insurance carriers to inform brokers regarding their products and services, including possible participation in company -sponsored events such as trips, seminars, and advisory council meetings, based upon the total volume of business placed with the carrier you select. We may, on occasion, receive loans or credit from insurance companies. Additionally, in the ordinary course of our business, we may receive and retain interest on premiums you pay from the date we receive them until the date the premiums are remitted to the insurance company or intermediary. In the event that we assist with placement and other details of arranging for the financing of your insurance premium, we may also receive a fee from the premium finance company. Questions and Information Reauests: Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office at 1-800-228-7975 or, if you prefer, submit your question or request online at www.bbsocal.com Brown & Brown does not have direct binding authority with this excess and surplus lines market. This proposal contains only a general description of the coverage(s) and does not constitute a policy/ contract. For complete policy information, including exclusions, limitations, and conditions, refer to the policy document. This proposal is based upon the exposures to loss made known to the Agency. Any changes in these exposures (i.e., new operations, new products, additional states of hire, etc.) need to be promptly reported to us in order that proper coverage(s) may be put into place. rr". rh7filk. This proposal is for illustration purposes only. Please refer to the policy for specific details. Coverage can not be considered bound until a binder has been received. January 25, 2011 EXPERIENCE RATING FORM CN#RS132342 Issued: 12/22/10 Page 1 of 2 RERATE # 1 CITY OF TEMECULA (A CORP) 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE PO BOX 9033, TEMECU- LA CA 925899033 *9410 MUNICIPAL, STATE OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES *9420 MUNICIPAL - ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES *-NOT PHYSICALLY SURVEYED BY BUREAU W OI RR Callfornlae BUREAU NUMBER 3 26 01 60-R EFFECTIVE 2/1/11 CARRIER TRAVELERS PROP CSLTY CO OF AMER TRAVELERS GRP#2 ISSUING OFFICE HOME OFFICE POLICY NUMBER HEUB 9055L51 210 SUPERSEDES RATING ISSUED 12/10/10 RATING PROCEDURE [ • TOTAL PRIMARY ACTUAL (b) "B" VALUE VALUE " VA W" LUE RATABLE EXCESS LOSSES = W x (c) (1-W) x (f) TOTAL (9) TOTAL EXPECTED LOSSES (d) "B" VALUE s INDEMNITY AND MEDICAL COMBINED ** ENTER TABLE III WITH EXPECTED LOSSES (d) TOTAL (h) EXPERIENCE (9 MODIFICATION .(D CLASS CODE YR 09 PAYROLL YR 08 PAYROLL YR 07 PAYROLL YR PAYROLL EXPECTED LOSS RATE EXPECTED LOSSES "D" RATIO PRIMARY EXPECTED LOSSES w 8810 5,074,572 5,587,569 5,721,388 .17 27,852 24 6,684 co 0 9410 9420 9,182,874 2,201,193 9,800,121 2,002,649 8,456,231 2,281,192 .60 2.38 164,635 154,344 .23 .22 37,866 33,956 s_1; 7382 23,314 0 0 3.52 821 .21 172 8017 2,024 0 0 1.51 31 .26 8 v8070 5,678 0 0 .93 53 .26 14 Lu a 8078 8387 3,490 2,318 0 0 0 0 .91 1.60 32 37 .29 .20 9 7 EXPECTED EXCESS EXPECTED LOSSES PR MARY EXPECTED (f) _ (d) - (e) (d) LOSSES (e) 0 0 TYPE OR POLICY ACTUAL' PRIMARY TYPE OR POLICY ACTUAL' PR/AMY CLAIM NUMBER IN) F YEAR INCURRED LOSSES ACTUAL LOSSES CLAIM NUMBER nu F YEAR INCURRED LOSSES ACTUAL LOSSES ACTUALL4S.. ,,s:. 710359960 N 0 07 149,838 7,000 710387094 T F 07 28,601 7,000 710408797 T F 07 3,303 3,303 710418317 N F 07 50,761 7,000 710434694 N 0 07 156,861 6,721* UNDER $2,001 07 7,277 7,277 CAP5357 X F 08 6,007 6,007 CBU3393 N 0 08 79,984 7,000 CBU3863 T F 08 32,407 7,000 CBU4422 T F 08 11,828 7,000 CBU5852 T F 08 6,246 6,246 UNDER $2,001 08 2,112 2,112 A5K4672 X F 09 2,061 2,061 CBU9486 N 0 09 32,928 7,000 UNDER $2,001 ... 09 9,277 9,277 ACTUAL EXCESS ACTUAL INCURRED PRIMARY ACTUAL (c) = (a) - (b) LOSSES (a) LOSSES (b) RATING PROCEDURE [ • TOTAL PRIMARY ACTUAL (b) "B" VALUE VALUE " VA W" LUE RATABLE EXCESS LOSSES = W x (c) (1-W) x (f) TOTAL (9) TOTAL EXPECTED LOSSES (d) "B" VALUE s INDEMNITY AND MEDICAL COMBINED ** ENTER TABLE III WITH EXPECTED LOSSES (d) TOTAL (h) EXPERIENCE (9 MODIFICATION .(D RERATE # 1 CITY OF TEMECULA (A CORP) EXPERIENCE -RATING FORM CN#RS132342 Issued: 12/22/10 Page2of2 WCIRBCalifornla© BUREAU NUMBER 3 26 01 60-R EFFECTIVE CARRIER TRAVELERS PROP CSLTY CO OF AMER TRAVELERS GRP#2 SSUING OFFICE HOME OFFICE POLICY NUMBER HEUB 9055L51 210 SUPERSEDES RATING ISSUED 12/10/10 Lu co 0 C euW. F_ Lu Lu a CLASS CODE YR 09 PAYROLL YR 08 PAYROLL YR 07 PAYROLL YR PAYROLL EXPECTED LOSS RATE EXPECTED LOSSES "D" RATIO PRIMARY EXPECTED LOSSES 8840 9067 9079 9180 10,946 5,244 10,670 7,764 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .33 .21 1.05 1.41 2,34 23 55 150 182 .23 .30 .25 .25 5 17 38 46 EXPECTED EXCESS (0 _ (d) - (e) 269,393 EXPECTED LOSSES (d) 348,215 PRIMARY EXPECTED LOSSES (e) 78,822 CLAIM NUMBER TYPE IN) 0 OR F POLICY YEAR ACTUAL" INCURRED LOSSES PRIMARY ACTUAL LOSSES CLAIM NUMBER TYPE ID) 0 OR F POLICY YEAR ACTUAL* INCURRED LOSSES PRIMARY ACTUAL LOSSES Ull O d' 0 V *-SUBROGATION ACTUAL EXCESS (c) = (a) - (b) 487,487 ACTUAL INCURRED LOSSES (a) 579,491 PRIMARY ACTUAL LOSSES (b) 92,004 RATING PROCEDURE TOTAL PRIMARY xx xx RATABLE EXCESS LOSSES (1-W) x (f) TOTAL (g) ACTUAL (b) "8" VALUE "W" VALUE = W x (c) 92,004 0 .33 160,871 180,493 433,368 348,215 TOTAL EXPECTED LOSSES (d) 0 "B" VALUE RERATE: SUBROGATION YEAR 07 * INDEMNITY AND MEDICAL COMBINED *x ENTER TABLE III WITH EXPECTED LOSSES (d) 348,215 TOTAL (h) 101221NDM EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION LOSS -FREE RATING 52 Vo Explanation of Your Experience Rating Form Following is a brief explanation of your Experience Rating Form. The WCIRS's website contains additional information about the calculation of your experi- ence modification including electronic versions of the California Workers' Compensation Experience Rating Plan-19961ERP) and the California Workers' Compensation Uniform Statistical Reporting Plan -1995 (USAF). These publi- cations are part of the Insurance Commissioners regulations and govern ex- perience rating and the reporting of payroll and losses by insurers, respectively. Please visit www.wcirbonline.org and select "Helpful Informa- tion" from the home page. About Experience Rating Experience rating provides employers a direct financial incentive to reduce tho number' of work-related accidents and helps to objectively distribute the cost of workers' compensation insurance among employers assigned to the same in- dustry classification. The USRP contains approximately 500 standard classifications used to describe all types of California businesses. A business that Is not specifically described Is assigned by analogy to a classification that Is most similar in terms of proc- esses roo-esses and hazards. Businesses assigned to your standard industry classification are relatively simi- lar to your business, however, there are differences and those differences can have an impact on workers' compensation claims costs. To address these variations and encourage workplace safety, experience rating adjusts the pre- mium you pay either upward or downward based on a comparison of your company's history of payroll and claims (collectively referred to as your "ex- perience") to what is expected for businesses of similar size within the same industry classification. This comparison results in.your experience modifica- tion. An experience modification greater than 100 results from less favorable loss experience compared to the average of other similar businesses. An ex- perience modification less than 100 results from more favorable loss experi- ence. The data used to calculate your experience modification and the experience modification formula are shown on the Experience Rating Form (of- ten referred to as a "worksheet" or "rate shoot"). Since the experience modifi- cation Is intended to reflect differences in anticipated future claims costs, the formula reflects several standard "actuarial" adjustments so that past claim experience Is used in a way that is predictive of future claim levels. For those employers who have sufficient historical experience to qualify, experience rat - Ing Is mandatory and used by all Insurers. Data Used for Experience Rating The data used to calculate your experience modification Is determined by your company's anniversary rating date, which generally is the Inception date, or start date, of your policies. For example, if your policies always start on Janu- ary 1, your anniversary rating date would be January 1. The anniversary rating date determines the experience period, which Is a three- year period beginning four years and nine months prior to your anniversary rating date and terminating one year and nine months prior to the anniversary rating date. With few exceptions, the payroll and losses arising from all policies incepting within the experience period are used In the calculation of your ex- perience modification. The payroll and loss Information used In the experience rating calculation are reported by your Insurer to the WCIRB on unit statistical reports In accordance with the USRP. Factors used in the experience rating calculation, such as Ex- pected Loss Rates, D-Ratlos, and "B" and "W" Values are developed by the WCIRB and approved by the Insurance Commissioner based on analysis of statewide data and are part of the ERP. Experience Rating Form The Experience Rating Form provides detailed information about the calcula- tion of your experience modification Including the payroll reported by your In- surer for each applicable classification and shows the claim experience reported by your Insurer and used In the experience modification calculation. Your company name, address end other business names that aro Included un- der your insurance policy are captured from the policy information page. Some information may not be shown due to space limitations. Terms Used on the Form (In Order of Appearance) Bureau Number — A unique file number assigned by the WCIRB to your company. Effective Date — The date your experience modification applies to your pol- icy. Carrier and Issuing Office — The name of your insurer and the office from which the policy was issued. Issue Date — The date this Experience Rating Form was released. Classification Codes (Form Header) — Classification codas that apply to your California operations according to WCIRB records may be displayed; however, in some cases, the classification codes may not be shown or may not be complete due to space constraints - Payroll — The payroll shown on the form Is reported to tho WCIRB by your Insurer. Expected Lose Rato (ELR) — The average rate of losses per $100 of payroll that Is expected for a classification during an experience rating period. ELRs are found in Table II of the ERP. Expected Losses — Tho amount of losses that were expected to arise for businesses of your size and Industry classification(s) during the experience rat - Ing period. Expected Losses are determined by multiplying your total payroll for each classification by the corresponding Expected Loss Rate. D -Ratio — The rade used to split Expected Losses Into "Primary" and 'Ex- cess" amounts. This split accounts for differences in the average severity of claims by classification. D -Ratios are found in Table II of the ERP. Primary Expected Losses — Determined by multiplying your Expected Losses for the classification by the D•ratio for that classification. Primary Ex- pected losses are totaled for all classifications. Expected Excess — The difference between your total Expected Losses and your total Primary Expected Losses. Labeled "(R = Id) — (e)" on the form. Expected Losses (Total) — The sum of all Expected Losses arising from poli- cies incepting during the Experience Period. Labeled "(d)" on the form. Primary Expected Losses (Total) — The sum of all Primary Expected Losses arising from policies incepting during the Experience Period. Labeled "(e)" on the form. Claim Number — The claim number reported to the WCIRB by your insurer. Injury Type — Provides some detail about the type of injury associated with a claim. Injury types include Death (D), Permanent Total (P), Permanent Partial Disability 25% or Greater (M), Permanent Partial Disability Less Than 25% (N), Temporary Disability ITI, Medical Only (X), or Compromised Death Claim (8). O or F — The claim status that is reported to the WCIRB. "O" meaning open and "F" meaning closed or final. Policy Year — The inception year of the policy In which the claim was re- ported. Actual Incurred Losses — The total medical and indemnity paid plus esti- mated future payments on a claim reported to the WCIRB by your Insurer as of the latest required claim valuation date. In order to mitigate the impact of a single claim on your experience modification, the amount of a single loss is limited to $175,000 in the experience rating calculation, Primary Actual Losses — The experience modification calculation splits each claim into two components — a primary amount and an excess amount. Primary losses represent the more predictable and controllable portion of a claim, while the excess amount represents the less predictable and less con- trollable portion. Primary Actual Losses are the reported Incurred cost of the claim limited to a maximum of $7,000. In other words, for a large claim, the first $7,000 of the claim value Is considered primary and the remainder is con- sidered excess. Actual Excess (Total) — The total amount of all claims on the form that is beyond the $7,000 primary limit per claim, if any. Labeled es "(c) _ (01— (b)" on the form. Actual Incurred Losses (Total) — The sum of the Actual Incurred Losses arising from policies incepting during the Experience Period. Labeled as "(a)" on the form. Primary Actual Looses (Total) — The sum of Primary Actual Losses arising from policies Incepting during the Experience Period. Labeled as "(b)" an the form. "B" Value — A standard actuarial adjustment used to stabilize the experience modification for smaller employers by diluting the impact of Actual Losses on the experience modification. The "B" values are found In Table III of the ERP. "W" Value — A standard actuarial adjustment used to adjust for the reliability of the historical experience of employers of different sizes as a predictor of fu- ture claim experience. The "W" values are found In Table Ili of the ERP. Loss -Free Rating — What your experience modification would have been If no losses were incurred during the experience period. This hypothetical rating calculation is provided for Informational purposes only. For more information, see www.wclrbonline.org. WOIRRcalifornla- Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California 525 Market Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2767 www.wclrbonline.org 888.229.2472 EXPERIENCE RATING FORM CN#RS646232 Issued: 01/14/10 Page 1 of 1 CARRIER CITY OF TEMECULA (A CORP) 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR. PO BOX 9033, TEMECULA CA 925899033 *9410 MUNICIPAL, STATE OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES *9420 MUNICIPAL - ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES *-NOT PHYSICALLY SURVEYED BY BUREAU WOIRl3California° BUREAU NUMBER 3 26 01 60-R EFFECTIVE 2/1/10 TRAVELERS CSLTY & SURETY CO TRAVELERS GRP#2 ISSUING OFFICE HOME OFFICE POLICY NUMBER HACRUB 9055L51 209 RATING PROCEDURE TOTAL PRIMARY ACTUAL (b) 92,551 312,739 TOTAL EXPECTED LOSSES (d) *r "B" VALUE 0 "W" VALUE .32 RATABLE EXCESS LOSSES (I -W) x (f) = W x (c) 112,001 159,165 I 363,717 TOTAL (g) 0 "B° VALUE + INDEMNITY AND MEDICAL COMBINED ** ENTER TABLE III WITH EXPECTED LOSSES (d) 312,739 1 TOTAL(h) Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California 100113NDM 116% EXPERIENCE (9) MODIFICATION �(�T CLASS CODE YR 06 PAYROLL YR 07 PAYROLL YR 06 PAYROLL YR PAYROLL EXPECTED LOSS RATE EXPECTED LOSSES "D° RATIO PRIMARY EXPECTED LOSSES w 'NI J e 8810 9410 9420 5,587,569 9,800,121 2,002,649 5,721,388 8,456,231 2,281,192 5,808,557 7,162,329 1,478,485 .18 .59 2.29 30,812 149,970 131,957 .26 .26 .24 8,011 38,992 31,670 EXPECTED EXCESS (0 = (d) - (e) 234,066 EXPECTED LOSSES (d) 312,739 PRIMARY EXPECTED LOSSES (e) 78,673 T�7a CLAIM NUMBER TYPE IW 00 OR F POLICY YEAR ACTUAL' INCURRED LOSSES PRIMARY ACTUAL LOSSES CLAIM NUMBER TYPE TNI 0R F POLICY YEAR ACTUAL • INCURRED LOSSES PRIMARY ACTUAL LOSSES T' Au �:0: Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: February 08, 2011 SUBJECT: Letter to County Auditor specifying how the Redevelopment Agency intends to fund the 2010-2011 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("SERAF") PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the letter to the Riverside County Auditor specifying how the Temecula Redevelopment Agency intends to fund its fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAF shift payment. BACKGROUND: On July 28, 2009 the Govenor signed AB 4X 26 to address the fiscal emergency declared by the Govenor on July 1, 2009. This bill amends the Health and Safety code to require a $1.7 billion SERAF shift from redevelopment agencies for fiscal year 2009-2010 and a $350 million SERAF shift for fiscal year 2010-2011. Per this legistation the California State Department of Finance has notified the Agency that its payment obligation for fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAF shift is $896,504. AB 4X 26 also requires that the City Council notify the Riverside County Auditor by March 1, 2010, as to how the Agency intends to make its fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAFshift payment. The notification due March 1, 2011 is not a payment deadline. The deadline for payment of the fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAF shift is May 10, 2011. FISCAL IMPACT: Agnecy staff recommends that the $896,504 SERAF shift payment obligation for fiscal year 2010-2011 be paid with existing funds in the Agency's housing set-aside fund. AB 4X 26 allows Agencies to loan themselves housing set-aside funds in order to meet their SERAF shift obligation. The fiscal year 2010-2011 loan must be repaid to the housing set-aside fund by June 30, 2016. The Agency intends to repay its housing set-aside loan with tax increment revenues that would have otherwise gone to the Agency's redevelopment fund. ATTACHMENT: Letter to the County Auditor February 9, 2011 City of Temecula Community Development Dept. 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • www.cityoftemecula.org Mr. Robert E. Byrd, CGFM Riverside County Auditor -Controller 4080 Lemon Street, 11th Floor P.O. Box 1326 Riverside CA, 92502 SUBJECT: AB 4X 26 required notification of Redevelopment Agency intent to and source of payment of fiscal year 2009-2010 SERAF shift obligation. Dear Mr. Byrd: As required by AB 4X 26 signed into law by the Governor on July 1, 2009, this letter is intended to satisfy the Temecula Redevelopment Agency's requirement to notify the Riverside County Auditor of the Agency's intent to pay the fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAF shift obligation, and to indentify the funding source for that payment. Per the letter received by the Agency from the California State Department of Finance, dated November 13, 2009, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency's fiscal year 2010-2011 SERAF shift payment obligation is a total of $896,504. The Agency intends to make this payment in full, utilizing existing fund balance in the Agency's 20% Low and Moderate Housing Set -Aside Fund. This funding source has been approved by the Agency Board of Directors at its February 8, 2011 meeting. Please receive this letter as official notification and satisfaction of the requirement by AB 4X 26 that the Temecula Redevelopment Agency report to the County Auditor of its intent to pay and the source of funds for that payment. As you may know, the validity of the legislation mandating this SERAF transfer has been challenged in litigation pending in the Superior Court for Sacramento County, California Redevelopment Association et al. v. Genest et al., Case No. 34-2009-80000359-CU-WM-GDS (CRA v. Genest). This case alleges, among other things, that the duties of county auditors under Health and Safety Code Sections 33690(a) and 33690.5(a) to deposit funds received from redevelopment agencies in County Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds are inconsistent with various state and federal constitutional provisions and are therefore unlawful and unenforceable. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula reserves any rights it may have to withhold the payment of funds to you under Health and Safety Code Section 33690 or to recover those funds after payment or transfer based on any order or judgment of the Court in CRA v. Genest. Sincerely, Mike Naggar Chairman Temecula Redevelopment Agency Printed on Recycled Paper 1 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: February 08, 2011 SUBJECT: Resolution Opposing the Governor's Proposal to Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies and Letter to the Governor and State Legislators Opposing the Governor's Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA 2. Approve a Letter to the Governor and local Legislators opposing the Governor's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 BACKGROUND: On Monday, January 14th, Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. In order to overcome a projected $25.4 billion funding gap for the remaining months of this current fiscal year and next fiscal year the Governor has proposed over $12.5 billion in program cuts and extensions of tax increases to close the budget gap. One major proposal which will adversely impact local jurisdictions statewide is the complete elimination of local Redevelopment Agencies. The loss of this locally generated revenue source, if successful, will be devastating to the local Temecula economy and jeopardize the current fragile economic recovery. The State has already taken over $8.3 million of local funds from the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment in Temecula has been an economic engine for the City since incorporation in 1989. The Redevelopment Agency has successfully leveraged $130 million in locally generated tax revenue to create over $1.6 billion in private investment for commercial, industrial development and affordable housing. This investment has created approximately 1,741 new jobs in Temecula. With the elimination of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency as an economic engine, there would be one less tool the City would have to help stimulate the local economy. The proposal will kill jobs and economic expansion at the worst possible time. Eliminating redevelopment will have a direct and lasting negative impact on the Temecula economy as well as the entire California economy and job creation. Redevelopment activities statewide support an average of 304,000 full- and part-time private sector jobs in a typical year, including 170,600 construction jobs. Contrary to misinformation from the State, local redevelopment agencies to not divert much needed funding from local schools and other taxing entities. In fact, at least half the of the taxes generated from the Temecula Redevelopment Agency are distributed to local schools, the County, the Rancho California Water District and other taxing entities. In fact, Temecula Valley Unified School District will receive $1.8 million in the current fiscal year from the Redevelopment Agency and a total of $13.8 million since 1989. This money is designated specifically for capital improvements, specifically new construction of needed facilities by the School District. Operations of public schools are funded 100% by the State of California. All school districts are apportioned the same amount of funding based on number of students. The $1.8 million in tax revenue from the Redevelopment Agency is separate and apart from money provided by the State. If the Redevelopment Agency is eliminated the School District could lose this annual funding source, thereby jeopardizing much needed funding for capital improvements which the State funding does not cover. The Temecula Redevelopment Agency not only benefits Temecula Unified School District, but the Redevelopment Agency has leveraged over $3.1 million in Agency assistance to attract and construct improvements for a satellite campus of Cal State San Marcos. This satellite campus provides, high quality, 4 -year educational opportunities for hundreds of students in Temecula without having to leave our community. This program in turn helps to train a high quality workforce to meet the demands of companies located in Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Governor's budget proposal passes and Redevelopment is eliminated the Redevelopment Agency will lose a current revenue stream, not committed to debt service, of over $3.5 million per year and no less than $63 million over the remaining 18 year life of the Redevelopment Agency. These revenues would be diverted to the State to be used at its discretion. Additionally, the elimination of Redevelopment could result in the loss of $1.8 annually in capital improvement funds for the Temecula Unified School District that are not covered by proposition 98 and will not be backfilled by the State. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 11 - Letter to the Governor of the State of California Letter to State Assemblyman Kevin Jefferies Letter to State Senator Joel Anderson RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, as part of its 2011-12 budget proposal, the Governor has proposed permanently abolishing California's more than 400 local redevelopment agencies; and WHEREAS, this proposal represents more of the same misguided and illegal State budget raids of local government funds that voters have repeatedly sought to end, most recently in November 2010 when an overwhelming 61 % of voters elected to stop State raids of local government funds, including redevelopment funds; and WHEREAS, this proposal will bring very little financial benefit to the State. According to the State Controller's Office, redevelopment agencies have more than $87 billion in bond and other contractual obligations that legally must be repaid before revenues are available to any other purpose. In fact, according to the State Department of Finance's own budget documents, there will be zero State savings in out years from shutting down redevelopment; and WHEREAS, this proposal will destroy local economic development, including hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in local economic activity throughout California. In fact, in Temecula, abolishing redevelopment will destroy the City of Temecula's ability to create affordable housing, pay for crucial infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and community facilities, and end fundamental services that the residents of the City have relied on for 20 years. The elimination of Redevelopment will also seriously damage the City's economic development activities which would hurt the City's ability to attract and retain large corporations that provide quality jobs for the City and region. Additionally, the elimination of Redevelopment will result in the loss of $1.8 in capital improvement funds for the Temecula Unified School District that are not covered by proposition 98 and will not be backfilled by the state. Without the tool of redevelopment the City of Temecula efforts to bring a four year university to the City will be set back a generation and may never be realized at all. WHEREAS, throughout California, redevelopment activities support 304,000 jobs annually, including 170,600 construction jobs, contribute over $40 billion annually to California's economy in the generation of goods and services, and generate more than $2 billion in state and local taxes in a typical year; and WHEREAS, eliminating redevelopment will take away one of the few tools local governments have to comply with state requirements to plan for more compact urban development supported by transit -oriented development, housing, jobs and infrastructure; and WHEREAS, eliminating redevelopment will destroy the development of affordable housing in California. Redevelopment agencies are the second largest funder of affordable housing, behind only the federal government, responsible for over 98,000 units of affordable housing since 1993; and WHEREAS, shutting down redevelopment agencies is a violation of multiple State and Federal constitutional provisions. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA that City of Temecula formally opposes the Administration's proposal to abolish redevelopment in California. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, that City of Temecula authorizes its council and city staff to communicate its opposition to this proposal to the Governor, the Legislature, business groups, and citizens. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk January 20, 2011 City of Temecula Community Development Redevelopment Agency 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 Honorable Jerry Brown c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Eliminating or curtailing redevelopment will weaken the economy of the City of Temecula and not provide budget relief for the State Dear Governor Brown: As local elected officials, we understand the difficulty of passing a budget in these times of limited resources and worldwide economic meltdown. Here in Temecula we have been forced to make difficult decisions to bring our own budgets into balance. However, even in difficult times, your proposal to eliminate or curtail redevelopment in Temecula is short-sighted public policy that will damage our economy and bring little budget relief to the State. The proposal to eliminate redevelopment: • Will not provide expected budget relief to the State or local governments after bond issues and contractual obligations are repaid; • Will destroy billions of dollars in local economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs; • Will kill the state's leading program to provide affordable housing; and • Will harm our efforts to grow responsibly by focusing on urban and infill development. • Will cause hundreds if not thousands of jobs loses throughout the state as well as here in Temecula The proposal will not provide budget savings to the State or local governments. Redevelopment agencies issue bonds to finance redevelopment activities, which must be repaid with interest. Under the federal and state constitutions, these and other contractual obligations must be met before revenues are made available to any other entities or purposes. Agencies currently hold over $20 billion in bonded indebtedness. The proposal will kill jobs and economic expansion at the worst possible time. Eliminating redevelopment will have a direct and lasting negative impact on the California economy and job creation. 1 • Redevelopment activities support an average of 304,000 full- and part-time private sector jobs in a typical year, including 170,600 construction jobs. • Redevelopment contributes over $40 billion annually to California's economy in the generation of goods and services, including increasing the state's construction sector output by about $19 billion. • Redevelopment construction activities generate $2 billion in state and local taxes in a typical year. • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has leveraged $130 million on tax revenue to create over $1.6 billion in private investment in the past 20 years. • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has funded over $35 million towards the constructed or rehabilitated of over 910 affordable housing units since 1991 • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has invested over $87 million dollars in major public improvements and job creating developments including: o California State San Marcos in Temecula o Several major bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek connecting our residential areas to our employment areas o Abbott Vascular, Inc East Campus Expansion which created 500 new high paying jobs in addition to the existing 3,500 jobs o Street improvements throughout the project area o Old Town Temecula Community Theatre o Old Town Parking Structure o Promenade Mall Parking Structure which facilitated a $150 million dollar mall expansion during this current recession o Parks o Old Town Square o Temecula History Museum o Temecula Senior Center o Children's Museum The proposal is bad for the environment, bad for working families, bad for our state. Eliminating redevelopment will take away the primary tool local governments have to comply with SB 375, to grow sustainably, and to provide affordable housing. Consider the following: • Infill -Centered Growth. Communities use redevelopment for cleaning up brownfield sites, building infill projects, and spurring local job creation. Redevelopment encourages infill development rather than greenfield development. Redevelopment agencies have the experience and tools needed to help implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy plans required by AB 3215B 375, and to alter the state's growth patterns. • Redevelopment is the second largest funder of affordable homes in California after the federal government. Over 98,000 units of affordable housing have been constructed or rehabilitated since 1993, including 910 homes in the City of Temecula. Twenty percent of property tax revenues generated from redevelopment activities must be spent on affordable housing. 2 This proposal runs completely contrary to the Governor's and Legislature's stated goals of realigning state services to provide more responsibility and funding locally. Redevelopment funds are already locally -generated property tax dollars (agencies do not receive State funding) directed toward community projects and programs directed by locally -elected officials with input from citizens. The proposal wipes out the only tool Temecula and other local governments have to drive economic growth, build up tax revenues, and grow sustainably. We urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Ron Roberts Mike Naggar Mayor Chair City of Temecula Temecula Redevelopment Agency 3 January 20, 2011 City of Temecula Community Development Redevelopment Agency 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 Honorable Kevin Jeffries c/o State Capitol, Room 5128 Sacramento, CA 94249-0066 RE: Eliminating or curtailing redevelopment will weaken the economy of the City of Temecula and not provide budget relief for the State Dear Assemblyman Jeffries: As local elected officials, we understand the difficulty of passing a budget in these times of limited resources and worldwide economic meltdown. Here in Temecula we have been forced to make difficult decisions to bring our own budgets into balance. However, even in difficult times, the Governor's proposal to eliminate or curtail redevelopment in Temecula is short-sighted public policy that will damage our economy and bring little budget relief to the State. The proposal to eliminate redevelopment: • Will not provide expected budget relief to the State or local governments after bond issues and contractual obligations are repaid; • Will destroy billions of dollars in local economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs; • Will kill the state's leading program to provide affordable housing; and • Will harm our efforts to grow responsibly by focusing on urban and infill development. • Will cause hundreds if not thousands of jobs loses throughout the state as well as here in Temecula The proposal will not provide budget savings to the State or local governments. Redevelopment agencies issue bonds to finance redevelopment activities, which must be repaid with interest. Under the federal and state constitutions, these and other contractual obligations must be met before revenues are made available to any other entities or purposes. Agencies currently hold over $20 billion in bonded indebtedness. The proposal will kill jobs and economic expansion at the worst possible time. Eliminating redevelopment will have a direct and lasting negative impact on the California economy and job creation. 1 • Redevelopment activities support an average of 304,000 full- and part-time private sector jobs in a typical year, including 170,600 construction jobs. • Redevelopment contributes over $40 billion annually to California's economy in the generation of goods and services, including increasing the state's construction sector output by about $19 billion. • Redevelopment construction activities generate $2 billion in state and local taxes in a typical year. • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has leveraged $130 million on tax revenue to create over $1.6 billion in private investment in the past 20 years. • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has funded over $35 million towards the constructed or rehabilitated of over 910 affordable housing units since 1991 • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has invested over $87 million dollars in major public improvements and job creating developments including: o California State San Marcos in Temecula o Several major bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek connecting our residential areas to our employment areas o Abbott Vascular, Inc East Campus Expansion which created 500 new high paying jobs in addition to the existing 3,500 jobs o Street improvements throughout the project area o Old Town Temecula Community Theatre o Old Town Parking Structure o Promenade Mall Parking Structure which facilitated a $150 million dollar mall expansion during this current recession o Parks o Old Town Square o Temecula History Museum o Temecula Senior Center o Children's Museum The proposal is bad for the environment, bad for working families, bad for our state. Eliminating redevelopment will take away the primary tool local governments have to comply with SB 375, to grow sustainably, and to provide affordable housing. Consider the following: • Infill -Centered Growth. Communities use redevelopment for cleaning up brownfield sites, building infill projects, and spurring local job creation. Redevelopment encourages infill development rather than greenfield development. Redevelopment agencies have the experience and tools needed to help implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy plans required by AB 3215B 375, and to alter the state's growth patterns. • Redevelopment is the second largest funder of affordable homes in California after the federal government. Over 98,000 units of affordable housing have been constructed or rehabilitated since 1993, including 910 homes in the City of Temecula. Twenty percent of property tax revenues generated from redevelopment activities must be spent on affordable housing. 2 This proposal runs completely contrary to the Governor's and Legislature's stated goals of realigning state services to provide more responsibility and funding locally. Redevelopment funds are already locally -generated property tax dollars (agencies do not receive State funding) directed toward community projects and programs directed by locally -elected officials with input from citizens. The proposal wipes out the only tool Temecula and other local governments have to drive economic growth, build up tax revenues, and grow sustainably. We urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Ron Roberts Mike Naggar Mayor Chair City of Temecula Temecula Redevelopment Agency 3 February 8, 2011 City of Temecula Community Development Redevelopment Agency 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 Honorable Joel Anderson c/o State Capitol, Room 2054 Sacramento, CA 94248-0001 RE: Eliminating or curtailing redevelopment will weaken the economy of the City of Temecula and not provide budget relief for the State Dear State Senator Anderson: As local elected officials, we understand the difficulty of passing a budget in these times of limited resources and worldwide economic meltdown. Here in Temecula we have been forced to make difficult decisions to bring our own budgets into balance. However, even in difficult times, the Governor's proposal to eliminate or curtail redevelopment in Temecula is short-sighted public policy that will damage our economy and bring little budget relief to the State. The proposal to eliminate redevelopment: • Will not provide expected budget relief to the State or local governments after bond issues and contractual obligations are repaid; • Will destroy billions of dollars in local economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs; • Will kill the state's leading program to provide affordable housing; and • Will harm our efforts to grow responsibly by focusing on urban and infill development. • Will cause hundreds if not thousands of jobs loses throughout the state as well as here in Temecula The proposal will not provide budget savings to the State or local governments. Redevelopment agencies issue bonds to finance redevelopment activities, which must be repaid with interest. Under the federal and state constitutions, these and other contractual obligations must be met before revenues are made available to any other entities or purposes. Agencies currently hold over $20 billion in bonded indebtedness. The proposal will kill jobs and economic expansion at the worst possible time. Eliminating redevelopment will have a direct and lasting negative impact on the California economy and job creation. 1 • Redevelopment activities support an average of 304,000 full- and part-time private sector jobs in a typical year, including 170,600 construction jobs. • Redevelopment contributes over $40 billion annually to California's economy in the generation of goods and services, including increasing the state's construction sector output by about $19 billion. • Redevelopment construction activities generate $2 billion in state and local taxes in a typical year. • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has leveraged $130 million on tax revenue to create over $1.6 billion in private investment in the past 20 years. • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has funded over $35 million towards the constructed or rehabilitated of over 910 affordable housing units since 1991 • The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has invested over $87 million dollars in major public improvements and job creating developments including: o California State San Marcos in Temecula o Several major bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek connecting our residential areas to our employment areas o Abbott Vascular, Inc East Campus Expansion which created 500 new high paying jobs in addition to the existing 3,500 jobs o Street improvements throughout the project area o Old Town Temecula Community Theatre o Old Town Parking Structure o Promenade Mall Parking Structure which facilitated a $150 million dollar mall expansion during this current recession o Parks o Old Town Square o Temecula History Museum o Temecula Senior Center o Children's Museum The proposal is bad for the environment, bad for working families, bad for our state. Eliminating redevelopment will take away the primary tool local governments have to comply with SB 375, to grow sustainably, and to provide affordable housing. Consider the following: • Infill -Centered Growth. Communities use redevelopment for cleaning up brownfield sites, building infill projects, and spurring local job creation. Redevelopment encourages infill development rather than greenfield development. Redevelopment agencies have the experience and tools needed to help implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy plans required by AB 3215B 375, and to alter the state's growth patterns. • Redevelopment is the second largest funder of affordable homes in California after the federal government. Over 98,000 units of affordable housing have been constructed or rehabilitated since 1993, including 910 homes in the City of Temecula. Twenty percent of property tax revenues generated from redevelopment activities must be spent on affordable housing. 2 This proposal runs completely contrary to the Governor's and Legislature's stated goals of realigning state services to provide more responsibility and funding locally. Redevelopment funds are already locally -generated property tax dollars (agencies do not receive State funding) directed toward community projects and programs directed by locally -elected officials with input from citizens. The proposal wipes out the only tool Temecula and other local governments have to drive economic growth, build up tax revenues, and grow sustainably. We urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Ron Roberts Mike Naggar Mayor Chair City of Temecula Temecula Redevelopment Agency 3 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Item No. 11 ACTION MINUTES of January 25, 2011 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:12 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 9 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Naggar and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the action minutes of January 11, 2011. 10 Youth Work Experience Program Partnership - Approved Staff Recommendation (4- 0-1) — Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Naggar and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Oasis Perris Youth Opportunity Center and the Temecula Community Services District to establish a youth employment work experience program. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD Action Minutes\012511 1 CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:14 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 8, 2011, at 5:30 PM., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes\012511 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Item No. 12 ACTION MINUTES of JANUARY 25, 2011 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting convened at 7:14 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Washington, Roberts, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 12 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) Agency Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Washington who was absent RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the action minutes of January 11, 2011. RDA Action Minutes\012511 1 RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:16 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 8, 2011, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Chair Person ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] RDA Action Minutes\012511 2 Item No. 13 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Agency Members FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: February 08, 2011 SUBJECT: Funding Source for AB 4X 26 Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Payment PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the borrowing of Eight Hundred Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred Four Dollars ($896,504) from the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the purposes of paying the Agency's Fiscal Year 2010-2011 SERAF obligation. 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE OBLIGATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 BACKGROUND: On July 28, 2009 the Governor signed AB 4X 26 to address the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor on July 1, 2009. This bill amends the Health and Safety code to require a $1.7 billion SERAF shift from redevelopment agencies for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and a $350 million SERAF shift for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Per this legislation, the California State Department of Finance has notified the Agency that its payment obligation for Fiscal Year 2010- 2011 SERAF shift is $896,504. AB 4X 26 provides Redevelopment Agencies with the ability to loan themselves housing set-aside funds in order to meet their SERAF shift obligation if findings are made that insufficient other moneys are available to meet that obligation. After analysis of the Agency's finances it is staff's opinion that the only feasible way to meet the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 SERAF payment is to borrow the full amount from the housing set-aside fund. Therefore, Agency staff recommends that the $896,504 SERAF payment obligation for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 be paid with existing funds in the Agency's housing set-aside fund. FISCAL IMPACT: If approved the Agency's would borrow from the housing set-aside fund a total of $896,504 in order to meet the Fiscal Year 2414-2011 SERAF obligation. The Agency would be required to repay the housing set-aside fund the entire amount borrowed by June 30, 2016. The Agency intends to repay its housing set-aside loan with tax increment revenues that would have otherwise gone to the Agency's redevelopment fund. ATTACHMENT: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RDA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE OBLIGATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 THE MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Agency hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: (a) Chapter 21 of the Statutes of 2009 (AB 4X 26) and Chapter 652 of the Statutes of 2009 (SB 68) enacted Health and Safety Code Section 33690 requiring redevelopment agencies in the state to pay certain amounts to the county auditor for deposit into the county's Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("SERAF"). (All further references to "sections" shall be to sections of the Health and Safety Code.) (b) Section 33690(c)(1) authorizes redevelopment agencies to borrow from either the amount required to be allocated to the agency's low and moderate income housing fund, pursuant to Sections 33334.2, 3334.3, and 33334.6, or any monies in that fund or both, unless executed contracts exist that would be impaired if the agency reduced the amount allocated to the low and moderate income housing fund or the amount of moneys in the fund, or both. 1) In order to borrow from the low and moderate income housing fund for payment of SERAF, an agency shall make a finding that there are insufficient other moneys to meet the SERAF payment requirements. 2) Any funds borrowed from the low and moderate income housing fund for payment of SERAF shall be repaid in full on or before June 30, 2016. Section 2. Pursuant the provisions of Section 33690, the Agency specifically finds and determines that: (a) There are no existing executed contracts to which the Agency is a party that would be impaired if the agency reduced the amount allocated to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or the amount of moneys in the fund, or both. (b) There are insufficient other moneys to meet the SERAF payment requirements of Section 33690(a). Section 3. The Agency hereby approves the borrowing of eight hundred ninety six thousand five hundred four dollars and 00/100 ($896,504) from the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the purposes of paying the Agency's SERAF obligation pursuant to Section 33690(a).The funds borrowed from the Low And 11087-0001\1202761 v1 Moderate Income Housing Fund for payment of SERAF shall be repaid in full to the Low And Moderate Income Housing Fund on or before June 30, 2016. The Agency hereby appropriates said funds for the purposes of paying the SERAF obligation and authorizes the Executive Director or his designee to make the required SERAF payment to the Auditor as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula this day of , ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] -2- 11087-0001\1202761 v1 Michael S. Naggar, Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the Members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: -3- 11087-0001\1202761 v1 Susan W. Jones, MMC City ClerklBoard Secretary TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Item No. 14 ACTION MINUTES of JULY 27, 2010 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY The Temecula Public Financing Authority convened at 7:26 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. TPFA BUSINESS 16 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the action minutes of July 28, 2009. 17 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: Finance Director Genie Roberts presented the staff report (of record) for Items 17 through 22. 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-1 (CROWNE HILL) R:1Minutes.tpfa1072710 1 18 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 01-2 (HARVESTON) 19 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 03-6 (Harveston Ia- Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-6 (HARVESTON II) 20 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 03-2 (Roripaugh Ranch) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-2 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) R:\Minutes.tpfa\072710 2 21 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 03-3 (Wolf Creek) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-3 (WOLF CREEK) 22 Community Facilities District No. 2003-02 (Roripauqh Ranch) Initiation of Action Necessary to Foreclose Delinquent Special Tax Liens - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Agency Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 10-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REMOVE DELINQUENT SPECIAL TAXES FROM THE COUNTY TAX ROLL AND ORDERING JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DELINQUENT PROPERTY WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) Finance Director Genie Roberts presented the staff report as per agenda material (of record.) R:\Minutes.tpfa\072710 3 ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 P.M., the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting was formally adjourned. Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:1Minutes.tpfa1072710 4 Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: Change in Location for the Temecula Public Financing Authority RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TPFA RESOLUTION NO. 01-01, CHANGING THE LOCATION AND THE ADDRESS OF TPFA MEETINGS BACKGROUND: Due to the recent completion of the new Civic Center, the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meetings will now be held at the Temecula Civic Center, Council Chambers at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. These meetings will take place on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The authority mailing address is established at Temecula Public Financing Authority, c/o City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California 92589-9033, Attention: Executive Director. With the exception of the deletion of Section 9, all other terms of TPFA Resolution No. 01-01 will remain in full force and effect. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution TPFA 11- RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AMENDING TPFA RESOLUTION NO. 01-01, CHANGING THE LOCATION AND THE ADDRESS OF TPFA MEETINGS Section 1. Section 2 of TPFA Resolution No. 01-01 is hereby amended to read as follows. All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at the regular meeting place of the City Council of the City, unless the Board of Directors shall adjourn to or fix another place of meeting in a notice to be given thereof, or unless prevented by flood, fire or other disaster. Said regular meeting place is hereby fixed and established at the Temecula Civic Center, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Section 2. The office of the Authority and its official mailing address are hereby fixed and established at Temecula Public Financing Authority c/o City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California 92589-9033, Attention: Executive Director. Section 3. Section 9 of Resolution No. TPFA 01-01, compensation of Board Members, is hereby deleted. Section 4. Except as provided above, all other terms remain in full force from TPFA Resolution 01-01. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this day of , Ron Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the day of, , by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager M -r• CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval for levying an assessment for fiscal year 2011 -2012 in connection with the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District (TVTBID) PREPARED BY: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing to consider protests regarding the levy of an assessment in conjunction with the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District. 2. Instruct the City Clerk to tabulate any written protests which might be received prior to the close of the public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed District. 3. If the City Clerk reports that there is not a majority protest received regarding this District, then adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TVTBID) BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2005, a Public Hearing was held to consider protests regarding the formation of the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District (TVTBID). A majority protest was not received and, therefore, Council enacted an ordinance establishing the TVTBID. Also adopted were resolutions to levy an annual assessment and resolutions to establish an advisory board for the TVTBI D. A Management Agreement between the City of Temecula and The Convention and Visitors Bureau (CONVIS) was also approved for the operation and administration of the TVTBID. The formation of the TVTBID was initiated by the lodging establishments and the CONVIS and currently is comprised of 14 lodging establishments within the City limits of Temecula. There were no new lodging businesses established in fiscal year 201012011. In addition, there are currently no new lodging businesses anticipated to open in fiscal year 2011/12. According to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (the Law), the City Council is authorized to annually undertake proceedings to levy an assessment against businesses within the TVTBID. In accordance with Section 36533 of the Law, the TVTBID Advisory Board has prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report for fiscal year 2011-12. The report, which was presented to City Council and approved on January 25, 2011, thoroughly details the proposed budget and activities, and programs and events for the District for the coming year. After approving the report, City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-11 to declare its intention to levy an assessment against lodging businesses for fiscal year 2011-12 within the District and to set the time and place of a Public Hearing. The annual levy represents 4% of the room rates collected. This levy is a tax on the lodging guests and riot on the citizens of Temecula. These funds are expended for the purpose of marketing and promoting tourism in the Temecula Valley area as a tourist destination to the benefit of lodging businesses located and operating within the boundaries of the District. To date, there have been no protests of the tax by any of the lodging operators. The Convention and Visitors Bureau is responsible for the budgeting and spending of the funds in accordance with the Management Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Convention and Visitors Bureau for the operation and administration of the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District for the purposes of promoting tourism and attracting more customers who will patronize the lodging business in the District as identified in Temecula Ordinance No. 05-17 which added Chapter 3.40 to the Temecula Municipal Code. At this Public Hearing, testimony will be heard and protests may be made by any person with an interest in the proposed levy. In the absence of a majority protest, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution to levy the assessment for the fiscal year 2011-12 (March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2012). FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that the 4% annual assessment would result in the collection of approximately $939,087 in fiscal year 2011-12 which would be used by the CONVIS for the promotion of tourism. The City would receive up to 2% of the assessments, or approximately $18,782, to offset administrative costs. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 11- RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. (the "Act"), authorizes the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Temecula (the "City") to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City. Section 2. Pursuant to the Act, the City Council adopted Chapter 3.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishing the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District (the "District") in the City. Section 3. The boundaries of the District are the boundaries of the City and include all lodging businesses therein (as defined in Temecula Municipal Code Section 3.40.020). Section 4. In accordance with Section 36533 of the Law, the Advisory Board for the District prepared and filed with the City Clerk reports entitled "2010-2011 Annual Report" and "2011-2012 Annual Report: Budget and Marketing Plan" (the "Reports"), and on January 25, 2011, Resolution No. 11-10, the City Council preliminarily approved such Report as filed. Section 5. On January 25, 2011, the City Council adopted its Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 11-11, declaring its intention to levy and collect an assessment for fiscal year 2011-2012 (March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2012) against lodging businesses in the District. Section 6. Following notice duly given pursuant to law, the City Council has held a full and fair public hearing regarding the levy and collection of an assessment within the District for fiscal year 2011-2012. At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the levy of an assessment against lodging businesses within the District for fiscal year 2011-2012 was heard and considered. The City Council hereby determines that there was no majority protest within the meaning of the Act. Section 7. Based upon its review of the Report, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council and which has been filed with the City Clerk, and other reports and information presented to the City, the City Council hereby finds and determines that (i) the lodging businesses in the District will be benefited by the expenditure of funds raised by the assessment for fiscal year 2011-2012, (ii) the District includes all of the businesses so benefited; and (iii) the net amount of the assessment levied within the District for fiscal year 2011-2012 in accordance with Resolution No. 11-11, the Report, and Chapter 3.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the net amount in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lodging business. Section 8. The City Council hereby confirms the Report as originally filed. Section 9. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of an assessment for fiscal year 2011-2012. The assessment formula is set forth in Chapter 3.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Assessments shall be paid in monthly installments. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Item No. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ff1/-e-r. aOL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: February 8, 2011 SUBJECT: A Major Modification to the Temecula Regional Hospital Development Plan PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10-0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL TO CHANGE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BEDS FROM 170 TO 140 FOR PHASE I OF THE PROJECT, TO MODIFY THE BUILDING FACADES OF THE HOSPITAL TOWERS, TO RELOCATE THE TRUCK LOADING BAYS AND SERVICE YARD, TO RESTRICT SITE ACCESS TO AND FROM DE PORTOLA ROAD TO EMERGENCY VEHICLES, AND TO RELOCATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM AN OUTDOOR AREA AT THE SERVICE YARD TO AN EXPANDED INDOOR AREA AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING ON 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-001 THRU 004 AND 951-080-007 THRU 010) BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. filed Planning Application PA10-0194, a Major Modification to change the phasing of the Project by reducing the number of hospital beds from 170 beds to 140 beds for Phase I of the Project; to modifiy the building facades of the hospital towers; to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard; and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the norther portion of the hospital building. At build -out of the Project site, identified as the year 2026 by the Project applicant, the Project would include a total of 320 hospital beds and all of the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center areas identified in the previously approved Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The total square footage of all the buildings at build -out of the Project remains at 566,160 square feet, consistent with the previously approved Project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the previously adopted Final EIR and Supplemental EIR for the Project was prepared for this modification application. The addendum concluded the proposed minor modifications would not cause any new impacts riot identified in the EIR and FSEIR and would riot increase the severity of any impact identified in the EIR and FSEIR. It also concluded that there has been no change in circumstances under which the hospital Project will be carried out that would increase the severity of previously identified impacts and that there is no new information indicating that new and better feasible mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts. The addendum further concluded that the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the Project as modified. Therefore, an addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital Project. On December 15, 2010, staff presented the proposed Major Modification to the Planning Commission. Included in the Planning Commission's review and discussion of the Project was consideration of the items asked by the Temecula Hospital Adhoc Subcommittee, consisting of Councilmembers Comerchero and Naggar. Based on the information provided to the Planning Commission in the staff report and at the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission determined that the Major Modification application is consistent with the previous hospital approvals, that the proposed hospital building architecture is acceptable per the Citywide Design Guidelines, and that the proposed changes in the Project do riot require the adoption of additional mitigation measures. Kenneth Ray, a resident in the vicinity of the Project site, spoke at the Planning Commission hearing and submitted written correspondence (attached). Mr. Ray requested that three Conditions of Approval be added to the Major Modification, including: 1) all major equipment must conform to latest and best standards for noise reduction such that noise from these sources is negligivble at the property line; 2) trash service and deliveries to the loading dock be restricted to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and all vehicles providing these services will enter and leave the hospital grounds via the Temecula Parkway entrances only; and 3) the De Portola access be restricted to emergency vehicles only. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed conditions number 1 and 2 be added to the Conditions of Approval for the Major Modification application and requested that staff review whether the De Portola access could be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Staff has reviewed the De Portola access conditon and has determined that restricting access to and from De Portola road would have impacts on surrounding roadway segments and intersections that were riot analyzed in the environmental review. Therfore, staff does not recommend adding a Condition of Approval to restrict access to or from De Portoal Road. Staff also reveiwed Mr. Ray's proposed conditons relating to noise, trash service, and deliveries and has concuded that these conditons should be consistent with the City's Noise Ordinace, and that the City's Noise Ordinance would allow for trash servide and deliveries beginning at 7 a.m. and that restricting the De Portola access to emergecy vehicles only would be acceptable. Staff therefore recommends that these conditions be revised as follows: 1) All major equipment (elevator motors, generators, air conditioning, etc., and soundproofing of same) shall conform to the latest best standards for noise reduction such that noise from these sources conforms to the City's Noise Ordinance (see Condition of Approval number 21); and 2) trash service and deliveries to the loading dock shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All vehicles providing these services shall enter and leave the hospital grounds via the Temecula Parkway or Dona Lynora Road entrances only (see Condition of Approval number 22). With the addition of the recommended Conditons of Approval, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the EIR addendum and approval of the proposed Major Modification. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report of December 15, 2010 Resolution Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval Public Correspondence DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 2010 Stuart Fisk, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road Recommend that the City Council Approve with Conditions Addendum to an El R; Section 15164 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. Professional Office (PO) Zoning Designation: Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay -9 (PDO -9) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Vacant North: Very Low Density Residential (VL) South: Temecula Parkway, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) East: Professional Office (PO), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO -8 West: PD0-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio: Landscape Area/Coverage: Parking Required/Provided: Existinq/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required 35.3 acres 5.0 acres 0.36 proposed 33.3% proposed 1,278 spaces 1 0.30 minimum/1.0 maximum 25.0% minimum 897 spaces BACKGROUND SUMMARY On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2004 filed PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a noticed public hearing. Based on testimony presented by the general public, the Planning Commission determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and was circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at noticed public hearings. After consideration of the project at the noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 06-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462), adopted Resolution No. 06-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA05-0302), adopted Resolution No. 06-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-06 recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571). On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). Following due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, adopted Resolution No. 06-06, amending the General Plan to remove the project site from the Z "Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction (PA04-0462), adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 to consolidate the project's eight lots into one lot (PA04-0571). On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the 2 MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. On July 3, 2007, Universal Health Services, Inc., submitted Planning Application PA07-0198, a General Plan Amendment, PA07-0199, a Zone Change, PA07-0200, a Development Plan, PA07-0201, a Tentative Parcel Map, and PA07-0202, a Conditional Use Permit, for a 320 -bed hospital, 80,000 square foot medical office building, 60,000 square foot medical office building, 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness center for the 35.3 acre project generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07- 0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198), adopted Resolution No. 08-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA07-0199), adopted Resolution No. 08-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202), adopted Resolution No. 08-05 recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the project. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08-10, certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project, adopted Resolution No. 08-11 approving the Zone Change (PA07-0198), adopted Resolution 08-12 approving the Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202, adopted Resolution 08-13 approving the Development Plan (PA07-0200), and adopted Resolution 08-14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07-0201). On December 30, 2009, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., applied for a first Extension of Time for the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved Resolution No. 10-08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to January 22, 2011. In Resolution 10-08 the City Council specified that in construing the phrase "beginning of 3 substantial construction contemplated by this approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 the Council will consider the following schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10-08 that in approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities, the City Council did not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in the UHS application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing program UHS would need to file for a major modification of the entitlements. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase 1 of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Under the proposed modification plan, the first phase of the hospital would include 140 beds rather than the 170 beds identified in the phasing plan for the previously approved Development Plan, and the first phase would be reduced from 285,405 square feet to 177,486 square feet. The second bed tower and one-story outpatient building expansion is proposed to be constructed in Phase IV of the project and would provide an additional 230,674 square feet of hospital building space, thereby achieving the total hospital building space of 408,160 square feet identified in the previously approved project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. At build -out of the project site, identified as the year 2026 by the project applicant, the project would include a total of 320 hospital beds and all of the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center areas identified in the previously approved Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The total square footage of all the buildings at build -out of the project remains at 566,160 square feet, consistent with the previously approved project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. The proposed modification plan would relocate the truck loading bays and service yard area from the east side of the hospital building to the north side of the building, and would relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northwest corner of the hospital building that includes a 5,905 square foot mechanical room. To accommodate this revision, drive lanes and parking areas have also been reconfigured. The previously approved plans included a five story hospital bed tower and a six story bed tower. The modification plans propose that both hospital bed towers will be five stories. Due to a change in the method of construction (from concrete to steel frame), the architect has indicated that the same useable building square footage can be achieved in a smaller building 4 footprint and that the previously approved total square footage of the hospital building of 408,160 square feet will be achieved in the proposed building. Site Plan As discussed above, the proposed modification plan would relocate the truck loading bays and service yard area from the east side of the hospital building to the north side of the building. Mechanical equipment would be relocated from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northwest corner of the hospital building, and drive lanes and parking areas will be reconfigured to accommodate this revision. The 16 space parking lot at the front of the cancer center has been eliminated under the proposed modification plan and these parking spaces have been relocated to the parking lot located south of the cancer center. With the elimination of this parking lot, the passenger loading zone for this building has been shifted from the southwest corner of the building to the southeast corner and the previously approved porte-cochere at the passenger loading zone has been eliminated. It should be noted that the proposed modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit would not change the previously approved access points, helipad location, total building square footage, or total parking for the project. Architecture No changes are proposed to the elevations and architecture for the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center. With regard to the hospital building, the building has been redesigned from a concrete structure to a steel framed structure. This redesign has resulted in the reduction of bed tower one from six stories to five stories and a narrowing in the width of the Phase I bed tower. Due to the narrowing in the width of the Phase I bed tower, after providing the required space for the rooftop mechanical equipment and window cleaning equipment areas, sufficient space no longer exists for placement of the tiled mansard style roof equipment screens that were approved with the original hospital plans. To address this constraint, the applicant has proposed vertical panels that incorporate the use of spandrel glass "windows" and a secondary cornice Zine to create the appearance of an additional floor in place of the previously approved tiled mansard rooftop equipment screens, bringing form and function together in a more streamlined and timeless appearance that remains consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines for commercial buildings. The proposed modification plan continues to utilize many elements of the previously approved architectural design for the hospital building. As with the previously approved plans, the building design features the use of earth -toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian Red tile at the base. Each building maintains the three required components including a tile base, stucco body and tiled roof elements. In addition, the abundance of windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. An octagon -roofed rotunda divides the hospital towers and reduces massing by providing a separate feature between the towers. The rotunda and the first story elements of the Phase I bed tower will utilize roof tiles consistent with the previously approved plans. The proposed architectural revisions have resulted in a reduction in the height of the hospital bed towers. The previously approved hospital building was a maximum of 106 feet in height at 5 the rotunda and approximately 91 to 97 feet in height at the main body of the hospital towers. The proposed rotunda is reduced to 90 feet in height, and the main bodies of the hospital towers are reduced to 82.5 to 84 feet in height. Consistency of the hospital building design with the City -Wide Design guidelines is achieved in part through incorporation of elements to divide the mass of the building, the use of vertical elements to break up the building, windows and doors that are proportionate to the building elevations, the use of a variety of roof lines and roof form, screening of rooftop mechanical equipment, and a design for the hospital building that compliments the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center through the use of common roofing material, exterior finish materials, and consistent color palettes. Landscaping The landscape plans for the project have been updated to reflect the City's current water efficient landscape requirements. However, consistent with the previously approved plans, perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25 -foot wide bermed landscape planter along Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South), consisting of 24 -inch box and 15 -gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and assorted shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of a minimum 40 -foot wide landscape/equestrian trail buffer consisting of 24 -inch box and 15 -gallon Afghan Pines and Silk Trees; a 50 -foot wide planter along the western property line of assorted street trees; and a minimum 20 -foot wide landscape buffer consisting of an informal planting of assorted trees along the eastern property line. The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The Project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33.3% proposed). As per the previously approved plans, the project is conditioned to provide landscape berms adjacent to public streets to screen the parking lots. Staff has included Conditions of Approval to further buffer the residential area from the Project by requiring berms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees between the Project site and residential areas to the north (Condition of Approval No. 97). Access/Circulation No changes are proposed to the previously approved access to the site. Minor revisions to internal drive lanes and parking areas are proposed to accommodate revisions to the location of the truck loading bays and service yard area and the relocation of mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northwest corner of the hospital building. Temecula Hospital Adhoc Subcommittee On November 23, 2010, the Temecula Hospital Adhoc Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Comerchero and Councilmember Naggar, met to review the proposal. They raised the following questions and requested the Planning Commission to review these issues: 1. Is the revised architecture of the hospital building consistent with the previously approved architectural elevations? 2. Have environmental conditions, specifically in the area of traffic, changed subsequent to the previous approval? 6 3. What is the status of funding for the reconstruction of the 79 South Interchange? Is that relevant to the project? 4. Since the project has been redesigned, are the previously approved conditions consistent with the original findings of fact that the City Council made when adopting Statements of Overriding Consideration. If riot, is additional environmental review necessary to determine whether Statements of Overriding Consideration are appropriate given the changes in the project? 5. Should additional mitigation measures be adopted to reflect changes in the project? LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on December 4, 2010 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the previously adopted Final EIR and Supplemental EIR for the project was prepared for this modification application. The addendum concluded the proposed minor modifications would not cause any new impacts riot identified in the EIR and FSEIR and would riot increase the severity of any impact identified in the EIR and FSEIR. It also concluded that there has been no change in circumstances under which the hospital project will be carried out that would increase the severity of previously identified impacts and that there is no new information indicating that new and better feasible mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and that the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified. Therefore, an addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B — Draft CC Resolution Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR Adopted 2008 Final Supplemental EIR Notice of Public Hearing 8 Cv pE_ POR��� Rp 17 PA10-0194 PR�OI-�RD D- NSG*�Cv4Ap�Y • y* \-773 Oil 1 1101 500Feet , }SOMA LINpA R4 ,�250 i� �`i`����,. , ��� , 4 su.FmkoT„ Cr Kara OCOY2, 0101V•0 rrv..r" 4» •J _—_ a� ,W `or aa.aoen.5, zterar 0..w.a PORTOLA ROAD E Unlvetsal Health Services, Inc • Ro6115 c Tarte (Drat Kau -at ra et 0-10e-� -YR n» "'�U.rr, arra.,,ron "'O in n m Vaa IPS CL O 01 RO • C.U.P. Modification City Submittal gm - L% icgrrrAan ARRWAL-- UHS Temecula Merkel Conlin 1.1.415.TEWCULA FARAWAY 700“14A CA11.2 ✓ ▪ ot r9 SITE RAN • PROPERTY INES, EASEMENTS & BMP IW AMj L LOCATIONS wpm 14,1. A.00 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 rkrOCI rate tests SIE _0941c 0.13 Irai VIM. ma ni ,gX,, , a=auRCcn VLOIANMS Unl areal Health Services. Inc mlescrtiniszu KEI (OM miss CO.LIAarrit, Pi ['SOYA muC .11 �.Aoyox ran.. nc•07. la C Yaw C.U.P. Modification City Submittal UNrSLe IWZctrrrnrkel CenterClitA CA 'KW/ 11 i.,.ti,..�em,: .a_o Z....., WIC goe•Catel Tr--- --- f—..4.,.�.=. C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 1 vuRLL"E vox MOO. ROOF Of Tics RRDLMnG IwraAssu•.(IR� MCW(aw VOIOMECOOwalw. 4.1 T T 10.51. Iva osso WALL. ISIPINIT 10.1 (10 B.T ITT IUSTERI*ISII WOUVCUSCR[fN. OMV(alp,n ACO. COW TI9- 4 &7 T 4arta IUIN OHRPI SItR60 H 1 MAiCHvgV.YNoCOMM -6 4 2.9 2 1.1 1"EMU• T MOI.EMROOIT4E VUOT �u^s -1951,19 —7Y:ov I'6u.401A41' IEx1tYrt ` w n d ErB W Ern B Dil ISI Em Ll Eff1ORMLl1 I^6 �: •MOW e E dE a 1 a Elf a Ell a EE a HE a Efl 1 I d ars e dig e d=H e Et15 e 1E5 a EE1 D Es 11 AI 1 WA 11 11171 E Ettl E] Ezdti ® Eft e EM e !17 • "an Imam yo m u !i o D -=°o umuu WEST ELEVATION IVSTERINSMCawn.O. HMCO 10 1 rHR,ReRuuwc WD.R+6RauEeuW 'NONIMD OE COMM WO WORM. MOV OA551MC MOM LOWS IOWECOUNGIW. WI. W ONMC. SOMA SO WIWMMIERC0.w.l.in. IMMO WIN 11TP1 RIRMASTIRWRD-. CO MMCH116ANRIO• Ca COMA .T W. MP ICS SI (DYIw111IAS xAlt. I Ta IT WDNINO•Ca01 . - —01•79-11 Q Q Q\ TQ 7 T'1r T '1x T �-J� o 1 I i '�- --- I I I T --a d -r-----,---1121,6 d Ern ■ eri n H•H H Epi a Eil a EED d— - I I 11 a-igl 1 d d d EH d Eltl d Ery d E» 1 I I --r-----,--"'ISA D EH D dfi d at d tit d lilt D EEd =f1==._ 1 _ T 1 � A E ELS t1 11:0 d E a Esti d Eli H —_— L'R tgA 1 EAST ELEVATION wmr'EOE»iIa.cvTway w ORYwT'bM4'aASI' MOW Mw1i0WOLL1MN 1 O RMSTIR11.1.4I O MAIM 1'wOMIKO' I . Ca00.1YP.��-T. 1 WTAL WCIIVRGLL SCO. 10MVwl mTERCaafti.l.. PIAMMMR CORK 10 AWM YAM PUP TAE COIOK TYP E:i (rl I 1 —1 03•9 R(MTEMMDWi WWMMw"Owl Wfu MEUuuu KM"( wn'MMAIwG ILw cisni NE TOMATCRNar(RCaa N. To. ....COLOR AW LOW E C0AM4TM. E7.4 I , ITuuult6au: r� j �,' --WNIRRDa1LLl rwr..aa. ro,srtR RM,Mw l'''''''' ""W' TEADNIE WIN I.1=:.' 04MMaitEi • • Pl.lS'FrNIw"R.I ��'a' A lo.urc uaus clu awu lwl�Gl, :. I &. • w r R – _ I _ — q.y • ��"'�''''AA}}''�"-uuriEn I 119. I '. ( It. ® 11 TOMMY.. JERCOLOR.IT19. _tl", havE <aVMGIrP. I I I I — IA I I �l ! ®I , !I M�MR:;_t1 _•____—,..w. 1 d1P'b?13A 1, I I 1 1 ®I 11.E RS"W A �, afsv —r .�I� I I I l i wT�„n �,A 16[g6}�A,A I 1" 1111. NORTH EIIEVATION DRP1"y'E:Ml.wiv tow'E so....S(w srzRl ar War O ASfMM7.111117111.1. ;119. 1 I.V.TM (aORITI.ILIPOPPAST 'MEM UP MT. TOA1UI MINIMISAtlM PCP(aw.I.I w. MA 6WWCWCMNASIR(aw.1SMACW.I , 119 SOUTH ELEVATION (PHASE 1) 'CwAO1E V(U; VO'MA POOPtu WflMMMwtIi 91 wa MSIAPPIC$Iwt GU.S1E+y MW4 CawAN010n t Cao Mc/ I IR tri I W IAM WU A eIN rD Mv(R PIASI a(aLica "R I I.lw. PAPUA M.P. SOUTH ELEVATION (P ASE IV) we°. a,„„M0,^(v YAICIMAST•TEttogl NOWAPOOI RF l:RYI ------------ 1 I 1 I n I® 1 EB d E0 d 1 ® 1 k 1 CU = tfd d I I 1 ® I 1;sa 61 1111 1 B ■ I® 1 111 i 11 f rEl®o o ■ IS w5112 TRC.CSSI 1 <ae.anu xMClr.u�+oAr.:D�m:w IPS Fri d 511 d EB 1 1d 1 Witt d HH 1 ate d a EH HH a dE d 5f1 Roc Rie Universal Health Services, Inc anaan GOO Ray, W30..0. PA IW06 WO 7611.100 Yl• CA.NiMt vias /DSR C.U.P. Modification City Submittal ,mow UHS Temecula Medical Center sic. TEOLGO.sWM. lE aM.w1066T BUILDING ELEVATIONS Va 151.00 Ida A.02 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 if• C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 EGO Universal Health Services, Inc 05/ 5.4.0 G0t6 ROW Woof 5444. PA 19106 1.610 70.00 17MCArcht:tt. n. PR Y�'� • 1 F4II++��. 1t1. w. d .C, ii n _1 iii - _- ——�FLI -., - iii. ;IIOW '!�� ---Iiligil . ;:111 I. ; rrr. _ ....... 6 �� ■. - tiGOGGOC7C6.e IFI FIi en Min maw LM .. %>...w ° .. a I% / \ _ ,- VIEW FROM WEST 2 VIEW FROM SOUTH 1 a...1 son 6900 -nom 0400.+. uta..c. cm I II I, C.U.P. Modification Submittal -I _—____ _____ - __ --.-1 _.I F I'I j . -i _� i \\.-'°"ar Iiij I 4440 m. wni \ Y,.Oe I� IIl�l��lll� IIlUIV�•I ,Q�h,ilSi1llll ICITY ��l —_ 4 C004 1.«00. TRASH ENCLOSURE E EVATION (- --iiiirwwwwws l ariii omit -.. Irr"-Ir ----- Nil.'-- Pr craw -------_- _ _ TRASHENCLOSUREPLANO ;A; arse f61 WOW" ����tr'' p"'==11 I!� II - I. oo.c OA .. ,r SITE SEC PIONSERSPECTNES 8 SRE SECT TRASH ENCLOSURE 6 G VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 3 v.•.I. .15. 19,11.»r -Y ICC I I 1.0009(4C Tel 4d4a4� n9..t �.., � M9 .96 EAST /WEST SITE SECTION A 301-4.w• �.. Nrx lel I 1'•• 1I :n 1 la, ' f -0- : 5 , 4 r QMC g �.. .919(4 `" 4 T Q 4 T� no ram $ nowra 1 Q T .1I'.1.----'" � � ASNoleu r i _ .. NORTH/SOUTH SITE SECTION 7 NORTH/ SOUTH SITE SECTION G A.03 IS if• C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL,' O O 0U n 0 CJ O O T 0 O ., '? g ce Universal Neallh Services. Inc ;s u"°k �'w I I I 1 Ham a'' TurM /1370 I I,I I I I I I ii. _— —�i� �1 _ ______ I ii 1111 au C City Submittal ___ ___ -_ - ( sal Cen(ar UHS TemncuIAPARKWAY ® �: 0 —-, - i 1� - fi ♦ 'Yah .�... �� � •I,; � IIIIIII Iry .I; i In EC NIP IP 1,111 I 1115 c I e �� I&JI� q a 0 —.1— _Wi 4 m% I li��U; FlRSTFLOOR PIAN :IITft Ipg ri 1141 o- s `"N' .115. !I Her -- la al lidPirdiMMINI ill !aim sit; lain mamas li !, Eziar rEqw. Eirormri is., al � nus Pal NEI f " � � 11111 6b,... my As r_ o-_- -_H_-_ 1 1A 0 _——__ 1 1 I I „,, Qf '- - - ....,TE. ROOF PLANN 2 FIRST FLOOR PLANN 1 A.04 mu w C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL,' C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 r__1_I__1 „ ° p p - - --1--I--. _ a—L: 1 1 —a--1---- — I 1 © 0 I I 1 - -i - Q 1 _I_L n o 1 1 I 1 I 1 ( ! °- ° _ p 9 or --i------ a 1 —a—_I— 1 I 0 Q I I I I I i 0 1 I 1 1 ? (i' O 0Unkers I I 1 1 1 I . I I -L-----{---j----- Eas eatN services, Inc Nnaca'rm„ _ unt /DP,'i G� 9- ea 11%i�/ iilii. 1` I ! if I ! �3 GI titi� •x. �; t: ; --1-----1---{----- ,.:... - �,. IIMIE LL _� J LL Submittal ary sueminel y 1 " R � UXsaa. m wmstlkal CBebr II"... JT i = ! 1 I tral -^MI � 1 1 I ;_111 — 1 LMS ..ti 1 "■r�'L'NI 1 I_ I 1 1 I II III I 4.; �9v :_ —1-----I-_-i-_—_- �a l Ali i�il -1—_—_ I- _ -I- _ — - .AT lir 11 1 I 1 , ` 1 = �° I ` 1 I 1 I �1 7 1-a ae StID a� � 1— l'>1 I I '7 1 1 ' p p i II r • 1= 1 I I I L t - - — -— -Iii--- I I anL p ! l 1 {— j -- i I I 1 1 I I I -----j---{----- I BUILDING FLOOR PLANS 4 L Ci����i L ,, e i'1-- - ;�. L..,e A 05 if{IRO,fO11RTH,gFIFT11fLCORP1AN O SECONOFLOORPtAN C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 P„A,•,, al,<P,P.�a„ a rirtaiHeaNh Servlws. Inc -sr rx.mcxnraw (-v. rv. I_� P:`ver__mmePw% ,crammrsi --- WtF4 PPIPPai Pwcv Al vPNutrOpAtP /—cry, „nn-- Or 92 U 0[ IYwrtY n putt a MCA SIM/<.t, COW, n SPI (WIRERS�'- �d M1e Turner /I) P R r a C,PAP.... Pin CCP PAID OAP M a aN L 1 \ - e..� ..0 y.� M ;/� L+ — Fi flm*i YR6..........MMM.. w � 1 �' \ �� /(�MrG=BOM�Mavw. nMxe1s.wi s C4BOOaem - 4.1m6.1 ]Inn IN 1! �•,,l!l ' I .0 41 "VAISITIMIMMIS-W1)YYH•nE a I r 1 yp `�%n nn•i.t.. M ry \Y��R Modification I .... / CILy Submittal I Am CHB Temecula Medical Center -. -.. .. 1 rzuccu:.umvn I i/����, � .. � � � 1^� ,a oa e . �...,..... ,.. 1 F I PHA' n n a E r E , � .9:1441�� a � �-� FrT. oso `i. �"• � j .' j7 SII' a x'i r r -n.^rnf�. la ? ' °°I w r� 4 •g �/i4 1,-1 i Ali 1 ra ti, ,? 1 a •__ . e e cab w T r ..% I . R P f. I Ifi III �iRe .la ;.rt -.0., / :re' -1/ O I14.'fSe7Gr�4T�eef flll� , :L I \valve -: i - .. Dazs I 1 • L 1 µ[e ui moire o� v^ �enP K/a/ 1 I to I I J PHASING PLAN AND OUTLYING FIRE HYDRANTS SITE MAN PHASING ° .0` CLIP. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 C.O.D. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 e. VS .h ... QL Universal Health Services, Inc Dr sweat/Awl HNC.: ..m. trivii V nT"'e ( IS CD T 0 at ea Aaao SS ww[ w.. «...[no uw.Y ns, vs oe,.e.ss[w.s- — PRIVAIYSTRf:EI' O/ ' •.q ,. / \\ ypvIECULA PARKWAY -PROPOSED alliin TURN LAVE DOHALYNORA.TYPIGA1Es70.29 ON STA 0.0011 TO STA 11-9N R9 STA 12+78.49 TO STA 14+74.09 iEA(ECNA PARKWAY PROPOSED NIGH TURNLANE O VNNAiE STREET-W.W LYNONA•NPMit E%PPNSION 1 05 G, O.U.P. Modlacalion City Submittal - • [ ----- - > VHSTemecula Medkal Center SHISICVSCLVLPA.VA ,=w.u„>.s "- a lc r"a rg.,� „>< ..� .. ,�.. d».,,. Wm.s > a \\ \\ ii t://T . m'0 2 IS wi uurvtt ttSr. [w. �[bbu, ,[:a tw::x u en. > Wray, rovurtaux,,' a,ne .+s w ;\ ` wvr n,tue rc ... �� *Si an[ m> TEMECULA PARKWAY - PR01051:1)19U5 UAV A. 01-25.6710 STA 10,455] UHSORTOLLID..STA SlAOOSfl5 TEAECUAPARKWAY -Pa0Po5ED 5080.4Y DE PORTOIA RD. 4 O n••"••. TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS uurn?n vix."n a^Anw �Or. nn•wrt, SPQI ION CG - DRIVEWAY OPPOSITECOUNTRY APPROX. I25'MORTI!01 COM.r,SCR R�".e,o>Awmm, Ss KR e. ,oV .,m V ' . A¢ u.c a on s,>. w w e cans/ A CATS say r"ia¢ ,.rcr.aw.I SOK ce gena • ENTRANCE .o.¢•,o o..0-nr, r...0 wrz no a MU . .. rcwmc: wrt n. !'A CENTERLINE TPARXWAY NOT A PART - FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY ° 'r ORNEWAY ENTRANCE OPPOSITE COUNTRY GLEN C CONSTRUCTION NOTES 5pvni> FA,07 C.O.D. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 s OWNER: UNIVER5AL HEALTH SERVICES 361 SOUTH GULPH RD KING OF PRISSIA, PA 19406 PH: (610) 168-3300 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: KTU•A PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3916 NORMAL ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 PH: (619) 294-4411 031E l3O •1ATF/N GROOS NET AAREA. A. 80. Fi. 1,5/81115SIpl).91I ACRES 500)60 0.31 (PROPOSED) WT COvERAGE MEDDG AREA PARTING AREA LANDSCAPE AREA EAR (ALLONAME) pCall eotoro you Dgg I -M -122-4I3) 512.134 PERCENTAGE T Tec c Vediccl 31415 TENECULA PARKWAY TEMECULA, CALIFO;NIA 92592 SHEET 3 KEY MAP .__.. ..... _. .._._............ SHEET,2 SHEET 6 SHEET=7., • SHEET 8 ' NoRru NTS Oen ger SHEET INDEX t.' 48Trn B.I EC20 AP5 C TITLEPREET vroac4PE PLANING PLAN ANDECAPE PLANTING PLAN OSFTP N A AP5 ANODAN 804E PLANTING PLAN ANDECAP5 PLANTED FLAN 430ECAPE PLANING PLAN ®ELTPE PLANING PLAN ANDOCAPS ET a� P.II PLANTLEGEND,D TALO Rd NOTES P-0 PLANT LEGEND end DETAILS PLAIN 083.4888 LFT -15 RANT 0ETAILS LIR ue LI A1 LI.8 tRm IR 0.8 LANDSCAPE IRRGATION RAN L ANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN LANAPE IRRIGATION PLAN DSC▪ SCAPE IRRIGATION RAN LAN00CAPE IRR0ARa. PLAN ANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN LANDECAPE RAT ON PLAN ANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN LANDECARE 413080AARE IRRIGATION ERIRRGATIOON*N PLW IRRIGATION DETAILND S IRRIGATION E9 RRIGATION DETAILS IRRIGATION DETAILS OAR ST SENIOR 00( 800. ON Bmcw ¢E I 83.., e. ( a.nw eT e.s v.w>w urs sro..ro. 0 ItLk me TNT :Semwope TIGEO (m P POP PPI/ ow Nowa CRY OF TEMECULA UH$ TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER TS -1 DR 813 th MAWILIAL eE pl.ST/oLtE0 A YMRf OP 4. ROMTY EOSE OP PIScw. &wOLE. 111,4.1.1.91110 OROS.1PFA L. ECCSHEET LP-I] 1 LP -IS PGR FLAN,- Lee= I.NrLceew 0 HOMO a. see veer -.a a LP.n POR R.wnNG oeuns see EPCCIPIGAL10H4 POR eminmw, IrioanwTlOx. anm m 1 melt mammon, LVgantgaM ,rfl wry *fie ��r � C `!�� !' a4 off af Cbefore all W Dg 9 oat BY 0+45405 0414 Boo YAW IA Wm SCALE PC. Ft 0.4.0100 2442 ny a ar MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LP -4 x/20/0 40:42000 Or 24017 0/20/0 CI Y OF TEMECULA 00000,0E0000 � 0 00000 N d J Ui8 TEMECU.A MEDICAL CENTER INDJCAPE P"tANTNO MV LP -1 Fat of X' xameex 29,201 ae BaL 1 eO eEC. J..Fi.Jj� f9.00. 1 ✓�/J „„45401Ypp�gMsraliragx5555>AHpNdNdA: 130. �U1nwau ttt t I h. .4I6ergoim hl,10.101MA1.1S11di1WAW:4.4.®®.P. 6//.®6,:�.OZ2v4Varfil '�:1pPNu I. PLANT MATER:A. 5141; re :STALLED A M:MF1 Of 240' FROM ME EDEE U= AAT IMPERvlcvf 9/3Fsc=_. IwlwI. S ORDS, TYPICAL. 2.5EE 5MEE1 LP -111 LP�If FOR P{.ANi ENO 1 00005 5. S S, 500 51EE1 LP -4 4 LP -If FOR Fl.0.ViIN5 OELAIL5 4.50550101405004001010044 1NPORmATVON 450500 / 14/0X00000 G' FITNESS CENTER _. 440 ;: 03��l ftil ilGl Call before you Dgg I-830-422-1331 Dan EP OPIE OOP. PARrt 11ATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LP -5 lottonW PCPPE POP PL 5009.00 Bi I Br ea. P,.,s„ w.,, 200000 0 00 1302 Enp/.I *Karoo Br 30040 0/30/00 CRY OF TEMECULA 005 00400 00a O ir0R3010 os 00 U18 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLANTED PLAN LP -2 SMII or R 30 L wM' TrATEWAL SHALL B° IGALLED A NM MM Or 24' FROM ME ESE of ONW S. ERmOTS 944304.E. INCWOWO OROS, NPIEAL, L. 9a Saar LP -I] . LP -IS rat PLANT E EE. NOTES S 9, EEES EIEET LP44 . LP -15 FOR FLAATa 4.SE S 1.E� SPECNON4PWATIOTO FOR ApOSEONAL ma Call before. you Dgg ,1,6,0,42E -11m 05 880510.55 155555 unix yor88. Ice Irma weArrm Era um rwaselm sca Pux P..S P,S,db 11„r 5.8>..*4, 00 , x 55-0 0 0,58455 e. 5/08/11 00002,0,55 0 R 3051. 6/20/00 CITY OF TEMECULA oSP.nneNT0010080 2r. 2000 LP -3 [NO9 OM)M MI.20.rR SHALL PPI O .00? I. PROM T@ ESP OF 06. vAL. ]y�,xFPnv..Ivxwll+s ones. 2.000 . 13. ^RP 4 PPO LPtI] Pp0. R.Wi L P69W 4 RP-. S, 5EE Z@fWi LS14 L LP,19 POR RNILI N9 OEOPILP. E¢ EPEUFIGPi1ps FOR POJIiIPNL Wwwnw. HLINE: SEE SHEET LF -1 WORSYEa AO 5000 WI NO'0'I 6B 050 CID PPR In 0000500 40 R500 NM Sono svetimun PIATCHLI o-.4.455..0, BI RPCOARPRO 4=050 It 35411 ,. 5iw/14 CITY OF TEMECULA DICAL CENTER LA2C0CAPE PLANTING PLAN sm. orI PnXX%X MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LP MWCaII befit you Dgg 1 -e00 -4a-033 inrownse MATCHLINE SEE SHEET LF -2 G PEN PLO d0 R GAL AA:C.:tri: A\\No• RW 16 if POB Q'F'P' FLAB RECO TBHAE RA A01 MIB 0W M PLA RAC TUR 1 CO MOD CI BOD 1. PLANT MATERAL SCALL E2 PASTA/LEO A MINIMA'. OF TA' FROM THE 0044 00 ANY IYPERVIWE WNPfCE. INCLUDING ORBS. IPPON.. O SEE SHEET L.412 L.41, FOR RANT 4E0E140 1101E0 0. SEE STOET LP -Il L LP -15 POR 65EE YEi GAT1005 FOR ADoli0ONV- II+OFMATIO.V. ='Iw•i� TC -- 090 PAPP PEN 001'C' OdL. A0 RE0D AD COB EIe AS 0000 All PAT LEY CCN AB RECD 1 GAL. HOSPITAL 60 OCT BY 4.6.50474PCNYCATCPAM TIM, CAMP ;TA FLA4 T ab. P,.,>., IM.. SigMVM of FLA N. 11.0 1100/00 EE LP -b RECOMACKX0 Fr cc 14400 o, 0/30/00 N UMW.,' \ CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITICHI CF PatiC W0.11 OCTOBER Et. 2000 Ui8 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE Plfl PLAN LP -5 OD RB -SUBMITTAL 00003 q.ANT MAR0. AL SUS.. BE INSTALLE0 A M 00104 OP 24 - FROM nO! COM OP ATP PEPV Pl3 SURFACE. INOLW IAO CADS. TYPCAl 2. ME SKEET LP.:] T LACE 0000 SLAW LEOENO 1 ROTES. E. GEE SKEET L0-14 4 LP -I3 POR PLANTINS OETAIL3. <. SEC SPECIP:CATIONS POR AOOITIOUAL IA0ORMA4KKl. EZ 0 PN.QL O CAB APT 13 GAL. a V E SHEET LP -3 4.44,444,44-44:4. nVA 4 ®i��I. N:cq �'4+xsrvati mg tow? Witt EVEKS WW1 �Tart ArAi_®® £i4Y4Pf5-6:.i^NFSfOTL61 4Yi z • __ ES ES r (-J f }i1- f W ±W BTI TEN RJ0 beks- Ogg t•I'i. g I-SOO-122-4M 0 40 60 1O,OifO'F I_' aqd SA 4iiie004P A C P .M,(! VJ'Y" Pi C. ii filyo wow mtep AN 041 LET CC 00 204 1000 EcKsi 5.5 vON molly se bp. SOALI IPA rum MATCHLIN SEE SHEET LP -Q 00. 0,.0.00 Re* 000...4, 00 Ru .> TSE 1q... 2100/00 0x040.000€0 a?. w¢: _ 11•11.1D.COM.RkAMR. �Rs, OLL. 00000 4100/00 CM OF TEMECULA 000.4040001 zem00 0000`0 Ik18 TEMEOAA MEDICAL CENTER LAIOSCAPE PLANING PLAN 0.5505 RA LP -6 Reel el SCALE 1' ]0' Chi I. RA 1 MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED A ® RMI1114401 OP 24- FROM TIE ELISE OP ANY IMPERVIOUS lRPnLE. INCLwM9 CURBS. TYPICAL. i 2. SEE SKEET LP -I] 4 LP -15 FOR RANT LE9EISL NOTES. 5. SEE SHEET LP -I4 L LP -15 FOR PLAMWi DETAILS. 4. SEE SPEGFICATIORS FOR ADDITIONAL HOSPITAL iota you Dg9 -In-oa • MATOHLINE: SEE SHEET WO PE NAIL. g ro PLA RARi MJ.34•TERIPtFR tt 1 C BC a or ore I. I.w o° " FROM !N wee or SS, moon xePAce II.ILLw:.s wrsaE, 2. SEE I. L"W].SEP 1MEei LP.I] LP -F2 FOR RANT Pe SEE SPEC iLP-P---(4 LP -IS POR RANTING pETAILS. 4. SEP SS!LIPILAT 5POR Aoa:iIOVN • HOSPITAL E before 9 1400 122-n fro , o+5v����'il' '� �?a°F�`- i MATOHLINEj: SEE SHEET LP -II 0 0 20 40 00 Mtn. RECORD 000 6010. 104755 mco swum'. SC Twee 0i 05 Pe. P,.,>0 00.00.20..0.0 00 0f vmm 0o002.512 PCOOP.PPX0 PP XCXX 550-05 200000 0/20/02 CRY OF 1EMECULA 00O0P"' 00;01 x;, m.0 U18 TEMEC LA MEDICAL CENTER LnC8CAPE Puna PLAN LP -8 of X BraEL A 6000SEEOI 3443.60.!43. BONA BE OEINSTALLEDOE ANT A '.NMMOF 34 PREO90 OMMEOP ANY IMPERVID33 RAVAGE. INCLUDING µ%9. 1.^}-E 9XEEiLP.11P LP -:9 FOR PLANT LE6040P LE9. 7.96E 914ETEi LP -I.1< LP -19 FOR PWl63346 PURLS. 03496E 9PE41PI4ATOM15 FOR IDOITIO.WV. oRVAnoa. R09OFF a A0O MCall be ore you Dgg 1-034-I22-4133 7G 1} 19 LMR' I AB RECD PEB ON'4 B TGH NE: 5EE 5Hr E LP -6 N PAT LET CRi AB FEOD B' 03.. I GAL. MOB #2 24 BIP AB RBOD 1443.. BOX COBBLE 49 REOD Bn 1034 AB MOO eI9BoM04 w iJJ PEN A 0 Ali 13E00 PIN 3 WX \\ OP AB PPO'O J Jc 015 BA3. 49 10. CIB WR 133 91 PF BE C 210 041. OBE BY OAR PERIN MA. 2142 3nenl Fr RV, WO/00 CRY OF TEMECULA 0 40 50 eca UNE TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LA ID EC RPE PLANING PLAN LP -9 Snxt el MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LP -7 SIP N - 1 onguirtiv, 4010 6tin fe6g OCE0 le° —000M000 —0:041To co 7- wL tsr SIGHT LIN SlagT --- -STOT-17 EINE - TITO P434? 1.144 4034200 F1.418 00 3. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INOTALLCIN A MAPTPA OF 24' 000,4 THE tose Call OF AH„. ,KPERVI0115 TOPPAGO lizwormscugse rry]cd. before you 2. SPY AMC LP -12 4 LP -I5 300. PLAnr LEOPtAD 4 NUTES. Dgg ?s: 5:,Z017-fg,gd0.13-Vg- 7-r"t?""IllioN. 010 PON 31 PP TOT '0 PSI UAL. FEB0060V1W AS RE 00 TEMECULA PARKWAY CONStRUCION RECORD DOM 02 03343001 PONT MO Nyayonla —1—I Mr. Pr RiCe14 2121/ 020.211.020 ALA. /12 1212 2/21/01 00 0(0020 03 AO:WM Or 3660l 6/20/00 CRY OF TEMECULA 022221111EXT OF Ptar/ 1.02X15 Oaltria 21. 2010 U18 TEMECXLA MEDICAL CENTER LOIDECAPE KANTIO PLAN f7A;91E, LP -10 MATCHLINE, SEr., sreET LF -S Fe 7 ,,AZaretzzi4t Call before you Dg I-87-422-4113 coon:woo. RoOTO 4.45444 45•44e. mews err .c. I 14 5.0,.. --------- CIO Pl/47 72 5 044/4. 07104 70 140 j 9040. --- TEMECULA PARKWAY 041 BY PPP «04- 0944 11C5ParS 401, CAP 154001 liMer 44.004 40.9)007444. 544047-9)240444. 704 20.49 er 1 0222742 0-40.4 0l 47404 24ee-294 5142 55•4440 04 !LI it WO. 40. 1342 0004144000 402C4440 Br: 41.045 0 IL: 04504120 '4417 .05 7200 FLATS CITY OP 1EMECULA EOTF-97 I. PLANT 1447E47I70.$40441. BE I AN, u5TALLE0 A MINOt01 0o 1 • MOM 770 WO/ OP /09079 07470700 14e0.1/5040 7771070.. 2.0004000 0404 0,407 TL:9712 4 L740 POP Mali i57549544577 LP -I4 a LP -15 peg ?LAWN, 4. Se 0140.00414.4710045 700 7001710044. • NORTH 0 JO 20 40 4-0 04244114041 00 0004v0 xcex 0000 70. Too ore 400 15 UFO TEMECIA.A MEDICAL CENTER LAME/CAPE PLANING PUW LP -11 04400 412 5 0, 00 ..P'; Call belore you DDg 5-620-472-4173 PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND 711'163 GOYAVK47. RARE CQ'f%M NNt8 MN,512 7 REryWPCS W47ER10PPG 9G OJbRISY ..• ALB M 21.8I114MI77R16072 BILK TREE 24'7071 4b' 40' • iqyi O •,�•�f'3 ]] BRA POP n r142C72 roi POPZLNc00 80776E 506! ry GAL 30'.09' 39' - { r PftL E4D GVW, P.4 Dv DEF 612700002102 DEF162677 soon= Locum'IS GdL IS' 30' 15.30' 1• ••• p.l 39 %J RDE560454 5CAL 30-B0'Pr ••• 069 P.1 t] - 20 L AU a _lf .54Lr N. ✓X10 P.1 70 KOE 616 74062.7565160/2 BIPIAYATA CHINESE FLAME TREE 30 BOX 20,40 20 .40' . 77 - •• p.l 56 LAG WD N'• CRAPE MYRTLE 24• BOX 26' 75' -P- r• 4 LPG 640 N. PN ELD .•� .Na '•• '• PNI6 ELD.RICA 06166E MYRTLE}4• RKNDELL PRE BDX 34.60% 35' 60.40' 25' ]0'30' p4p P. 30 T4REE -I PR Pt4 RAC " .g400671B RAC61108A -.. • 041.60R6177 51041ORE PRIB700047 PEAR 0GAL it' 00% 60.60' 90' 20.50' S0' .0LcR5 QPJ irRRE411 If P.1 27 P.I 4 661 400 (K0055!661£0614 00466 LI5E OAK 24' EO ]0' lb ]0'-l0' '6•7" •• OE ILE PJERW6 ILE% 30'60' •• P.I - 79 714 LAN RIR LANCED AFRICAN 684140 IS GAL 20.30' ]0'60' 0(77,.- GlII 6..•7••1 i • PSI 01 50217107 60671)8 MOUE CPL5ORl4 PEPPCR 75 GAL 76140' }'.40 •GA.,..• r.X • PH 17 :..: '.:..• :. .'_. ... PBE E4: ABEL 14101541® C ILNE . 14 •• 5GAL 5 3'.9' • P.6 ]06 •/• KA04*0 PAH I GPL 'li - ' • •• 0374 P6 309 •)T' KA404000434 1GAL I..]. 1•. )' w• 7..6 266 FEATHERY C4457A 10AL 6466 AVD C16 NR 01513 PR AWEEO ORCHID 5 GAL a • w1:� <No eubWr ro 0RON0. 7.6 9]6 CIB BPI. 617157 064XROTTE 66118 RXXRD9E D 4/LL RAi aG'o au66r 1D GRuro. P6 30. 0.0. 1990 DIE B4 01E7E0 BICOLOR 85006044 7061171667 LILT PAL CLV'IPB. GOOD COL P -b .. • 429 •u BLUE FE5OR m, 6466061105,0000 CALOR P�6 ry I]• O.C. 0345 REL MN HELICTOTRILWIJ BLUE DPT GRASS l0AL 1' 6461 AND E09.07.r0 G.001ND, •: P-6 HE) ARB 4007ERO1ELE04Rp5770L54 70106P 61•,}•• f. G �• -6 . N AN Poi 40.07.16R B 6401157 G4LOR2I44RAT RI9N SGdL"} s• P-6 3070. 930 LW bB' n .Om bf]SWREL4V747(4 10,50•^li Vii. •n -.•t•:• P.6 30'00. }b63 LEY CCN R • N. LYME GRASS 1 GM. I"2' IN)' D0 &OMRNY iO GRgNJ, P-6 b' O.C. 839 7.04510 L70.17 004622 5466 6466 07.7.11P9 GOOD COLOR P�6 J9 REGAL MGR DEER GRABS It. 04r. 6416 CLVI^B. GOOD COLOR P.6 30' 0 . 1103 56664404 1172LEN05#3140706715 DEER GR400 5GAL 4 ♦ 6466 CL 765,000JWOR p.6 BB ,._aN_1 +n:. n ' I vn: � 6466 AVO 710151 iO GROM. • P6 3'O.O. 2 Se lF9�QfF9t�f.P•.3 ^^� aiJ:jyiwal.>- •� PURPLE 705011454 GR498 9 G4 • : • �• P 6 1148 05147110.0, RNpH704EpE80101G4 U4RAHA'rHORV 54' .- -1�•••.:vi n • -.• ♦�U• ••n • P6 30'0.0. ].930 ' `•!'E ' •- r • 1• Rrvfl1PRi S4PL }"3' 4'�5' WLL PND L .. T �fq O4 P�6 L 3'O.C. 010 54L LEU 646154 LOKAVTu4 116%!CAV WBN Pap 9 GAL '.4 3Y 3'�6' WLL 4 U 707661 LOGRONO. P.6 L % DP TEN BTIPA 16NN58114 6Q%!CAV 764]468 GRASS 1641 }153' 6466 fAYY .' •• • P�b M 24' 0,0. 6365 NEB Fla 13.191920.062 024}1700134 COACT0i5EMA*Y DGdI JN6' 6'I0' 'T"'"•, •_ • Yi P-6 L - Ill OAR 776227203 OR. API xpnice I400 5.1.tlat AIM SCALE P& KAY 70.760 Or I 7860 IN 00.64 6r P05 goes 6464 SUArm 71 LL&8& 5)42 6.7 6/36/61 PLANTING NOTES REFER TO CINL EW' (VEER'6 PULPY 4110 PRE076! GRADBLS PLANS FOR 8776.771' LOCATION& ANO 2014L OR406Y. W ACN4L BITE CCNDITIR18 VARY PROM 20.747I6 11740.281 OJ THE L4NOBCAPE 400477607 PLANE, THE CONTRACTOR 666466 CONTACT Tl. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR 070607IONS 46 NON .O PROCEE0. ]. RANT 712616146. SHALL 6E NOTALLE047'I127640. OF]4' 180'1 ANY 29pERv0.0717740E 13404.5070 0ZR00 1%407 L004t 0668 CP RANT 7ATE046.6 766466 BE 4PP80!!0 BY 766E 1.4NDEG4PE ARC -!ECT IN 15 66 E FIELD PR OR TO 7746641 G4. LANDECPPE 4661ECi 86560.200E 6447 TO 401587 PL4Vi0 TO 67.7407' LOCATION W ]HE PIEL0. 3 CONTRACTOR WALL BE REOPCNBI6LE FOR vERW16G ALL RANT GONT5 AND BOJARE TOOTFGEB. 4. P80570E 51470470 FOp15 AND MEC FOR ALL RANT MATERIAL 171177178 EIGN BPE01E5 AND 5726 0660447E0BY 774E 001547170. 9. 0.23246 NEWLY PLANTED TREES ONLY A9 002E0760 BT LA50504PE 4RC14I1607. 6. ALIGN Apo 066071ATED PER EQUALLY 210165 AND 0740.262019 1. PLANT/64116114671111515 EACH 9610117 BD 1. TREES &WALL 6648 04616 RELATION TO 101515 GRADE AB AT RACE 08 GROWTH. S . ALL P,4WT60 ARIAS SHALL BE GRADED TO HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY 8801766E WILO4LG 714668 NN 60.6.1017R25. 5. ALL 1REE0711266615' CP PAVING BNN,L HAVE ROOT BARRIERS ROTA-TEO. 60. ALL 664686 P64NTOG 461148.271 SLOPE AND 618010 RECEIVE A MN1W4.13. LATER CP N.CR. FLAILED GROLNOCOvER 40846 BN4LL RELIEVE171511611 I.SN LAYER OF 1156015. 11. PER CITY OF 7671602LA 87.01504405. A 3' CLEAR ZONE 4610150 PIE CHECK DE7EC7OR0 066466 BE 2077.1160.20. 12. 0/666716011PI16377 &HALL NOT DE 546181.E FROM TUE 56REE7. 7RAN6FOR1ERS !PALL BE 0061^LEre71' SCREENED BY HALLS OR 00717E L4ND5GAPE, AND SRL.. NOT 00570101 555865 07 TENANT SPACER. YO1.16217 BK319 OR DRIVEHATB. p vE LOC IOM OF ALL PERTINENT COTE PW WPOYEMENT5 NBT4LLED DER O79ER SECTIONS 7106506 IPA* AND HIR15G. A ANT PART CF 7676 PLAN CA3NOT DE FOLLOWED OBE 70 SITE 006,01 p10 CONTACT NE LANDSCAPE AFLNRECZ FOR 645T41CTION6 PRIOR TO 00116FC410 PORK. 54. AREAS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT N ANOTHER Fv456 000.0.76I60 NOT 41175470 01% 1KN748 6 731E O 061RAND4E` � 7.267R0i 5510668 PHASE 71.40.1. BE TEMPORARILY 41DRO8EE060 AND 02730.6180OUST180 FOR OT 76 A Malin 012 771 7)) LAN0SC4PE 61BPEC7I0N61441 DE/8087810 FOR EACH PHASE 03 GOJO701067CN. I E FIRST INSPECTION WILL VERIFY }NAT THE IRR04104 MAINLINE 15 CAPABLE OF 0E50 PREBWR1ZED TO 150 P& FOR A MN71V1 PERIOD OF FOUR /TOURS 15711000 L000 OF PREBWRE. TNIB W1u 1NCL6OE A4 INB4ECi1CN OF IRRIGATION 07076118 WHILE 1RENCNE5 ARE OPEN. THE SECOND 718PEC77064 867A VERIFY THAT 4LL IRRIGATION 6781860 N4YE 4640.TO.4EAD COVERAGE. AND 60 0507PT TWAT ALL RA4TMG0 445E BEEN 6044.1.60 0016557EN1 61774 TR_ 4PPROvSO C/_NB1RK77ON LANDSCAPE P410.5. THE Aq+1.I044I900.7.4ER 715466 CONTACT THE P647170 DEPARTMENT TO 7021E0LIE WBPECTCNB. 9 °SPLIT RAIL PENCE SECTION RACERS 86 OTC, - 76677 6/34/76 CITY OF TEMECULA 1'0" O 6576' 077505 FEICE P0575 • e' O. • IR574LL POET WITH 9 AX. COMPACTIONFOR 74616171 . P00N06 4> DEGREE 021221P.ER • top O 2.714' starts tie. L.) O 8741514 GRADE ® 955 COMPACTED 17728.GR4DE O CONCRETE FOONVG. BEE 5045 REPORT © ICe. FT, GRAVEL &IMP O SLOPE 70 ORAN ALL P0610 SHALL 6E PRESSURE TREATED OcIATRA 21. TON ARAN ND. Ru U7E TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LP 6700/21 LEGEND + WEE LP -12 SINIt 01 OD R-waum NOVEMBER 29. 2010 PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND (continued) BTMED1. 0014N1C41 NJIE Cg1K00410 MN.&Ze HFY,HI BP;AD'I 3540406-ThaltriT V dLX.6.10J4V01TT '0400000YEa ' .. LON JAR IX hIC4J4P0224 HALL'S HOIEYPYOC.E FLATS 15 3 COL 4006) P.9 L 30 04. Y nTO 0400 ,M1 !t 'PAM/POLL,/ OTOPORM F1410 3'.6' 9 Lpa 41 IieL1luuhV. O1XnJ P8 L 4'OL. 14,438 D�F 0030pp PO.RX415 O*IICINAL10 PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 014r0 ]' 0' Ci. F.AEB. WELL 007ED.000 nen nR p9 L 3'O.C. 0?b4 CP PO4DERCOAT COLOR. I-P.0144K(B) INSTALL PER M4Nn 8400LLCER RELOENOA11CN0 M WAS.) TILE 31004,04430001141330406 N. L 302 b W 90631 A11 CHI COURTYARD LYARD 044410 METAL CHAIR PC.OERC040. 0 100 01 POYDEFCOAT COLOR, YFir04Y(6) 34804LL PER. M4Yi4CTYRER9 0.ECT91EFVATKFU 4006© TILE 20 N. 4444800 BL 4.06 updti R1. SB] 12005 l90Y] i.l TURF 34004LLI0100006 TALL 004040 000 04814LL PER M4414CTYRER'S RECO'T 00041/045 ABYI TILE 821 N. HARBOR BLVD 4.00 70 CRI. 602 l00 011 CONTACT PACIFIC BCV FOR 1180. H ONSITE OR ACCEPTED EOJALBOULDERSB0.DERS 404L�XR144N 20' 340%2' NIDE %3' ]04 LARGER 2144430' 40 %3' WIDE%]0 W06 LEER THAN 42' NT % 3' NIDE %4' LENGTR 00836 ER REFER 10 LAN0004PE ARC ITEC00 Assn CRN 0 WILL 00 RECUIR0iO BET BOULDERS PLANS FOR Wh00004)NTI0IEO. 01ANC0v9. PER 0077 CIF iEMEWLA ST4HDARD DETAIL. F.1 Boll RAIL FENCE 6'H OEICE PoBTE/. 10' L SPLIT RAILS, ALL HND TO 0E PREOWE700410D NATURAL SUBMIT SHOP D0.N4IG0 HYDRDBEED M %'4' NAPI4 MICR00140475 LEMIS TR10I001000 RIO 4GPO3n0 PAL END DEBCH44P014 CEOPILO04 HOCAE01BR4CHYANTKE0ll RROL11•I0BNO0LCRP1 PURE LIVE 0000 LBS/ACRE R70009E00 MIX /3' PURE LIVE SEED LBB/AGE 66000010 PALLENB FEBNL4 RIBA MOL41E' 000044'w0I4 CEOPIT004 WLPIA MIC00004CNY0 11NLENBERGI4 MICROSPPRi4 IUROEVf BR4CHY4V14E011 NYC/ROMEO MIX '0' 14514ENI404LPOR4004 14714 PL4RG1.000A EBLHOLMXZI4 0411ORlIC4 LLWMI9 MILWK4RFVB OENBIFLORIO LORNA BP4FCILO014 O OYRNL4NM DELLV'I CCLLM014 4e10RCPHYLl4 VERBEN41401001404Y0 CL4RCI4 P RpUREA SALVIA COLW04R14E 041LET4 114TIAD1414 PENBTE {N SPEC/401110 ERCRIYLLW 003E016LO01 O 1114 TRICOLOR NBMPHIL4 MEN/10011 ENCELI4 F4RIN004 PURE LIMO 0000 LBO/ACRE MATERIALS AND FINISH SCHEDULE KETI REFERENCE'000 ITEM 08KRIPi104/00.00 051044 OEMFMO SUPPLIERS SITE AMENITIES P 0000400 ROCKRLC0TP0Ai1CN0 0i' 011E. 0E000T BEIGE N4NRAL 5014LL PER NNp4CTIAPER0 000000070 0224004q,L CA. PH. BSS 14083883`3 P'Z (/ \` 1p.IY COBBLE 4'-0' SIZE. TAN COBBLE NATURAL IN BTALL PER M4VF4CTURER RECIXY£NpdTIOIB 7000 ROCK Fgjp C4NOLLRD• PH. 830148 3933 P• p. DG. 00001P0000 GRANITE NE.04LIFOKNId 40.0 NATURAL 0(B1ALL PER M4VF4CTVRERO REtaYFAV4rIOIO KNL 00001 324BOAK'W. 004 0MCt 4 30 •1448 23333 P 4 HOSE TRAIL LOIPacie0.WTIVE BOIL NATURAL INSTALL PER CITY 00 TEMECULA STANDARD DETAIL BE.r BENCH 04, POYDERCOAT. MODEL METAL 800 (w/0 B4) 2203 (RAW T1022.0.30< PO4DERCOAT COLOR. I-P.0144K(B) INSTALL PER M4Nn 8400LLCER RELOENOA11CN0 M WAS.) TILE 31004,04430001141330406 N. L 302 b W 90631 A11 CHI COURTYARD LYARD 044410 METAL CHAIR PC.OERC040. 0 100 01 POYDEFCOAT COLOR, YFir04Y(6) 34804LL PER. M4Yi4CTYRER9 0.ECT91EFVATKFU 4006© TILE 20 N. 4444800 BL 4.06 updti R1. SB] 12005 l90Y] i.l CWRRA07 idBLC STEEL BA TOP 'TABLE KIN056 GALVANIZED 000010403.710DEl'O36 PE0. 54004010000 04814LL PER M4414CTYRER'S RECO'T 00041/045 ABYI TILE 821 N. HARBOR BLVD 4.00 70 CRI. 602 l00 011 B1 000.000 M PLANTER 4004 ONSITE OR ACCEPTED EOJALBOULDERSB0.DERS 404L�XR144N 20' 340%2' NIDE %3' ]04 LARGER 2144430' 40 %3' WIDE%]0 W06 LEER THAN 42' NT % 3' NIDE %4' LENGTR NATURAL FWI0H AT EXPOSED PALE, NO SPLIT, CLEWED OR FRACTURED FACES. REFER 10 LAN0004PE ARC ITEC00 Assn CRN 0 WILL 00 RECUIR0iO BET BOULDERS PLANS FOR Wh00004)NTI0IEO. 01ANC0v9. PER 0077 CIF iEMEWLA ST4HDARD DETAIL. F.1 Boll RAIL FENCE 6'H OEICE PoBTE/. 10' L SPLIT RAILS, ALL HND TO 0E PREOWE700410D NATURAL SUBMIT SHOP D0.N4IG0 R I a REDWOOD HEADER 2' % 4' E0N0.00 HEADER 4V b' 100 STANEO 44'OC. T dT CORNERS NATURAL REFER i0 &PELIFIC41103 ... c8lo Coll Dgg 1-000-122 1131 nntOnn Oin MIA YAM, Man Sear MI Ant 1,m. 0.7(4 w oae wr., a u1 0▪ . 0342 T M 2/10/14 i\•W1\MrA)WaerL.U°.%VA LEGEND Y 00P1N 002004000000 OR 6' 000 RULE. 5(0.0 .OR PER 100003IE. 00411 PER 194'x1. 000g11N0411040. tO 0306 MMP. CalP40TED WEGRADE 6' DEE O 0UaveEADER/P116000E R4REA.cunams� REFER TO PLAN ® HOLIDON VARIER • REIER TO V O FINISH GRADE. 3' BELCH IOP 00 001B4E0 ROCK OR COBBLE. BARK 71)1044 SHALL BE FLUSH W ROCK/COBOLE 1004CE, ROCX/C0B5LE SHALL BE FLV01 WITH TOP OF PAVING. © FILTER FABRIC ©CRUSHED ROCK/COBBLE SECTION NTS O CO/CROWED 0000/000810) ® 107410440000400 070000400 EEE PLAYS SHRUB R4NTkG AREA O 24.1 E0140.'0 HEADER FLUSH TN TOP OF 051044 GRADE OR ADJACENT P4KWi MATERIAL Oj 144 REDWOOD 87 AXE. 18' LM' CORNERS. NAIL TO HEADER ITN ONE NAIL 000'1 EACH 0100. © REDWOOD HEADER SECTION NO SCALE uw 36517 roti 0/.70/09 CITY OF TEMECULA 0NP40N13Ia1� An VHS TEMECUA MEDICAL CENTER LF31'DBBPRE LEGEND + ND1E8 LP -13 Ant 44 R A lb • CITY OF TEMECULA MULTI -TRUNK TREE 24" BOX SIZE OR GREATER P-4 ...c=.Call before you 1-614.102.1131 Winne. Mx 44/4/to 44444 • CITY OF TEMECULA YOYCYLE VINE PLANTING P-8 SY 4140 REDDODS Sit • \ CITY OF TEMECULA • TRIPLE STAKE TREE 30" BOX SIZE OR GREATER P-3 NOM 13,101 mnfot CITY OF TEMECULA SHRUB PLANTING ON SLOPE SCALE RA PulY YCYAE P-7 PoOr CITY OF TEMECULA .o0-00 DOUBLE STAKE TREE ON SLOPE 5 GAL.. 15 GAL.. 24" BOX P-2 ADD P.aere u a- sx/n/m 00 AM It 0.00 a x042 CITY OF TEMECULA SHRUB PLANTING yuye P-6 DM/DC 0(0 0- rt. ACCEPTS 00 0004 w 0/00X4 • CITY OF TEMECULA DOUBLE STAKE TREE 5 GAL.. 15 GAL.. 24" BOX P-1 • CITY OF TEMECULA noyoDE TREE ROOT BARRIER P-5 CITY OF TEMECULA 0 0 Of 000:544 x� 02010 000 2.0 No Nib TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLPNRO CETAL8 LP -14 S.41 of Zragt n-1 Iii LIIJLTIAPILL IMIca IA7 rJt =�11�—I1 MCall belore you em aDgg • CITY OP TEMECULA CITY OF TEMECULA BOULDER INSTALLATION P - 12 l Krt thatigem • CITY OF TEMECULA SLOPE DRAINAGE ADJACENT TO TURF AREAS P - 66 MULCH LAYER P-11 CITY OF TEMECULA MA NTENANCE WA K FOR SLOPE PLANTING AREAS P-15 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCRETE HEADER P- 10 • CITY OF TEMECULA mw. LANTING ADJACENT TO ROADWAY P - 14 =dl?I=i-1�11 FJ IligaIL=IIriIFIIm11i ity -974-Ir • CITY OF TEMECULA GROUND COVER PLANTING P-9 ©OUncw'RB 0000 SLOPE O GRANITE DEPTHNEW G4VORGA DECOMPOSED O TO PL IES - REFER GOLD' BY SRC ROCK. O 1000400R406- 3' DELAY Oj SSA MM, COMPACTED TOP CP DELghWBED GRANITE. OG. BVSARADE. S' DEEP SHALE. BE 06.6000000600001 PAV6G. 0 REp000 MEADER/ PAVSG/PA. REFER 00 PLAN © FILTER FABRIC O PLANTER AREA STABILIZED °DECOMPOSED GRANITE SECTION SCALE: I I/2'•I' 0414 SARA WEBBY TA PLEA 09630.0 I BAB RAGA./ INGE ea+n. oI RA -k 23.0 ACREPRO ROW 5/20/29 CRY OF TEMECULA 090'w1. OCTOBER 0I, (6 MB TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE NJ VINO RETAILS LP -15 SNet MCall beforyou 8g i -w> -fa 4133 24 t • E2O L q(/w18 1 en I. xe!Neer ,40,4;11-�3 OR I.eswo MA9xe6Arlo„ L1.10. u -u AND Lore POR erDtYAII9 Iw„ye".WSPPIGATIO S FOR ADDITIONAL ION �It MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -4 4 J MATGHLINE: SEE OAR mows OAR ife. Of II 04 ORR Ramos SCAPA wawa e, °"- B, I DIDRed By w...,. o r. a u^4- aw.+.• OI aLk tic 2112 1RB/I1 ucw MOD6 42VRB BY: /OM/ OR oam ROC to OW/ ns CRY OF TEA£CULA Bca.B COMMA 21iwo UH91E1ECU.A MEDICAL CCE 181 WDBCPPE mGAiKIN fi LI -1 ORR of you beforeyou Dgg I-502-123-II11 Ut NOH 1 ULA ROAD _. PO CPS CAS cis PAS CE5 ae2 N ae'raa xttt aW.LA24a ODOM an .:._ HORSE TRAIL "'Eo Eat elira. e._TfeSJ1N 44 3 Wi��•.•W� Z ° z9 ®'gb. FUTURE J b FTNE55 / / LL 3 *P600RE0 ANO .NE Cp4W WRE P900 CCNIROLLER 9 TO THIS LCCPiKN. TAPE, LABEL A230 WATERPROOF' ENOB. PLACE N v6LV0 WX gC I° IRILCQtio; 0S FR 1CWiROLLER' '0' YO Nig LOCAYIRI TAPE. lABEI A'0 WATE(*900! EVD& RACE N VALVE BOX MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -5 I0 I Mares I. See 98E0 LI.13 POR IRAISATICN 0.0690 NOTES IRRISATION !TAI 9 9. BEE S £uPICATIONS POR A001000 L INFORMATION PT REOPENS DOTE CEPOI Pporom siempom PM PLAN ,P„P,T I By 016.4 Ely Pion. P.P>P I1P4f sP.Ma 0f N.L. 1.. 2302 w. 2/2101 RE 0 om ACCEPTED BIT 0021 OMIT „„, 0/30/02 CITY OF IEMECULA 00.9.03 OF PUTUC PORES 0000E01 21. 2010 OFTEN Pe. LEE TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LNOOCARE FIFIGATON PLAN LI -2 SOFT% el cores 1, xe Weer LI -1.2 FOR IRRIGATION Leeevo . KR9 I I6 Tl2[ rETL1-19. LI-I4nVO LI -19 POR PTAI9. MG CGGATI 99x! M109 nilp y POR ADDITIONAL CPM4r1p1 _10 >0 40 40 SEE SHEET LI CITY OF TEMECULA ACCLODO ST: Wan :a> Mt CV WILK •Otel/.017 2125/11 r,... 5/30/OP UFO TEI.ECULA MEDICAL CEIIIER L»E0CAPE HYOAIKKI DAN al X MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -1 I ---,II� . ,11 'tn. qr 1 I CONTROLLER ID: E AA:4k 09 tea. otrstr J F- LU In 0 TROLLER ID: CONTROLLER, ID 0 lu bolorC� D Rd -L010 i0 BE CALOEM OCCUPANCY BUILDING mre I. 00 011201LI-I3PGR I500019. V.I ANP -0 Pte' 100002EA471294 0006�P GATC0 0 roR, A00 T • o M 021 1-00-422-4133 omsmcno. 412c 444.42 09 094199.45 0212 20404 11.424( 21.49 MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -7 00499.4 00 I 22449 , I 014429•41 By Mur 00 V0100 1,61, Sol.” nilkel 0 342 0 29194 0/20/00 000011210000 Or AC1249420 BY: CPT eg.ax 442922 0/30/00 CRY OF TEMECULA OCALE. Pqb OCICOE0 21. 2010 L419 TEAECULA MEDICAL Cartel L ICECPPE m0A1I0i1 PLAN LI -4 4991 41 X Call Galore you pg i -em -la -Ass 2044011531104 2E4020 MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -2 d N0105. 1 555 0 C T LI -1.2 FOR IRR0OATlON L00000 4 ERRISATIOR PETAIL9 5,5555S �,P SA„� 5012.P0ADDITIONAL far-�;. — — a—'=a-=a —v w m OA MYROM ROT 5.2204 124244 »RI 1Pt MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -5 crousn I 5 I 2342 •nemSSW tarm 1,30/ca atK0100 00 CRY OF TEMECULA 0 le 20 a 40 00 0.300.40440 Or 5254C woos OCTOEPS 21. 2020 DreeN Ho. UH9 TEMECU A MEDICAL GERMS LANXICAfE mOATfl PLAN LI -5 Ant el MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -5 POINT OF CONNECTION 6 nMETERWAMA MER SIR 1 Nr PEAK MIAMI 43 OM VAS PRO2.02 1 VF *0424NB WARN MESAS 714 POI NMA. WAISR W 0CP 7010 447 mnuim ANNUM. WATER 444442412Th MY TS x wa. WOWED LwwQA.E Nen0000 cn POINT OF CONNECTION: 4 WATER Y1103442 P YAW EIMOM 1 VY PEW RYWR µ W AVNL�YWER 47�240 M Aww. WAT10 ONiwPA/119 Mt �T1 20 EO 64724*1110 40414114E ARM 0070 W 2711227201.41432020140.1 W POINT OF CONNECTION 3 WAT4 METER 24472 4 v wrt WMEx 0414040440 41 OM/ 474.14m• PNL WATIBI ER MESAS iU 220 ELIWTPD W4p0 44 (210F0TER WE Y MEM EBT WT161Ap%ANE Ma SCREE 131 POINT OF CONNECTION 2 WATER MITI2 @ 114 WE BIWAE! 1 VY 00240004100 40 OEM MANAMA WATER 141130( IN PN NNW. WATER *12 SIM AMAIN. WATER IYE own ET [BIBO.T0 LeCECARE NEA 00773 41704 E2101.010 E.44 4Ir µG (400 IW POINT OF CONNECTION: 1 WA1g14010 SIZE TK WYM STUMM 4Mr POR 0044024 47 OM AV ANAILE ANNUAL WATER USE 04CfS 03144 0471440. WATER IY W:Rx 1a1.RTm 0I6NCNEPnw 484In3 iin EBNMT®IWNUP1N0A MONS Im /2 F ISGTLL00 WATER -e 0100 2 ORP@ wRSO 400 704E COMM 21E FROM 'CONTROLLER 'A' TO TNI* LOOALIRPR0.740NDs.PLACE 21400I -------- __. 4ALY£-BOX -.. __._... i.. CONTROLLER ID: A 4104 TOSAS0 W@ 42 WES TO EEE*ITO4MOM 400 NMEMUCTIOS 0012444 WEA40 FOR 4DO 773040. OOMMIOLlm E1201WMTI0144.W 04405 NUMBERS Call befo a g 9 1721227 I, 5E4 SHEET LIMO FOR IRRIGATION 1E900 4 NOTES 5EEam4T 1.0.11.4 A•p 11-15 POR IRRIGATION GETS 5 SEE SPECIPICAT OW. POR AGOITONA. INFORMATION 20 00 '0 MATC-HLINE: SEE SHEET LI -9 OA SY Loaa 100.80110 0010 BOK. 11010 SCALE 110 FLAa sweat 04777747 07 I o-._ E1 I 014044 Ey A,,. P,N,.N 100." 0,-010 71 2100100 ELLA Ea. 0302 02090.00716 B. 0121 0408P10 A Oat IWe"sex as/ err ROW 011 /37,16 CITY OF TEMECULA OC1001 SI. 0010 003004 8. UNB TEMC-COLA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE RIMIICN PLAN LI -6 02 6 MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -b 2121 I I I I II Ico MATCHLINE: SEE 'SHEET LI -4 a NOTES IRRIGATION DETAILS " Op "--' . TION I°ATION/ FOR .. \ T ONN. II 20 pre nso. IIII ::1: !Iil III Ili a N •'jccurry lY HOSPIT BUIL, 20 OCAL lora"1. Dg9epic) MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -IO MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -0 CONSIRCA02 5(550 022 0.205 8E001 YAP( RAG PTA KM C5'w222 E o-,..,, E P.05500 002.• Revell Gar Syrnleco ALA se. 2242 0/50/00 00(01 000(0 0 0 00- 0000000000: o m M000 0/20/00 CRY OF TEMECULA PGA, RA UH$ TEMEWLA MEDICAL CENTER LMEOCAPE FOGAPON PLAN U-7 RAI of MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -7 MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -4 '1\"-,, \"•V 11.1 \ 1- 105 0\\ `; ❑w o w.❑ \ N FuruRE LT/ CANCER a 'L"' CENTER bolo ciI F9 00.05.080108 0000 080 BY 80100 wIts PTA IBM ATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -II 9.1„1. --s0I 8101 A.,,.« 1.110. G.0.90120 01 Mw IIc 290 0 1/200! 11000400000/1 0I0 *cavil0 BY: 9 R. 3620 6/80/04 WRS 1.°28 $HEEL LI213 POR IRRIGATION LE6Exp L NOTES IRRI6TTION OOTAh5 9. 5EE 59E91 ICATIOW POR ADDITIONAL MFORNATl0NN CRT OF TEMECULA 007008200 OC1 1146.9 21. 0 UH8 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER WOOCAPE mAQ4TICN PLAN LI -8 Aria el CaII b4ROTO you Dgg I-200-122-1121 CASALATAT 4400220 MATCHLINE: SEE SNEET LI -6 Mirrr `yid 414 Iw I rr-xvm • . rrproileer- MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -10 0420 D000 SDK 4444.010 scIa 44.4 RAS 5toa., or ( me.n e2 n� n244044 4+4- 52M4m 0 AAA II. 0442 RAI RE DOC 02 ACCEPIW E42.2224 I. CCC 9MCCT L✓12 FOR IIIRIbATIW. LESERD L NOIES 2 5E2 SHEET LI -I$, LI -14 ANO LI -15 COR IRRWATION DETAILS 5.002 00ELIPIGATlONS IDR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 44017 5/10,44 CM OF TEAECULA 002211124 II Or ADD . 00 CAD 2I.2020 VHS TEASECU-A MECICAL CBJIEfi L NCOCAPE U1OATpN FUJI LI -9 SRI 410 MATGHL!NE: SEE SHEET LI -11 ami a° vr 1425 SO } _ - 1-- .... 191f1811-!-' x CaII before you X89 I -W9-122-1133 ca4smvoLuLLL 220.10 OA 31291115 DOC Ds. liAn NIA -011100 DD1DD MAE TEMECULA PARKWAY FuSI wires„ I DAD By� a.,, By Dens DADDY Una SAND, 0 0l DA, lc Daum RAA XL 3339 9 0/IDT 1.OM 1see SNEEU U -O FOR IPAWPnOY L39390 1 NOTES 2. Sae veer LI.19. 9. •14 AND U-6 FOR 10.WOATION DETAILS 3. SEE S EGIPILA11GN3 POR ADOIfOWJ. INFORMATION 3EM 1110100' AFS e2 x313 0/33)293 CRY OF TEMECULA 0 m 20 11111 60 NORTH KALE 1'.70' OOPIDISCAT Of PIESX A01.5 01101ICR 25.1010 UHS TEMECULA 10tW nl canal INTI -CAPE PPIOATON PLAN LI -10 ;':.CBII before you Dg 00115171vC80.11 RECORD OAR MATCHLNE: SEE SHEET L.1 -S2 DERCRIif uFFF 1.0 W0810181 SOO PO Pim 0, 1 00.6.40y Pan. 00202M IN.:- 5....4.02.1 Of .1 v. CRUffi P0xe 884E 0/30/0 RE 2.20[22 ort ACCORD 00 0 0 u �� 4R 6/20M CITY OF TEAECULA mzs. EEC SNEer un] POR IrzaisnTwN [eKMo [ NOTES 3. SEE 5x00 0099, 00.04 ARO LI -00 FOR RRgn0ON DETAILS 9. SEE SP'GIPICAVOR3 POR ADDmORAL IWGR^NTIW. 00PAR11410 Or 0128.4 1.011x8 OC0008 21. 2010 VHS 1EMECU-A MFnrl, CBfIEn L NDOCRPE U00A11JN PLAN LI -11 9-411 R1 GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES I so'.6444711 Snarl 050'444 IS BASED M 444 44441L48LE WATER Nana CO Vh PBI 4T THE PONT CF CONNECIKN 154E CONTRACTOR IB RESPPN015'-E FOR 4ERF11F4 40.4165 PRESSURE FRIOR 10 ORDERS* 3141EPo4LB OR MONIS* CCNB1R4C1GN AND PROMPTLY REPORT ANT DIFFERENCES TO CURER AND/CR OWER5 REPRE5EN14TVE, Z. TAB 6151EM IB DECGNE0 POR 555 W POTABLE BITER AT TAB TIME. BEE R44.15 305 TOTAL@ FOR ALL POND, OF CONNECTION. 3. THE IRRGATI N 0151E11 15 544aN DIY,RARI4TIC4LLY FOR CLARITY. LOCATE ALL PIPING, VALVES. BAW^LOL PFEVENIICN DENCES. AND IRR'G41KN go:UPBEAT WOAD LNNOBC4PE AREAS W,155 NOTED OR DIRECTED 075551011. 4. PRIOR TO ANT 5XC4vA1WN OR 1FSM:NNO. LOCATE AND vERFY ALL CABLES, CONDUITS. AND YSERGR0ND UTILITIES. BE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR COi1401PG AN IN0ENGWNHD UIILILT LOCATING SER•10E PO LOCATE AND MARC ALL UTILITIES, THE CONTRACTOR ALL TAKE FRCPER FE£C41)11055 NOT 10 DAMAGE OR DINARS 5CN INDEIOFO.Z.D UTILITIES NO7RT THE OWER A`0/OR OWERB REPRE5EN1Ai4YC Itt11014TELr 6 A C0FLCI EXISTS 55114E645 WON OBSTACLES AND TOE PEED WORK. PROCEED M SAME M4 ER F ROCK LASERS OR AVT 0114ER CONDITIONS AP@ E%}NZERED WD5RSRTM' . 5. PNE CONTRACTOR Budin NOT WLLWLLY SMALL ME a/RG41304 SYSTEM 45 BNOWN ON ME DRNUNOS UNEN IT 15 04141045 N INE FIELD 114AT OBSTRUCTICTOGRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES N TE AREA DNENISCHS Mat N OR 04/SEREN055 PROM,' 10 THE AATTENTI04 OF LAG LANDSCAPE ARONIIEG�550 .01111 cONTRACTOR FAIL TO NOTIFY 154E 1.4WEC4PE ARCHITECT CP AVT !DISCREPANCIES NEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AN50NS NECESSARY AT NO40047CN41 COB. TO THE 0NER 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDN410G AND MYRCONTROLLER M EA 514041N OR x545 PANS Swat!, 4PCFQR OOIRCE NOT BE E 4R 4445.45,E IN THE LOCATION BROWN. THEN THE CGRR4CIOR 54401L0 PROMPTLY SONS' 'NE LANDSCAPE 4RC541401 PRIOR 10 PRCG2EDPG 55151 INSTALLATION, 1. THE CONTROLLER R1,445 urotri re 70 BE A NO LLEEKB P84081TO 754E FINNAKB AL SALi1NE 0 BIT AO sEp. AT LEASTR0G14. 7145 CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT TIN PRE•415EMBLER NO ARRANGE FOR THEIR REPFTSENi411135 ZORG AROVE M5 3463411..411CN AND PWNDE N TH TRIG 1541 THE N8i4LL4TICN 4445 MET THEIR SPECFC434055.111E MITTEN STATEMENT BNAAL BE 4vAIL4BLE PRIOR TO. OR 4l THE FTWL CALKS -ROOM ALL CCN5R0. wawa SAAB. BE 144NP0.DED AND GROUPED N GENERAL AREAS SNOLO ON PLAN v4LVE0 054415. BE LOCATED N PL4VZSG AREAS AND 5111DI4IELY ADJACENT TO NAND CURDS. OR 15444444 4REA0 AND BET At T OGLES TO EDGES 314NVO O PIPE 4540 BALL v4LVE SIMS ONALL 51 EOV4L 10 OR GREATER Ma THE SIZE N TUE LARGEST REMOTE 0051506.4443.443551511314341310.0. 0. IRRIGATION LINES, Nal. BE !TOTALLED N LANDSCAPE 4CSAB a -DRE VER POSSIBLE AND W1WN IY CF 1,4050415E AREA EDGES 41155 50104110 OTHERWISE, IO ALL IRRGATIOH LNEQ UNDER PAVING SHALL BE SLEEVED W ZN GREY PVC BCH 40 RIFE, SLEEVE EA41. BE i TIMES ME DIAMETER CF PIPE 1O BE &EEVED Cr MRL SIA). 11. ALL CONIES, ARES UNDER PAWN, ENALL BENBi4L6D N PSC 104 40 GRAYWar SEPARATE TLEAST 2 TFIE5 THE TE TE 33501 WATER LON 55.55620 AS 50ICAED W PLANS L EP 5FRTE CONDUIT SMALL BE A MN i' DIA11TER IZ. ALL POE FINALE 66401OF THE AREA To BE IRRIGATED D ED IMLE5501OHELAR TO T 65656 015056D ON THE PLANS. 13, ALL SPRTKLE6 WADS NULL BE INSTALLED AND 4DAOTED TO KEEP DATER AND SPRAY OW 4L P4VFG. WALKS, WALLS 05516C11O,NS AND AREAS NOT WIDER 144E CONTROL OF THE ABNER AT 4L TIMES, ADMIT ALL NE4DO TO PINMIZE B4GK09,4344 AND DEFLECTION 6RT1 PLANTS OR AVT OTHER OBSTACLES. 14. NEPAL. FIXED AR' NOZZLES WNENEY,R POSSIBLE. v4Pod5,E ARC NOZZLES SHALL ONLY BE 50E0 N AREAS !SORE FIXED ARC NOZZLES 44)4400 4C51EVE EFFECTIVE COVER/01 OR LLCULD CAUSE EXCSB5655 OVER3PRAY. CURPG ME PN4L CLOSE0IT R 006044 E5, NOZZLE CN42015 MAYBE REOIEBZED 4T NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO 144E OFAIER �f CaII e You Dgg I-41:432-4133 5, SOCA-0 LSE CONTRACTOR MAKE NOZZLE CHANGES 6R ADD 56400 AS 4 CLEAT OF BITE OBSTACLES OR CONSTRICTION CS4'GE0. MEN 144E CoNIVACTCR ALL FEEPONEIBLE FOR CALCVLATION AND PDMmENL01N PIPE BE IN NO CASE SHALL PREB5IRE SUPPLY .65 OU vEL0011l15 ExCEED 4 FEET PER SECOND.3 FEET PER 410050 ON LATERAL LIKED K. VIRE COLOR SHALL BE AB FOLLOWS) Al CONTROLLER 'A' 005560. VALVE°. ORAV'E. C01KN WIRE TO BE WHITE WRN OR4VGE STRIPE. CONTROLLER 14' CONTROL VALVE5. TELLOIl 0Ctt'ON WIFE TO BE WHITE WITS YELLOW 51RIF4. 4163 70 BE UNITLER G E CONTROL GREY STRIPS GREY. 0:21-140•1 CONTROLLER 0' CONTROL 4445.625. BROW. COSIGN WIRE i0 BE UNITE 54444 BR'dN STRIPE CONTROLLER 4' CONTROL v4LVE0. RIPPLE. CCMYN WIFE TO BE WHITE WIG POOLE STRIPE, CONTROLLER F' CONTROL v4LV25. PHC C011TI ARE 10 BE WI171 01114 PNC 51RIPo, (BALL MASTER v4LVE0. BLACK =TIMOR BRE 10 SEDATE VTR BLACK STRIPE, G ALL FLOP METERS. RED AVD BLUE. WALL SPAM WIRER. GREEN ALL ARES MALL BE LABELED AT TN51ER1iN4L STAR WITHIN 01E NON 1, GF TUE END W TWE WIRE WITH THE APPROPRIATE Kara NpBER N POWER TO 144E DETAILS A40 4 5BFIB.1404 FOR FURTHER 56GR1411O4 M, ALL R4VIIG1) (ALL BE RELY WATERED N UPON MARTIN. DO NOT RELY SOLELY UPON 1M@ 4NY01ATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM UTILIZE EUR-LEMBNxtl. NOSE WATERING AB MOORED, INITIALLY A•y WR#G 1315 PLANT E5T4BLI4MENi PERIOD. AND AS DIRECTED 01 RAM TO ENURE i0. L PL4VIPG5 6ECEIvEE 4DEO)415 WATER TO THE ENTIRE ROOT ZONE. ALL SPRN(LER HEADS BIULL BE ADJUSTED AB MOIR:ED, AB TD NEINT, 004ERYVE PATTERN. OR ZORP%LER HEAD CRENI47401, M AB NOT TO ALLOW FEBIRICTI04 CP SPRAY PATTERN BY RANT MATERIAL NAT 3447 IN IUB CAUSE RANT DECLNE OR 05111445. i. NO Low 514008AN/LEIS PER1I11ED. AL. LOWWiD DRAINAGE NNALL 55 CORRECTED BY ME CONTRACTOR BPR'IG CHECK ANO/OR DRAG CHECK vl4,KB 'WALL BE NBi4LBD LINERS NEEDED Al NO ADDITIONAL 005130 THE OWER IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION NOTES (KATE TRE Dora N.ALNE w TAE away BanPEx F4EDI4reLT 004)451 RMM O TE METER SMALL THE !PEENED BACKFLOG Drat PER Se TOTER AGENCY 51410465 0114Rbl 66 5011@ REBMF@ SEELY LAE AS Bea OG SENSOR 5174CONNECT i004110i 00404 El DON SSED FASTER4444 am Ex44140 TEN FREESRE wFrtY LINE AS NOIR 05 WO PLANS LOCATE M! 4v4R45LE 304401 FWER MIME FOR T@ W1 41 7ER 400 OR TORRACTOR lLP116ILL 0040 1E BDMC Expel' LocATION OF THE CONTROLLRS AG! THEREPR3104141M.OUI K0 IKE VAAL LOCATOR IR BENS DUMRIX! o 444045.5. THE CCNTRaLLE5151R DEt44. 4•D 011 M6v44MCT4HRSIPOCFIUTRa 1146004164010510 RESPOO LE FOR Ex7BAIG, LMNLIG A30 GEE CONFECTION T@ C044RI GLLea�.IIAB1ER 444442 MD Nor IPYIG GR85 TO ME ]'d PE T M4NGACNRETMCDE160/NO11LE taaal44 MI GR91��05114IL 8 0' POO... EaR4Y ('N BAMS) AN. MPR 40'12.044.11561000..0 NP 0051644.II B P a t MA's S 5 14717.0 .CN.^SLH 64 4o 1y e, 6 B 4 fl11._QE.-i FUD) G • 415 ig 7QI.. DaL_l.Gr ll'Lrlg4Fl.y83 ". {}.. A 0 :4. -... DI ..• ;km NP • , • R' roe- BPR4T (N Bµ0181 Mxi. 1115154002-044.MPM560.10 NP COYCR �r1rz;1T ., - ACA @ ' lYQ•.il i� 1,R�..,, POP.UP XPA (. b11RIB LS R1 .NILS , 0 30 65 *5 15 5 RA 5 5AY-FRSS R548 Iry LLw I14 NP 00 R S.li30 VIZ R• POPS), SPRAY IN BNRIB) 4 POP-UP SPRAY Zw Sam) _ _ b 041{,PRS - y50 G - n.A t 5 12' KIT -UP SPRAT IN Banal 41 N SIR15) ' POP.UP �1' ZN : MB N BIIG�N�^0 - +ICA -. .. .. .V Wade x1500wER 1- 5 I- 30 VAR B ]'d 36m 551115 DEBC5PFION 714'5 401VRERrt10014. NO./1) ZE R4DNB P0 0151 DETAIL 8 0' POO... EaR4Y ('N BAMS) AN. MPR 40'12.044.11561000..0 NP 0051644.II B 64 4o 1y e, I' POPSY. SPRAY ( LV SHRUB ).W NO�R.Gv�Y6#4000-310N+00VER ' 40 5 MJ {}.. 1)' POPLAR 0^5590 (w BMd57 ✓µ 40.0. Cv'AMRKv'0. 60 NP COVER IN 40 .45 • R' roe- BPR4T (N Bµ0181 Mxi. 1115154002-044.MPM560.10 NP COYCR 10' 40 ACA @ 94 R' POP.VPBPR4T(N BNRIB) HIT MPR40.l1-CV-1133]000'{0 NP COYER 5' 40 a4 B j( R• POPS), SPRAY IN BNRIB) AN MPR40.p.CV-NPR/000-2 010. COVER H'40 0 t 12' KIT -UP SPRAT IN Banal :Ni 11PR40-5'044.MR0000.5E0 NP CANER 5'' 40 l4t • 1)' PCPNP SPRAY ON 527RI51 NIX 404740v'YFR3000.50 NP COVER 30' 40 26 0 W. PCP -UP SPRAY ON SIMS) IAN, MPR40.17-Cv.MPR31100.00 NP COVER 30' 40 453 B .¢Z Ix' POP.UP SPRAT (14 Sae) AN. 40.12.Cv4111R3000.2 046 CORER 1,13 5 •b 0' POOR. SPRAY (Ii &LWB) IFN. 5R40.2.Gv'MRLi0v00. 360 NP CCMSR 30 4.0 364 B PALINAL 051. DESCRIPTION .1444F4CNCERT✓ODEL ROA NOZZLE RADUB PSI GPM DETAIL (00 R' POP.VP S1RI5 ROTOR ANDER 452041P.4RR..15 AY (PURPLE) i3' i5' 50 15 0 0 G' POPOP 5HRSB}OTOR HN}ER 1.30'41P-46v'I5 BR (PURPLE) i3'.1Y IB G G' POPSIP SARIS ROTOR 55415E 1.)0.515.354.30 BR (WRPLEI 30'.40 50 G (5) 13' POP.UP SHRUB ROTOR LAMER 1.10 40 115418t5) 34'.45' 00 16 0 A IP POPOP BSW13 8070881.}0.NP.3Ru- 5C 51.1.42141.1.134'.45' 14 G -FG - A �Y455413') I' 6'tiEl-. - '. 28 '1lIa - -a .AMI P 1 cc GOA£O1IO5 1 APPROXIMATE, FIELD VERIFY -APPROXIMATE, T . 1 •' ' 1 -�.T 1' - A -• 1• 413 5 !BRASIER AIMS SERIES 111 PER DETAIL SEE RAVE FOR BIZ: . .:TER VAI -VE 3'GPo010.01250 NORI4LLT G." PER DETAIL E LOD METER C4LBE :-1444' *1.n5 PER DETAIL 0 0 / 1' .1 -1 T1. T G - R . TAI • CK CW 1.18 RAN BRO44NP PER DETAIL H 20v al •:) '.: 3"4...R .- :T . / 1444LVE(4505,471O/ NIB00001 FP.60, SUPPLY LINES UP TO 2' 0 'TE V4vE(IX4,47CN) NI1300665.RW SUPPLY .5115241• AND LARGER K -L - • i-.• N 1'51 V.F4 .. F GRIP 550 MUNI vALV2 CONTRACTOR FABRICATED .1 ALL EW5 OF ORP LATERALS DRIP AIR 4440011 PELIR NETOFSI.ARJ q} NIGNEB1 PO O SYSTEM 10 POLY AOR APPRP20 0064141151141551084151,44! Z ` - 41 '•)•'Ii -T. • • 14 L - P C4BENSE WYEW OPTIONSR ER000144.fi*.'.R3.PR146E.5 150.430.0525 - _PTE 555 TAR _ • . .LBBEM5LE0 CONTROLLER CALMAT!! 40 STATION D' canal' CALOENSE P CALSENSE miaow OP11CNO E12000P-45'41-BR'FL.RRN-005.0-8 D' 4 F' W CUM- ENCLOSURE . _.,.,.......1 • • 1nnv Pow - T FA. I CAL:BN2ATIF? pOYET WREO iO CONTRO4.4,184' V • Op PO PIPE . PVC 43- MARE) ORP - no LARGER -0?-:X L•F.'llill:•lT-� PPD-f1T Y:'E L �� LITRE CONDUIT (FOR ALMA, 101 11'+ 5540 CANN(-PVC GRAY. 540 "40 LB! P5 FN 1155E WItE RAI M,N FDR BNRIM. iEC14NE 0813316,16E BP4CIKG 45 74' AP 4R3 W TN EM111EPS b' cX CENT15 606 AIF. IEOH. NE OR PPEId. NE BPAOINS IB b' APART AiX EMIiIEPS II• GN 055115 • '• i• : 1,, •R 'cl L OLL ., ,.. i 1 saenw LG 001518011.11 D. 4140118 VALVE D 61.0.1. BE ID. TABOR BEOJENCE ®I riNntl FLOW a MINION FOOL '�lCD WATER 0154448011215158 44444E OSCIN%E(APPROX. GM) 0:•41 'RARLMLTERLL DR I0Rtl4TCN 6411 AW ®O M Wahl FLOW MASTER VALVE SAE �F8-1 1/15 L ® R-MA%II VI FLP. --FLOW SENSOR SIZE MARE IOD}KGE PER 444442 00551TION MARE3 FOOTAGECOIBTRCTICN 5402 V4vE SIZE ETTITTRVETIOT RECORD 106.0 13 514. ORS BCC WIER IBM SERE PVT 1.4R Plan P.gvq u.A, 9gw4m IM 0.4..5. 05 5347 osoap!! 40151300 043: 0454 TORRE wap 1.54„ 6/42/11 CRY OF TEAECULA cw.wn¢N1 OF PEE ]I04141 UI -19 TB.AECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE FIROATICM! ELAN LI -12 9TT. of 0 Bnytnnimuoftmo cHuouteenuLreR 0 urea ODEEP ROOT TREE BUBBLERmcrooMe O'.:,,oa,� ow. 9 0 0 bi V oEuors. ofya 30 Como a avAi.ve ID IAO Inn! As nogL 040 .4042!] ® «, we met., oR emu @RLTER IceR143A.0111,0/3 ®Ne demon. mos. eeu• 8180 o`..0` . &CY OMASTER VALVE eaa. . o.orCRou' b X89 I -M -III -11B 3,20 00.11m.i. norm....... ®0'".."..'rumple ..., cuemy ...mom To vat ©12' POP-UP SPRAY HEAD mMe 0:nao. 03•013OR ALL Cat ^tai• �'� a 1 (,i! 11'►\II II or../ Cantttqt 0vµ..7' oiraaraferx ®� w"ro...RIM .a. pryc wan noace Loot ®" --- . OELECTRIC CONTROL VALVE 1100.11 00/0 w„ ono,... 0a.o. a. 0"" ... OK' o,,...,.. ......�.a. Ora VILlirtgr 12' POP-UP ROTOR 000021 Nit 00 • ,,$(1, � t.54,15:814,1640344,t' COMOCC1.0CC 0124 COW OnaecCei 100P QQ 00.1“i0ft Cler.1141VOnaf•X": ea' �.ocoomaoy as') imuum• mum.. 11.04 MUM ROTA 0 LEGE.0.. w n Win ©PLOW METER w ® a T � Clv Iwo To coaRa Lea 3 04 a ®'.oa e.�u `va.ve.00.* (4)7z3.720.•To Le400 a a. a41, «.CtriptricaecruiuveLpug aux eines. Nor use © ISOLATION BALL VALVE 0...44., I 01x1'04.7 .,.. wad.' ..a, Sax./e, 01 o1 w,xd, .r. w 3000440001.0 e o rz A“CP>..a PitCTIR W 3 .Wt. .pF .rwM I0.0020rrnI ©QUICK COUPLING VALVE CRY OF TEMECULA 0E7411141.3 CC 038..JC nVeKS OCTOOCR 20, 200 UM9 T9£CIAA MEDICAL CHIME LNb9CAPE ffMMON PLAN LI -13 0 Vri 682024 p .p ."0..R, wn„e, 07e10,(,..001.01 2016 p0)."01�„ p� µ 600�,,.a.. gn, ..o”" 20M' 8860100,802 .0180.60 ° '18°200 226TA88 2808 02008 80020.8" "8082AL O WYE -STRAINER IN BOX rococo ..r. Dl CaII e Dgg 1400-lu-4633 008511001108 RECORD 602202. ®,TM� errA 00164.0200 600020.0.raffIAL 17 ene trt00 WPC"' p..< .00".., .,. A«>„m.o ma^ p .Norte 0KK �. „e .b 0 0. , p .,".. .2 meson �.. ,R0) o �� w o 0210.224:,; 2 010. Mwn..a.K.W,.60600 AAA ..e, e MOIL 8.06/181.Y61001 �: ua IMa 141/4-8 PLUG CH.0W�T OGATE VALVE o. 1•0600 18•12800 ALL 1.4176.4 2NC0 tat C.0 AI TIC 6Afte 801°M 000810006CAPC 0%174.e,.,.wa o""'_ ----- - --- o•0 1021•81. 118664470N Vie& 8111.120080 PCIt k.,64.'Ca e >. ©TRENCH IN HARDSOAPE 44 .e. 00 Cc 0040(. Opme.berea600041SOLLE0. o;, o`° @LOMA 041.020100 00010 on., sem wavcr caoxr ok. oma,,.scmsearmT mom (woo corsorto A ©CONTROLLER (tw� e�o,w��em. TOP -OPENING PEDESTALt 010 0004 CAW 0020 gib. en tel.C.(CO7C10.11 Q 0,26:74:610= C0410 OnattitrairtIOA637.,.. rain. 2255fit0.070 Mc 01:0.6ve �,0„ ow I ()Mt NOTZ. 01.10 016401.8814/08 06886 660 Int 021,70 WM TO stne• 0011 BE GRECN N COW, 660 04 00-80.006 ©SPARE WIRE BOX ..o,.( 0021. 0 0 NM. O 1000 6000rt 080171104 O' `0105& 0Ra.,a..,, p a« 8100181•340 &fern MCC, 01 © e o a«�N110411170 10.0120 1402 CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL TEST STATION -04 I • 00006046..x. 000.+•4, 0 0 >... It 2001 .0. x00/4 00004460060 0.. 0010.A002800 80 ruyy %SI./ pry taro — o= o 1 o.” o OTRENCH IN LANDSCAPE 00060.10-01 wave box un 6100ILE66 001111202 .608.0610,100 00 CU, 0021110608 Fan NIA0)0 " o 00008.118881, 00ti MAL 00001 005 Urn Not Pl.& 00 140181018.0:20 4.0881100.14.060.04 14 R CONTROL WIRE PULL BOX CRY OF TEAECULA OCCAFIMENT or 100.0 nt)700 °Grocer s. 2000 06002 81 • UFO TB.ECU A MEDICAL CENTER LAPCSCPPE H CATION DETMS U-14 20641 0 It 00 1 o OTHRUST BLOCK MALL et Cm...June rim 144144400 N AMEN rocker, AVOW. ®.uwoa01. .°" 0".ro.eme r-ec w.1 "54544 w' QM.__..._.. °DRIP END FLUSH Cali before you Dgg 240-02-0411 MX. VIZ Q Q� atP. Q R.%RECLOND NEIOR le rrz0(40.44444400 TOIN ENE TOREN TAPE OE VALVE 5[C45c2.4405. 0 ":4.4881121.21101 rrt ocri Iran rt$1101.0 PRO, OSISO Q WIRE CONNECTOR Tosincneo, oemucTutereutons 20 COMIXtett COGRO.Lin EXACT 1•00401® CO RAN laW•4 4® GOOK* 41111 • REPRIMMATIVE MC, TO NT =• an RAN lea.* De Nee urnie OPAIN SENSOR/RAIN TIPPING BUCKET 0° 0ew.o..55540a'onv°"o'n' 0 s°'AFid°ieARAp.OSmaA Yr+n M4 "wwv O 4Y 0email RYE 1 nmi End OPT nEROANNAOLE Mt4 ODRIP AIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (PLII-IBED TO FLEX P/C) ° 'DO NOT DRINK' SIGNSECTJob. 0 ov no moo -In. QPa°am)"TT Qi nfxrtertew✓rea1 QP K.if41f iTRAG Qtafw n1 a fa Q" QW rat AI WON earrei ram p.m &limn NOW 04 meta®! lefaLMOR © p.m!, evvin °�Itan; 550404* DRIPLINE TUBING SPADING 4 ° LAYOUT: IRREGULAR AREAS MagorMellik 016110711“.0.0. VALVE. P,C 600 ea aM o arra, algera, " " f5' ®ORintiert Ora O^ ratingeV 0004 ALLEN. ®*54(00 4 ® 44~,40002 Q "n ....b,.. ti0 . QFC ® n 0 4YLIt ®M ®140LIS TAW 1 5 14/%1"..E 11120..Ar10 WATERKORN ET TM ONCUTT4 HOLEN TACONOM UM Mt 0.1 UPSALL 1111.724000 04744{ClICNO OW REMOTE CONTROL VALVE W/ u .x FILTER 4 PRESSURE REGULATOR Aro Q espe 0.44,"00 44. 8.wwewn.4.14 ll'ectIrevolkertst; bite SUBSURFACE DRIPPERLINE .. O(01,4T8141. LKwl 04... .V1 own wV ea oma .n5.wwa ONITIANITOR ROOM NOW 04 EnT 0410 COTO Ia. PER PON °"'""I a.. a, I a _ ea Seem% 12 2E42 ,1#5/e P 4404500 aR ,650 0/5(/05 CRY OF TEMC-COLA 04.04.4TuEre Of COWL %ORES OCIOECE 2(80 ENS TEIECULA MEACAL CENTER WiIBCAPE RATION DETAlO LI -15 RTNI el 22 33 0 PC RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10-0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL TO CHANGE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BEDS FROM 170 TO 140 FOR PHASE I OF THE PROJECT, TO MODIFY THE BUILDING FACADES OF THE HOSPITAL TOWERS, TO RELOCATE THE TRUCK LOADING BAYS AND SERVICE YARD, AND TO RELOCATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM AN OUTDOOR AREA AT THE SERVICE YARD TO AN EXPANDED INDOOR AREA AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING ON 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-001 THRU 004 AND 951-080-007 THRU 010)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. CC. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.030.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a development plan: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds, determines, and declares that: A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital, and on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital. B. The City determined that the proposed modifications to the project do not trigger any of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR and that an Addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. C. The Addendum relied on use of an Environmental Checklist Form as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) to evaluate whether there were any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under the Addendum and the proposed amendments and to review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. The analysis in the Addendum indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by the proposed modification to the project, nor will the proposed modification increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Hospital FEIR and FSEIR. D. The Addendum also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Addendum found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. E. Further, the Addendum analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the project would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in facts feasible. The Addendum found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. F. Because the Addendum finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously discussed, the Planning Commission finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed modification application. G. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certifies and approves the Addendum prepared for the proposed modification application. The Planning Commission further finds that the conclusions reached in the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. H. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, and the Addendum for the modification application and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. I. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification Application, PA10-0194: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA) Section 15164, an Addendum to the FSEIR adopted in 2008 was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification Application, as described in the FSEIR Addendum ("the Project"). B. The Planning Commission has reviewed the FSEIR Addendum prior to and at the December 15, 2010 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the FSEIR Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) Based on the findings in the FSEIR Addendum there is no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified; and (3) The FSEIR Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA), the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Major Modification Application. The Planning commission has also reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Project, approved by the City Council as Planning Application No. PA07-0200 on January 22, 2008, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, the Planning Commission also finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Major Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FSEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Major Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FSEIR. An Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Major Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. D. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the FSEIR Addendum prepared for this project. Section 5. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 thru 959-080-004 and 951-080-007 thru 951-080-010, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA10-0194, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of December, 2010. Carl Carey , Chairman ATTEST: Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Patrick Richardson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Patrick Richardson, Secretary EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA10-0194 Project Description: A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Approval Date: December 15, 2010 Expiration Date: December 15, 2012 WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty -Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the 1 City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; any time extension beyond the initial two years from approval of this modification will require the preparation of a new environmental document. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 5. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 6. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be submitted for review and approval for the project site. 7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 8. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 9. The applicant shall paint a three-foot by three-foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 11. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs' prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Condition of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 2 Material Color Exterior Plaster Color No. 1: Dryvit #456, "Oyster Shell" in Dryvit "Sandblast" texture Exterior Plaster Color No. 2: Dryvit #383, "Honey Twist" in Dryvit "Sandblast texture Tile Base: Daltile #CS51, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red Painted Trim: To match color of "Indian Red" in tile base Ceramic Roof Tile: Monier Lifetile, Duralite Villa Tinted Glass: Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M Window Frame: Kawneer, Medium Bronze 12. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 13. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A three-foot clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities shall not look like an after -thought. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 14. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines. 15. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) are required to be met. 16. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. 17. The split rail fencing for the multi -use trail proposed along the northern property lines, adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western edge of the property line. Said fence shall be a continuous fence beginning from the secondary driveway at DePortola to the western property line. (Added by City Council, January 22, 2008). 18. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 19. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. 20. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways, perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting. 21. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Police Department 22. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted over within 3 twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. 23. Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department. 24. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should be placed in a well - lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call -out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the building. 25. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows. a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 26. All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 27. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 28. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. 29. Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24 hours a day by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi -tenant offices/suites/businesses located within a specific building shall have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is opened 24/7. 30. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 31. Any emergency generator system shall be inside a secure enclosure to prevent theft of fuel or tampering with the equipment. 32. All pressurized gas cylinders not in use shall be stored in a secure location to prevent theft. Building and Safety Department 33. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 34. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. 4 Monday -Friday 6:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays Fire Prevention 35. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 36. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 -hour duration. The fire service loop will be a complete looped system with two points of connection (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). 37. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. A combination of on-site and off site 6" x 4" x 2-2 %" outlets on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. The fire hydrants will provide coverage for the entire site, including all buildings, open space and parking areas (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). 38. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided (CFC Chapter 5, Section 508.5). 39. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. This includes the fire service lines and hydrants must be completed for the entire site prior to combustibles being brought on site. (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4 Public Works Department 40. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City -maintained street right -of way. 41. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 42. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 43. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or 5 property owner. 44. The undergrounding of electrical and telecommunication facilities per Temecula Municipal Code, Section 15.04.080 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3 (Medical Office Building 2). 45. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Planning Department 46. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance. 47. The applicant shall submit cross sections verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 48. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and structures, excluding trash enclosures. 49. Trash enclosures shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall comply with the following: a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning. c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide shrubs and wall vines on three sides of enclosures as required to provide screening. 50. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting, shall be provided on the plans. 51. The Applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing to show a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per Section 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code. 52. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 53. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 6 54. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 56. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. 57. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 58. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 59. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 60. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. 61. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving activities. 62. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground -disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 63. The Applicant shall enter into a pre -construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground -disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre -construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 64. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 65. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luise* Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 66. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 67. The applicant must enter into a written pre -excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. A copy of the signed document shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 68. The grading plan shall include the following: a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79 South as discussed in these Conditions of Approval. b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within six months shall be hydroseeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion. c. Show the five-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1 -foot concrete landing strip (seven feet total width). One parking island is required per ten parking spaces. 8 Public Works Department 69. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 70. Each phase must install its respective WQMP BMP(s) as shown in the master plan. The applicant shall update the WQMP as each phase is developed and include slip sheets or other means to reflect the changes as each phase is developed. 71. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 72. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 73. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 74. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction. 75. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 76. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction -phase and post -construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction -phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post -construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction -phase and post -construction BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure 9 ongoing long-term maintenance of all structural post -construction BMPs. 77. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 78. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 79. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 80. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 81. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 82. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Fire Prevention 83. Maximum cul-de-sac- length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 45 feet (CFC Chapter 5, 503.2.4.and 503.2.5.along with Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 84. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 1410.1, priorto building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. All fire service access roads shall be installed and complete for the entire site priorto combustibles being brought on site.(CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 85. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 86. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5, 10 Section 503.2.7. and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 87. This development shall maintain two points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.1.2). 88. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have riot been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2.5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT Planning Department 89. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 90. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to riot adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 91. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot-candle illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel and building entrances. A minimum of one -foot candle illumination shall be maintained throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be provided at primary building entrances. 92. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting. 93. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility. 94. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are screened from the public view of Temecula Parkway. 95. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. 11 c. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." d. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the Tentative Map. i. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. J. 96. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following: a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the specific zone requirements. b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning. c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30 feet of street frontage. e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted, seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan and landscape plan shall be provided. f. A minimum five foot width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this five foot width. The planter length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers. Accent trees (minimum 36 -inch box size) shall be installed at entries to parking areas in order to define the entry and provide a focal point. g. 12 h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle. i. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building MOB #2 as approved by the Director of Planning. A combination of large (no less than 24 -inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planning. k. A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24-inchand 36 -inch box) screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer area. I. The landscaped area along Temecula Parkway shall include a meandering berm with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be maintained at a minimum height of three feet around all parking areas to screen parking from off-site views. m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed. J. n. The Landscape construction plans shall include final color and finish details for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas (including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center). 97. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 98. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, and hardscape) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 99. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 100. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine -inch grid pattern with 45 -inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine -inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 13 101. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 102. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they are riot visible from Temecula Parkway. 103. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 104. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program. Public Works Department 105. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 106. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Numbers. 400. 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 107. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNV) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but riot limited to water and sewer). b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) -88' R/W) to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. d. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection. 14 108. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Dona Lynora (66` RAN) to include the installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Private 28 -foot wide ingress/egress road to include installation of paving and curb per the approved site plan. 109. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 110. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. The Traffic Control Plan shall indicate that construction traffic may not use the entrance from DePortola Road to access the site. 111. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 112. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 113. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 114. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. In addition to the above Public Works Department Conditions of Approval, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE 1— (A 140 -bed hospital) 115. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 116. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: 15 a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. Westbound a) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long b) Provide three thru lanes c) Provide one left turn lane ii. Eastbound a) Provide two left turn lanes b) Provide two thru lanes and c) Provide one shared thru/right lane b. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) i. Installation of half -street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement c. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South i. Signal modification ii. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle iii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 -foot wide shared thru/right turn lane iv. Northbound (entering site) — 28 foot wide d. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) — 88' RAN) i. Installation of half -street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Provide a 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection to De Portola Road e. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. Building and Safety Department The Conditions of Approval herein (Building and Safety Department) are not applicable to the projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California OSHPD. These conditions are applicable to the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department. 117. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the California Building, 16 Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code in place at the time of building permit application submittal. 118. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street -lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as riot to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 119. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 120. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 121. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). 122. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 123. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 124. Provide number and type of restroom fixtures, to be in accordance with the provisions of the California Plumbing Code in place at the time of building permit application submittal. 125. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 126. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 127. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 128. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 129. A pre -construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention 130. The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards as required in these conditions. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit 17 being issued (CFC Chapter 14, Section 1412 and Chapter 5, Section 501.3). 131. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval for all medical office buildings, except the actual hospital as that is handled by the State. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 132. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval for all medical office buildings, except the actual hospital as that is handled by the State. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT Planning Department 133. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural resources. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. 134. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 135. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 136. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 137. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space ata minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off - 18 street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696-3000." 138. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. 139. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 140. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department PHASE 1 - A 140 -bed hospital. 141. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Highway 79 South i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way ii. Roadway improvements a) Westbound (i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long (ii) Provide three thru lanes (iii) Provide one left turn lane b) Eastbound (i) Provide two left turn lanes (ii) Provide two thru lanes and (iii) Provide one shared thru/right lane b. Main Entry/Country Glen Way i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle ii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 -foot wide shared thru/right turn lane iii. Northbound (entering site) — 28 foot wide 19 c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) — 88' RIW) i. 28 -foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De Portola Road ii. Roadway improvements d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap e. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) i. Installation of half -street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement 142. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 143. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 144. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Building and Safety Department 145. Developments with multi -tenant buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. Fire Prevention 146. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) per City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E. 147. New buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial, multi -family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum of 12 -inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6 -inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors (CFC Chapter 5, Section 20 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 148. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). 149. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). 150. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.3). 151. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health Department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 34 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 152. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable Police Department 149. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 150. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated July 24, 2004, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 151. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 7, 2007, a copy of which is attached. 152. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Authority's transmittal dated July 21, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 153. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 12, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 21 rrnauvr.ti Ls. Iry U.44MZY10 Genual Manager -Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CO AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS City of Temecula Postnt DBox 9033 Temecula, CalIfomla 92589-9033 Attention: DA1J Unr•1dr Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX JUL 2 8 2004 511110.1 Re: 04 -CAPP2 QA. ot43 The District does not normally recommend cQnditlons for land dMslons or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not check kill( land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard for successes. Distant cormre endafions for such cases are normally limited to items of specific Interest to the District including District Pian facilities, other regional flood control and drain _facilities whtdh.00uld be considered a • • cal en >x extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitt r � I fees). In additionInformation of a general nature is The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked corfunents do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard. public health and safety.or any. other such issue: Tris project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Pian facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project Involves DisMd Master Pian facilities. The District will ownership of such facilities on i�nsp�onwill be City. of the Facilities Dim am�tancce.�Pllan check, inscted to Districtpection andDistrict traf fees ll be required. • This protect proposes channels. storm drains 98 inches or larger to diameter. or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a fol extension of the adopted would Master Drainage Plan. The -District consider accepting owns of such leashes on written request of bberequired fooacillUes rr �ptancebe �Plan duck, Inspection standards, a�ddml�ivvefees will check mrequired.sn will ibis project is Located within the limits of the District's • Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applcabte teas should be paid by cashier's check or money order only M the Flood Control Distil d prior to issuance of build g0 or.gnndin rermrts whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should beat the tate in effect at the time or issuance of.actual GENERAL INFORMATION ' • This project may _require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit from the State Water Resources ControBoard Clearance for•gnading, recordation, or other final approve( should not be given until the City has determined that;thhe project has been granted a peril er Is'shonrsh to be exempt if this woJect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fmapped flood plain, then the City should req applicant to provide ail studies calculations, • andormation required to mint FEMA requirements, and should further requl this applicant • • - n a Condit onal Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other approve[ of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. tf a natural watercourse or mapped �Arm flood_ plain is im this ems, the City should require the t to obtain a Section 1801/1603 rim the California � P m of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Ad Section 404 Permit from the tlCorps of Engineers. or �camespondence from iese8gendes indicating the ps ax tiff Ren Quality water Section 401 carter Certtilcation may be required the Control Board .prior to Issuance of a Corps 404 X Jra ri•k-foActfi,40 lir- pps4Air 4;- $1 Very tnuly yon, OprWhPJf D %AIi *, Wt t•!fJ T• aa;A4 MS1r4 cr WOW -4F tit I if- vJ rut t• otS cr p qN Ti . TrMr—& M ?.1 c+W-(c• c:�4wt ARTURO • Senior Civil Engineer Date: 7f,Y • • July 7, 2004 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY • DEP�ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Dan Long RE: Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 Dear Mr. Long: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Piot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be available in this area, although we have not in receipt of any information concerning those services. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "Will -serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) Any food establishments, ('including vending machines), shall require three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955- 5055) Sincerely, San Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist (909) 9554980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. " cc: - Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials • :cul Enf oreearent Agency • P.O. Box 1280, Rivscside, CA 92502.1280 • (909) 955-8982 • FAX (909) 7819653 • 4080 Lemon Sheet, 9th Root Riverside, CA 92501 And Um and Wafer Eaglneexleg • P.O. Box 1206, Rtveastde, CA 925024206 • (909) 955-8980 • FAX (909) 955-8903.4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 • Riv rstde 7. .sit Agency 1825 ThNd Steel P.O Box 59988 Riverside. CA 92517-1968' Pion: (909) 565u000 Fax (909)565.5001 July 21, 2004 Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner Planning Dept., City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: PO4-0462 and PA04-0463 —Temecula Hospital — Comments from RTA Dear Mc Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project. To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features: • A paved, lighted, and ADA -compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft -tong turnout configura- • tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR 79, just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should Incorporate a paved passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters. . • information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this turnout without significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure Installations. • 'RTA staff is also recommending designation on the.plans of an additional specified clear path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building. • RTA staff alsoedvises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design and architectural themes. RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and PA04-0463. If you need further (clarification orl can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164 or contact me online at jnm000v@riversidetransitcom. Michael McCoy Senior Planner F:ldatalPlanning1MikeMiWordlOev RevievATemeai1a120041RTA ltrhd - Temec Hosp.doc Silverside Wendt Pony PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning From: Michael McCoy, Senior Planner Subject City of Temecula, Cases PA04-0462 & -0463: Piot Plan review andCUP for 535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical -related fadliities, N of State Route (SR) 79 and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments Bus routes involved: EEdsting Route 24 and future bus routes Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35 now vacant acres 1/4 mile west of the SR79-Margarita Rd intersection in a rapidly expanding commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first fust -facility medical institution In Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to it. The project includes the following components: July 21, 2004 • 176 -bed, 6 -story hospital building, Including Emergency admittance • A 5 -story expansion of the hospital • Two multi -story medical office buildings • Cancer center • Fitness center • 1280 parking spaces The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary access provided directly off a signalized Intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive thnt loop sulltable for van - pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths -of -travel are specified on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and ail perimeter driveways. RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SRT9 but the bus currently does not stop at this site. RTA is currently studying a general reconfiguration,of bus routes in South- west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita Rd in the relatively near future since itis an important•arterial that would serve many commercial generators of bus traffic. In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the inland Counties. In some cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is important enough to be the route terminus or name of the line as identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page. It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, to drop off and pick up passengers lithe facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside F:ldatalPtanningWikeMlWordlDev RevtevATemeada120041Temecu1aHosp doc County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby street. Some examples of transit service and stops are: • .Kaiser Hospital In Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc; • Loma Linda Hospital: 3 Ones, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital; • Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn -around on site, very close and convenient to main building; • Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property; • Corona Regional Med Ctr: 2 lines; bus stops along S Main St, off the property; • SL Bernardino Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full build -out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site. To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital, RTA is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans -be amended to include a two or three -bay bus stop and bus turnout located at: • North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized Intersection with Country Glen Wy and the primary hospital entrance. The stop's taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the Intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer- cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth (i.e. width) of the turnout is 10 ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa- ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79. • Additionally, RTA requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location. • RTA staff also requests that the protect proponents consider investing in some additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, Its benches and shelters by perhaps taldng this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in the, interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places in the city, its bus stop is deserving of a high-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect or engineers are urged to contact RTA staff for further details. RTA staff will request the multi -bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 040463. RTA staff will work with future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is comparable and compatible wfth the stop in front of the Hospital. INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004. F data1PlaroiingliaeM.WoMlbev ReviewiTemeculal20041TemecuIaHosp.doc Rancho tel' Boud of Dito:tore John E. Soagtand President Gobs F. $o Sr. via Praaideat Stephen J. Coawta 6aipb a Daly Ben R. Drake Lira D. sermon John Y. Roost Officers: Brien J. Deady General Manager Phillip L. Padres Director of lrinaaA -Th wrrr EZ.'Solt Lessons Director of Botiaea(ns Paa711. Loaat Controller Linda M. Freon* Metric( eaa stsry/ddmtuha etw Bertha Efenater C. Michael Cowen Beat Boot do Krieger LLP Gew.e1 Coaaaaet July 12, 2004 Dan Long, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONAL HOSPITAL; PARCELS NO. 1, NO. 2, AND NO. 3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043; PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO. 1, NO. 2, NO. 3, AND NO. 4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001 THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH APN 959-080-010; PA04-0462 AND PA04-0463 Dear Mr. Long. Please be advised that the above -referenced property, is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water . District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off- site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required; the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12 -inch discharge pipeline and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be contained within a minimum 20 -foot -wide easement, which is located such that no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The projei t proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these reguireme ts. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT lVlrc eel, G. Meyerpeter, P Development Engineering otvtgwcA c Laurie Williams. Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Tones, Engineering Project Coordinator Bonen*Ca9;ferara Rater DLfdct 42136W.oehaaterRoe& • Pod Office 8=9017 • Tlswaola.Cel 921398019 • Me 2964900•FAX (809)2866960 RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10-0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL TO CHANGE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BEDS FROM 170 TO 140 FOR PHASE I OF THE PROJECT, TO MODIFY THE BUILDING FACADES OF THE HOSPITAL TOWERS, TO RELOCATE THE TRUCK LOADING BAYS AND SERVICE YARD, AND TO RELOCATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM AN OUTDOOR AREA AT THE SERVICE YARD TO AN EXPANDED INDOOR AREA AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING ON 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-001 THRU 004 AND 951-080-007 THRU 010) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application Number PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. CC. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on , at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. DD. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the City Council adopted Resolution No. subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines, and declares that: A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital, and on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital. B. The City determined that the proposed modifications to the project do not trigger any of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR and that an Addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. C. The Addendum relied on use of an Environmental Checklist Form as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) to evaluate whether there were any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under the Addendum and the proposed amendments and to review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. The analysis in the Addendum indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by the proposed modification to the project, nor will the proposed modification increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Hospital FEIR and FSEIR. D. The Addendum also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Addendum found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. E. Further, the Addendum analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the project would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in facts feasible. The Addendum found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. F. Because the Addendum finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously discussed, the Planning Commission finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed modification application. G. The City Council finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Addendum prepared for the proposed modification application. The City Council further finds that the conclusions reached in the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the City Council. H. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, and the Addendum for the modification application and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. I. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification Application, PA10-0194: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA) Section 15164, an Addendum to the FSEIR adopted in 2008 was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification Application, as described in the FSEIR Addendum ("the Project"). B. The City Council has reviewed the FSEIR Addendum prior to and at the December 15, 2010 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the FSEIR Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) Based on the findings in the FSEIR Addendum there is no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified; and (3) The FSEIR Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA), the City Council has considered the proposed Major Modification Application. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Project, approved by the City Council as Planning Application No. PA07-0200 on January 22, 2008, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the City Council finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, the City Council also finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Major Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FSEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Major Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FSEIR. An Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Major Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. D. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the FSEIR Addendum prepared for this project. Section 5. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 thru 959-080-004 and 951-080-007 thru 951-080-010, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA10-0194, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , , 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005031017 Prepared for City of Temecula December 2010 r ESA a mil * OPP 4 1 , warm . in iI 1111 .14: 1,riwareolx311.111:011: hill ain ,. se zranaleser: ir4 MI06 li pip , ' 1 ..a. :. ,..,,,,,,, " .. -.a i . , f v 4.6 ,i- 2-7 , _ fig , :11-;!..4 all 7, -,, • ......... ,,T. -....G.,......, 1 - ' — tavill . . k 1_,Zlis WI% 3 4,...---..0,4,,, , 1 or," S' ""'- v.11,64 1•11Pitiii (V` -," ' - --, , TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005031017 Prepared for December 2010 City of Temecula 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Olympia Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 207434 TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Findings of this Addendum 1-1 1.2 Contact Information 1-4 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Previously Approved Project 2-1 2.2 Revisions to the Approved Project 2-4 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-1 3.2 Noise 3-3 3.3 Traffic 3-5 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted 4-1 4.1 Acronyms 4-1 4.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted 4-4 5. References 5-1 Appendices A. SCS Engineers Letter Report A-1 B. City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum B-1 List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-3 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2-4 2-3 Addendum Site Plan 2-6 2-4 2008 FSEIR Site Plan 2-7 List of Tables 2-1 Comparison of Previously Approved Phasing to this Addendum 3-1 Comparison of Existing Traffic Conditions 2-8 3-5 Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA /D207434 0'1 December 2010 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Findings of this Addendum Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed changes to the project will result in new impacts or new information of substantial importance requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 1.1.1 Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified EIR, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: 1. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. 2. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR in order to describe and analyze new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 1. Introduction B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. If none of the above conditions is met, the City may require preparation of an Addendum, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary. This Addendum has evaluated each of the issues addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, as presented in Section 3.0 of this document. Based on this analysis and the information contained herein, the mitigation measures remain unchanged from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Comparison of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR with the revised project under Addendum, as described in Chapter 2 of this document, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project under this Addendum and mitigation, as described in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. This Addendum relies on use of an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Checklist Form is used: • To evaluate whether there are any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under this Addendum and proposed amendments; and • To review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. Section 3.0 of this document contains the discussion summarizing the responses to the questions on the form covering required environmental issues. Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant data. The documents outlined in this section are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Addendum, where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the project. Any document incorporated by reference is available for review at City of Temecula Planning Department. • Temecula Regional Hospital EIR (Original EIR) - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017, certified on January 24, 2006. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-2 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 1. Introduction — Technical reports and analyses are included therein. • Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017, certified on January 22, 2008. — Technical reports and analyses are included therein. 1.2 Contact Information The Lead Agency for this Addendum for the revised project is the City of Temecula. Any questions about the preparation of this Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Stuart Fisk - Senior Planner City of Temecula - Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 951.694.6477 (fax) Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the previously approved hospital project as described in the 2008 FSEIR and the changes to the previously approved project under this Addendum. 2.1 Previously Approved Project As part of the previously approved project described in the 2008 FSEIR, the applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposed to develop a 320 -bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres of land in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the previously approved project would be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. Construction of the previously approved project would last approximately 12 months. The total parking provided was 1,278 spaces, which exceeded the City's parking standards, which required 663 parking spaces. The City and Applicant Objectives have not changed under this Addendum from the previously approved City and Applicant Objectives under the 2008 FSEIR project. Please refer to Figure 2-1 for a map of the project's regional location and Figure 2-2 for a project vicinity map, neither of which have changed as part of this Addendum. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 �.� Temecula City Boundary SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 Addendum to the Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434.01 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 0 300 Feet SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Addendum to the Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434.01 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2. Project Description 2.2 Revisions to the Previously Approved Project Figure 2-3 illustrates the newly revised site plan as part of this Addendum. For comparative purposes, Figure 2-4 displays the site plan from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. The proposed changes to the project include the following: Truck Loading Area/Service Yard/Infrastructure Support • Under the 2008 FSEIR, a truck loading area and facilities plant was to be located at the eastern edge of the hospital building, south of the helipad. As detailed in the 2008 FSEIR, this area was intended to provide infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. Under this Addendum, the hospital building footprint has changed. As a result, these components, along with the truck loading area, have moved towards the north end of the hospital building on the eastern side of the hospital, just west of the helipad (location of 91 parking spaces under 2008 FSEIR site plan). This area would include a service yard and a tank farm enclosed by a 12 -foot -high wall. The previous loading area under the 2008 FSEIR site plan is now landscaping and future "B" building expansion area under this Addendum (see Figure 2-3). • The cooling towers have been removed from the project and replaced with rooftop package units. Underground fuel/oil storage has been relocated along with the generators and electrical transformer area to the northwest edge of the hospital building (see Figure 2-3). Hospital Building • The one-story hospital building footprint of the 2008 FSEIR has been reconfigured under this Addendum. The revised one-story hospital building extends development along a portion of the northwest corner of the institutional occupancy building footprint in comparison to the original design. The extended area is narrower than the previous design and includes areas for expansion. In addition, the revised design reduces the development footprint of the business occupancy building along the east edge adjacent to the Cancer Center and leaves another occupancy expansion area. A five -story bed tower rises from the single -story ancillary hospital building as compared to a six -story bed tower under the 2008 FSEIR (see Figure 2-3). The previously approved hospital building was a maximum of 106 feet in height at the rotunda and approximately 91 to 97 feet in height at the main body of the hospital towers. The proposed rotunda is reduced to 90 feet in height, and the main body of the hospital towers are reduced to 82.5 to 84 feet. Architectural changes to the hospital towers are also proposed as a result of these changes, including the elimination of some tiled roof areas and their replacement with vertical metal panels that incorporate spandrel glass "windows" and a secondary cornice line to create the appearance of an additional floor. The approximate total square footage build -out remains unchanged. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-4 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 2. Project Description • The ambulance drop-off area, previously located at the northwest edge of the hospital building footprint, has shifted just north of the passenger loading zone along the southwest edge of the hospital building under this Addendum (see Figure 2-3). Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 111111�1111 i0/IIII111111111111 11 lllllilHIFIIlllil 11 • , t,4IL eN ' — . r�rr�rr�rra ySr �lBrlAgIPra IIMAri19i. -- - �!nvnnvnnvnn+:wn�nn�nn nnnnn,n.nvnry I. ,:, 111 11 111 MC $o0 LEGEND — — — PROPERTY UNE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL • FH FIRE HYDRANT •FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION • PLV POST INDICATOR VALVE 9 0E0 0 SOURCE: URS, 2010. TRANSFORMER, PER ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FIRE LANE PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, PER ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL, WHEEL STOP, SIGNAGE AND LOADING ZONE FIRE LANE TURNING RADIUS INSIDE DIAMETER: 21'-0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 45'-0' 7' Feet 400 Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-3 Addendum Site Plan s s PARKING CALCULATIONS * Source: C.O.T DEV. CODE, CH. 17.24; Table 17.24.040 1. 1 SPACE PER 20 REQUIRED PARKING (Source: C.O.T DEV. CODE, CH. 17.24.040.F) DE PORTOLA ROAD SPLITTRPIL FENCE II'i`il�w MIIrJeE _'q IIIJIIIIL ��IIIIIIIII HIIII 1 I 'PACES I PESI O I I 1411 01 1111111N11111A1111O1111M11111I 11111111111villlvlll(lllvlllvllllell.11llvlllf IIvII IIIIIIIII"I_-- =re m"' ' Illl Vl!-�'JIII�iIl�ll 'Imo - RANCHO PUEBLO R nn 1I+�III+�II T�Unn I '),I,l1Lll l � PHASE IA I l7 SPAWN, PHASE I lullllllllll IIID' �Ili= II N=JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I L. III II 1010!l9!9111!� A1100011.1111111 --4111111111111111111111111111111111"" IIIIr -_- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ull; °lull � _ IIIII�MOBn IIII IIID-= °a°�°0°oRI�Es. . �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I ISI'(:" "�� \� III'IlI =111'111 III:III�= ='11[111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiI �--, — PHASE PHASE IB �IIIIIIIIIIIIII�III-- III II II II II II IICI II II II II II III I III II I III II II II II III I III II 1I II II II II III II II "_- umnoulom =11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIi!!IIII 'I 1111IIIIIIIICIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111 °Illlfffr'r ri ; _II010191',IIIIII4 Ir PIL.L'NL I sa SPACES MFRS PREMENT -STATE HIGHWAYrtROU 79 8 1;7\E\ STORAGE (APPROX. 3000 GAL) PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • SITE GRADING • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 (MOB 2) • MOB 2 PARKING (APPROX. 300 SPACES) • MAIN ENTRY DRIVE PHASE IB • HOSPITAL/ 6 STORY BED TOWER • HOSPITAL PARKING PHASE II • HOSPITAL 5 STORY BED TOWER PHASE III • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 (MOB 1) • MOB/ HOSPITAL CONNECTOR PHASE IV • CANCER CENTER • CANCER CENTER PARKING PHASE V • FITNESS CENTER • JOGGING TRAIL 0 400 SOURCE: HKS, 2007. Feet Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-4 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Site Plan AREA/ SIZE READ. SPACES PROVO. SPACES HOSPITAL '1 SPACE PER 3 BEDS 316 BEDS 106 644 HOSPITAL HANDICAPPED 501-1000 SPACES = 27 OF TOTAL 14 42 M.0.B.1 *1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. (LS AREA) 80,000 S.F. 267 250 M.O.B.1 HANDICAPPED 201-300 SPACES = 7 H.C. SPACES 7 16 M.O.B.2 *1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. (LS AREA) 60,00❑ S.F. 200 233 M.O.B. 2 HANDICAPPED 201-300 SPACES = 7 H.C. SPACES 7 10 CANCER CENTER =1 SPACE PER 200 S.F. (LS AREA) 10,000 S.F. 50 55 CANCER CENTER HANDICAPPED 26-50 SPACES = 2 H.C. SPACES 2 4 FITNESS CENTER '1 SPACE PER 200 S.F. (LS AREA) 8,000 S.F. 40 66 FITNESS CENTER HANDICAPPED 2010 OF REGULAR PARKING 10 10 TOTAL 663 1278 BICYCLE PARKING 34' 40 (3 RACKS) * Source: C.O.T DEV. CODE, CH. 17.24; Table 17.24.040 1. 1 SPACE PER 20 REQUIRED PARKING (Source: C.O.T DEV. CODE, CH. 17.24.040.F) DE PORTOLA ROAD SPLITTRPIL FENCE II'i`il�w MIIrJeE _'q IIIJIIIIL ��IIIIIIIII HIIII 1 I 'PACES I PESI O I I 1411 01 1111111N11111A1111O1111M11111I 11111111111villlvlll(lllvlllvllllell.11llvlllf IIvII IIIIIIIII"I_-- =re m"' ' Illl Vl!-�'JIII�iIl�ll 'Imo - RANCHO PUEBLO R nn 1I+�III+�II T�Unn I '),I,l1Lll l � PHASE IA I l7 SPAWN, PHASE I lullllllllll IIID' �Ili= II N=JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I L. III II 1010!l9!9111!� A1100011.1111111 --4111111111111111111111111111111111"" IIIIr -_- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ull; °lull � _ IIIII�MOBn IIII IIID-= °a°�°0°oRI�Es. . �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I ISI'(:" "�� \� III'IlI =111'111 III:III�= ='11[111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiI �--, — PHASE PHASE IB �IIIIIIIIIIIIII�III-- III II II II II II IICI II II II II II III I III II I III II II II II III I III II 1I II II II II III II II "_- umnoulom =11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIi!!IIII 'I 1111IIIIIIIICIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111 °Illlfffr'r ri ; _II010191',IIIIII4 Ir PIL.L'NL I sa SPACES MFRS PREMENT -STATE HIGHWAYrtROU 79 8 1;7\E\ STORAGE (APPROX. 3000 GAL) PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • SITE GRADING • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 (MOB 2) • MOB 2 PARKING (APPROX. 300 SPACES) • MAIN ENTRY DRIVE PHASE IB • HOSPITAL/ 6 STORY BED TOWER • HOSPITAL PARKING PHASE II • HOSPITAL 5 STORY BED TOWER PHASE III • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 (MOB 1) • MOB/ HOSPITAL CONNECTOR PHASE IV • CANCER CENTER • CANCER CENTER PARKING PHASE V • FITNESS CENTER • JOGGING TRAIL 0 400 SOURCE: HKS, 2007. Feet Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-4 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Site Plan 2. Project Description Landscaping • The landscaped area adjacent to the northwest edge of the institutional occupancy building has been removed to allow for the new location of the generators, and electrical transformer (see Figure 2-3). • A landscaped area has replaced the 16 parking spaces located immediately south of the Cancer Center (see Figure 2-3). Construction/Phasing • Construction of the project under this Addendum would occur in six phases as opposed to five phases under the previously approved project. However, the order in which various project components would develop has been changed under this Addendum in comparison to the 2008 FSEIR as described below in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1 COMPARISON OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PHASNG TO THIS ADDENDUM Phase Previously Approved Phasing The Proposed Phasing Phase IA Phase IB • Site Grading • Medical Office Building 2 (MOB 2) • MOB Parking (Approximately 300 spaces) • Main Entry Drive • Hospital/Six-Story Bed Tower • Hospital Parking Phase II • Hospital Five -Story Bed Tower Phase III • Medical Office Building 1 (MOB 1) • MOB/Hospital Connector Phase IV • Cancer Center • Cancer Center Parking Phase V • Fitness Center • Jogging Trail SOURCE: Universal Health Services, Inc., 2010 • Now referred to as Phase I • Site Grading • Main Entry Drive • Off-site Improvements • Hospital (140 Beds) 5 -Story Tower • Hospital Parking (434 Spaces) • Horse Trail • Temporary Water Retention Basin at Southeast Corner of Site, Removed in Phase III • Now referred to as Phase II • MOB1 • MOB 1 Parking (326 spaces) • Final Underground WQMP BMP Chambers at Southeast Corner of Site • Now referred to as Phase III • MOB2 • MOB 2 Parking (300 Spaces) • Now referred to as Phase IV • Hospital (180 Beds) 5 -Story Tower • Hospital Parking (128 Spaces) • Now referred to as Phase V • Cancer Center • Cancer Center Parking (50 Spaces) • Now referred to as Phase VI • Fitness Center • Fitness Center Parking (40 Spaces) • Jogging Trail Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 2-8 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures In many instances, there has been no change in the existing setting since 2008 when the FSEIR was prepared and certified. Further, changes have been minimal since the preparation and approval of 2008 FSEIR. In these instances, appropriate discussions from the 2008 FSEIR will be incorporated by reference into this Addendum. This discussion will be followed by evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed changes. Where there is insignificant or no change in potential impacts between this Addendum and the adopted 2008 FSEIR, the appropriate discussions from the 2008 FSEIR will be incorporated by reference. 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1.1 Existing Conditions The information and data in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding the presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazardous conditions remain unchanged since the FSEIR was certified. Refer to pages 3.1-1 through 3.1-11 of the FSEIR, which provides information and data related to the presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards within and adjacent to the project site. In addition, please refer to the recent technical letter memo from SCS Engineers that further describes existing conditions on the site, dated November 19, 2010. A copy of this technical letter memo can be found in Appendix A of this Addendum document. Based on a review of the previous reports and assessment activities associated with the 2008 FSEIR, SCS Engineers conclude that: • The most recent groundwater monitoring data from the adjacent leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities does not indicate any change in impacts to the proposed project site from the off-site release from the time that impacts previously were analyzed in the 2008 FSEIR. The conclusion that there is no further change in impacts, and no increased risk of migration, is further supported by the fact that on May 30, 2008 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a no further action (NFA) letter to the Shell service station, and on December 3, 2009 issued a NFA letter to the Chevron service station. Thus, the responsible governmental entity has determined that no further groundwater monitoring is required and no further remedial actions are necessary. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-1 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures • There is a low likelihood of a significant health risk on the proposed project site. Because no volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) were detected in soil vapor sampling at the Hospital Site, it is SCS Engineer's opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a low likelihood of related Significant human health risk. • There is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the proposed project site, caused by an off-site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the proposed project site (i.e., the proposed project site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). • In regards to hazards as listed in Section 3.1 of the Temecula Regional Hospital FSEIR, dated January 2008, the conclusions for the project are unchanged. As concluded, there has been no change in circumstances that would indicate an increase in the severity of the previously identified impacts since the data in the 2008 FSEIR. In addition, there is no new information concerning mitigation measures for these previously identified potential impacts. 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding hazards and hazardous materials have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (see Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: MTBE Plume • Potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. There would be no new impacts as a result of the changes to the project as discussed in this Addendum. As described in the 2008 FSEIR, and confirmed by the technical letter memo submitted by SCS Engineers on November 19, 2010, the potential for contamination is likely to be localized around the off-site USTs and is unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site (as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components). Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-2 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. The changes to construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the likelihood that construction excavation and grading could expose construction workers, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is still considered to be unlikely with the proposed changes. There will be no significant change in MTBE plume impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as described in this Addendum. They will be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No new mitigation is required. 3.1.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation The impact of the proposed changes to the previously approved project, as described in this Addendum, are not considered significant due to the continued implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures ensures that project -specific and cumulative impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.2 Noise 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The information and data in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding the existing ambient noise setting and environment remain unchanged since the FSEIR was certified (refer to pages 3.2-1 through 3.2-11 of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR). There is no new substantial information indicating that the severity of the impacts might have changed. The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise; as such, refer to Section 3.3 (Traffic) of this Addendum and the City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum dated October 4, 2010. 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR regarding noise have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-3 Preliminary — Subject to Revision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Construction Noise • Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not substantially change or increase temporary construction activity noise level impacts at and/or near the construction areas or increase construction -related material haul trips that would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes to a more severe level than those described in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. There will be no significant change in construction noise impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Emergency Vehicle Sirens • Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as detailed in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the severity of noise levels along roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise that would cause additional significant environmental effects. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB under both this Addendum and the previously approved FSEIR. None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise, would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. There will be no significant change in siren noise impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better noise mitigation is available. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the proposed project as described in this Addendum. They shall be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to noise. Although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant under this Addendum (similar to the previously approved FSEIR), there are no mitigation measures that can be placed on this type of noise. 3.2.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, development of the project under this Addendum would still result in construction activities that would exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB in the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the site. With implementation of mitigation measures in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-4 Preliminary — Subject to Revision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008, the construction noise levels under this Addendum would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south (similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR). As with the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the project under this Addendum would be considered a significant impact. As noted in the 2008 FSEIR, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. 3.3 Traffic The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR regarding traffic have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (see Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: 3.3.1 Existing Conditions There has been no significant change in the existing traffic counts and there is no new substantial information that would worsen the severity of the previously identified impacts since the data in the 2008 FSEIR. The City Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the traffic count data, collected in September 2005, and shown in the 2008 FSEIR (City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum, November 12, 2010 — Appendix B). The September 2005 count data was compared with traffic count data collected for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program, July 2010, at the same study locations on Temecula Parkway, Margarita Road, and De Portola Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and corresponding Level of Service (LOS) are shown in Table 3-1: TABLE 3-1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Location Year 2005 Year 2010 Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway De Portola Road west of Margarita Road Source: City of Temecula, 2010 38,700 (LOS "C") 38,200 (LOS "C") 23,500 (LOS "B") 24,000 (LOS "B") 7,000 (LOS "A') 7,500 (LOS "A") Although the data indicates there was a slight increase in traffic volumes (500 ADT) on Margarita Road and De Portola Road over a five (5) year period, it is not a significant increase since the capacity of the roadway remains unaffected. As shown, the LOS is maintained at LOS "C" or better, at all locations and the locations with the increases still perform at LOS "B" or better. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-5 ESA 1 D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Since the approval of the 2008 FSEIR, Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: SR 79/Pechanga Parkway — (dual right -turn lanes) and Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 have been completed (identified as mitigation measures 3.3-6 and 3.3-8, respectively, in the FSEIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). The completion of these mitigation measures reduced the severity of the traffic impacts identified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Outside of the implementation of these mitigation measures, there has been no significant change to the existing traffic information since the 2008 FSEIR was approved (refer to pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-11 of the 2008 FSEIR). 3.3.2 Environmental Impacts Direct Impacts The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant direct traffic impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below): • Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road • Highway 79/Country Glen Way None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to direct traffic impacts would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The proposed changes would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project's potential direct traffic impacts have been adequately addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Cumulative Impacts (Intersections) The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant cumulative intersection impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below): • State Route 79 /I-15 Southbound Ramps • State Route 79 /I-15 Northbound Ramps • State Route 79 /La Paz Street • State Route 79 /Pechanga Parkway • State Route 79 /Jedediah Smith Rd; State Route 79 /Avenida De Missiones; State Route 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 /Redhawk Parkway /Margarita Road • State Route 79 /Avenida De Missiones • State Route 79 / Country Glen Way • State Route 79 /RedhawkParkway/ Margarita Road Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-6 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to cumulative intersections would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The project, as revised under this Addendum, would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project's potential cumulative traffic impacts to intersections have been adequately addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. It should be noted that since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Projects entitled, "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right -Turn Lanes" has added a second eastbound right -turn lane on State Route 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This improvement provides direct mitigation to the cumulative impact intersection located at State Route 79 / Pechanga Parkway. In addition, since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Projects for Fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled, "Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase II" has been completed. This improvement provides direct mitigation to the cumulative impact intersections located at Pechanga Parkway south of State Route 79. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Cumulative Impacts (Segments) The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant cumulative segment impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below): • State Route 79 West ofI-15 • State Route 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway • State Route 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road • State Route 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 • Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 • Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to cumulative segments would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The project, as revised under this Addendum, would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project's potential cumulative traffic impacts to segments have been adequately addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. It should be noted that since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Project entitled, "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right -Turn Lanes" has added a second eastbound right -turn lane on State Route 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This improvement also provides mitigation to the cumulative impact segment located at State Route 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-7 Preliminary — Subject to Revision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better traffic mitigation is available. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the proposed project as described in this Addendum. They shall be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to traffic. 3.3.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, development of the project with the proposed changes would still result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts as identified in the previously approved document. Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, no additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in the previously approved document, are feasible for the traffic -related impacts that would result from this Addendum due to the fact that upon completion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right-of-way for additional circulation system improvements. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-8 Preliminary — Subject to Revision ESA 1 D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 4 Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted 4.1 Acronyms µ.g1I, micrograms per liter ADT average daily trips ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above -ground storage tank bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game City City of Temecula CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CoCo Constituents of Concern CH4 methane CIP Capital Improvement Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2 equivalents CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel dBA A -weighted decibels DIPE diisopropyl ether EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DNL Day/Night Average Noise Level DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control EIR Environmental Impact Report ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSEIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gas HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz Hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Leg energy -equivalent noise level Ldt, day -night average noise level LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design LLG Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers L,,, maximum noise level LOS level of service MOB medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-2 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether N20 nitrous oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA's National Priorities List OPR Office of Planning and Research PFCs perfluorocarbons RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Board SB south bound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level SF6 sulfur hexaflouride SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TBA tertiary butyl alcohol TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UHS Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank v/c volume -to -capacity VMT vehicle miles traveled Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-3 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted VOC volatile organic compounds 4.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency — City of Temecula Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer -Traffic Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradley Scott Crane Tim Rielly Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers (Subsurface/Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project Professional/Geologist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) John Boarman, Principal Narasimha. Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Gus JaFolla, Word Processor Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-4 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 5 References California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, August 29, 2007b. Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation at Cal/EPA Headquarters. California Air Resources Board, October 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a framework for change. California Air Resources Board, October 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArchlscenic_highways, August 11, 2005. City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum — Temecula Regional Hospital Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, November 12, 2010 City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12, 2005. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 7. References Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. — Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), October 2007. SCS Engineers, Limited Regulatory File Review Proposed Inland Valley Medical CenterAPNs 959-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010 Temecula, California, November 19, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm, March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-2 ESA 10207434.01 December2010 Appendix A SCS Engineers Letter Report SCS ENGINEERS Limited Regulatory File Review Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 959- 080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, - 009, and -010 Temecula, California Presented to: CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 San Diego, California 92123 (858) 571 -5500 December 1, 2010 Project No. 01207522.00 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS December 1, 2010 Project No. 01207522.00 Mr. Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Limited Regulatory File Review (Review) Hospital Site: Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 959959-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010 Temecula, California Dear Mr. Fisk: SCS Engineers (SCS) is pleased to present this Review of three leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites in the Hospital Site vicinity. This report summarizes the results of the Review that was conducted to evaluate specific environmental conditions at the Hospital Site. The work described in the Review was performed by SCS in general accordance with Exhibit 01 to the consulting Agreement (Contract) between SCS and the City of Temecula (Client). Limited Regulatory File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Should you have any questions regarding this Review, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at (858) 571-5500. Sincerely, Tom Wright, P.G. 7972 Project Professional SCS ENGINEERS Chuck Pryatel Vice President SCS ENGINEERS TW F:\Projects\207\500-550\01207522.00 (City of Temecula)\01207522 00 Flle Review_final.docx Limited Regulatory File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Table of Contents Section Page 1 Background 1 2 Objective 1 3 Scope of Services 1 4 Regulatory File Review 1 Known, Reported, or Suspected Releases within the Hospital Site Vicinity 1 Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South, Temecula, California .1 Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California 3 Additional Site Assessment- Shell Service Station 4 Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, California 5 Previous SCS Environmental Investigations 7 Soil Vapor Survey 7 Groundwater Sampling 8 5 Discussion 6 Conclusions 10 7 Recommendations 11 8 Report Usage And Future Conditions 12 9 Likelihood Statements 13 9 List of Figures 1 4 -Way Site Location 2 Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results Limited Regulatory iii File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS 1 BACKGROUND Based on our conversations and a review of Client -provided documents, we understand that the Hospital Site consists of approximately 35.31 acres of land in Temecula, California (Figure 1). The Hospital Site is currently undeveloped land (APNs 959-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010) and is proposed to be developed into facilities for the Inland Valley Medical Center. We understand that the Hospital Site improvements will consist of slab -on - grade medical offices and support buildings, as well as a two -tower 320 -bed hospital and related physical plant, parking and hardscape/landscape improvements. It is our understanding that below grade improvements are not currently planned. We also understand that potable water will be supplied by others and that no on-site groundwater production wells are planned. 2 OBJECTIVE The objective of the proposed scope of services is to assess the current status, conditions, and progress of the investigation, migration, and remediation of constituents of concern (CoCs) from leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases in the site vicinity. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services designed and conducted to meet the objective was as follows: • Regulatory File Review for the adjacent LUST cases • Data Evaluation and Report Preparation 4 REGULATORY FILE REVIEW KNOWN, REPORTED, OR SUSPECTED RELEASES WITHIN THE HOSPITAL SITE VICINITY Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South, Temecula, California The above -referenced Chevron Service Station is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the Hospital Site (Figures 2 and 3). The first quarter 2009 quarterly groundwater monitoring report and historical Chevron assessment report were reviewed and included both groundwater gradient and analytical data. The Chevron Service Station has six groundwater monitoring wells that are all located on the property. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since at least August 2001 and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has been reported in all the wells at some point between August 2001 and January 2007. MTBE and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) have been reported at maximum concentrations of 1,400 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 420 µg/L, respectively. The latest report available for the Chevron Service Station was for the first quarter 2009. Based upon this report, the groundwater gradient was reported to be to the west to northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 21.88 and 24.660 feet below ground surface (bgs). Limited Regulatory 1 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Based on the historical data and reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater likely migrated towards the Hospital Site. The following table summarizes the most recently reported concentrations of the target CoCs and depth to groundwater for each well at the Chevron Service Station. MTBE concentrations have not been reported above the maximum contaminant limits (MCLs)1 in the Chevron Service Station monitoring wells since April 2006 (MW -5). Please note that based on the data we have reviewed, benzene has not been detected in the wells this facility during remedial sampling activities. Table 1 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 Monitoring Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Sampling Date Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (pg/L) MTBE (Pg/L) TAME (pg/L) ETBE (pg/L) TBA (Pg/L) MW -1 300 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.87 <50 4 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.09 <50 2 <2 <2 <10 MW -2 360 feet southeast Oct 2008 23.79 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 21.88 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -3 200 feet southeast Oct 2008 26.27 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.37 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -4 320 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.31 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 23.39 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -5 255 feet southeast Oct 2008 26.53 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.66 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -6 250 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.57 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 23.72 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di -isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. Wells located downgradient from Chevron Service Station. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. In a letter dated December 3, 2009, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a no further action (NFA) letter for the Chevron service station. Groundwater monitoring has ceased and no further remedial actions are planned to mitigate the previous release from the USTs. Maximum contaminant levels taken from Title 22 California Code of Regulations California Safe Drinking Water Act & Related Laws and Regulations, September 2009. Limited Regulatory 2 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California The above -referenced Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east-southeast of the Hospital Site (Figures 2 and 3). In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the Shell Service Station to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 resulted in the installation of an additional thirty-two groundwater monitoring wells and the completion of thirty-five cone penetration test (CPT) locations at downgradient locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE, TBA, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling was conducted at the Shell Service Station between 2001 and 2008. MTBE and TBA had been reported at maximum concentrations of 17,000 µg/L and 3,000 µg/L, respectively, from groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells (MW -7A) located at the Shell Service Station. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was conducted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater containing dissolved -phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the Shell Service Station as a groundwater remediation system to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the Shell Service Station from July 2004 to August 2006. As of April 2007, the groundwater remediation system is offline pending evaluation of the rebound of the CoCs. The last quarterly groundwater sampling event conducted at the Shell Service Station was during first quarter 2008 (January 2008). Groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to be approximately 22 feet bgs. The following table summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the Hospital Site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity of the Hospital Site. Limited Regulatory 3 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Table 2 FIRST QUARTER 2009 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHgMTBE WA)WA)WA)WA)WA) TAME ETBE TBA MW -22A 140 feet southeast 22.55 <50 <1 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -23A 130 feet south 22.31 <50 3.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -24A 10 feet south 22.09 <50 1.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -25A 90 feet southeast 22.78 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 Notes- TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di -isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. Wells located downgradient from Shell Service Station. pg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime and groundwater sample analytical results from the Shell service station, SCS considered there to be a likelihood2 that MTBE impacted groundwater had potentially migrated onto the Hospital Site. However, MTBE was not detected in a groundwater sample collected in January 2006 from soil boring B 10 (Figure 3) at the Hospital Site, downgradient from the Shell Service Station. In a letter dated May 30, 2008, the RWQCB issued a NFA letter for the Shell service station. Groundwater monitoring has ceased and no further remedial actions on- or off -Site are being directed by the regulatory agency due to the previous release from the USTs. Additional Site Assessment- Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks3 completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed Hospital Site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and other fuel oxygenates. No concentrations of TPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or DIPE were reported above the laboratory reporting limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 2 3 Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment, Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center, SCS Engineers, October 27, 2007. Summary of Additional Site Assessment Activities, Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, California, Case Number R9-2002-0340, Miller Brooks Environmental 2005. Limited Regulatory 4 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS µg/L to 1.1 pg/L. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 pg/L to 2.22 µg/L. Fourteen of the forty samples collected were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.1 µg/L to 77 pg/L. The highest reported concentration of MTBE (77 pg/L) in groundwater was reported in location CPT - 50, at a depth of 33 feet bgs, which is located along the north side of Highway 79 South. The above -referenced assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling: • "there does not appear to be the discrete water -bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vail Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway. • "PPD (pore pressure dissipation) tests from these four CPTs (CPT -46, CPT -47, CPT -49, and CPT -53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities." Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from the above referenced report, SCS interprets that MTBE impacted groundwater may have migrated onto the southern edge of the Hospital Site. Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, California Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the Hospital Site (Figure 2 and 3). Delta Environmental (Delta) collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the Arco Service Station. The soil samples were reported to contain concentrations of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and MTBE. The soil samples were reported to contain concentration ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 to 1,300 mg/kg), benzene (1.3 mg/kg), toluene (0.012 to 20 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 to 47 mg/kg), total xylenes (0.029 to 105 mg/kg), and MTBE (0.011 to 43 mg/kg). In January 2001, Secor International Incorporated (Secor) installed three monitoring wells (MW 1, MW2, and MW3) at the Arco Service Station. Soil samples collected during the installation of the wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. In February 2001, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT -1 though CPT -6) at the Arco Service Station, and soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MTBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soil samples collected from two of the six CPT locations and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sample collected from the CPT locations. Limited Regulatory 5 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Between April 2001 through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT -7 though CPT -17, CPT -18, and CPT -19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring wells (MW4 through MW 14). Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW 1, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the Arco Service Station. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pumps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off-site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW -1, IW -2, and IW -3) were installed along Dartolo Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the Hospital Site. The groundwater remediation via extraction was conducted from 2003 through September 2007. Groundwater pumped from the Arco Service Station remediation system was treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells. The groundwater extraction system was shut down in September 2007 due to low hydrocarbons levels. As of the second quarter 2010, the Arco Service Station has a monitoring well network consisting of fourteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW -10S -A, MW -10S -B, and MW -10D) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. MW -10S -A and MW -10S -B were reinstalled in March 2008. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected up to concentrations of 1,900 µg/L (MW -6). During the second quarter 2010 groundwater was reported to flow to the west-northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 22.51 and 24.39 feet bgs in the shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to have migrated towards the Hospital Site. However, MTBE was not detected in a groundwater sample collected from in January 2006 soil boring B 10 (Figure 3) at the Hospital Site, downgradient from the Arco Service Station. The following table summarizes the most recently reported concentrations of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the Hospital Site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity of the Hospital Site. Limited Regulatory 6 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Table 3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO #5695 SERVICE STATION Monitoring Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (pg/L) MTBE (pg/L) TAME (pg/L) ETBE (pg/L) TBA (pg/L) MW -1 305 feet east <50 9.6 <2 <2 14 MW -2 325 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -3 330 feet east <50 0.63 <5 <5 <25 MW -4 340 feet east <50 0.45 <5 <5 <25 MW -5 350 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -6 315 feet east <50 2.9 <5 <5 <25 MW -7 370 feet east <50 0.32 <5 <5 <25 MW -8 270 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -9 225 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -1 1 340 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -12 230 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -13 250 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -14 200 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 Notes. TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di -isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Samples collected by Delta Environmental on January 31, 2007. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. PREVIOUS SCS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS Soil Vapor Survey In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed at the Hospital Site in order to assess the possible presence and concentration of BTEX and MTBE in the shallow subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings. Soil vapor samples were collected from 7 locations within the footprint of the proposed buildings (SV1 through SV6, and SV8). Three additional locations (SV7, SV9, and SV 10) were located in the southwest portion of the Site in an attempt to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the Site. Samples collected from SV1 through S V 10 were reported to have no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory reporting limits. The locations and sample results of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 2. In July 2007 and August 2008, soil vapor samples (SG1 through SG14) were collected at the Hospital Site in locations of the footprint of the proposed Hospital Site buildings and locations to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that may have been migrating onto the Hospital Limited Regulatory 7 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Site. Soil vapor samples collected from SG1 through SG14 were reported to have no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory reporting limits (Figure 2). Groundwater Sampling In July 2006, SCS personnel mobilized to the Hospital Site and advanced ten groundwater sampling locations at the proposed Hospital Site buildings. The locations of the soil borings were co -located with the soil vapor sampling locations in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the Hospital Site (B1 through B6, and B8). Locations B7, B9, and B10 were drilled in locations in the southwest portion of the Hospital Site in an attempt to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that may be intruding onto the Hospital Site. The groundwater samples from each boring were collected using a Hydropunch sampler. The sampler was driven into the first encountered water -bearing zone and an in-situ groundwater sample was collected and placed in a laboratory -supplied container provided by the laboratory. Groundwater samples collected were submitted to a on-site state -accredited mobile laboratory, and were analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. The locations of the groundwater samples are shown in Figure 3 and the analytical results are summarized in the following table. Table 4 Hydropunch® Groundwater Sample Analytical Results Sample Number Benzene (1.1g/L) Toluene (lig/L)(14/1.) BEthyl- enzene Total Xylenes (�1g/L) MTBE (pg/L) B 1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 .5 < 1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 39 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 Notes: Samples collected by SCS on January 3, 2005. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. µg/L = micrograms per liter. Limited Regulatory 8 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS 5 DISCUSSION MTBE concentrations in the monitoring wells in the Hospital Site vicinity have decreased steadily since the previous environmental Site assessments conducted on the Hospital Site and adjacent LUST facilities. Two of the LUST facilities (Shell and Arco) have been issued NFA letters from the RWQCB. The issuance of NFA letters does not, precluded there from being off-site impacts that could potentially impact the Hospital Site. Based upon the soil vapor and groundwater sampling previously conducted by SCS at the Hospital Site detailed in Survey and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment, dated October 25, 2007, SCS concluded: • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) were not reported to be present at detectable concentrations in the eleven multi -depth soil vapor sampling probes beneath the footprint of the proposed Site buildings across three sampling events. • Because no VOCs or MTBE were detected, it is our opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant4 human health risk. Coupled with the multi -event soil vapor sampling and on -Site groundwater sampling and the reported reduction in MTBE concentrations in the monitoring wells adjacent to the Hospital Site, it is SCS' opinion that there is a low likelihood that dissolved phase MTBE that has historically migrated onto the Hospital Site would pose a Significant human health risk. In SCS's experience, there is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the Site, caused by an off -Site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the Site (i.e., the Site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). Based on these factors and SCS's experience, it is unlikely that the Site would be named a "responsible party" or be required to assume responsibility for the remediation of the source of these releases. However, as the Hospital Site is developed, the developer may incur costs associated with management of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the Hospital Site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). 4 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E-6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as significant. For the purposes of this limited HRA, a commercial land use, consistent with the Site's current zoning, is assumed. Limited Regulatory 9 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Depending on Hospital Site development plans, you may need to retain a qualified environmental professional during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons and assist with management of petroleum hydrocarbons bearing soil and/ groundwater. We recommend that when construction plans are finalized that they be reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. 6 CONCLUSIONS Based on the above review of previous reports and assessment activities conducted by SCS, it is SCS's professional opinion that: • The most recent groundwater monitoring data from the adjacent LUST facilities does not indicate any change in impacts to the Hospital Site from the off-site release from the time that impacts previously were analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated January 2008. The conclusion that there is no further change in impacts, and no increased risk of migration, is further supported by the fact that on May 30, 2008 the RWQCB issued a NFA letter to the Shell service station, and on December 3, 2009 issued a NFA letter to the Chevron service station. Thus, the responsible governmental entity has determined that no further groundwater monitoring is required and no further remedial actions are necessary. • There is a low likelihood of a significant health risk on the Hospital Site. Because no VOCs or MTBE were detected in soil vapor sampling at the Hospital Site, it is SCS's opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a low likelihood of related Significant human health risk. • There is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the Site, caused by an off - Site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the Site (i.e., the Site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). • In regards to hazards as listed in Section 3.1 of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), dated January 2008, the conclusions for the project are unchanged. Limited Regulatory 10 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the data obtained during this Assessment and our conclusions, SCS recommends: • That depending on Hospital Site development plans you may need to retain a qualified environmental professional during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. We recommend that when construction plans are finalized that they be reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of oversight and management activities during construction consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated January, 2008. Limited Regulatory 11 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS 8 REPORT USAGE AND FUTURE CONDITIONS This Report is intended for the sole usage of the Client and other parties designated by the Client. The methodology used during this Review was in general conformance with the requirements of the Client and the specifications and limitations presented in the Agreement between the Client and SCS. This Report contains information from a variety of public and other sources, and SCS makes no representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability, suitability, or completeness of the information. Any use of this Report, whether by the Client or by a third party, shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement between the Client and SCS. Any misuse of or reliance upon the Report shall be without risk or liability to SCS. Reviews are qualitative, not comprehensive, in nature and may not identify all environmental problems or eliminate all risk. For every property, but especially for properties in older downtown or urban areas, it is possible for there to be unknown, unreported recognized environmental conditions, underground storage tanks, or other features of concern that might become apparent through demolition, construction, or excavation activities, etc. In addition, the scope of work for this project was limited to those items specifically named in the scope of work for this Report. Environmental issues not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work for this project are not included in this Report. Land use, condition of the properties within the Site, and other factors may change over time. The information and conclusions of this Report are judged to be relevant at the time the work described in this Report was conducted and was based upon information obtained from public agencies, which SCS believes to be accurate. This Report should not be relied upon to represent future Site conditions unless a qualified consultant familiar with the practice of Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments in Riverside County is consulted to assess the necessity of updating this Report. The property owners at the Site are solely responsible for notifying all governmental agencies and the public of the existence, release, or disposal of any hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products at the Site, whether before, during, or after the performance of SCS services. SCS assumes no responsibility nor liability for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury which results from hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products being present or encountered within the Site. Limited Regulatory 12 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS 9 LIKELIHOOD STATEMENTS Statements of "likelihood" have been made in this report. Likelihood statements are based on professional judgments of SCS. The term "likelihood," as used herein, pertains to the probability of a match between the prediction for an event and its actual occurrence. The likelihood statement assigns a measure for a "degree of belief' for the match between the prediction for the event and the actual occurrence of the event. The likelihood statements in this Report are made qualitatively (expressed in words). The qualitative terms can be approximately related to quantitative percentages. The term "low likelihood" is used by SCS to approximate a percentage range of 10 to 20 percent; the term "moderate likelihood" refers to an approximate percentage range of 40 to 60 percent; and the term "high likelihood" refers to an approximate percentage range of 80 to 90 percent. Limited Regulatory 13 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS FIGURES Limited Regulatory File Review REGIONAL SITE LOCATION Reference: Terra Server Aerial Photograph Temecula, California - May 2002 Disclaimer: This figure is based on available data. Actual conditions may differ. All locations and dimensions are approximate. SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH North (Not to scale) North 0 315 630 945 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet Reference: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle map Pechanga, California - 1977. Photo revised 1982. 2-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION North 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet Reference: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle map Pechanga, California - 1977. Photo revised 1982. 3-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION North (Not to scale) SCS ENGINEERS Environmental Consultants 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 San Diego, California 92123 4 -WAY SITE LOCATION MAP City of Temcula State Highway Route 79 South Temecula, California Project No.: 01207522.00 Figure 1 Date Drafted: 10/15/10 SG5 SG6 SV6 Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 1/3/05 5 ND ND SV8 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND SG1 Date Depth BTEX MTBE 0 Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/3/05 5 ND ND 5V5 $G7 Date Depth BTEX MTBE Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/16/07lir 5,15 ND ND SG11 1/3105 5 ND ND 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 7/78/07 5,75 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND SG4 7/18107 5,15 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE ;J ry 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 6411111 SG13 Q} 7/78/07 7 5,15 ND ND $V4 Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE 8/21/07 5,15 ND ND t. SV2 1/3/05 5 ND ND 8/24/07 5,15. ND ND Date Depth BTEX MTBE Arco J1/3/05 5 ND ND C. $V10 SG2 Date Depth BTEX MTBE Date Depth VOCs MTBE SG8 1/3/05 5 ND ND 7116/07 5,15 ND ND 0 Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/76/07 5,15 ND ND 5V7 SG12 7/18107 5,15 ND NDDate • {� 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth5 BTEXNDMTBEND Depth VOCs MTBE t� �.. 5,15 ND ND 9 Sant 7/3/05 `88/21/07 ippShell /24/07 5,15 ND ND N�gh�ay SG3 SV9 Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND SG9 M3/05 5 ND ND 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7116107 5,15 ND ND SG12 SV1 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE SV3 8/21/07 5,15 ND ND 1/3/05 5 ND ND Date Depth BTEX MTBE 8/24/07 5,15 ND ND 7/3/05 5 ND ND 5G1 Chevron Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/16/07 5, 15 ND ND 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND �• 0 125 250 375 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North EXPLANATION Soil vapor sample analyzed for j O I Reported groundwater gradient, as reported by Soil vapor sample location. �.., Delta Environmental (Shell [Jan 2008]), Holguin Fahan, & Associates (Chevron [Jan 2009]), Disclaimer This figure is based on available data. volatile organic compunds (VOCs) including and Stantec (ARCO May 2009]). Actual conditions may differ. All locations and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total dimensions are approximate. VOs and 1ethod general accordanes nce 1 Dept MTBE with EPA M CURRENT AND PREVIOUS SOIL VAPOR Project No.: 5 ND ND Results reported in microgramsD=per ENGINEERS SAMPLING LOCATIONS WITH 01207522.00 75 ND ND detected above liter of vapor (pg/Lv). ND =nototSCS the laboratory reporting limit (1 pg/Lv). Samples SV1 through SV10 collected in January 2006, samples SG1 through SG11 collected in 1 Environmental Consultants 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 ANALYTICAL RESULTS City of Temecula Figure 2 July 2007, and samples SG12, SG13, and SG14 collected in August 2007. All samples collected under the supervision of SCS Engineers. San Diego, California 92123 State Highway Route 79 Temecula, California Date Drafted: 10/15/10 B5 <0.5 T <0.5 ; $ B T E <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1.0 B T E <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 \-- X MTBE <1.5 1.3 X MTBE <1.5 <1.0 -n 3 41 p of B2 ¢ 11 VtO , <0.5 -b T T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 (.Arco - _ = _ B T E X <0.5 <.5 <0.5 <1.5 �? "S Ow n B <0.5 MTBE <1.0 S T E <0.5 <0.5 B10 04.1 X <1.5 MTBE <1.0 B7 B T <0.5 <0.5 ro B T E <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 E X MTBE <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 Shell X MTBE <1.5 <1.0 69 Bi 9 SaUt BT E X <0.5 <0.5 E MTBE <0.5 <1.0 �i�t lay MTBE <1.5 <1.0 O et Chevron c, .. 0 125 250 375 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North EXPLANATION O+ Reported groundwater gradient, as reported by Delta Environmental (Shell [Jan 2008]), Groundwater sam le location. Holguin, Fahan, & Associates (Chevron [Jan 2009]), Disclaimer This figure is based on available data. p and Stantec (ARCO May 2009]). Actual conditions may differ. All locations and dimensions are approximate. Project No.: Bi 1 Groundwater sample analyzed for benzene, SCS ENGINEERS GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS 012077522,00 B T E <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. Results are reported in Environmental Consultants 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 WITH ANALYTICAL RESULTS Cityof Temecula Figure 3 X MTBE <1.5 <1.o micrograms per liter (pg/L). Groundwater samples collected by SCS Engineers in January 2005. San Diego, California 92123 g State Highway Route 79 Temecula, California Date Drafted: 10/15/10 Appendix B Ciy of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Vemorandum r ESA TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Ruth Smith, T.E., P.T.P., City Traffic Engineer Greg Butler, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: November 12, 2010 SUBJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital - Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared By: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer — Traffic As requested, the Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the traffic count data, collected in September 2005, and shown in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), January 2008. The September 2005 count data was compared with traffic count data collected for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program, July 2010, at the same study locations on Temecula Parkway, Margarita Road, and De Portola Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and corresponding Level of Service (LOS) is shown below: Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway De Portola Road west of Margarita Road 2005 2010 38,700 (LOS "C") 38,200 (LOS "C") 23,500 (LOS "B") 24,000 (LOS "B") 7,000 (LOS "A") 7,500 (LOS "A") The traffic count data suggests there was a slight increase in traffic volumes (500 ADT) on Margarita Road and De Portola Road over a five (5) year period. The increase is not significant since the capacity of the roadway remains unaffected, performing at LOS "C" or better at all locations, and the locations with the increases still perform at LOS "B" or better. Since there is no recent turning movement count data available for the study intersections analyzed in the 2005 FSEIR, a comparison of count data could not be performed to determine if there has been a change in conditions at each study intersections. It should also be noted that since the preparation of the January 2008 FSEIR, the dual right - turn lanes on Temecula Parkway (SR79) at Pechanga Parkway and the Pechanga Parkway Improvements (south of Temecula Parkway SR79) have been completed. These two improvements were identified as mitigation measures 3.3-6 and 3.3-8, respectively, in the FSEIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. -1- Since the proposed project is not increasing the square footage or changing the approved land use, the project's potential traffic impacts were adequately addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, which is included in the FSEIR. Therefore no additional analyses are required with the Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR. Ruth Smith, T.E., P.T.P., City Traffic Engineer City of Temecula 11/t21( ° Date -2- TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: City of Temecula January 2008 41 lia:tomII °I.Irr ik tri ■s aWp mita g r� r iffy iiiir A MHO ill 011 NA W III K i . 101 fai & IAA ! i 1 j 1 i � � I i TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Suuclemental Environmental Imuact SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: January 2008 City of Temecula 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.538.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 207434 He port r ESA TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Page S-1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Project Background 1-1 1.2 Environmental Review 1-2 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document 1-3 1.4 Approach to this SEIR 1-4 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR 1-4 1.6 Public Involvement and Review 1-5 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives 2-1 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics 2-2 2.4 Project Characteristics 2-4 2.5 Discretionary Approvals 2-9 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1-1 3.2 Noise 3.2-1 3.3 Traffic 3.3-1 4. Project Alternatives 4-1 4.1 Approach to Analysis 4-1 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed 4-1 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Selection of Alternatives 4-2 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative 4-3 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-9 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers 5-1 5.1 Acronyms 5-1 5.2 References 5-3 5.3 List of Preparers 5-4 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A-1 B. Responses to Notice of Preparation B-1 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA / D207434 January 2008 Table of Contents Page Appendices (Continued) C. Soil Vapor Survey • Analytical Data and Chain -of -Custody Documentation • H&P Mobile Geochemistry Standard Operating Procedures for Soil Vapor Sample Collection • DTSC's Screening -Level Model for Groundwater Contamination Spreadsheets • Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline • User's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings • Interim Final — Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air C-1 D. Traffic Impact Analysis Update D-1 • Memo: Alternative 7 Build -Out Segment Operations • Intersection & Segment Manual Count Sheets and Historical Traffic Volumes on Highway 79 • Riverside County Roadway Classification Table • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Existing • Cumulative Projects Data • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day Without Project • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Project Phase I • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project (Phases I & II) • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects • City of Temecula Year 2025 Segment Volumes and Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets — Build -out (Year 2025 with Eastern By -Pass) • DIF Information • CIP Project Summary Sheets • TUMF Information • Assessment District Information • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects (Mitigated — With Implementation of CIP projects & No Eastern By -Pass) E. Noise Impact Analysis Update E-1 F. Scoping Session Speaker Slips F-1 G. Response to Comments G-1 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program H-1 List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-3 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2-5 2-3 Proposed Site Plan 2-6 3.1-1 Reported Groundwater Gradient 3.1-3 3.1-2 Current and Previous Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1-5 Temecula Regional Hospital I I ESA /D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Table of Contents Page List of Figures (Continued) 3.1-3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1-7 3.2-1 Common Noise Sources and A -Weighted Noise Levels 3.2-2 3.2-2 Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations 3.2-2 3.2-3 Site Plan 3.2-8 3.2-4 Noise Measurement Locations 3.2-10 3.3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram 3.3-2 3.3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-5 3.3-3 Opening Year without Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-13 3.3-4 Project Traffic Distribution AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-14 3.3-5 Proposed Project Phase 1 Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-15 3.3-6 Opening Year with Project Phase 1 Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-16 3.3-7 Proposed Project Phase 11 Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-17 3.3-8 Proposed Entire Project (Phase 1 + Phase 11) Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-18 3.3-9 Opening Year with Entire Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-19 3.3-10 Cumulative Projects Locations 3.3-25 3.3-11 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-26 3.3-12 Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-27 3.3-13 Build -out (Year 2025) with Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-37 3.3-14 TUMF Facilities 3.3-41 3.3-15 Riverside County Assessment Districts 3.3-43 4-1 Alternative Site 4-4 List of Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 3.1-2 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Shell Service Station 3.1-3 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Arco Service Station #5695 3.1-4 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Project Site 3.1-5 Soil Vapor Sample Analytical Results 3.2-1 Summary of Siren Noise Measurements 3.2-2 City of Temecula Noise Standards 3.2-3 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements 3.2-4 Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels 3.2-5 Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels 3.2-6 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year, Project Phase 1 3.2-7 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Entire Project, Phases 1 and 11 3.2-8 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year + Cumulative Projects 3.2-9 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Buildout 3.2-10 Estimated Ambulance Operations 3.2-11 Estimated CNEL due to Ambulance Operations S-14 3.1-4 3.1-8 3.1-10 3.1-11 3.1-16 3.2-3 3.2-6 3.2-9 3.2-11 3.2-12 3.2-14 3.2-14 3.2-15 3.2-15 3.2-16 3.2-16 Temecula Regional Hospital III ESA /D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Table of Contents Page List of Tables (Continued) 3.2-12 Typical Construction Noise Levels 3.2-17 3.2-13 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment 3.2-18 3.3-1 Existing Segment Volumes 3.3-4 3.3-2 LOS Definitions 3.3-7 3.3-3 Volume Capacity/Level of Service for Riverside County Roadway 3.3-8 3.3-4 Existing Intersection Operating Conditions 3.3-9 3.3-5 Existing Street Segment Operations 3.3-10 3.3-6 Projects Trip Generation - Total Trips 3.3-11 3.3-7 Cumulative Projects List 3.3-20 3.3-8 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation 3.3-22 3.3-9 Project Opening Day Intersection Operations 3.3-28 3.3-10 Project Opening Day Segment Operations 3.3-29 3.3-11 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Intersection Operations 3.3-30 3.3-12 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations 3.3-31 3.3-13 Build -Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations 3.3-36 3.3-14 Build -Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations 3.3-37 3.3-15 Cumulative Traffic Improvement Mitigation Measure Summary 3.3-46 3.3-16 Existing + Project + Cumulative intersection Operations With the Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-52 3.3-17 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations - With Mitigation 3.3-53 4-1 Alternative 7 Build -out Segment Operations 4-8 4-2 Comparison of Impacts to Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project 4-10 Temecula Regional Hospital IV ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for this project and certified by the City of Temecula (City). The project was approved by the City in January 2006. A legal challenge to the project on the ground that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two groups and resulted in a ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: • Construction noise impacts; • Siren noise impacts; • Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and • Potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. The court directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated, reviewed and considered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that addressed noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. This SEIR was prepared to address those issues. Other issues were adequately addressed in the prior EIR and will not be addressed in this SEIR. The prior EIR may be reviewed in the City's planning department and copies may be obtained from the City Clerk's office upon payment of the duplication cost. By necessity, this summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found in the document, but rather is intended to provide a quick understanding of the proposed project's objectives, design features, impacts, proposed alternatives, and long-term implications. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the project and its environmental consequences. Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula and surrounding area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: • A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged; Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-1 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary • A Zone Change application to change the zoning district applicable to the property from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO -8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9). The proposed PDO -9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital; • A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 320 -bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses; • A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160 -square -foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 -square - foot cancer center, and an 8,000 -square -foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31 -acre site; and • A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. Project Location and Surroundings The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Currently the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they have since been demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single- family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately two miles to the west. Project Design Features The proposed 566,160 -square -foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility would consist of: • An approximately 408,160 -square -foot, two -tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be six stories/106 feet high, and the second five stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit; • Two medical office buildings, one four stories/73 feet high and the second three stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers; • A 10,000 -square -foot cancer center housed in a one-story building; • An 8,000 -square -foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff; • A 60 -foot by 60 -foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-2 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading; • A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area; • A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole - mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses; • Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area; and • Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. The project will include the following four access points: • Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location; • Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted; • Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west; and • Right -out access from Highway 79 South at the intersection of Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-3 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases, some of which may occur simultaneously. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three-story, 60,000 -square -foot medical office building (medical office building #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-4 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320 -bed configuration with the addition of the five -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four-story 80,000 -square -foot medical office building (medical office building #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000 -square -foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000 -square -foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this SEIR The City of Temecula has prepared this SEIR to address noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes, in order to comply with the County of Riverside Superior Court's writ of mandate. In addition, the SEIR identifies mitigation measures required to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table S-1 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the SEIR uses the words "significant" and "less than significant" in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this SEIR. As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), mitigation measures have been included in this SEIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impact. Certain significant impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below significance. Such impacts are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts." Lawsuits Challenging the January 2006 Approval of the Project As noted above, the Court's rulings in the challenge to the prior EIR found that the previous document did not adequately analyze noise impacts, did not adequately address mitigation for traffic impacts and did not address the potential impacts of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the project site, which were generated by leaks from three gas stations in the vicinity. The Court further ordered the City to set aside its approvals of the project and to not reconsider the project unless it first addressed these issues in an SEIR. This SEIR has been prepared to comply with that order and addresses noise impacts, traffic mitigation measures and the potential impacts of the MTBE plumes. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-5 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Although the Court's ruling required further consideration of mitigation measures for the traffic impacts identified in the prior EIR and did not fault the traffic analysis or identification of impacts, this SEIR contains an updated traffic study that all impacts are identified and ensure that all feasible mitigation measures are identified. If any significant adverse impacts remain after all feasible mitigation is required, the City could not approve the project unless it adopted a Statement of Overriding Concerns pursuant to CEQA §15093. Because the Court found no problem with the prior EIR other than the issues identified above, this SEIR does not address any impacts other than those the Court found should be addressed in an SEIR. Therefore, when reconsidering whether to approve the project, the City will rely on the sections of the prior EIR not invalidated by the Court as well as this SEIR. The prior EIR can be reviewed in the City Clerk's office and copies can be obtained from the Clerk's office upon payment of the cost of duplicating the report. The prior EIR found the following project impacts to be less than significant: 1) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality, 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, and 4) land use and planning; found the following impacts to be less than significant after mitigation: 1) aesthetics - light and glare; and found the following impacts to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 2) air quality - short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. Further, because an alternative site not available at the time the prior EIR was prepared has now become available, this SEIR analyzes that additional alternative (Alternative 7). Potential Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant In response to the Court's decision, the following potential project impact has been analyzed and found to result in a less than significant impact: • MTBE Plume MTBE Contamination According to the Court's review and analysis, the EIR failed to analyze the MTBE plume allegedly migrating towards the project site. The court found that the previous EIR did not address the site's exposure to potential MTBE contamination despite evidence of contamination threatening the project site and despite requests from the public and other agencies to do so. The Court also found that the City was required to analyze any and all significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The Court did note that the City eventually responded to the comments to the prior EIR regarding the alleged contaminant plume relying on, among other things, an analysis by an expert taken on by UHS. It was found by the Court, however, that the City's response was insufficient, as it was required to be considered in the Draft EIR report itself Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-6 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary SEIR Objective This SEIR analyzes the extent and concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including MTBE in soil vapor and ground water at key locations of the site and significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The SEIR assesses the likelihood of a significant human health risk in association with VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons as well as the possibility of the MTBE plume migrating towards project site. SEIR Conclusion As a result of further investigations and review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the site vicinity, MTBE -bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed project site along the southern boundary fronting Highway 79 South. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, it has been interpreted that there is a less than significant risk of related human health risk at the proposed project site because of the possible presence MTBE -bearing groundwater beneath the site. Consequently, no detectable concentrations of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed site buildings footprints. Under the current existing conditions there is a less than significant risk of exposure to MTBE in soil vapor and thus a less than significant risk of related significant human health risk from soil vapor migration into the proposed buildings. As such, it has been concluded that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant human health risk; therefore the risk would be less than significant. The likelihood of exposure to MTBE -bearing groundwater is increased during construction activities, such as excavation. Depending on site development plans, a qualified environmental professional may be required during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. It is also recommended that final construction plans are reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. To the extent the site is developed, a developer may be required to manage or incur costs associated with the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). Section 3.1 and Table S-1 below include mitigation measures to address the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. Unavoidable Significant Impacts Upon reanalysis, the SEIR identifies the following impacts as significant and unavoidable: • Noise impacts associated with emergency vehicle sirens; • Noise impacts associated with project construction; • Direct project -related traffic impacts; and Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-7 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary • Cumulative traffic impacts. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. As required by §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted by a lead agency where it is found that the benefits of a project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. Noise Impacts Siren Noise The Court's review found that the City's analysis of siren noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court did not agree that noise impacts from emergency vehicles associated with the proposed project would be less than significant to nearby noise -sensitive receptors simply because these impacts would be sporadic in nature and short-lived in duration. The Court also did not find substantial evidence in the prior EIR to adequately explain why ambulance noise would be reduced to insignificant levels as a result of decreased distances traveled during emergency trips. SEIR Objectives In response to the Court's findings, this SEIR assesses in greater detail the noise levels and potential impacts associated with the sirens used by emergency vehicles transporting patients to the hospital. Should it be found that operational noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. SEIR Conclusion The SEIR concludes that ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. However, the City of Temecula does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. The use of sirens is required by law under specific circumstances, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Ambulance routes are selected by the drivers based on traffic conditions and expediency, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed project are significant and unavoidable. Construction Noise The Court's review found the City's analysis of construction noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court found that the City failed to adequately explain how significant construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-8 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary SEIR Objectives In accordance with the Court's decision, this SEIR provides a more detailed analysis to demonstrate how construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Should it be found that construction noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. SEIR Conclusion The SEIR concludes that noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting the hours of construction provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, provided in Section 3.2 and Table S-1, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. Traffic Impacts The Court's review and analysis of the prior EIR found that the City had not required or had not shown that it had required all feasible mitigation for traffic impacts. The court indicated that requiring payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Temecula fees, at least without more information concerning how and when the fees would be used to construct the improvements identified as necessary to mitigate project impacts, was inadequate. Accordingly, the Court did not validate the City's finding that it adopted all feasible mitigation on this ground. SEIR Objectives The SEIR contains an updated traffic study, further analyzes and identifies all feasible mitigation and explains the reasons that additional mitigation is not feasible when that is the case. Specifically, this SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) dated October, 2007. This SEIR also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project -related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-9 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary SEIR Conclusion Based on the established significance criteria, specific significant impacts were calculated as detailed in Table S-1 below. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. Please refer to Table S-1 for further details of the project -related traffic impacts. Direct Impacts Specified regional circulation system mitigation measures (see Table S-1 and Section 3.3) shall be complete prior to occupancy of any building in Phase IA.. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are complete, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Site Access and On -Site Circulation In addition, the project proposes three access driveways, two on Highway 79 South and one on De Portola Road. The improvements listed in Table S-1 shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3-15 in Section 3.3). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-15 of Section 3.3 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be feasibly acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed in Section 3.3, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-10 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Intersections The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: • Highway 79 South Widening — Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Highway 79 South from two lanes to six lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding mechanisms to the hospital, if in fact the improvements are not completed before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in Table S-1 below and Section 3.3, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less -than -significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 respectively of Section 3.3. As seen in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 of Section 3.3, all of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-11 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Highway 79 South /I-15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Highway 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternative locations for the proposed regional hospital. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the SEIR. Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No. 7) The following project alternatives were examined in the original EIR: Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Alternative 2: No Project — Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site (Guidelines Section15126.6 (2).) Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the 7th alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City of Temecula as an education complex, including Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-12 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary an education center, a research and development /conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4-1 in Section 4. The Temecula Education Center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City of Temecula and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include Open Space to the north, Murrieta Creek and Open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. All properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. This alternative site has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts of this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-13 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less Than Significant Section 15128 of State CEQA Guidelines MTBE Plume Impact 3.1-1: Potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. Impact 3.1-2: Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non -hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE- or other VOC- impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring test results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE- or other VOC-containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Less than significant. Less than significant. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts Lead Agency must issue "Statement of Overriding Considerations" under Section 15093 and 15126[b] of the State CEQA Guidelines if the agency determines these effects are significant and approves the project. Construction Noise Impact 3.2-1: Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. Noise Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The following measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: • Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met with windows and doors closed. • Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days Significant and unavoidable. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-14 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Emergency Vehicle Sirens Impact 3.2-2: Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. Direct Impacts (Phase II only) Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road — This is a direct impact since with the addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79 / Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) — This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main project driveway and the project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection which does not exist currently and will serve as the project access. permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. • All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned mitigation measures. Mitigation: None Required. The City's ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, there are no mitigation requirements placed on this type of noise. Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, the applicant shall fund and implement the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the city. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: • Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 79 / Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T - intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related change! to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: o A dedicated westbound right -turn lane on SR 79, Significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-15 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Intersections Impact 3.3-3: SR 79 / 1-15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3-4: SR 79 / 1-15 NB Ramps o Dual eastbound left -turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left -turn lanes and a shared through/ right -turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. • Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in/right-out only access. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right -in / right -out and left -in only access. Left -turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: SR 79 / 1-15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 /State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be complete prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79 /1-15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be complete prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-16 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3-7: SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway", which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway— Dual Right -Turn Lanes", which will add a second eastbound right -turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: SR 79 /Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 / Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-17 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Segments SR 79 West of 1-15 SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road Impact 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 Jedediah Smith Road, SR 79/Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79. However, Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place or prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 will also mitigate this impact. The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3-7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase II" — Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. Impact 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Highway 79 Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-18 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Impact 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West of 1-15 improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 Significant and unavoidable. The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3-11: To ensure the improvements are completed prior to occupancy of the hospital building, occupancy of any building outside of Phase IA shall not be permitted until after the City has issued a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Significant and unavoidable. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-19 ESA / D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter describes the background of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project, the purpose and legal authority for this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the relationship to the previously certified project EIR. 1.1 Project Background This SEIR has been prepared to augment the Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Original EIR - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017) certified on January 24, 2006 pursuant to a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued by the Riverside County Superior Court (Case Nos. RIC 445394 and RIC 445411). Following certification of the original EIR by the City of Temecula, two lawsuits were filed seeking to set aside the certification of the EIR (RIC 445411 and RIC 445394). On April 6, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the project, including, without limitation, its certification of an EIR and approvals of PA 04-0462, PA 04-0463, PA 04-0571, PA 05-0302 and all subsequent approvals and permits. The court concluded that the original EIR failed to adequately address the construction noise impacts, siren noise impacts and mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and did not address potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. In addition, the court found that the City of Temecula failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As previously mentioned, several other areas of the original EIR, including aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, land use, air quality that were challenged by the petitioners were upheld by the superior court and do not require any additional analysis. This SEIR therefore evaluates the above outlined issues that the Court determined were not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues/factors: noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. In addition to the court mandated EIR analysis, a new alternative site has recently become available for consideration and will be included in the SEIR. The Project Description is contained in Chapter 2 of this SEIR and has not changed from that contained in the Draft EIR. Potential impacts to the following environmental issue areas have not changed and are therefore not evaluated in the SEIR: 1) aesthetics, 2) air quality, and 3) land use Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 1. Introduction and planning. All other potential environmental factors were eliminated from consideration in the original Draft EIR by the original Initial Study. 1.2 Environmental Review The City has prepared this SEIR in order to comply with the Court's writ of mandate, in light of the sections of the initial EIR that were found sufficient by the Court. The EIR has been revised pursuant to Public Resources code §21168.9, which addresses the remedies that can be required by the court when it finds an EIR, or a portion of an EIR, to be inadequate. Thus, this SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the order of the Court under §21168.9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21168.9 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: (a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following: • A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part. • If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. • A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. (b) Any order pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with this division and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with this division. The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this division. However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if a court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this division. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency's proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-2 ESA 1 D207434 January 2008 1. Introduction (c) Nothing in this section authorizes a court to direct any public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this Section is intended to limit the equitable powers of the court. 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report The Temecula Regional Hospital EIR assessed impacts related to: 1) aesthetics, 2) air quality, 3) hydrology and groundwater, 4) land use and planning 5) noise, and 6) transportation. In addition to these topical areas, the EIR evaluated the following six (6) alternatives to the proposed project: 1) No project -No Build, 2) No Project — Development to Current General Plan, 3) Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties, 4) Access from Dartolo Road, 5) Access from De Portolo Road and Dartolo Road, and 6) Construction of Hospital Only. Alternative 6 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The original Draft EIR is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The original EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse significant impacts to: 1) short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts, 2) noise impacts associated with emergency helicopter flights, and 3) cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. The original EIR considered the following impacts to be less than significant without mitigation: 1) aesthetics — scenic highways and visual quality, 2) air quality — construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, 4) land use and planning, and 5) noise — non -helicopter. The following impacts were considered potentially significant but could be mitigated to less than significant levels: 1) aesthetics — light and glare, 2) noise — operational impacts, and 3) transportation — project impacts. The Initial Study determined that the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant or no impact to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/fire safety, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation and utilities and service systems. The City of Temecula circulated the original EIR (Temecula Regional Hospital EIR — SCH No. 2005031017) on September 28, 2005. In January 2006, the City certified the EIR. Subsequently, the Court held that the noise analysis was inadequate; that the analysis of traffic mitigation measures was inadequate and that the EIR should have, but did not, address the potential impacts of the underground MTBE plumes in the groundwater in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely located gas stations. The Court did not invalidate the original EIR's remaining analysis of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. As such, this SEIR does not address the impacts and mitigation addressed in the original EIR that were not invalidated by the Court. In specific, these areas of the original EIR include the following: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 1. Introduction • Project impacts found to be less than significant: 1) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality), 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, and 4) land use and planning. • Proiect impacts found to be less than significant after mitigation: 1) aesthetics - light and glare. • Project impacts found to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 1) air quality - short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. 1.4 Approach to this SEIR CEQA requires that before a decision can be made to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR or, in this case, an SEIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project. The EIR or SEIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the SEIR is reviewed and considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less -than - significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR is organized to allow the reader to quickly and logically review a summary of the analysis, review recommended mitigation measures, and identify the residual environmental impacts after mitigation, if any. Those readers who wish to read the Draft SEIR in greater detail are directed to the main body of this document. The Draft SEIR begins with an Executive Summary, which describes the proposed project, its environmental effects, and alternatives to the project (including the No Project Alternative). The Executive Summary culminates with Table S-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This table lists each identified environmental impact, mitigation measures identified, and the level of significance following mitigation. The Executive Summary is then followed by this Introduction. Following the Executive Summary, the Project Description (Chapter 2) includes the project location, project proponent's objectives, a description of the proposed project, and an outline of the required approvals. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-4 ESA 1 D207434 January 2008 1. Introduction Chapter 3 contains a focused discussion of environmental topics required by the Court as they relate to this project, including the setting (existing conditions), and the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project. Although the Court found no fault with the analysis of alternatives already considered in the original EIR, the SEIR identifies a new alternative to the proposed project in Chapter 4 that was not available when the original EIR was prepared. The alternative also includes the No Project Alternative ("build" and "no build"), required by CEQA for all EIRs. The report authors, agencies and persons contacted during the preparation of the Draft SEIR are listed in Chapter 5. The Appendices include the NOP, response to the NOP, as well as background and supporting documents and technical information for the impact analyses. 1.6 Public Involvement and Review A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on July 6, 2007 and requested those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project to describe that authority and to identify additional relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in this SEIR. NOP Comments were received form: 1) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 3) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 4) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and 6) Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NOP and the responses to the NOP are attached to this SEIR as Appendices A and B, respectively. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 12, 2007 at 6 p.m. at the Temecula City Hall. Comments were received from: 1) Wayne Hall, 2) A. Evan Harbottle, 3) Pauline Nelson, and 4) Kenneth Ray. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-5 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital (proposed project). This chapter also includes a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site; entitlements; required discretionary actions; and the objectives of this project, as identified by the City and the applicant. 2.1 Introduction The applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposes to develop a 320 -bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres of land in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the proposed project would be also be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this SEIR, the proposed project was evaluated in the original EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital, certified January 24, 2006. This SEIR evaluates the issues outlined in Chapter 1 that the Superior Court determined was not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues/factors: noise impacts (sirens and construction noise); traffic impact mitigation and the potential impact of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely located gas stations. In addition, because an alternative site not available when the prior EIR was prepared is now available, the City determined that this SEIR should evaluate use of that site as an alternative in addition to the alternatives that have already been analyzed in the prior EIR. 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 2. Project Description • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives of UHS, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics Project Location The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 2-1. Project Site Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Currently, the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-2 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 . Temecula City Boundary SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2003 Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 2. Project Description commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west. A regional location map is provided in Figure 2-1; a project vicinity map is provided as Figure 2-2. 2.4 Project Characteristics Project Description The proposed 566,160 -square -foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: • An approximately 408,160 -square -foot, 2 -tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second five stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. • Two medical office buildings, one four stories/73 feet high and the second three stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. • A 10,000 -square -foot cancer center housed in a one-story building. • An 8,000 -square -foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff. Project components are shown on Figure 2-3. A 60 -foot by 60 -foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to six landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any 12 month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.1 Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading. A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. 1 California Code of Regulations, Tide 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. Temecula Regional Hospital 2-4 ESA/ D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 0 300 Feet SOURCE: ESA Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map PARKING CALCULATIONS I. I SPACE PER 20 REOUIREO PARKS. (se,,.m. C.0.7 OM CODE a. 7.4.230./3 DE PORTON ROAD HO E TRV 1 11 1 1 U 1 1 11 11 11 U 1 1 1 14 1 1 %.kb.k41.1 n RANCHO PUEBLO R r-lila`€ Illlll-_Id,11,1 1�-I'. 1 IPHASE IB = 111i =111111- illlllllllllllllll_Illllllll -11- �,'` �IIIIIIII1111111-.-1I.';� I.,_ • ' 1 I I I I I I I I I 1111 11- -STATE-HIGHWAY LORNra- rg=-- w.�...o• wn \ SOU RCE: H KS PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • SITE GRADING • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 (MOB 2) • MOB 2 PARKED (APPRIEL 200 SPACES) • MAIM ENNH EM YE PHASE IB • IOSPTAIIS STORY SPD TOWS/I • HOSPITAL PAHEa•O PHASE 11 • HOSPITAL 6 STORY BED TOWER PHASE 111 • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 (MOB 1( • M00/ HOSPITAL COOIECfOR PHASE IV • CANCER CENTER • CANCER CENTER PARKING PHASE V • FRIE00 CENTOH • .O0J6G TRAIL 0 400 Feet Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-3 Proposed Site Plan MEM NE MEW SPARS PRIM -SPACES HOSPITAL I SPACE PER 3 REDS 316 BEDS 10fi 644 HOSPITAL HMKOIGWPm 501-1000 SPACES - 20 OF TOTAL 14 42 nnI 1 I SPACE PER 300 S.F. (LS MEA) 80,000 S.F. 267 260 ROD- 1 HANDICAPPED 201-300 SPACES - 7 H.C. SPACES 7 16 nnI2 I SPALE PER .?40 S.F. (ES MEA) 60,000 S.F. 200 233 NO11-2H3WDICAPPm 201-300 SPACES - 7 H.C. SPACES 7 10 DANCER COMM •I SPACE PER 200 S.F. (IS AREA) 10,000 S.F. 50 55 DANCER COMM MMDIDAPPED 26-50 SPACES - 2 H.C. SPACES 2 4 PITH= CBI= I SPACE PER 200 S.F. (IS MEA) 8,000 S.F. 40 66 PIMPS CQTRL HMOICAPPED 205. OF REGUTAR PARKING 10 10 TOTAL 663 1275 BICYCLE PARKING 34' 40 (3 00046) I. I SPACE PER 20 REOUIREO PARKS. (se,,.m. C.0.7 OM CODE a. 7.4.230./3 DE PORTON ROAD HO E TRV 1 11 1 1 U 1 1 11 11 11 U 1 1 1 14 1 1 %.kb.k41.1 n RANCHO PUEBLO R r-lila`€ Illlll-_Id,11,1 1�-I'. 1 IPHASE IB = 111i =111111- illlllllllllllllll_Illllllll -11- �,'` �IIIIIIII1111111-.-1I.';� I.,_ • ' 1 I I I I I I I I I 1111 11- -STATE-HIGHWAY LORNra- rg=-- w.�...o• wn \ SOU RCE: H KS PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • SITE GRADING • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 (MOB 2) • MOB 2 PARKED (APPRIEL 200 SPACES) • MAIM ENNH EM YE PHASE IB • IOSPTAIIS STORY SPD TOWS/I • HOSPITAL PAHEa•O PHASE 11 • HOSPITAL 6 STORY BED TOWER PHASE 111 • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 (MOB 1( • M00/ HOSPITAL COOIECfOR PHASE IV • CANCER CENTER • CANCER CENTER PARKING PHASE V • FRIE00 CENTOH • .O0J6G TRAIL 0 400 Feet Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-3 Proposed Site Plan 2. Project Description A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole -mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three-story, 60,000 -square -foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320 -bed configuration with the addition of the five -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000 -square -foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000 -square -foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months. As shown on Figure 2-3, the total parking provided will be 1,278 spaces, which exceeds the City's parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per three beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason. In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital facility are as follows: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-7 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 2. Project Description • Hospital — one story/27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed towers); • Bed Tower 1 — six stories/106 feet; • Bed Tower 2 — five stories/83.5 feet; • MOB #1 — four stories/73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces); • MOB #2 — three stories/60 feet (233 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces); • Cancer Center — one story/27 feet (55 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces), and • Fitness Center — one story/27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces). Parking Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. Access to the Site As shown on Figure 2-3, the project includes the following three access points: • Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location. • Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. • Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west. • Right -in and right -out access from Highway 79 South at its intersection with Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: • The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-8 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 2. Project Description • The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be changed from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO -8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9). The proposed PDO -9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital. • The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application requests permission to construct a 320 bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses. • The Development Plan application proposes the construction of a 408,160 -square -foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 -square -foot cancer center, and an 8,000 -square -foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31 -acre site. • The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. 2.5 Discretionary Approvals While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in this Draft SEIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non -hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency Action City of Temecula City Council California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development City of Temecula Fire Department • Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and Professional Office to PDO -9, and the incorporation of PDO -9 into the Temecula Municipal Code which will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30 percent of roof areas for hospitals • Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to provide for the development of the project site with the proposed uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components, and to establish development standards and conditions of use for the project • Approval of other actions related to the implementation of the above actions and mitigation of environmental effects • Medical Office Building and fitness center building and occupancy permits • Re -certification of the EIR and certification of this SEIR • Hospital building and occupancy permits • Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-9 ESA /D207434 January 2008 2. Project Description Agency Action City of Temecula Police Department City of Temecula Public Works City of Temecula Departments and Divisions overseeing construction related development U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Riverside County Flood Control Riverside County Health Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Review of security plans and systems • Approval of Mitigation Plan • Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans • Approval of Water Quality Management Plan • Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sign plans and permits • Review and approval of encroachment permits • Review and approval of street trees • Approval of burrowing owl report/surveys • Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Permit) • Review of helipad • Cultural report approval and pre -excavation agreement • Possible review and approval of stormwater permits • Possible review and approval water service permits • Possible review and approval of permits • Possible review and approval of permits • Possible review and approval of permits Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-10 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards 3.1 Hazards 3.1.1 Introduction The presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards has the potential to affect residents, workers, and visitors within and adjacent to a project site. In this case, the court order in the litigation challenging the proposed project found that the original EIR failed to address the potential risk arising from plumes of MTBE in groundwater caused by leaking underground storage tanks at three nearby service stations. The service stations are under an order to clean up the plumes and remediation is ongoing. The issues to be evaluated in this EIR are what risks to patients, staff and visitors to the proposed hospital, if any, might occur if the MTBE plume were to migrate under the proposed hospital site. Because the groundwater will not be used for drinking or any other uses in the proposed hospital, the potential risk of adverse impacts on the patients, staff and visitors to the proposed buildings would arise from toxic vapors that might migrate upward if the MTBE plume migrated under the proposed hospital site. Other than MTBE, the main volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of concern near the proposed project site are total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA). TPHg is a broad term that describes any of a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that come from crude oil. Exposure to some TPHg compounds can cause various immediate and long-term health problems. Like MTBE, TAME is volatile, flammable, and highly water soluble. ETBE is a gasoline additive that has become more commonly used as MTBE has been taken out of use. It performs the same task as MTBE, reducing air pollution by helping gasoline bum cleaner, but without as many environmental and health ramifications. However, ETBE still has its setbacks. It is highly flammable and can seep into water systems if it leaks into soil. TBA in the groundwater is typically considered a breakdown product of MTBE. Laboratory tests have shown an increase in cancer and thyroid disease when TBA is mixed with drinking water. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the petroleum above -ground storage tank (AST) program. The program covers facilities that store petroleum in a single tank, or multiple tanks with an aggregate capacity in excess of 1,320 gallons, and requires that tank owners or operators file a storage statement, pay a facility fee, and prepare and implement a federal Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC Plan must include procedures, methods, and equipment in place at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable waters. The RWQCB also administers the UST program. State laws governing USTs specify requirements for permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs, release reporting requirements, corrective actions, cleanup, and closure. The Riverside County Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Environmental Health Department enforces applicable regulations, which include permitting and inspection requirements. The Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB is the local enforcement agency for leaking underground storage tanks. For example, the San Diego RWQCB is currently overseeing the investigation and remediation of leaking USTs that resulted in releases near the site. Setting There are three existing or former gasoline service stations within 1,000 feet of the project site with USTs that warrant investigation for soil or groundwater contamination. Due to leaks from these tanks, all have undergone regular groundwater monitoring since 2001. The existing service station locations in relation to the project site are shown on Figure 3.1-1. Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast, Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast, and Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the project site.1 Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1-1. The station has six groundwater monitoring wells, and monitoring has been ongoing since at least August 2001. Monitoring and remediation of the Chevron site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE has been reported at all six wells at some point in the last seven years. MTBE has been reported at a maximum concentration of 1,400 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and TBA has been reported at a maximum concentration of 420µg/L. On January 24, 2007, Holguin, Fahan & Associates sampled groundwater at the Chevron site. Figure 3.1-1 summarizes the recently reported concentrations of concern (CoCos) and depth to groundwater for each well at the service station. MTBE was detected at levels of 11 µg/L and 4 tg/L at two of the six wells, one 300 feet southeast from the project site and the other 255 feet. No other VOCs were detectable at this facility. Based on the project site's gradient and the direction of groundwater flows and the low levels of MTBE detected, the likelihood that MTBE from this service station has migrated onto the project site is very low.2 This opinion, is corroborated by groundwater sampling conducted at the hospital site in 2006. MTBE was not detected in groundwater samples downgradiant from the Chevron release. A report prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates (October 2005), provided the following information in connection with the groundwater sampling: • The report concluded that "MTBE concentrations are consistent with the historical levels and show a general overall concentration downward trend." 1 SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. 2 SCS Engineers, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-2 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 EXPLANATION S; i Groundwater sample location. Repored groundwater gradient. as reported by Delta Environmental (Shell IJan 20071), Holguin. Fahan. 8 Associates (Chevron [Jan 2007]). and Delta Environmental (ARCO (Jan 20071). SOURCE: SCS Engineers, 2005. 0 125 250 375 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.1-1 Reported Groundwater Gradient 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards TABLE 3.1-1 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY CHEVRON SERVICE STATION #204029 Well Number Distance and Depth to Direction from Goundwater Hospital Project (feet) TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) MW -1 300 ft southeast 26.08 <50 11 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -2 360 ft southeast 23.93 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -3 200 ft southeast 24.52 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -4 320 ft southeast 25.56 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -5 255 ft southeast 26.80 <50 4 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -6 250 ft southeast 25.78 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: Samples collected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. pg/L = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME =tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, October 2005. Based on a review of previous reports for the Chevron facility, the MTBE -bearing groundwater is interpreted to have migrated beyond the boundaries of this facility. Based on the reported gradient and the proposed hospital site's proximity to the release, it is possible that the MTBE -impacted groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site. However, MTBE was not currently detected in any current groundwater samples collected from soil boring B9 (Figure 3.1-2) at the hospital site, downgradient from the release in January 2006. Samples were also collected in 2007 and are discussed below. Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway The Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1-1. In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the facility to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs. Monitoring and remediation of the Shell site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment at the Shell site. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 have resulted in the installation of an additional 32 groundwater monitoring wells at downgradient locations and the completion of thirty-five cone penetration test (CPT) locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells have had reported concentrations of MTBE, TBA, TAME, and ETBE. Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling has been conducted at the facility since 2001. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was conducted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-4 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 SV5 SG5 Oatc 'Depth I BTEXI MTBE 1/3/05 5 ND ND Date /7/16/07 ..„77 7/18/07 SG4 Depth 5,15 VOCs ND MTBE ND 5.15 ND ND SV2 Date 1/3105 Depth BTEX 5 ND MTBENO SG2 Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/16/07 7/18/07 5,15 ND NO 5,15 NO NO 7 Deplb 5,15 5,15 SV4 SG6 Depth 5,15 5,75 VOCs ND ND VOCs NO ND MTBE ND ND Date Depth BTEX I MTBE 1/3/05 5 ND 1 NO MTBE ND NO SV6 Date 1/3,55 Depth BTEX 5 ND MTBE NO Dare Depth 1 VOCs 1 MTBE SV8 Oslo 1 Depth 1 BTEX MTBE 1/3/05 5 ND ND Date 7/16/07 7/18/07 r Date 8/21/07 8/24/07 SG11 Depth 5,15 5.15 VOCs ND ND MTBE ND ND Depth 5,15 5,15 VOCs ND ND Date 7/16/07 7/18/07 Depth VOCs 5,15 ND 5,15 ND MTBE ND ND Depth 5 BTEX ND MTBEIND Date [ Depth I BTEX 1 MTBE 1/3/05 I 5 I 140 I ND Date 8/21/07 - 8/24/07 SV9 Wit SG3 Date 7/16/07 7/18/07 Depth 5,15 5.15 VOCs ND ND MTBE ND ND Depth 5,15 5,15 Date 1 Depth 1 BTEX 1 MTBE 1/3/05 1 5 1 ND 1 ND Date Depth 7/3/05 5 BTEXI MTBE ND ND EXPLANATION SG3 v005 MU ND NO ,5 to re Date 6/21/07 844/07 SG12 Depth 5,15 5,15 VOCs ND ND MTBE ND ND 0 125 250 375 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North Soil vapor sample analyzed for I Soil vapor sample location. volatile organic compunds (VOCs) including benzene, toluene. ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. Results reported in micrograms per liter of vapor (pg/Lv). NO = not detected above the laboratory reporting limit (1 pg/Lv). Samples SV1 through SV10 collected in January 2006, samples SG1 through SG11 collected in July 2007, and samples SG12, SG13, and SG14 collected in August 2007. All samples collected under the supervision of SCS Engineers. Reported groundwater gradient, as reported by Delta Environmental (Shell [Jan 2007]), Holguin. Fahan. & Associates (Chevron [Jan 2007]), and Delta Environmental (ARCO [Jan 2007]). SOURCE: SCS Engineers, 2005. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.1-2 Current and Previous Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards containing dissolved -phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the facility as a groundwater remediation system to minimize contaminant migration, and to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the facility from July 2004 to August 2006. In August 2006, the groundwater remediation system was taken offline due to the reduction of MTBE in the Shell Service Station's groundwater monitoring wells network. Evaluation of the possible "rebound" of the contaminants of concern in groundwater is on-going at the facility and reactivation of the remediation system in this area will resume should it be found that these contaminants of concern exceed regulatory limits. As of April 2007, there has been no reported rebound of contaminants of concern at the Shell Service Station. During the first quarter 2007 (January 2007) groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to range between 25 and 28 feet below ground surface (bgs). The monitoring wells closest to the project site that screen what is reported as an upper groundwater zone3 are MW - 22A, MW -23A, MW -24A, and MW -25A. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime (westerly) and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is potentially migrating onto hospital project at very low concentrations. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B10 (Figure 3.1-3) at the hospital project site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on-site monitoring well. Ta ble 3.1-2 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity. The samples taken from MW -22A and MW -23A were collected on July 27, 2006, and the samples taken from MW -24A and MW -25A were collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Additional Assessment of the Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks4 completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed hospital site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and other fuel oxygenates. No concentrations of TPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or diisopropyl ether (DIPE) were reported above the laboratory reporting (or "detection") limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 µg/L to 1.1 µg/L. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 µg/L to 2.22 µg/L. Fourteen of the 40 samples collected were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.1 µg/L to 77 µg/L. The highest reported concentration of MTBE (77 pg/L) was reported in location CPT -50, at a depth of 33 feet bgs, which is located along the north side Highway 79 South. 3 Miller Brooks reported three groundwater regimes that were investigated: upper, intermediate, and deep. For the purposes of the fate and transport analysis, the analysis focused on the upper groundwater regime, due to its proximity to potential receptors and proposed hospital site buildings. 4 Summary ofAdditional Site AssessmentActivities, Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 RedhawkParkway, Temecula, California, Case NumberR9-2002-0340, Miller Brooks Environmental 2005. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-6 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA/ D207434 January 2008 BS 8 <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE 1.3 B <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1.0 B1 8 T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 1.5 < 1.0 8 <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1.0 B <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1,0 B9 ES <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1.D B <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 B T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 EXPLANATION OO Groundwater sample location. B1 B <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 X <1.5 MTBE <1.0 Reported groundwater gradient, as reported by Delta Environmental (Shell (Jan 20071), Holguin, Fahan, & Associates (Chevron (Jan 2007)), and Delta Environmental (ARCO (Jan 20071). Groundwater sample analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. Results are reported in micrograms per liter (pg/L). Groundwater samples collected by SCS Engineers In January 2005. 0 125 250 375 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North SOURCE: SCS Engineers, 2005. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.1-3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards TABLE 3.1-2 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Well Number Distance and Depth to Direction from Goundwater Hospital Project (feet) TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) MW -22A 140 ft southeast 22.72 <50 4.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -23A 130 ft southeast 22.46 <50 7.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -24A 10 ft southeast 24.00 <50 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -25A 90 ft southeast 24.56 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: Samples from MW -22A and MW -23A collected on July 27, 2006, and samples from MW -24A and MW -25A collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Samples reportedly not collected for the last two sampling events from MW -22A and MW -23A because wells were inaccessible. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. pgIL = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE. Delta Environmental. The above -referenced Shell property site assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling: • There does not appear to be the discrete water -bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vail Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway. • Pore pressure dissipation tests from these four CPTs (CPT -46, CPT -47, CPT -49, and CPT -53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities. In other words, the geology varies around the proposed hospital site. Based on work done by other consultants, the groundwater at the proposed hospital site was reported to vary from 8 to 18 feet below grade. However, based on permanent groundwater monitoring wells located in the proposed hospital site vicinity and on the proposed hospital site itself, the depth to groundwater is approximately 24 to 30 feet bgs. Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from this report, MTBE impacted groundwater has migrated onto the southern edge of the proposed project site. Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the proposed hospital site. Delta Environmental collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-8 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Arco station. Monitoring and remediation of the Arco site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. The soil samples were reported to contain concentrations ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 mg/kg to 1,300 mg/kg), benzene (1.3 mg/kg), toluene (0.012 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 mg/kg to 47 mg/kg), total xylenes (0.029 mg/kg to 105 mg/kg), and MTBE (0.011 mg/kg to 43 mg/kg). In January 2001, Secor International Incorporated installed three monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, and MW3) at the proposed hospital site. Soil samples collected during the installation of the wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. In February 2001, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT -1 though CPT -6) at the Arco facility, soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MTBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soil samples collected from two of the six CPT locations, and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sample collected from the CPT locations. Between April 2001 through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT -7 though CPT -17, CPT -18, and CPT -19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring wells (MW4 through MW14). Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells MW1, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the proposed hospital site. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pumps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off-site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW -1, IW -2, and IW -3) were installed along Dartola Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the proposed hospital site. Since the third quarter 2003, groundwater pumped from the proposed hospital site remediation system has been treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells, which further minimizes contaminant migration to the proposed project site. As of the first quarter 2007, the Arco site has a monitoring well network consisting of thirteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW -10S -A, MW -10S -B, and MW -10D) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected at a maximum concentration of 1,900 micrograms per liter (tg/L). During the first quarter 2007 groundwater5 was reported to flow to the west- northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 25.83 and 27.83 feet bgs in the 5 Atlantic Richfield Company Quarterly Report First Quarter 2007, Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, CA, Secor International Incorportated, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-9 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to be migrating towards the proposed hospital site as a result of this release. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B10 (Figure 3.1-3) at the site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on-site monitoring well. Ta ble 3.1-3 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for all wells in the immediate vicinity of the Arco site. TABLE 3.1-3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO SERVICE STATION #5695 Distance and Depth to Well Direction from Groundwater TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA Number Hospital Site (feet) (NgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) MW -1 305 ft east 27.17 <50 16 <2.0 <2.0 25 MW -2 325 ft east 26.02 <50 1.6 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -3 330 ft east 26.38 280 1.9 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -4 340 ft east 26.13 <50 3.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -5 350 ft east 27.70 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -6 315 ft east 27.83 <50 2.2 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -7 370 ft east 27.32 <50 19 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -8 270 ft east 27.75 <50 0.75J <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -9 225 ft east 26.90 <50 6.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -11 340 ft east 46.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -12 230 ft east 45.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -13 250 ft east 25.53 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -14 200 ft east 26.91 <0.32 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NOTES: Samples collected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. pglL = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: SCS Engineers Previous Hospital Project Site Investigative Activities Soil Vapor Survey In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed in order to assess the possible presence and concentration of BTEX and MTBE in the subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the proposed hospital site. Soil vapor samples were collected from seven locations within the footprint of the proposed site buildings (SV 1 through SV6, and SV8). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-10 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Three additional sampling locations (SV7, SV9, and SV10) were located in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off-site MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the proposed hospital site. The samples collected from locations SV1 through SV 10 reported no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory detection limits. The locations of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 3.1-2. Groundwater Sampling In July 2006, SCS Engineers bored ten groundwater sampling locations in the vicinity of the proposed hospital site, and in places most likely to intercept migrating MTBE contaminated building footprints (B1 -B6, and B8), and the other three were drilled in the southwest corner of the proposed hospital site (B7, B9, and B10) with the goal of intercepting the possible MTBE groundwater plume from the nearby service stations (Figure 3.1-3). Groundwater samples were collected using a Hydropunch® sampler and analyzed at an on-site state -accredited mobile laboratory. The samples were analyzed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 at a concentration of 1.3 ug/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 (see Table 3.1-4) at a concentration of 1.3 µg/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. TABLE 3.1-4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY PROJECT SITE Sample Benzene Toluene Ethyl -Benzene Total Xylenes MTBE Number (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) B1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 1.3 B6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 NOTES: Samples collected by Environmental Business Solutions in July, 2006. pgIL = micrograms per liter <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit ND = Not reported at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene. And total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. SOURCE: SCS Engineers Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-11 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards 3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to hazards and hazardous materials, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • 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; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • 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. Impact Assessment and Methodology In July 2007, SCS Engineers assessed the proposed hospital site to evaluate certain environmental conditions in the shallow subsurface soil vapor. The objectives of the scope of services described in their report were to: • Assess the extent and concentration of VOCs including MTBE in soil vapor in selected locations of the proposed hospital site. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-12 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards • Assess the likelihood of a (significant6) human health risk in association with detected VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons.? SCS Engineers conducted a soil vapor survey at the proposed hospital site on July 16 and 18, 2007, to assess whether or not any VOCs, specifically MTBE, were present and, if so, in what concentrations. The soil vapor samples were collected from 14 locations (SG1 through SG14) within the proposed hospital site boundaries (see Figure 3.1-2). Additional soil vapor samples were collected on August 21 and 24, 2007. Sample locations SG12, SG13 and SG14 were located at in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off-site MTBE groundwater plume that may have migrated onto the propose hospital site. The locations of the soil vapor samples are shown on Figure 3.1-2. The soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC guidelines. Prior to collecting a soil vapor sample, a one -inch diameter hole was drilled at each sampling location. Then, a soil vapor probe was inserted and a soil well constructed. Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 5 and 15 ft bgs at each sampling site. They were then analyzed by a technician from H&P Mobile Geochemistry in a state -accredited on-site mobile laboratory. Soil vapor drilling equipment was either cleaned or changed out between each soil vapor probe to minimize the likelihood of cross -contamination. Below are the results of the SCS survey. No MTBE or any other analytes were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. Detection limits refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured above the instrument background noise. Reporting limits (quantitation limits) refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy. Thus, when quantitation limits are used as reporting limits, the laboratory concludes that the analyte is not present in a sufficient amount to be reliably quantified. Therefore, a compound could be present below the reporting limit and above the method detection limit; however, it can not be measured with an accuracy or precision. Hypothetical Health Risk Scenarios In the order to better understand the hypothetical risk of MTBE -bearing groundwater migrating from off-site sources onto the proposed hospital site and under the proposed buildings, several scenarios were evaluated based on data collected from the groundwater monitoring well networks associated with the gas stations in the proposed hospital site's vicinity. All scenarios were modeled using the DTSC Screening -Level Model for Groundwater Contamination, last modified January 21, 2005, which is based on the Johnson -Ettinger vapor intrusion model. The default values were used for most parameters to be conservative. The following assumptions were used to estimate health risk: 6 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E-6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as "significant." For the purposes of this limited health risk assessment, a commercial land use, consistent with the Site's current zoning, is assumed. 7 SCS Engineers, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-13 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards • The MTBE concentrations in groundwater were conservatively assumed to occur uniformly across the proposed hospital site. • A residential adult exposure scenario was used in which the adult worker weighs 70 kilograms, and works at the proposed hospital site for 350 days a year per year for 30 years. Please note, the DTSC model incorporates a 24-hour exposure period and thus the realistic exposure period is overestimated by at least a factor of two.8 • The calculations used in the health risk analysis use standard (DTSC defaults for soil type) physical parameters to describe soil conditions (37 percent total porosity and a dry bulk density of 1.66 grams per cubic centimeters).9 • The DTSC default soil gas advection rate (flow rate) of 5 liters per minute for every 100 square meters of floor area was used. The soil advection rate was estimated for the tower building (approximately 16,555 square meters) and the proposed cancer center building (approximately 743 square meters) to be approximately 827 liters per minute (L/m) for the tower building and 37 L/m for the cancer center building. The flow of soil gas (advection) in the subsurface may be caused by gas -pressure gradients or, in certain cases, gas density gradients. Pressure -driven advection is produced when differences in soil -gas pressure form, causing soil gas to flow and carrying any vapors present with it. Air pressure gradients in the subsurface of natural systems may result from several phenomena. As diurnal or weather-related atmospheric pressure cycles occur at land surface, pressure waves are transmitted into the unsaturated zone and air may flow in response; a process known as barometric pumping. • Both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks were estimated. Of the VOCs reported in the groundwater, only MTBE is considered a potential carcinogen.'° • The calculations used depth to groundwater of 26 feet bgs across the proposed hospital site, which SCE believes is reasonable based on a review of groundwater data in the proposed hospital site's vicinity.11 Scenario 1 MTBE -bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the southeast. There are four monitoring wells along the southern edge of the proposed hospital property that screen the shallow groundwater (MW -24A, MW26A, MW -27A, and MW -28A). Monitoring well MW -28A is located along the southern border of the proposed hospital site, at the approximate mid -point of the southern proposed hospital site boundary, and has had the highest reported concentration of MTBE out of the four wells. The highest reported concentration of MTBE in this well has been 97 tg/L in July 2006, which subsequently decreased to 55 µg/L in April 2007. 8 The DTSC document references the "residential exposure duration" on page 56 of the attached document, when they reference: EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA1540/R-96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 9 A discussion of each parameter and some of the likely inputs is provided in DTSC's "HERD REP JE Users Guide.pdf' 10 EPA 11 Groundwater depth chosen based on historical data that was representative and conservative for the property. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-14 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Using the maximum concentration reported in this well (97 µg/L) and assuming a conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30 -year exposure scenario), the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of 1.1E-07. These cancer risks are almost one order of magnitude below the typical risk threshold of 1E-06 (one in a million). The risk of non -cancer health effects is also less then significant based on a Hazard Index of 3.2E-04, well below the typical risk threshold of one. Scenario 2 MTBE -bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the east. Monitoring well MW -14 is upgradient from the hospital property, located approximately 470 feet east of the proposed cancer center in the eastern portion of the property along Dartolo Road. This is the closest well to the proposed hospital site associated with the Arco Service Station monitoring well network. In April 2007, the concentration of MTBE in MW -14 was reported to be 1.3 ug/L, which is the highest reported concentration since the installation of this well. Assuming the same conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30 -year exposure scenario) as Scenario 1, the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of 1.4E-09. These cancer risks are almost two orders of magnitude below the less than significant risk threshold of 1E-06 (one in a million). The risk of non -cancer health effects is also less than significant based on a Hazard Index of 4.2E-06, well below the typical risk threshold of one. The Excel spreadsheets for the risk calculations associated with MTBE (obtained from the DTSC website) are presented in Appendix C of this SEIR. Findings and Recommendations No detectable concentrations (collected from SG1 through SG14) of VOCs or MTBE were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed hospital site building footprints (Table 3.1-5 and Figure 3.1-2). Because none of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were detected, SCS concluded that there is a less than significant risk of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a less than significant related human health risk. Based on the review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the proposed hospital site's vicinity, SCS concluded in their recent analysis that MTBE -bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, there is a less than significant related human health risk at the proposed hospital site because of the possible presence MTBE - bearing groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site. Additionally, MTBE has been phased - out as a fuel additive in the State of California. Since MTBE is no longer used in gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases of MTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-15 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards TABLE 3.1-5 2007 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS Sample Number Sample Depth Benzene Toluene Ethyl -Benzene Total Xylenes MTBE (feet below grade) (AWL) (ugIL) (/cgIL) (/cg/L) ({cgIL) Other VOCs 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG1 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG2 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG3 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG4 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG5 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG6 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG7 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG8 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG9 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG10 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG11 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG12 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG13 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG14 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND NOTES: Samples SG1 through SG11 collected by SCS Engineers on July 16 and 18, 2007. Samples SG12, SG13, and collected by SCS Engineers on August 21 and 24, 2007. ,ug/L = micrograms per liter. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit. ND = Not report at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. SOURCE: SCS Engineers Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-16 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27A, MW -28A, and MW -14). For illustration purposes, according to the EPA on non -occupational exposures, various studies that have collected personal breathing zone samples of MTBE during gasoline refueling suggest that such exposures, which typically amount to two to five minutes in duration, may range as high as 2 to 32 ppm MTBE; however, most of the data for exposure during refueling are below 10 ppm for 1 to 20 minute sampling periods.12 The MTBE concentrations used in the hypothetical scenarios above included maximum reported concentrations of 97 ug/L or 0.097 ppm. As mentioned above, MTBE -bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, to address the concern that MTBE in groundwater may pose a health risk via vapor intrusion into the hospital in the event that MTBE does migrate on - proposed hospital site from the east (Arco Service Station) or from the southeast (Chevron and Shell Service Stations) under the future hospital buildings several scenarios, based on highest reported actual MTBE concentrations near the proposed hospital site were modeled to better understand the hypothetical risk. Concentrations of MTBE in the monitoring wells MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27A, MW -28A, and MW -14 (closest monitoring wells to the proposed hospital site) have been decreasing or are below the MCLs for drinking water, making these scenarios even more conservative than current conditions at the property. Based on the modeling for these scenarios the concentrations of MTBE in groundwater would have to increase by one to two orders of magnitude before the model predicts there is even the potential for a significant health risk.13 The risk assessment standards for soil vapor and cleanup levels for groundwater, although both based on health risk studies, including potential carcinogenic affects, are different. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are a standard for drinking water set by the EPA in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and enforced in California by the Department of Health Services. The proposed project site's primary contaminant of concern is MTBE, which has a primary MCL of 13 ug/L and a secondary MCL of 5 ug/L, meaning that a water purveyor can provide water to a customer with MTBE up to 13 ug/L without advisory for health concerns and 5 ug/L for taste and odor. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although no detectable concentrations of MTBE or VOCs were found, Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 below shall be implemented if these constituents were detected in groundwater and vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings during construction. Again, the above- mentioned hypothetical scenarios showed that the necessary levels of MTBE to hypothetically percolate up into the buildings to cause a significant risk would need to be of orders of magnitude higher than has ever been seen in the adjacent site vicinity. Since MTBE is no longer used in 12 Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-4.pdf 13 Orders of magnitude are generally used to make very approximate comparisons. If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times larger than the other. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-17 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases of MTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27A, MW -28A, and MW -14). Impact 3.1-1: Potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. As described above in the environmental setting section, the proposed hospital site is within 1,000 ft of three service stations. However, according to soil vapor samples taken on July 16 and 18, 2007 and again on August 21 and 24, 2007, there were no detectable concentrations of gasoline constituents such as volatile organic compounds VOCs or MTBE at the proposed hospital site. Sampling was done at two depths, 5 and 15 feet bgs in accordance with the DTSC guidance. It is possible but unlikely that, contaminated soil could be at further distances below ground surface. Encountering contaminated soil, surface water, and groundwater without taking proper precautions during project construction could result in the exposure of construction workers and consequently result in associated significant adverse human health and environmental impacts. Petroleum hydrocarbons appear to be present in subsurface soils in the area of the off-site USTs; however, considering lack of any evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on SCS Engineers investigations and, the potential for contamination is likely to be localized around the off-site USTs, and is unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non -hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.1-2: Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-18 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards The construction phase of the proposed project will include major excavation and grading. Disturbance of the proposed hospital site's soil could expose construction workers, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is considered to be unlikely. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling and disposal of these hazardous substances is considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, implementation of the following procedures requiring compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE- or other VOC-impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring test results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE- or other VOC-containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. References EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA/540/R-96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm, March 2006. Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-4.pdf SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-19 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise 3.2 Noise 3.2.1 Approach to Analysis The purpose of this section is to identify, describe, and evaluate noise sources and potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital and the sirens that will transport emergency patients to the hospital. This study also address traffic noise impacts based on the updated traffic study prepared for this SEIR by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. The project has not changed since the circulation of the original EIR and other noise issues arising from operation of the project, such as the use of helicopters, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, loading dock activities, parking lot activities, trash pickups and landscaping maintenance were adequately covered in the original EIR and therefore are not addressed in this section. Noise Principles and Descriptors The original EIR provided a detailed background that describes how noise is measured, and how different types of noise measurements are used to reflect typical noise fluctuations over time. In general, the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A -weighting and is expressed in units of A -weighted decibels. Frequency A -weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de -emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A -weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.2-1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise As described in the original EIR, ,an individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.2-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time, however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3.2-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 \ \ a ƒ2 >| | | li1-1 1 5 } / •0 # j e I | { | | 1 { | | | Small town cul-de-sa Ts c g. k{ \ R R R @ 9 @ @ \1 } y } if ƒ } } l L $ L { 3 / Z ! ! % ƒ ! ! 4. % ! ! - ) / / = 0 { k § * ( - - ! : ° / ) } ) •7 ) \ ) ) ) } ® u \ —1-40 dB(A) . . 6 R Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations Common Noise Sources and A -Weighted Noise Levels and 7C=2 q G 0 Rnw# ®>o \c13\ qR Eta_ \: f / (0 W z ca ) /\ 4 < e \ 0)/ ƒ\ \ 0 =j \k =0 EE 0o 0 SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2005 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Ambulance Siren Noise To better analyze impacts for the proposed project, ambulance siren noise is also addressed. Ambulance siren noise is different than other community noise as it is not experienced over a long amount of time. To measure ambulance siren noise, the single event noise exposure level (SENEL) needs to be calculated. SENEL quantifies the duration and magnitude of a single event. However, there are two main factors that can affect an ambulance siren's SENEL. The speed of an ambulance can affect the duration as a faster ambulance passes by more quickly, and the angle at which the ambulance passes by can affect the magnitude. An ambulance that is directly behind a person is much louder than if the same ambulance was to the person's side (i.e., a 0 angle versus a 90 angle). Ambulance sirens are a unique source of noise in that they are designed and intended to be "noisy". Sirens signify a warning that an emergency vehicle is approaching and that human life is at stake. The rules of the road require that drivers respond to such sirens (e.g., by "pulling over"). In order to analyze the noise levels that will be experienced within the study area as a result of ambulance sirens, it was necessary to obtain measurements of typical operations. However, authorities would not permit the operating of ambulances with sirens on the local streets unless under emergency conditions, and it was not practical to wait for ambulances to pass by on the street segments considered in this study. Therefore, controlled tests were conducted with the assistance of the City and American Medical Response (AMR), an operator of ambulance services in Temecula. These tests were conducted at a sports park within the City on July 17, 2007, by Wieland Associates. During the tests, the ambulance remained stationary and the siren was operated continuously while noise measurements were obtained at various distances and at various orientations relative to the location of the sirens behind the front grille of the ambulance. At each distance and orientation, the maximum, minimum and average noise levels were noted. Two siren settings were measured during the testing: "wail" and "yelp." The "wail" setting is the most typically used setting, and is used when maneuvering through traffic. The "yelp" setting is only used in extremely heavy traffic or at intersections when it is necessary to encourage drivers to make room for the ambulance to pass by. The results of the July 17th ambulance test are presented in the Table 3.2-1 below.' TABLE 3.2-1 SUMMARY OF SIREN NOISE MEASUREMENTS ORIENTATION MEASURED NOISE LEVEL AT 50' FROM SIRENS, dBA "Wail" Setting "Yelp" Setting Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. 0° (front) 117.6 109.2 113.4 117.5 112.9 113.6 45° 110.2 99.8 104.7 106.7 102.1 103.5 90° (side) 93.9 85.8 91.9 93.7 91.3 92.2 135° 95.9 88.8 90.9 88.9 83.9 85.5 180° (rear) 95.4 89.4 92.3 94.2 90.9 92.5 NOTES: Tests were performed by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17, 2007. A sound level meter (Model 824) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL250) were used to obtain noise measurements. All instruments meet the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 1 Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Environmental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 19, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no complete satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called "ambient noise" level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A -weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just -perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such at traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-4 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement.2 3.2.2 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting The original EIR provides a description of federal, state, and local regulations that apply to the Temecula Regional Hospital project and also apply to this SEIR. Federal Regulations As stated in the original EIR, under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for new highway construction and highway reconstruction projects when the noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. For hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Leq during the noisiest one-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB(A) at exterior areas or 52 dB(A) within the interior of a hospital or medical building. State Regulations A summary of the California Code of Regulations is described in the original EIR. The state has established noise insulation standards for new multi -family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation -related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of DNL 45 dB in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dB. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Local Regulations City of Temecula General Plan—Noise Element The primary purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and assess noise sources and then minimize their effect on the surrounding area. Noise has a direct impact on the quality of life and the well-being of residents of Temecula. Hospitals fall under the Public/Institutional designation. Table 3.2-2 below summarizes City of Temecula noise standards for various uses. The following are goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan—Noise Element. Goal 1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. 2 Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-5 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-2 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Residential Commercial and Office Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70 High 45 70' Neighborhood Community Highway Tourist 70 Service Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Institutional Schools 50 65 Al Others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agricultural 70 Open Space 70/652 NOTES: 1. Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for multiple -family housing. 2. Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, 1993. Policy 4.1: Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Implementation and Procedures N-2. Minimize noise in Temecula through the following measures: • Require all non -emergency construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code). • Amend the City Noise Control Ordinance to establish criteria for acceptable placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. • Require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet with City noise reduction requirements. • Review the City Noise Control Ordinance for adequacy and amend as needed to address community needs and development patterns. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-6 ESA /0207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.32.020 Construction Restricted: Notwithstanding any provision of the City Ordinance No. 90-04, and specifically subsection G(1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, during such time as this ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. 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. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of construction activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 94-25 § 2) Existing Conditions Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences at approximately 305 feet away from the proposed hospital site and a church that is over 1,000 feet away. The project site is otherwise surrounded by non -sensitive receptors such as commercial and office uses (see Figure 3.2-3). Specifically, these land uses are as follows: • To the north and northwest the land uses are single family residences and undeveloped land. • To the south beyond Highway 79 the land uses are commercial properties and single- family homes. • To the west the land is currently vacant but is under development for professional medical office use. • To the east the land uses include a flood control channel, and commercial and medical uses. There are also seven parcels between Dartola Road and De Portola Road. These parcels include three structures located on Margarita Road and two structures located on De Portola Road. One of the structures is currently used as a medical clinic, one is a vacant single-family residence, and three are occupied single-family residences. All seven parcels are designated for Professional Office (PO) use within the General Plan. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • Of MONISM • PHASE IB PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV • CMG. CORER IMMO PHASE V Residences I-- 06 PORTOLA ROAD ...:..::.....:..7...i.. � Residences Loading Docks _.. _.. _ . STATE AOH.Ar WI Residences 01:"•'""a"°MAN SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.2-3 Site Plan 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise This zoning district is intended primarily for single -tenant and multi -tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business. As such, residential use of these parcels is an existing, non -conforming condition. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. To document the existing noise levels, Wieland Associates measured noise levels at five locations in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 3.2-4). The five locations were as follows: • 30390 De Portola Road • 30955 De Portola Road • 31775 De Portola Road • On the project site, at the location of the proposed five -story bed tower. • 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79)3 The summary of their findings is in the following Table 3.2-3. TABLE 3.2-3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Number Location Description Measurement Measured Average Period Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.2-59.3 59.8 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 48.8-62.3 62.8 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.2-59.2 57.8 On project site, at offset of 4 proposed five -story bed 20 minutes 50.3 N/A tower 31602 Calle Los Padres 5 24 hours 47.0-57.9 60.8 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007. A 24-hour noise measurement was not obtained at location #4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment. Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 712, 820, and 870) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200). All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-9 ESA 1 D207434 January 2008 �►rt �..V. ti Jl 1 / t�.. „r f / • j "it 200 7 E.ndtin-Technu In jiet 412D071Nn.ir•y . 9 •amt,_ b. .• \ (JooS[e SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.2-4 Noise Measurement Locations 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Existing Noise Environment The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise. Other noise producers include stationary noise like the noise produced by the HVAC systems from the nearby commercial uses. Table 3.2-4 summarizes the existing level of traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. TABLE 3.2-4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50' Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane Centerline, ft. 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 68.5 dB 235 100 South of Highway 79 67.5 dB 200 83 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 64.5 dB 120 Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 68.5 dB 235 100 De Portola to Highway 79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 South of Highway 79 71.0 dB 340 155 62 Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway 74.0 dB 520 255 110 West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 79.5 dB 1,000 560 278 120 West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 West of Butterfield Stage Road 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 NOTES: Noise levels calculated using the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic volume data was provided by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers, 2007. Speeds were based on the observed posted speed limits. The truck mix on Highway 79 was based on data published by Caltrans. The truck mix on the remaining streets was based on data provided by the County of Riverside. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) levels developed by Caltrans were used in the prediction model. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Previous Project Site Evaluation In September 2005, Wieland Associates, Inc. prepared a noise study for the project site to estimate the combined construction noise levels that would be generated during each phase of construction. This study was included as part of the noise analysis in the original EIR. The analysis in that study used equipment estimates based on the Palm Desert Hospital that is similar Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-11 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise enough in size and design to provide an adequate model for the project. In 2007, Wieland re- evaluated the site using new software now available (Urbemis 2007, 9.2) for use in analyzing noise impacts. Use of this new software generated substantially lower construction noise impacts. Therefore, to provide a conservative estimate of construction noise impacts of the project, this analysis uses the higher impact levels reported in the noise analysis for the original EIR, as reproduced in Table 3.2-5 in the Impact Assessment and Methodology section.4 TABLE 3.2-5 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Noise- Estimated Attenuation Estimated CNEL Estimated Estimated Sensitive Construction CNEL at due to at Sensitive Construction Noise Increase due to Location Phase 50 ft, dB Distance, dBa Location, dBb + Ambient, dB` Construction dB` Demolition 86 Nearest Grading 91 residences to the northwest Construction 87 Paving 90 Demolition 86 Nearest Grading 91 residences to the south Construction 87 Paving 90 Demolition 86 Nearest offices Grading 91 to the east Construction 87 Nearest offices to the west Paving 90 Demolition 86 Grading 91 Construction 87 Paving 90 -16 (305) - 24 (760') - 25 (880') -23 (745) 70 71 75 75 71 72 74 74 57 62 62 64 58 63 61 64 61 71 66 71 62 71 65 71 8 12 9 12 63 71 68 72 64 71 67 72 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 NOTES: a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to Highway 79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 3.2-2. c. The estimated "construction + ambient" noise levels and estimated increases due to construction are based on the ambient noise levels measured for this supplemental study. Refer to Table 3.2-2. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Significance Criteria According to the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, a project would result in a significant noise impact if it would: 4 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-12 ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Expose persons to or generate excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels. • Create a substantially permanent increase (greater than 3 dBA) in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Be located within an airport land use plan or be located where such a plan has not been adopted and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. • Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impact Assessment and Methodology Construction As stated above, the 2007 study done by Wieland, using the Urbemis 2007 9.2 software yielded construction noise estimates that were lower than those yielded by the 2005 study. Therefore, in the interest of being as conservative as possible for this SEIR, Wieland decided to continue with their analysis using the 2005 estimates that are based on the Palm Desert Hospital. Traffic Using project site data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Wieland estimated the amount of traffic the proposed project would generate under four different scenarios. These scenarios are "Opening Year (Phase I)," "Opening Year + Entire Project (Phase I and II)," "Opening Year + Cumulative Projects," and "Buildout." The goal was to estimate traffic at all stages of development. The results for each case are presented in Tables 3.2-6 through 3.2-9 below. The tables give the estimated CNEL at the project site that would be attributed to traffic. Ambulance Siren Noise Based on stationary ambulance siren tests done in the City of Temecula, Wieland were able to estimate the noise impact from ambulances traveling to the proposed project (see Table 3.2-1 for stationary ambulance test results). Since Highway 79 has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph), and thus ambulances would pass by faster than on roads with lower limits, the estimated SENEL on Highway 79 is 112.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. De Portola Road has a speed limit of 35 mph, so its SENEL is higher at 114.5 dB(A). Margarita Road has a speed limit of 45 mph and an estimated SENEL of 113.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-13 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-6 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, PROJECT PHASE I Arterial / Reach Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50' Without Project With Phase I Without Project With Phase I Change Due to Project Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola De Portola to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala West of Margarita Road West of Butterfield Stage Road 13,950 14,500 14,450 68.5 dB 15,130 68.0 dB 69.0 dB 0.5 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB 8,720 9,350 64.5 dB 65 dB 0.5 dB 46,760 19,290 28,560 27,470 21,470 84,580 42,510 37,280 47,070 72.0 dB 20,230 29,500 28,100 21,660 86,470 45,780 38,480 NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 69.0 dB 71.0 dB 71.5 dB 74.5 dB 79.0 dB 76.5 dB 76.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB 69.5 dB 71.0 dB 71.5 dB 74.5 dB 80.0 dB 77.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.0 dB 0.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB TABLE 3.2-7 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, ENTIRE PROJECT PHASES I AND II Arterial / Reach Ava. Daily Traffic Unmitiaated CNEL e 50' Without Project With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II Change Due to Project Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola De Portola to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) West of Margarita Road West of Butterfield Stage Road 13,950 14,500 8,720 46,760 19,290 28,560 27,470 21,470 84,580 42,510 37,280 14,920 15,710 9,930 68.5 dB 68.0 dB 64.5 dB 47,360 72.0 dB 21,100 30,070 28,680 21,830 88,220 48,810 39,590 NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 69.0 dB 71.0 dB 71.5 dB 74.5 dB 79.5 dB 76.5 dB 76.0 dB 69.0 dB 0.5 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB 65.0 dB 0.5 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB 69.5 dB 71.0 dB 72.0 dB 74.5 dB 80.0 dB 77.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB Temecula Regional Hospital Fin& Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-14 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-8 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Arterial / Reach Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50' Change Due to Without Project With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II Project Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 Margarita Road. / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola De Portola to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) West of Margarita Road West of Butterfield Stage Road 22,130 23,100 70.5 dB 71.0 dB 0.5 dB 24,750 25,960 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5 dB 10,450 11,660 65.5 dB 66.0 dB 0.5 dB 69,410 70,010 74.0 dB 74.0 dB 0.0 dB 24,250 26,060 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5 dB 35,880 37,690 72.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB 37,330 38,540 73.0 dB 73.0 dB 0.0 dB 32,130 32,490 76.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.0 dB 119,700 123,490 81.5 dB 81.5 dB 0.0 dB 76,180 82,480 79.0 dB 79.5 dB 0.5 dB 57,570 59,880 78.0 dB 78.0 dB 0.0 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-9 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, BUILDOUT Arterial/Reach Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CN EL at 50' Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 19,000 70.0 dB South of Highway 79 20,000 69.0 dB De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 11,000 64.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 29,000 70.0 dB Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway 9,000 70.5 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 59,000 78.0 dB West of Margarita Road 51,000 77.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 50,000 77.5 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-15 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise To arrive at a CNEL that accounts for ambulance sirens, it must first be estimated how many trips per day an ambulance with its sirens on would use a particular road. To do this, Wieland Associates, Inc. used data from the period of January 1, 2007 to July 18, 2007 (see Table 3.2-10).5 It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate, because it assumes that all regional ambulance trips will be going to or from the project site, even though there are other existing medical facilities currently serving the region. Of the total number of ambulance trips, only 10-12 percent are considered Code 3 (sirens on). The others would not require ambulance sirens. Using the SENEL estimates from Table 3.2-11 and 12 percent of the ambulance trip estimates from Table 3.2-10, Wieland was able to estimate a CNEL for the project site that incorporates ambulance sirens. These estimates are summarized in the following table. It should be noted that sirens are never used on hospital property. TABLE 3.2-10 ESTIMATED AMBULANCE OPERATIONS PER DAY Street Segment EXIS11NGa With Proposed Hospitalb 7am-7pmc 7pm-10pmc 10pm-7amc 7am-7pmc 7pm-10am° 10pm-7amc Highway 79, Margarita to Pala Margarita, Highway 79 to De Portola De Portola, Pio Pico to Margarita De Portola, Pio Pica to Jedidiah Smith 0.21 0.07 0.01 14.65 5.00 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 NOTES: a Based on operations from 1/1/2007 through 7/18/2007. b Based on estimated annual emergency room transports of 8,609 provided by AMR. The distribution of ambulance runs on the four street segments and over the three times periods was assumed using the distribution for the existing runs. c Number indicates average number of ambulance operations during the 12 hour period from 7am to 7pm, or the three-hour period from 7pm to 1 Opm, or the nine -hour period from lOpm to 7am. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-11 ESTIMATED CNEL DUE TO AMBULANCE OPERATIONS Street Segment Estimated CNEL at 50 ft. Existing Future Estimated Estimated Increase in Ambulance Ambulance Ambulance Sirens Ambient CNEL due to Sirens Sirens +Ambient CNELb Ambulance Sirens Highway 79, Margarita to Pala Margarita, Highway 79 to De Portola De Portola, Pio Pico to Margarita De Portola, Pio Pico to Jedidiah Smith 60.0 dB 49.5 dB 54.0 dB 55.5 dB 64.0 dBa 59.0 dB 63.5 dB 65.0 dB 66.0 dB 61.5 dB 64.5 dB 67.0 dB NOTES: a Estimated CNEL assumes 5 dB of reduction for the existing residential walls along Highway 79. b Ambient CN EL at 50' taken from measurement results of Table 3.2-2. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 5.0 dB 3.5 dB 6.5 dB 4.0 dB 5 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-16 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Summary of Impacts For the purposes of this SEIR, only the significance criteria regarding construction noise and traffic noise need be discussed, as the temporary noise from construction and the permanent noise from emergency sirens have the potential to disturb nearby residences (sensitive receptors). As discussed below, the proposed project would adhere to mitigation measures prescribed for this significant impact. However, even with mitigation incorporated, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from noise. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.2-1: Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction -related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Table 3.2-12 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.2-13 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. Noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2-5). This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. TABLE 3.2-12 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (Leq) a Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89 NOTES: a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Horne Appliances, 1971. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-17 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-13 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (Leq at 50 feet) Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 88 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 76 Pile Driver 101 Backhoe 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The following measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: • Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met with windows and doors closed. • Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. • All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned mitigation measures. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. To minimize construction noise levels at the nearby properties, the contractor shall comply with the above-mentioned recommendations provided in Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. In addition, to the extent practical, the contractor shall consider the following noise abatement measures: • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • In order to minimize the time during which any single noise -sensitive receptor is exposed to construction noise, construction shall be completed as rapidly as possible. • The quietest construction equipment owned by the contractor shall be used. The use of electric powered equipment is typically quieter than diesel, and hydraulic powered equipment is quieter than pneumatic power. If compressors powered by diesel or gasoline engines are to be used, they shall be contained or have baffles to help abate noise levels. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-18 ESA 1 D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise • All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. Poor maintenance of equipment typically causes excessive noise levels. • Noisy equipment shall be operated only when necessary, and shall be switched off when not in use. • Storage areas shall be located away from sensitive receptors. Where this is not possible, the storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies shall be positioned in a manner that will function as a noise barrier to the closest sensitive receivers. • Public notice shall be given prior to construction identifying the location and dates of construction, the name and phone number of the contractor's contact person in case of complaints, and the name and phone number of a contact person at the City of Temecula in case of complaints. The public notice shall encourage the residents to call the contractor's contact person andlor the City's contact person rather than the police in case of complaint. Residents shall also be kept informed of any changes to the schedule. The contractor's designated contact person shall be on site throughout project construction with a mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contractor's contact person andlor the City's contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. If possible, a member of the contractor's team shall also travel to the complainant's location to understand the nature of the disturbance. Impact 3.2-2: Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. The project will increase the traffic -generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance; therefore the impact is not significant. Project traffic will not cause the 65 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded at existing residential or school land uses in the study area. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Project traffic will cause the 70 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded by 0.5 dB at existing public/institutional (except school), open space, commercial, and office land uses adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road south of Highway 79 and Margarita Road between Jedidiah Smith Road and De Portola Road. This will be the case only for the "Opening Year + Cumulative Projects" traffic volume. The threshold will not be exceeded under any other traffic scenario addressed in this study. As a result, it may be concluded that there is no direct project impact, but there is a cumulative impact. However, as indicated in Figure 3.2-1 an increase of 0.5 dB is imperceptible; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Without accounting for ambulance siren noise, traffic noise impacts generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. When ambulance siren noise is added to the equation, traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2-11). Also, residents along emergency routes would be exposed to unmitigated maximum noise levels of about 94 to 117.5 dB(A) from ambulance sirens. However, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-19 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation: None required, because noise standards do not apply to emergency situations. No mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. References City of Temecula, City of Temecula General Plan — Noise Element, April 2005. County of Riverside, County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. P.F. Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Horne Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, August 2, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-20 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic 3.3 Traffic 3.3.1 Approach to Analysis Section 3.3 of the Draft SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed in October, 2007. The complete traffic study is included in Appendix D in the Draft EIR. This section also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project -related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. This section uses the terms SR -79 and Highway 79 interchangeably. 3.3.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The following describes the existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the project site (Figure 3.3-1). It includes an analysis of the traffic circulation characteristics of the 10 study intersections. The 10 study intersections are as follows: • SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps; • SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps; • SR 79/La Paz Street; • SR 79/ Pechanga Parkway; • SR 79/Jedediah Smith Road; • SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones; • SR 79/ Country Glen Way; • SR 79/ Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road; • SR 79/Butterfield Stage Road; and • De Portola Road/Margarita Road. Existing Street Network Highway 79 is classified as a Six -Lane Prime Arterial in the project area and is built as a six -lane roadway in the project vicinity. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79, and the posted speed limit is 55 mph. La Paz Street is a two-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Aw 40 • 0 0 LEGEND — Traffic Signal BL — Bike Lane BS - Bus Stop NP - No Parking TwLTL — Two—Way Left—Turn Lane RTOL - Right—Tum Overlap 2U — Two lane undivided roadway 4D — Four lane divided roadway BD — Six lane divided roadway • 0 0 • 0 0 0 6D 55 MPH TWLTL 2v PROJECT RITE 0 0 et) m • 0 r RTOL • • • • • 0 0 VAII. RAScti NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Pechanga Parkway is currently a four -lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to Highway 79, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. Pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79. Avenida de Missiones is a four -lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is classified as a four -lane Major roadway in the project area. Margarita Road is currently a four -lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk Parkway is also currently a four -lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is currently signalized at its intersection with Highway 79. Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a four -lane Major roadway in the project area. Butterfield Stage Road is currently a four -lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79. De Portola Road is a four -lane road east of Margarita Road and a two-lane undivided roadway west of Margarita Road. Eastern By -Pass is a planned future facility between I-15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road in the northeastern section of the City. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between I-15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at I-15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a cost of $47,840,000. The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern By -Pass is planned to be a six -lane divided Principal Arterial from I-15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four -lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern By -Pass is planned to be a Four -Lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a Two -Lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. With the completion of the Eastern By -Pass, the current traffic volumes on Highway 79 and at the 1-15 / Highway 79 South interchange are expected to reduce substantially. Currently, the implementation schedule for this improvement is not known and therefore, these improvements are not assumed in the near-term. However, the City of Temecula General Plan includes the Eastern Bypass in the Year 2025. Therefore, the Year 2025 analysis included in this report assumes the same. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-3 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes Peak Hour Intersection Volume Counts Available AM and PM peak hour volumes were obtained from the City and new manual counts were conducted by LLG at the four locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. • Highway 79 / I-15 SB Ramps • Highway 79 / 1-15 NB Ramps • Highway 79 / La Paz St • Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Figure 3.3-2 depicts the existing peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the manual count sheets. Segment Counts Available daily segment volumes were obtained from the City and new counts were conducted by LLG at the three locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. • Highway 79 West of I-15 • Butterfield Stage Road North of SR -79 • Butterfield Stage Road South of SR -79 Table 3.3-1 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways. Figure 3.3-2 depicts the existing 24-hour segment volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the segment count sheets. TABLE 3.3-1 EXISTING SEGMENT VOLUMES Street Segment Source ADT a Date Highway 79 West of 1-15 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd Pechanga Parkway South of SR -79 Butterfield Stage Road North of SR -79 South of SR -79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road De Portola Road to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 LLG Engineers City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula LLG Engineers LLG Engineers 19,700 77,600 39,000 34,200 07/11/07 2006 2006 2006 42,900 Feb -06 12,800 13,300 07/11/07 07/11/07 City of Temecula 8,000 2006 City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula 17,700 26,200 25,200 2006 2006 2006 Footnotes: a. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study contains the segment count sheets) SOURCE: City of Temecula Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-4 ESA / D207434 January 2008 NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes shown at the intersections SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours & ADT 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic 3.3.3 Approach and Methodology This section of the SEIR analyzes the key intersections and street segments in the project area. All of these facilities are analyzed under existing and several future analysis timeframes to determine the project impacts on the prevailing street network during each timeframe. Peak hour intersection and daily segments have been analyzed under the following scenarios. Segment analysis is only conducted for the Build -out (Year 2025) Scenario: • Existing • Opening Year Without Project (Existing + 3 percent growth in existing traffic for three years) • Opening Year With Project Phase I • Opening Year With Entire Project (Phases I and II) • Opening Year With Entire Project (Phases I and II) and Cumulative Projects • Build -out (Year 2025) Traffic Operations There are different methodologies used to analyze signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, street segments, freeways, and Congestion Management Program (CMP) arterials. The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is Level of Service (LOS). In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, levels of service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15 -minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 3.3-2 below summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-6 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-2 LOS DEFINITIONS LOS Interpretation Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (SecondsNehicle) A Excellent operation — free flow 0.0 <10.0 B Very good operation — stable flow, little or no delays 10.1 to 20.0 C Good operation — slight delays 21.1 to 35.0 D Fair operation — noticeable delays, queuing observed 35.1 to 55.0 E Poor operation — long delays, near or at capacity 55.1 to 80.0 F Forced flow — congestion > 80.0 SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over -saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Street Segments The street segments were analyzed on a daily basis without and with project conditions by comparing the ADT volume to the Riverside County Capacity Standards. This table is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study) and provides LOS estimates based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. Table 3.3-3 below provides a summary of the volume capacity / level of service for Riverside County roadways. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-7 ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-3 VOLUME CAPACITY / LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROADWAYS (1) Roadway Number of Maximum Two -Way Traffic Volume (ADT)I2) Classification Lanes Service Service Service Service Service Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Collector 2 7,800 9,100 10,400 11,700 13,000 Major 4 20,460 23,870 27,300 30,700 34,100 Urban 4 21,540 25,130 28,700 32,300 35,900 Urban 6 32,340 37,730 43,100 48,500 53,900 Footnotes: 1. All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. 2. Maximum two-way ADT values are based on the 1999 Modified Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Tables as defined in the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3.3.4 Significance Criteria Based on City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element policy, a significant impact is determined on a roadway segment or intersection with the addition of project traffic if: • The increase in the v/c ratio on roadway segments is greater than 2 percent; or • The increase in the delay at intersections is greater than 2 seconds The impact is direct if the project causes a reduction in the LOS to below "D" and the impact is cumulative if the level of service is below LOS "D" prior to the addition of project. 3.3.5 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 3.3-4 summarizes the existing intersection conditions. As shown, all intersections are currently calculated to operate at an LOS D or better except the SR 79/Pechanga Parkway intersection (LOS F during PM peak hour). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix C of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the existing peak hour intersections analysis worksheets. 3.3.6 Daily Street Segment Level of Service Table 3.3-5 shows the existing street segment operations. As shown, all street segments are currently calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 from I-15 to Pechanga Parkway (LOS F) • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 (LOS F) Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-8 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA 1 D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-4 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Peak Type Hour Existing Delay' LOS"' 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps Signal 2. Highway 79 /1-15 NB Ramps Signal 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. AM PM 32.2 37.5 C D AM 12.0 B PM 34.0 C AM 13.3 B PM 27.4 C AM 23.3 C PM 73.9 E AM 10.5 B PM 15.6 B AM 6.4 A PM 7.6 A AM 5.0 A PM 10.1 B AM 28.4 C PM 32.1 C AM 18.8 B PM 20.2 C AM 13.9 B PM 18.4 B SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3.3.7 Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation rates are generally used to determine trip generation for projects in the City of Temecula. Hospital trip generation rates published in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region are higher than ITE rates and hence were used to calculate worst-case total trip generation for the hospital portion of the project. The trip generation rates in (ITE) Trip Generation were used for the Medical Office building. There are no standard trip generation rates available for the Cancer Rehabilitation Center and the Physical Rehabilitation Center. Hence, the rates for the Medical Office in ITE were used to estimate the trip generation for all non -hospital land uses. SIGNALIZED DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F Project Phase 1 Trip Generation The Project Phase I development (170 bed hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office) is calculated to generate 6,290 ADT with 474 trips during the AM peak hour (350 inbound / 124 outbound) and 629 trips during the PM peak hour (214 inbound / 415 outbound trips). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-9 ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-5 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Existing Roadway Class a Capacity (LOS E) ADT ° V/C d LOS e Hiahwav 79 West of 1-15 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road De Portola Road to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Major Rd 6 -Ln Urban Rd 6 -Ln Urban Rd 6 -Ln Urban Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 2 -Ln Collector 4 -Ln Major Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 19,700 0.578 A 53,900 77,600 1.440 F 53,900 39,000 0.724 C 53,900 34,200 0.635 B 34,100 42,900 1.258 F 34,100 12,800 0.375 A 34,100 13,300 0.390 A 13,000 8,000 0.615 B 34,100 17,700 0.493 A 34,100 26,200 0.730 C 34,100 25,200 0.702 C Footnotes: a. Roadway classification determined based on existing cross-sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Therefore, the project traffic generation was defined in two phases. Table 33-6 tabulates the Phase I and total project traffic generation. Project Phase 11 Trip Generation The Project Phase II development (Ultimate build -out — 320 -bed hospital, 140,000 square -foot of medical office, a 10,000 square -foot cancer rehabilitation center and an 8,000 square -foot rehabilitation and physical therapy center) and is calculated to generate 5,820 ADT with 437 trips during the AM peak hour (324 inbound / 113 outbound) and 582 trips during the PM peak hour (197 inbound / 385 outbound trips). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - TOTAL TRIPS Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADT) a AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of ADT In : Out Split Volume o, of ADT In : Out Split Volume Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total Phase! Hospital 170 Beds 20 /Bed b 3,400 8% 70 30 190 82 272 10% 40 60 136 204 340 Medical Office 80,000 SF 36.13 /KSF c 2,890 7% 79 : 21 160 42 202 10% 27 : 73 78 211 289 Subtotal Phase! 6,290 350 124 474 214 415 629 Phase II Hospital 150 Beds 20 /Bed 3,000 8% 70 30 168 72 240 10% 40 60 120 180 300 Medical Office 60,000 SF 36.13 /KSF 2,170 7% 79 21 120 32 152 10% 27 73 59 158 217 Cancer Rehab Center d 10,000 SF 36.13 /KSF 360 7% 79 : 21 20 5 25 10% 27 : 73 10 26 36 Rehab and Phys Therapy d 8,000 SF 36.13 /KSF 290 7% 79 : 21 16 4 20 10% 27 : 73 8 21 29 Subtotal Phase II 5,820 324 113 437 197 385 582 Total Project 12,110 674 237 911 411 800 1,211 Footnotes: Trip Ends are one-way traffic movement, either entering or leaving. Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, SANDAG ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The rates for Medical Office in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition were used since no separate rates are available for this land use. This rate is very conservative since these uses are expected to generate much lower traffic volumes. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-11 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Total Trip Generation The entire project at build -out (Phase I and Phase II) is calculated to generate 12,110 ADT with 911 trips during the AM peak hour (674 inbound / 237 outbound) and 1,211 trips during the PM peak hour (411 inbound / 800 outbound trips). The project proposes a total of three access driveways two onto Highway 79 and one onto De Portola Road, as shown in Figure 2-3. In addition, an onsite circulation system consisting of private drive lanes and parking areas are proposed. Trip Distribution/Assignment The project trip distribution was estimated based on the location of residential neighborhoods, the location of other area hospitals, the site access and the roadway network. A growth rate of 3 percent per year for three years was applied to the existing traffic volumes to estimate Opening Year traffic conditions. This constitutes the baseline background traffic. The growth rate was utilized to account for area wide traffic growth. This growth rate of 3 percent per year is estimated, based on the average historical annual growth of traffic along Highway 79 (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study). Figure 3.3-3 depicts the Opening Year without project traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-4 depicts the project trip distribution. Figure 3.3-5 depicts the Project Phase I traffic volumes, while Figure 3.3-6 depicts the Opening Year with Project Phase I traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-7 depicts the Project Phase II traffic volumes and Figure 3.3-8 depicts the Entire Project (Phases I & II) traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-9 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project (Phases I & II) traffic volumes. 3.3.8 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Based on discussions with City of Temecula and Riverside County staff, it was determined that 30 area projects have the potential to add cumulative traffic to the study area. Table 3.3-7 provides a brief description of each project that has cumulative considerations. Appendix D of this SEIR and Appendix D of the October 2007 LLG study contains Cumulative Projects Data. Summary of Cumulative Projects Trips Table 3.3-8 summarizes the individual cumulative project trip generation. As shown in Table 3.3-8, the cumulative projects are calculated to generate a total of 117,834 daily trips, with 7,576 trips in the AM peak hour (3,463 inbound and 4,113 outbound) and 11,452 trips in the PM peak hour (6,012 inbound and 5,441 outbound). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-12 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections � J°0�zy4b�. 1 Etif ,1 t -43 l fir,. .r`m`o� 1324/848 % 308/303 • • 963/1751-4 •. 781/13211 AFcg4-> 60 ,e_ 5e' ▪ o: . 9 • • VAU. I NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-3 Opening Year without Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-4 Project Traffic Distribution AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections REV. 10/15/07 N:\1752\AutoCAD\LLG1752 Figures 37/125 X621 105/8a— r 123/75 83/185 NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-5 Proposed Project Phase 1 Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT �s> u��Zti NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections 9,44 PQ 1391 971 % 314/324 1099/1915— )81/1221, • • r NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-6 Opening Year with Project Phase 1 Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections 0 0 Ex Pi Z o n>,,39 ti J{ 116 x619 9)/59 4÷40.:'' ) 11• 1 r5 "•-•4 S 59 VAIL NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-7 Proposed Project Phase 11 Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections 71/241 • r 12/40 202/123 r g • tra VAIL BAHCH NORTH GEO NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-8 Proposed Entire Project (Phase 1 + Phase II) Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections 464k4 7042 'Pe RR's' ,-dT% PROJECT _ g ))�n75 •�'7*t�Ly41 ¢� 88..? 'N��\, s m `28/MIfliztJA2� `se/w iii- 2%2732... 1j( e '284N61/19,-",41 : 1n1 ��°C�1 R = 1 1 l l • • • • 1395/108i• f 320/W 116318]1— ', 781/1221, a n • A* R) 441. (, rt ,,v - i� � �95�1lg4'I r 2a •�i} lAra ' o2eifz VA1LR4 NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-9 Opening Year with Entire Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST NamelLocation Type of Development Description 1. Summerhouse—SW comer of Mixed-use Maragrita Rd. and De Portola Rd. The Temecula Senior Care Facility includes a retirement community, congregate care and a medical office. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,214 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (90 inbound and 38 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 126 outbound.) 2. Temecula Creek Inn—W of 1-15 Residential Temecula Creek Inn is a 500 single-family home Subdivision adjacent to the Temecula Creek golf course. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,785 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (94 inbound and 281 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (318 inbound and 187 outbound). 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 30180— Mixed-use Tentative Tract Map 30180 includes commercial/retail uses located within the Creekside SE corner of SR 79 and Pechanga Plaza development. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,894 daily trips, with Parkway 114 trips in the AM peak hour (70 inbound and 44 outbound) and 450 trips in the PM peak hour (216 inbound and 234 outbound). 4. Temecula Creek—W of 1-15 Commercial Temecula Creek includes a hotel and convention center. The proposed project is estimated to generate 515 daily trips, with 29 trips in the AM peak hour (17 inbound and 44 outbound) and 46 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 21 outbound). 5. Vail Ranch Town Center—SE corner Commercial The Vail Ranch Towne Center includes office and retail uses. The proposed project is of SR 78 and Redhawk Pkwy estimated to generate 6,036 daily trips, with 426 trips in the AM peak hour (266 inbound and 166 outbound) and 488 trips in the PM peak hour (193 inbound and 295 outbound). 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,326 daily trips, with 182 trips in the AM peak hour (46 inbound and 136 outbound) and 245 tirps in the PM peak hour (158 inbound and 87 outbound). Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,225 daily trips, with 96 trips in the AM peak hour (24 inbound and 72 outbound) and 129 trips in the PM peak hour (83 inbound and 46 outbound). 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 – includes single-family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,168 daily trips, with 91 trips in the AM peak hour (23 inbound and 69 outbound) and 123 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 44 outbound). 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion—SW of Commercial Pechanga Casino Expansion includes an expansion of the existing casino. The proposed SR 79/ Pechanga Pkwy intersection project is estimated to generate 18,000 daily trips. 10. Margarita Canyon Mixed-use Margarita Canyon includes commercial/retail land uses. The proposed project is estimated to generate 7,909 daily trips, with 184 trips in the AM peak hour (112 inbound and 72 outbound) and 733 trips in the PM peak hour (352 inbound and 381 outbound). 11. Rancho Community Church— W of project site Institutional Rancho Community Church includes a variety of land uses other than the church including a private kindergarten– 8th grade school, a private high school, a preschool as well as 15 acres of general retail/office (retail) uses. The total project is estimated to generate 5,136 daily trips, with 706 trips in the AM peak hour (462 inbound and 244 outbound) and 410 trips in the PM peak hour (161 inbound and 249 outbound). 12. Wolf Creek Residential Wolf Creek proposes single-family detached residential units. The proposed project (assumed to be 1,000 dwelling units) is estimated to generate 9,570 daily trips, with 675 trips in the AM peak hour (169 inbound and 506 outbound) and 909 trips in the PM peak hour (572 inbound and 337 outbound). 13. Morgan Hill Mixed-use Morgan Hill includes single-family detached residential units, an Elementary school, and a park. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,430 daily trips, with 621 trips in the AM peak hour (253 inbound and 368 outbound) and 564 trips in the PM peak hour (338 inbound and 226 outbound). 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 15. Apis Plaza Residential Tentative Tract Map 24188- includes 291 apartments. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,507 daily trips, with 2,507 trips in the 196 AM peak hour (49 inbound and 147 outbound) and 265 trips in the PM peak hour (170 inbound and 95 outbound). Commercial Apis Plaza includes commercial/retail, as well as a fast food restaurant, and a high turnover sit-down restaurant. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,345 daily trips, with 230 trips in the AM peak hour (127 inbound and 103 outbound) and 462 trips in the PM peak hour (230 inbound and 232 outbound). 16. Paloma Del Sol Office Building Professional Paloma Del Sol Office Building - includes 75,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project is estimated to generate 958 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 147 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 122 outbound). 17. Park and Ride—SR and La Paz Rd. Public A 209 space Park & Ride facility is planned at the northeast corner of the SR 79 / La Paz intersection. This facility is estimated to generate approximately 543 daily trips, with 272 trips Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-20 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic NamelLocation Type of Development Description in the AM peak hour (190 inbound and 82 outbound) and 272 trips in the PM peak hour (82 inbound and 190 outbound). 18. Temecula Lane I—SW of project site Residential Temecula Lane I is a residential development with 96 single-family dwelling units and 332 multi -family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,780 daily trips, with 212 trips in the AM peak hour (42 inbound and 170 outbound) and 263 trips in the PM peak hour (172 inbound and 91 outbound). 19. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA) Mixed-use The Roripaugh Ranch SPA is partly constructed. 1,800 single-family dwelling units remain to be constructed in this project. These remaining units are estimated to generate approximately 14,850 daily trips, with 1,269 trips in the AM peak hour (317 inbound and 952 outbound) and 1,445 trips in the PM peak hour (910 inbound and 535 outbound). 20. De Portola Meadows— E of Redhawk Pkwy Residential De Portola Meadows is a residential development with 147 single-family dwelling units and 156 multi -family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,420 daily trips, with 186 trips in the AM peak hour (41 inbound and 145 outbound) and 236 trips in the PM peak hour (153 inbound and 83 outbound). 21. St. Thomas of Canterbury—SE of SR 79 and Avenida de Missione Institutional St Thomas of Canterbury is a church / preschool. This project includes a 30,473 square -foot building. This project is estimated to generate approximately 682 daily trips, with 111 trips in the AM peak hour (59 inbound and 52 outbound) and 116 trips in the PM peak hour (55 inbound and 61 outbound). 22. Hemmingway at Redhawk—SE of project site on Redhawk Pkwy Residential Hemmingway at Redhawk is a residential development with 108 single-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 64 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound). 23. Temecula Professional Building II (PA06-0329)—NE corner of Margarita Pkwy and De Portola Rd. Professional Temecula Professional Building II (PA06-0329) is an 11,595 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 254 daily trips, with 33 trips in the AM peak hour (29 inbound and 4 outbound) and 92 trips in the PM peak hour (16 inbound and 76 outbound). 24. Gateway Plaza—SE corner of SR 79 and Avenida De Missione Commercial Gateway Plaza is a two -storied, 30,573 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 536 daily trips, with 24 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 3 outbound) and 113 trips in the PM peak hour (19 inbound and 94 outbound). 25. Redhawk Condos—SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy 26. Stratford at Redhawk—SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy Residential Redhawk Condos is a residential development with 97 multi -family dwelling units located at the Peach Tree Street / Deer Hollow Way intersection. This project is estimated to generate approximately 625 daily trips, with 50 trips in the AM peak hour (9 inbound and 41 outbound) and 59 trips in the PM peak hour (40 inbound and 19 outbound). Residential Stratford at Redhawk is a residential development with 106 single family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,120 daily trips, with 84 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 63 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound). 27. Butterfield Station—SW corner of SR 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd. 28. De Portola Professional Offices— SW corner of Maragrita Rd and De Portola Rd. Retail Butterfield Station is a 7,300 square -foot retail development located off of SR 79 between Mahlon Vail and Butterfield Stage Road. This project is estimated to generate approximately 5,535 daily trips, with 130 trips in the AM peak hour (79 inbound and 51 outbound) and 510 trips in the PM peak hour (291 inbound and 219 outbound). Professional De Portola Professional Offices is a 38,501 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 640 daily trips, with 87 trips in the AM peak hour (77 inbound and 10 outbound) and 120 trips in the PM peak hour (20 inbound and 100 outbound). 29. Heritage Hotel—NW corner of SR 79 and La Paz St. Commercial Heritage Hotel is a 142 -room hotel development with a 5,500 square -foot restaurant. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,760 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (51 inbound and 34 outbound) and 122 trips in the PM peak hour (68 inbound and 54 outbound). 30. Halcon de Rojo—NE comer of SR 79 and Jedediah Smith Rd. SOURCE: City of Temecula Professional Halcon de Rojo is a 65,880 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 967 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 153 trips in the PM peak hour (26 inbound and 127 outbound). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-21 ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-8 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADT) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of ADT Volume % of ADT Volume Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total 1. Summerhouse 2,214 90 38 128 79 126 205 2. Temecula Creek Inn 4,785 94 281 375 318 187 505 3. Tentative Map 30180 (Not Built) EZ Lube 4 Positions 40/Position 160 5.19 12 9 21 4.60 10 8 18 Bank 4,000 SF T=182.34X+256.87 986 12.34 27 22 49 45.74 92 91 183 4. Temecula Creek 515 17 12 29 25 21 46 5. Vail Ranch Towne Center 6,036 266 166 432 193 295 488 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 2,326 46 136 182 158 87 245 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 1,225 24 72 96 83 46 129 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 1,168 23 69 92 79 44 123 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion 10,234 288 164 452 252 225 477 10. Margarita Canyon 7,909 112 72 184 352 381 733 11. Rancho Community Church (Not Built) Middle School 408 Students 1.62/Student 660 52 42 94 0.15 32 29 61 High School 456 Students Ln (T)=0.81LN(X)+1.86 915 153 69 222 0.14 30 34 64 12. Wolf Creek Single Family Residential 520 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 4,739 93 280 373 298 175 473 Community Commercial 12 Acres 700/Acre 8,400 4% 202 134 336 10% 420 420 840 Neighborhood Commercial 8 Acres 1200/Acre 9,600 4% 230 154 384 10% 480 480 960 13. Morgan Hill 5,430 253 368 621 338 226 564 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 2,507 49 147 196 170 95 265 15. Apis Plaza 5,345 127 103 230 230 232 462 16. Paloma Del Sol Office Building 958 118 16 134 25 122 147 17. Park & Ride at Highway 79 / La Paz 209 Spaces 2.6/Space 543 190 82 272 82 190 272 18. Temecula Lane I 7,909 112 72 184 352 381 733 Single Family Residential 96 Units Ln (T)=0.92Ln(X)+2.71 1,000 19 58 77 65 38 103 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-22 ESA/D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-8 (CONT.) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADT) AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Volume Volume Rate Volume %of ADT In Out Total of ADT In Out Total Multi -Family Residential 332 Units Ln (T)=0.85Ln(X)+2.55 1,780 23 112 135 107 53 160 19. Roripaugh Ranch SPA 1,800 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 14,850 317 952 1269 910 535 1,445 20. De Portola Meadows Single Family Residential 147 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 1,480 28 84 112 95 55 150 Multi -Family Residential 156 Units Ln (T)=0.85Ln(X)+2.55 940 13 61 74 58 28 86 21. St Thomas of Canterbury 682 59 52 111 55 61 116 22. Hemmingwayat Redhawk 108 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 1,100 21 64 85 72 43 115 23. Temecula Professional Building II 11,595 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 254 29 4 33 16 76 92 (PA06-0329) 24. Gateway Plaza 30,573 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 536 21 3 24 19 94 113 25. Redhawk Condos 97 Units Ln (T)=0.85Ln(X)+2.55 625 9 41 50 40 19 59 26. Stratford at Redhawk 106 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 1,120 21 63 84 72 43 115 27. Butterfield Station (Retail) 73,000 SF Ln (T)=0.65Ln(X)+5.83 5,535 79 51 130 291 219 510 28. De Portola Professional Offices 38,501 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 640 77 10 87 20 100 120 29. Heritage Hotel Hotel 142 Rooms 8.92/Room 1,270 47 34 81 7.49 40 41 81 Restaurant 5,500 SF 89.95/KSF ` 490 0.81 4 0 4 7.49 28 13 41 30. Halcon de Rojo 65,880 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 967 118 16 134 26 127 153 Total Project 117,834 3,463 4,113 7,576 6,012 5,441 11,452 Footnote: Only the portions of projects that are yet to be built that were under construction at the time the traffic counts were conducted are included in the above list. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-23 ESA /0207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Figure 3.3-10 depicts the cumulative projects locations, while Figure 3.3-11 depicts total Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-12 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. 3.3.9 Analysis of Near -Term Scenarios Project Opening Day without Project Project Opening day traffic conditions, without project, represents existing traffic volumes with a growth of 3 percent per year for three years added. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-9 summarizes the Opening Day intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR79atI-15 SB Ramps • SR79atI-15 NB Ramps • SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection • SR 79 at La Paz Street Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix E of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year without Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-10 summarizes the Opening Year traffic conditions for the street segment operations, without project. As seen in Table 3.3-10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Parkway Project Opening Day with Project Phase 1 Project opening day with Project Phase I represents Project Opening Day traffic volumes with the addition of Project Phase I traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-9 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project Phase I traffic except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 at I-15 SB Ramps • SR 79 at I-15 NB Ramps • SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection • SR 79 at La Paz Street Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-24 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Cumulative Project Locations O! Summerhouse Tentative Map 30180 (Remaining) 3 Rancho Commun/ty Church (Remaining) 1® Temecula Lane 1 W Portola Meadows © St Thomas of Canterbury Hemmkgwoy at Redhawk Temecula Professional Building Gateway Plaza Redhawk Condos Stratford at Redhawk Butterfield Station De Portola Prfesslarwl Offices Heritage Hotel Hakron De Rojo NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-10 Cumulative Projects Locations NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown of the intersections Fj n PQ 11.- m '1 PROJECT J i �® SITE >6 REV. 10/19/07 N:\1752\AutoCAD \LLG1752 Figures Eig • • 920/709 • 248/524 520/1047—. r 290/9211 0 �x 4/9 11103/11490 110511 59 /119} 501 1 I• 0 16:1":" Vh1L A2Tt N NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-11 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections e .yam PQ y�Q % e\ 51,19 iN 0 1\~ 3'490 � n s3 PROJECT . .\ % r $N za J [It � 010," 1 ,z: REV. 10/19/07 N:\1752\AutoCAD\LLG1752 Figures 1985/2921 ',Oat/2142-1, 2315 1796. % x/857 - 2"..71-= `192/22] fi` 743(25" 93 392J tit( 293 33/993-1 1 n '0 -v9 0 0 dee/ "lA3 • mR.9 pn 159P+1��e°•- i 6,12,0 • •'191l fsl 40 •. VAI. gla4 NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-12 Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-9 PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Peak Type Hour Existing Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Without Project With Project Phase I Delaya LOS° Delaya LOS° Delaya LOS° A Delay Impact Type 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps Signal AM 32.2 C 40.6 D 46.1 D 5.5 None PM 37.5 D 56.9 E 58.2 E 1.3 Cumulative 2. Highway 79 /1-15 NB Ramps Signal AM 12.0 B 13.3 B 14.4 B 1.1 None PM 34.0 C 56.7 E 59.1 E 2.4 Cumulative 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal AM 13.3 B 16.3 B 16.6 B 0.3 None PM 27.4 C 58.5 E 61.2 D 2.7 Cumulative 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 23.3 C 26.6 C 27.8 C 1.2 None PM 73.9 E 109.7 F 114.3 F 4.6 Cumulative 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM 10.5 B 11.0 B 11.2 B 0.2 None PM 15.6 B 17.2 B 17.3 B 0.1 None 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal AM 6.4 A 6.7 A 8.2 A 1.5 None PM 7.6 A 8.7 A 9.9 A 1.2 None 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 5.0 A 5.2 A 26.6 C 21.4 None PM 10.1 B 11.1 B 24.0 C 12.9 None 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal AM 28.4 C 30.8 C 33.8 C 3.0 None PM 32.1 C 34.9 C 37.1 D 2.2 None 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal AM 18.8 B 20.0 B 20.4 C None PM 20.2 C 22.8 C 24.1 C None 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal AM 13.9 B 14.0 B 14.3 B None PM 18.4 B 21.4 C 22.1 C None Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. c. L denotes an increase in delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-28 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-10 PROJECT OPENING DAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Existing Roadway Capacity Class a (LOS E)1) Existing Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Without Project With Project Phase I ADT ` WC d LOS e ADT ` WC d LOS e ADT ` WC d LOS e Impact V/C f Type Highway 79 West of 1-15 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 19,700 0.578 A 21,470 0.630 B 21,660 0.635 B 0.006 None 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 77,600 1.440 F 84,580 1.569 F 86,470 1.604 F 0.035 Cumulative Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 39,000 0.724 C 42,510 0.789 C 45,780 0.849 D 0.061 None Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 34,200 0.635 B 37,280 0.692 B 38,480 0.714 C 0.022 None Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 42,900 1.258 F 46,760 1.371 F 47,070 1.380 F 0.009 Cumulative Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 12,800 0.375 A 13,950 0.409 A 14,450 0.424 A 0.015 None South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 13,300 0.390 A 14,500 0.425 A 15,130 0.444 A 0.018 None De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2 -Ln Col 13,000 8,000 0.615 B 8,720 0.671 B 9,350 0.719 C 0.048 None Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 17,700 0.493 A 19,290 0.537 A 20,230 0.564 A 0.026 None De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 26,200 0.730 C 28,560 0.796 C 29,500 0.822 D 0.026 None South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 25,200 0.702 C 27,470 0.765 C 28,100 0.783 C 0.018 None Footnotes: a. Roadway classification determined based on existing cross-sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix 8 of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. f. Increase in V/C ratio. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-29 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-11 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Control Peak With Project Phase I With Entire Project d Impact Type Type Hour Delay ° Project Opening Day With Entire Project & Cumulative Projects Delaya LOSb Delaya LOS' Delaya LOS' 1. Highway 79 / 1-15 SB Ramps Signal AM 46.1 D 49.1 D 3.0 None 121.9 F PM 58.2 E 62.7 E 4.5 Cumulative 224.3 F 2. Highway 79 /1-15 NB Ramps Signal AM 14.4 B 14.6 B 0.2 None 80.9 F PM 59.1 E 63.1 E 4.0 Cumulative 298.2 F 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal AM 16.6 B 16.9 B 0.3 None 163.6 F PM 61.2 D 65.0 E 3.8 Cumulative 318.5 F 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 27.8 C 29.3 C 1.5 None 125.0 F PM 114.3 F 115.2 F 0.9 Cumulative 517.2 F 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM 11.2 B 12.3 B 1.1 None 30.7 C PM 17.3 B 17.7 B 0.4 None 123.5 F 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal AM 8.2 A 8.3 A 0.1 None 12.9 B PM 9.9 A 11.5 B 1.6 None 95.3 F 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 21.5 C 22.9 C 1.4 None 77.3 E PM 24.0 C 34.1 C 10.1 None 244.6 F 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal AM 33.8 C 36.6 D 2.8 None 178.7 F PM 37.1 D 39.6 D 2.5 None 264.0 F 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal AM 20.4 C 20.9 C 0.5 None 32.7 C PM 24.1 C 24.3 C 0.2 None 37.9 D 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal AM 14.3 B 14.9 B 0.6 None 23.6 C PM 22.1 C 23.3 C 1.2 None 49.3 D Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. c. 0 denotes an increase in delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-30 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-12 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Existing Roadway Class a Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Capacity With Project Phase I With Entire Project Impact (LOS E) b V/C t Type Project Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects ADT c VIC d LOS a ADT c VIC d LOS a ADT c VIC d LOS e Impact Type Highway 79 West of 1-15 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 21,660 0.635 B 21,830 0.640 B 0.005 None 32,490 0.953 E Cumulative 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 86,470 1.604 F 88,220 1.637 F 0.032 Cumulative 123,340 2.288 F Cumulative Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 45,780 0.849 D 48,810 0.906 E 0.056 Direct 82,480 1.530 F Cumulative Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 38,480 0.714 C 39,590 0.735 C 0.021 None 59,880 1.111 F Cumulative Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 47,070 1.380 F 47,360 1.389 F 0.009 None 70,010 2.053 F Cumulative Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 14,450 0.424 A 14,920 0.438 A 0.014 None 23,100 0.677 B None South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 15,130 0.444 A 15,710 0.461 A 0.017 None 25,960 0.761 C None De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2 -Ln Col 13,000 9,350 0.719 C 9,930 0.764 C 0.045 None 11,660 0.897 D None Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 20,230 0.564 A 21,100 0.588 A 0.024 None 26,060 0.726 C None De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 29,500 0.822 D 30,370 0.846 D 0.024 None 37,690 1.050 F Cumulative South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 28,100 0.783 C 28,680 0.799 C 0.016 None 38,540 1.074 F Cumulative Footnotes: a. Roadway classification assumed based on existing cross-sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. f. Increase in V/C ratio SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-31 Preliminary— Subject to Revision ESA / D207434 October 2007 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix F of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with Project Phase I peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-10 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3-10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Project Opening Day with Entire Project (Phases 1 & 11) Project opening day traffic condition, with the entire project, represents opening day with the addition of traffic volumes generated by the entire project. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-11 summarizes the Opening Day with the Entire Project intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-11, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 / I-15 SB Ramps • SR 791 La Paz Street (LOS E during the PM (LOS E during the PM peak hour) peak hour) • SR 79 / I-15 NB Ramps • SR 79 / Pechanga Parkway (LOS F during (LOS E during the PM peak hour) the PM peak hour) Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix G of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with the Entire Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-12 summarizes the street segment operations for the Opening Day with the Entire Project. As seen in Table 3.3-12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 from I-15 to Pechanga Parkway • SR 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-32 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Project Opening Day with Entire Project & Cumulative Projects Project Opening day traffic conditions, with the entire project and cumulative projects, represents opening day with entire project traffic volumes as well as cumulative project traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-11 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-11, all study area intersections continue to operate at poor LOS conditions except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 791 Butterfield Stage Rd • De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix H of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year With the Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-12 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3-12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at a poor LOS except the following: Cumulative Impact • Butterfield Stage north of SR 79 • Butterfield Stage south of SR 79 • De Portola Road west of Margarita Road • Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 • Redhawk Parkway from south of Highway 79 3.3.10 Analysis of Long -Term Scenarios Build -out (Year 2025) Traffic Volumes The City of Temecula build -out volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. It may be noted that the Build- out (Year 2025) network assumes a new traffic interchange at I-15, south of Highway 79 and a new road termed the Eastern Bypass, which will extend from I-15 to Borel Road. This new circulation option will significantly reduce traffic volumes on the parallel portion of Highway 79. This facility was not included in the cumulative impact analysis because it would not be constructed for many years, and thus is not reasonably foreseeable within the horizon studied for cumulative impacts. A copy of the Build -out (Year 2025) volumes is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-33 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic The following methodology was utilized to estimate peak hour intersection volumes. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were estimated using a template in EXCEL developed by LLG. Future peak hour traffic volumes at an intersection are determined based on the relationship between existing peak hour turn movement and ADT volumes and the future ADT volumes. This same relationship can be assumed to generally continue in the future without the Eastern Bypass. This relationship will likely change once the Eastern Bypass is built. The traffic study included analysis of build -out peak hour intersection volumes both with and without the Eastern Bypass. Figure 3.3-13 depicts the forecasted Build -out peak hour segment ADT volumes. Build -out (Year 2025) Intersection Geometry All funded CIP improvements are assumed as the base geometry for the Year 2025 analysis as follows. The full list of funded CIP projects are included in Table 3.3-15. • 1-15 / Highway 79 (South) interchange - Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Improvements • Route 79 South Re -striping from 6 to 8 lanes - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway • Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway — Intersection Improvements — Dual Right Turn Lanes - Route 79 east to Pechanga Parkway south • Route 79 South/Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road Build -out (Year 2025) Analysis The intersection and segment operations at build -out (with the Eastern Bypass) are compared to the existing + entire project + cumulative projects (with the existing network, and Eastern Bypass), in order to determine the improvement in intersection and segment operations with the Eastern Bypass. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-13 summarizes the build -out (Year 2025) peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-13, at build -out (with the Eastern Bypass), all study area intersections are calculated to operate at better levels of service and much lower delays than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass) (Figure 3.3-13). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Build -out (Year 2025 with Eastern By -Pass) peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-14 summarizes the build -out street segment operations. It may be noted that the build- out segment analysis assumes the City of Temecula Circulation Element network. As seen in Table 3.3-14, all study area street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better conditions except the following: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-34 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic • Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) • Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) It may be noted that at build -out (with the Eastern Bypass), all Study Area segments are calculated to operate at better levels of service than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass scenario). It may be noted that the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element assumes a two-lane facility (one lane in each direction) for the Eastern Bypass. The volumes used in this analysis assume this two-lane cross-section. However, the Riverside County TUMF Program is planning to build the Eastern Bypass as a four -lane facility (two lanes in each direction). Therefore, if the Eastern Bypass were to be built as a four -lane facility, it would attract more traffic and the segment volumes and consequently, the intersection volumes along Highway 79 are expected to be lower than that used in this analysis. Thus, with a four -lane Eastern Bypass facility, the intersections and segments are expected to operate better than with a two-lane Eastern Bypass facility. 3.3.11 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Based on the established significance criteria, the following significant impacts were calculated. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. Direct Impact (Phase 11 only) Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road — This is a direct impact since with the addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. Impact 3.3-2: Highway 791 Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) — This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main project driveway and the project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection which does not exist currently and will serve as the project access. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-35 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-13 BUILD -OUT (YEAR 2025) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing + Entire Project + Cumulative Projects (No Eastern By -Pass) Year 2025 (With Eastern By -Pass) Delaya LOSb Delaya LOS" A Delay In Seconds 1. Highway 79 / 1-15 SB Ramps 2. Highway 79 / 1-15 NB Ramps 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd 6. Highway 79 /Avenida De Missiones 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal AM 121.9 F 19.7 B (-) 102.2 PM 224.3 F 21.3 C (-) 203.0 AM 80.9 F 4.5 A (-) 76.4 PM 298.2 F 33.3 C (-) 264.9 AM 163.6 F 8.7 A (-) 154.9 PM 318.5 F 22.7 C (-) 295.8 AM 125.0 F 20.0 B (-) 105.0 PM 517.2 F 39.3 D (-) 477.9 AM 30.7 C 6.5 A (-) 24.2 PM 123.5 F 15.4 B (-) 108.1 AM 12.9 B 3.6 A (-) 9.3 PM 95.3 F 6.4 A (-) 88.9 AM 77.3 E 35.4 D (-) 41.9 PM 244.6 F 31.4 C (-) 213.2 AM 178.7 F 22.4 C (-) 156.3 PM 264.0 F 79.5 E (-) 184.5 AM 32.7 C 25.4 C (-) 7.3 PM 37.9 D 44.2 D (-) 6.3 AM 23.6 C 14.4 B (-) 9.2 PM 49.3 D 21.5 C (-) 27.8 Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. c. L denotes an increase in delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Signalized Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-36 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-14 BUILD -OUT (YEAR 2025) SEGMENT OPERATIONS Segment Existing + Entire Project + Cumulative Projects Year 2025 (No Eastern By -Pass) (With Eastern By -Pass) Roadway LOS E Class a Capacity b Volume V!C d LOS e Roadway Class a LOS E Capacity b Volume c VAC d LOS e SR -79 West of 1-15 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 9,000 0.264 A 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 108,520 2.013 F 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 59,000 0.822 D Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 82,260 1.526 F 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 51,000 0.946 E Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 50,070 0.929 E 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 50,000 0.928 E Pechanga Parkway South of SR -79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 68,700 2.015 F 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 29,000 0.538 A Butterfield Stage Road North of SR -79 South of SR -79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 23,100 0.677 B 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 19,000 0.557 A 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 25,960 0.761 C 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 20,000 0.587 A 2 -Ln Col 13,000 10,890 0.838 D 4 -Ln Col 25,900 11,000 0.425 A Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 26,060 0.726 C 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 11,000 0.306 A De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 36,160 1.007 F 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 23,000 0.641 B South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 27,000 0.752 C Footnotes: a. City of Temecula Roadway Classification b. Riverside County Roadway Capacity c. Volume City of Temecula General Plan Update, Circulation Element Traffic Study. d. Volume 1 Capacity ratio SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-37 ESA / D207434 January 2008 NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM/PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections r1380/880 • 290/280 PROJECT SITE m "Po ml�x sol I».00"ti v, sso0 (122 0 ?go Immo O�/,zw® , w/no 40/%10-# vaoypp-"' i o .ono- i SRC 1Cog 1� a`R t10ll50°)11.6" of r xwwiT 'ooh`° -7-'wIBO l R 4 • Y41L Ltd NORTH NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-13 Build -out (Year 2025) with Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Cumulative Impacts Intersections Impact 3.3-3: SR 791 I-15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3-4: SR 791 I-15 NB Ramps Impact 3.3-5: SR 791 La Paz St Impact 3.3-6: SR 791 Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3-7: SR 791 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road Impact 3.3-8: SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 / Country Glen Way Impact 3.3-10: Segments Impact 3.3 - Impact 3.3 - Impact 3.3 - Impact 3.3 - Impact 3.3 - Impact 3.3 - Impact 3.3 - SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd 11: SR 79 West of I-15 12: SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway 13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road 14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road 15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 City of Temecula — Regional Transportation Facility Mitigation Program The City of Temecula requires that identified direct project -related traffic impacts are mitigated and funded directly by the project applicant. Direct project -related mitigation measures required to mitigate project impacts will be implemented with construction of the Phase 1 improvements. In addition, the City of Temecula implements a comprehensive transportation system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) designed to address cumulative regional traffic impacts. The CIP has been designed to ensure that the regional circulation system as depicted in the Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is constructed to provide an acceptable level of service as development occurs. Funding for the regional circulation improvements identified in the CIP is derived from a variety of sources including City of Temecula Development Impact Fees (DIF), Assessment Districts (AD), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Community Facilities Districts (CFD), federal and state matching funds (SAFETEA-LU) and special legislative improvement districts (SB 621). The CIP prioritizes the funding, design and construction of individual transportation improvement projects to coincide with the commensurate level of service of roadway segments and intersections to adequately serve existing and future development. All of the CIP projects that provide for mitigation of regional cumulative traffic impacts have identified 100 percent of the funding required to construct the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-39 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic proposed improvement. Many of the CIP projects are currently 100 percent funded and the transportation portion of the DIF fee for this project have the effect of reimbursing the improvement fund for funds advanced for the impacted facilities, and thus will be applied to other regional CIP projects. All of the above referenced documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The following sections describe the transportation facility improvement funding programs. The CIP sheets are documented in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix J of the October 2007 LLG study). City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF) Development Impact Fees (DIF) are collected to fund a portion of the new infrastructure that is needed to provide services to new development. Transportation improvements are the largest portion of the DIF fees. DIF fees are charged when: • Construction permits are issued in a fee area or, in the case of water and wastewater, when the development ties into City services; • A new use, such as a new structure or expanded structure, is requested; • A change to a more intense use is requested; • A property adds new water or sewer service; • Additional Drainage Fixture Units are added to an existing structure; • Impact fees are based on the type of land use being developed, the building area, gross site area, water meter sizes and the drainage fixture characteristics of the proposed development. • The amount charged for impact fees is based on the estimated demand the development will place on City services and the estimated taxes the new development will generate pay for new infrastructure. The current DIF for the proposed project is $4.75/square-foot for office land uses and $5.66/square-foot for service commercial land uses. The proposed project will pay $3,077,065 in current DIF fees. DIF fees are adjusted on a regular basis to keep pace with construction costs and inflation and are payable at building permit, so the amount actually paid could be more than under the current rates. Documentation regarding the adoption and implementation of the DIF program are included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix K of the October 2007 LLG study). Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program The County of Riverside and the Cities of Western Riverside County enacted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The purpose of the TUMF program is to provide a supplemental revenue stream to support the shortfall from traditional funding sources for regional transportation facilities (Figure 3.3-14). The TUMF program funds the mitigation of traffic impacts from new development on the regional system of Highways and arterials. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-40 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 The Southwest TUMF Zone Transportation Improvement Program Projects • LEGEND Ayproved Intersection Improvements o Bridges Railroad Crossings Q I - $5.390.000 per lane ® 2 $2,700,000 per lane Interchanges O I .$47,04.000 • 2 -123.970.000 ® 3-311.980400 •. 32.400.000 • 5 - 32.570,000 5 Approved RIA transit Center 0Approved BtRICUL e ORM Approved Interchanges n0.mmr-aNNs URlmate Number of Lanes tit Lanes "sere Lanes tiB Lanes ^wo8 Lanes ■ ApWoved Road Segrnents ROC Approved Rood Segments Lakes & Riven • TUMF /one Boundary •wsy aollroads si_. Freeways 8 Highways \45? City Boundaries Source: WRCOG. June 2007 N:\1752\AutoCAD\LLG1752 Figures SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-14 TUMF Facilities 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic The TUMF program also ensures that new developments pay their fair share towards providing the needed regional infrastructure improvements. TUMF fees can only be used to mitigate the impacts of new development on the network of roads, bridges, interchanges and intersection that are identified under the TUMF program. The TUMF program involves development of policies, identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates and fee scenarios. However, it should be noted that the mitigation fees collected through the TUMF program can be utilized only towards the capital costs of facilities and not for operation or maintenance costs. The fee calculations are based on the proportional allocation of the costs of proposed transportation improvements based on the cumulative transportation system impacts of different types of new developments. Fees are directly related to the forecast rate of growth and trip generation characteristics of different categories of new development. The TUMF program collects fees by the following land use categories: • Single family residential • Multi -family residential • Industrial • Retail • Service commercial The current TUMF Fee for the proposed project is $5.71/square-foot for office land uses and $5.71/square-foot for service commercial land uses. Under the current TUMF fee structure, the proposed project would have to contribute $3,232,774 in current TUMF fees. TUMF fees are adjusted on a semi-annual basis, and are payable at building permit, thus the amount actually paid could be more than the current fees. Figure 3.3-14 depicts the TUMF facilities in the County. Documentation regarding the TUMF program is attached as Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix L of the October 2007 LLG study). Assessment Districts / Community Facilities Districts Assessment Districts (AD) and Community Facilities Districts (CFD) are special districts formed by a local government agency (County, City, Water District, etc.) that include property that would receive direct benefit from the construction of new public improvements or from the maintenance of existing public improvements. The proposed project is located with Assessment District 159 (AD 159), which encumbers a large area east of I-15 and north and south of Route 79 south (Figure 3.3-15). The applicant has been paying assessment district fees for many years and will continue to do so until the assessment district is retired. The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from two lanes to six lanes, between I-15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-42 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 NORCO RIVERSIDE CFO 04-2 C RONA lake Malhoo y�. LAKE I I SINORE CFO 68-8 sly /24. e, r0 Co MORENO Lake Pens PERRI CFD 87-1 Carp'vll Labe CFD 07-1 CFD 86-1 CFD 05-1 e CFD 85-2R fi SAN JACINTO HEMET AD 188 Diamond Vetey !ate. CFD 05.8 m, CFD 884 CFD .,,.cz AD 101 T F: NF.(1 t A 177 baii - Skinner' AD 158 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS LEGEND COUNTY LINES FREEWAY/HIGHWAY DISTRICT AD 159 AD 161 AD 168 CFO 03-1 CFD 04-2 CFD 05-1 CFD 05-8 CFD 85-2R CFD 86-1 CFD 87-1 CFD 87-5 CFD 88-4 CFD 88-8 CFD 89-1 CFD 89-4 07-1 Z1 07-1 Z2 07-1 Z3 07-1 Z4 07-1 Z5 iiiiiiiiiii■ NORM NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-15 Riverside County Assessment Districts 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, regional transportation improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project are included in Crown Hill CFD and the Morgan Hill CFD. The local agency that forms the assessment district sells bonds to raise the money to build or acquire the public improvement. The agency then levies a special assessment against each parcel of land within the district, in proportion to its share of benefit from the improvement. Factors that determine the amount of benefit received may include the size of the lot or the proximity to the improvement being financed. The special assessment is payable through annual installments over the life of the bond issue, which is typically 15 to 20 years, but may be as many as 40 years depending on the terms of the bond issue. The owners of the assessed land repay the bonds through annual assessments, which are included on the County's general property tax bill. Documentation regarding the AD is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix M of the LLG study). Federal, State and Special Legislative Funding Mechanisms In addition to DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs and ADs, Federal and State matching funds (SAFETEA-LU and SB 621 — Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund) are available for use in funding regional circulation system improvements. Planned Regional Circulation System Improvements In addition to the regional circulation facilities currently programmed into the City of Temecula CIP, TUMF, assessment districts and/or community facilities districts, there are several regional transportation facilities that are in the planning stages that have not yet been incorporated into any of the transportation planning/funding documents to date. The Eastern Bypass is a planned future regional transportation facility connecting I-15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road/Washington Street in the northeastern section of the City. This regional transportation facility will provide for significant traffic relief along Route 79, southern Pechanga Parkway and the entire circulation system within the vicinity of the project. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between I-15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at I-15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a preliminary cost of $47,840,000. The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a six -lane divided principal arterial from I-15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four -lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a four -lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a two-lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. Since the Eastern Bypass (a regional transportation facility) has not been funded or programmed into the City of Temecula CIP or the TUMF program, it has not been Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-44 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic incorporated into the ultimate circulation system expected to be in place at build -out of the proposed project. Analysis of the year 2025 traffic conditions, including the Eastern Bypass, and discussed in Section 3.3.10, and show that all area intersections and segments will operate at acceptable levels of service in 2025, with the exception of the following: • Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) • Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) Based upon this analysis, cumulative traffic impacts can be considered temporary until such time as the Eastern Bypass is built and operational. Once the Eastern Bypass project is constructed, levels of service along all project impacted roadway segments and intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the above outlined segments, which are slightly over the significance threshold. The projects / improvements listed in Table 3.3-15 are already planned separate from the proposed project. If these projects / improvements listed in Table 3.3-15 are completed by others, the project's fee payments will addresses its own impacts. If, however, the improvements are not completed by others, the hospital must complete those improvements before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, and could get reimbursed for a portion of the costs, thus ensuring that the improvements will be in place prior to the hospital opening up. It may be noted that: • As compared to the existing transportation system, the proposed project will have the impacts identified above. • There are a series of planned improvements that will be completed by others in the next few years (Table 3.3-15). • With completion of all of these improvements (and the project specific improvements as discussed for access points to the hospital site — i.e. the project specific impact mitigations), the project's impacts will be less than significant, the project is still obligated to pay its DIF and TUMF fees in order to pay its fair share of the improvement costs (which are in effect being fronted by DIF and TUMF). In the event these improvements are not completed before the hospital opens (except for the interchange, which must be substantially underway), there is a potentially significant impact. That residual impact is mitigated by requiring the hospital to complete the improvements before receiving a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City. Direct Impacts The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be substantially under construction prior to issuance of any encroachment permit for project access to Highway 79 South or De Portola Road. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-45 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-15 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT MITIGATION MEASURE SUMMARY Traffic Improvement Current Status Funding Source / Status CIP Reference Priority 1. Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road a 2. Route 79 South Re -striping from 6 to 8 lanes - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway 3. Route 79 South Median Construction — Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road 4. Route 79 South at Butterfield Stage Road — Intersection Modification a 5. Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Improvements 6. Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway — Intersection Improvements — Dual Right Turn Lanes - Route 79 east to Pechanga Parkway south 7. Route 79 South/Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — OId Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road 8. Route 79 South/Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — OId Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road — Fiber optics 9. Route 79 South CCTV Traffic Monitoring System 10. Pechanga Parkway Improvements Between Pechanga Parkway Bridge and Via Eduardo 11. Eastern By -Pass (Future) Completed Design Approved Construct 2007 - 2008 In Design Construct 2007 - 2008 Completed by Private Development In Design Construct in 2011 In Design Construct in 2007 - 2008 In Design Construct 2007-2008 In Design Construct 2007-2008 In Design, Construct in 2010 - 2011 In Design — Construct 2007 - 2001 In Planning Assessment District 159 DIF DIF - $161,250 DIF - $190,000 Private Developer CDF (Crown Hill) - $502,210 CFD (Morgan Hill) - $1,190,582 SB 621 Funding - $$14,960.925 SAFTEA-LU - $1,600,000 TUMF — 6,000,000 Total Cost - $22,560,925 SB 612 Funding - $425,000 Not a Part of CIP 210-165-676 210-165-622 Nota Part of CIP 210-165-662 210-165-637 DIF — Traffic Signals 210-165-712 Portion of $2,575,000 DIF — Traffic Signals - $345,000 210-165-712 SB 621 - $395,000 210-165-635 DIF Fees, CFD — Wolf Creek 210-1650668 Public Lands and Highways Program Pechanga Tribe Contribution Rancho California Water District $47,500,000 — Preliminary Estimate N/A Footnotes: a. These improvements have been completed and are assumed as the existing conditions and are not part of the recommended mitigation measures. SOURCE: City of Temecula Completed CIP - I CIP - II Completed CIP - I CIP- I CIP — I CIP - I CIP- I CIP- I Will reduce cumulative traffic impacts when constructed Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-46 ESA / 0207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, the applicant shall fund the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the city. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. Site Access and On -Site Circulation In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project proposes three access driveways, two on SR 79 and one on De Portola Road. The following improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: • Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 791 Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T -intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related changes to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: o A dedicated westbound right -turn lane on SR 79, o Dual eastbound left -turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left -turn lanes and a shared through/ right -tum lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. • Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in/right-out only access. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right -in / right -out and left -in only access. Left -turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-47 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3-15). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-15 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired.. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed above, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Intersections The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: • State Route 79 South Widening — Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from 2 lanes to 6 lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-48 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic mechanisms to the hospital if in fact the improvements are not completed by before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: SR 79 / I-15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79 / I-15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway", which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right - Turn Lanes", which will add a second eastbound right -turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-49 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: SR 791 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 791 Avenida De Missiones; SR 791 Country Glen Way; SR 791 Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Road, SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Segments SR 79 West of I-15 The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79. SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 will also mitigate this impact. Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3-7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase II" — Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-50 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the right of way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less -than -significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 respectively. As seen in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17, all of the identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Route 79 South /I-15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Route 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-51 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix N of the LLG study) contains the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects analysis with the implementation of all mitigation measures. TABLE 3.3-16 EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES Intersection Control Peak Type Hour Without Mitigation With Mitigation a Delay° LOS` Delay" LOS` 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps AM 121.9 F 84.5 F Signal PM 224.3 F 160.9 F 2. Highway 79 /1-15 NB Ramps AM 80.9 F 19.0 B Signal PM 298.2 F 70.4 E 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St AM 163.6 F 40.7 D Signal PM 318.5 F 86.9 F 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy AM 125.0 F 112.5 F Signal PM 517.2 F 365.6 F 5. Highway 791 Jedediah Smith Rd Signal PM 123.5 F 75.3 E 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal PM 95.0 F 60.6 E 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 77.3 E 15.7 B PM 244.6 F 131.5 F 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd AM 178.0 F 142.5 F Signal PM 264.0 F 212.5 F Footnotes: a. Mitigation does not include the planned Eastern By -Pass. b. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle c. Level of service SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-52 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-17 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS - WITH MITIGATION Segment Existing LOS E Roadway Class a Capacity b Without Mitigation Vol c V/C d LOS e Mitigated LOS E Roadway Class a Capacity b With Mitigation Vol V/Cd LOSe Highway 79 f West of 1-15 4 -Ln Major Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E 4 -Ln Major Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E I-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 123,340 2.288 F 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 123,340 1.718 F Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 82,480 1.530 F 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 82,480 1.530 F Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 59,880 1.111 F 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 59,880 1.111 F Pechanga Parkway South of Hwy 79 4 -Ln Major Art 34,100 70,010 2.053 F 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 70,010 1.299 F Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway De Portola Rd to Hwy 79 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 37,690 1.050 F 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 37,690 1.050 F South of Hwy 79 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F Footnotes: a. Roadway classification assumed based on existing cross-sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study}. c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level; of Service. f. One CIP project plans to re -stripe the segment from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway from the current Six -Lane Principal Arterial to an Eight -Lane Urban Arterial. However, a second CIP project includes the installation of equipment to provide signal coordination from West of 1-15 to Margarita Road. While it is not possible to quantify the benefit to the segment operations, all intersections in this corridor are calculated to operate a lower delays than prior to coordination. The roadway capacity is a City standard. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-53 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA / 0207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR and evaluates a newly identified alternative site. 4.1 Approach to Analysis Additional alternatives or alternative site analysis was not mandated by the Superior Court judgment or Writ of Mandate, however, between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Denoy Parkway could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed The following discussion summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR. Through comparison of these alternatives to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[f]). The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives. The analysis presented in the prior sections of this EIR indicates that development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant, unavoidable impacts for the following: • Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts; • Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights; sirens and construction; and • Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR: Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Alternative 2: No Project — Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, the Construction of Hospital Only Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the Original EIR. 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on the following project objectives: City Objectives: The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services (UHS), the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-2 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No. 7) Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site (Guidelines Section 15126.6 (2)). Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City as an education complex, including an education center, a research and development/conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4-1. The Temecula Education center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include open space to the north, Murrieta Creek and open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. The potential impacts of this alternative site are described below. This alternative site, similar to the proposed project site, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-3 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 North Not to Scale SOURCE: RBF Consulting Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 4.1 Alternative Site 4. Project Alternatives Aesthetics This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of business park development, surface mining and the Santa Rosa estate residential and agricultural area to the west. There is commercial development to the east along Jefferson Avenue within the jurisdiction of the City and wastewater effluent ponds to the north within the City of Murrieta. As with the proposed project, Alternative 7 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed towers of five and six stories. Given the low -intensity development on surrounding properties in the City and the more rural character on County lands, the project at this location could result in a development inconsistent in scale and character with the surrounding built and rural environments. The development could be considered intrusive at this location. Future development would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and the City's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655). There are no scenic highways in the project vicinity and there are none designated as a Scenic Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any state agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. Views of the Santa Rosa Plateau, a prominent regional visual feature throughout the region could be obstructed by the proposed project from proximal vantage points. Given the visual setting of this alternative site, the proposed project at this location could have the potential to result in significant aesthetic impacts. Agricultural Resources The project site is not located within any identified agricultural general plan designation or zoning and the site is not identified in the City's General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Therefore, Alternative 7 would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources. Air Quality The proposed project will result in emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO„ ), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 7 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROG emissions would remain at 224 lbs/day, and NO„ emissions would remain at 216 lbs/day (due largely to the application of architectural coatings). Construction vehicle exhaust would continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable significant adverse construction impact related to air quality. Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 7 would result in pollutant emissions in excess of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of 94 lbs/day and a total of 1,144 lbs/day of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-5 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives Biological Resources The project site has been previously graded as part of the surrounding business park and the site is devoid of any vegetation and/or habitat value. As required by the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), a burrowing owl survey would be necessary to verify the presence/absence of burrowing owls and to determine if mitigation is required per the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. The Riverside County MSHCP des not identify the project site as being included within any criteria cells. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar insignificant impacts to biological resources as the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 7 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. The sites location adjacent to Murrieta Creek could subject the area to flooding during 100 -year storm events. Under Alternative 7, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing regulations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Hazards This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Unlike the proposed site, there are no existing gasoline service stations located in the immediate vicinity. As such, the potential impacts to soil or groundwater from USTs is not likely to occur at this alternative location. Therefore, the opportunity for VOCs or MTBE to leak into the environment at this alternative site from gasoline service stations or USTs would likely not exist. Impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project Land Use and Planning The existing General Plan Land Use designation for Alternative 7 is Public Institutional Facility and surrounding areas within the City of Temecula are designated Industrial Park. Existing site zoning is Planned Development Overlay—PDO -10. Under this alternative, as with the proposed project, a CUP would be required for the 320 -bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the site for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change. As previously mentioned, this alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of business park and open space land uses. As described above in Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-6 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives Aesthetics, the use at this location could be considered out of character given the urban/rural interface, existing agricultural uses in the County, and the low -scale nature of surrounding residential development. Therefore, Alternative 7 has the potential to result in increased adverse land use compatibility impacts. Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 7 would result in comparable development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar. This alternative may necessitate slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, and could result in a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods than the flight paths associated with the project. Estate residential land uses to the west in the Santa Rosa Plateau area would be impacted by flight operations. Therefore, this alternative could have a reduced noise impact relative to the project. The helicopter noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of number of flights per month, the uncertainty of the flight path, and the location of single-family homes in the surrounding area to the west. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially less than those associated with the project. Transportation Under Alternative 7, project trip generation would be greater as that associated with the proposed project. LLG Engineers conducted a Build -out (Year 2025) segment analysis of roadways potentially impacted by Alternative 7 (refer to Appendix D). The build -out segment volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. All planned network (CIP) improvements are assumed to be implemented and the City street network is assumed to be built to the planned Circulation Element Classification. The proposed Alternative 7 was added to these segments and the build -out plus project traffic volumes were determined. Table 4-1 summarizes the without and with project Build -out segment volumes. As seen in Table 4-1, the segment of Winchester Road from Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue is calculated to operate at LOS F with Alternative 7. The segment of Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Avenue and Overland Drive is calculated to operate at LOS F, both without and with Alternative 7 traffic. These would represent significant impacts requiring mitigation. Conclusion Alternative 7 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips and the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-7 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE 7 BUILD -OUT SEGMENT OPERATIONS Segment Existing Roadway Class a LOS E Capacity b Build -out Without Project Build -out With Project Volume ° VIC d LOS e Volume c VIC d LOS e VIC Winchester Road Diaz Rd to Jefferson Ave 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 29,000 0.850 D 40,140 1.177 F 0.327 Jefferson Ave to 1-15 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 45,000 0.627 B 55,540 0.774 C 0.147 Rancho California Road Diaz Rd to Jefferson Ave 6 -Ln Urban Rd 53,900 18,000 0.334 A 18,360 0.341 A 0.007 Jefferson Ave to 1-15 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 39,000 0.543 A 39,970 0.557 A 0.014 Jefferson Ave North of Winchester Rd 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 26,000 0.482 A 26,610 0.494 A 0.011 Winchester Rd to Overland Dr 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 38,000 1.114 F 38,610 1.132 F 0.018 Overland Dr to Rancho California Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 28,000 0.821 D 28,610 0.839 D 0.018 Diaz Road North of Winchester Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 15,000 0.440 A 26,500 0.777 C 0.337 Winchester Rd to Overland Dr 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 23,000 0.674 B 23,360 0.685 B 0.011 Overland Dr to Rancho California Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 11,000 0.323 A 11,360 0.333 A 0.011 NOTES: a. City of Temecula Roadway Classification b. Riverside County Roadway Capacity c. City of Temecula General Plan Update, Circulation Element Traffic Study d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service SOURCE: LLG, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-8 ESA / 0207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives Ta ble 4-2 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-9 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE TO IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Impact Category Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Alternative 2: No Project — Development Under Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternate Site Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Alternative 6: Access from Dartolo Road Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Construction of the Hospital Only Alternative 7: Alternative Site Temecula Education Center Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utilities and Service Systems Meets all objectives of the project? Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided No SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2007. Reduced Similar Greater Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Reduced Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar No Greater Greater Similar Undetermined Similar Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Greater Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Yes Similar Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Reduced Greater Greater Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Yes Yes No Greater Reduced Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Yes Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-10 ESA / D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 5 Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers 5.1 Acronyms µg/L micrograms per liter ADT average daily trips ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above -ground storage tank bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game City City of Temecula CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CoCo Constituents of Concern CIP Capital Improvement Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers dBA A -weighted decibels DIPE diisopropyl ether EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DNL Day/Night Average Noise Level DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz Hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Leg energy -equivalent noise level Ld„ day -night average noise level LLG Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers Lmax maximum noise level LOS level of service M(_)B medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA's National Priorities List RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-2 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers RWQCB Regional Water Quality Board SB south bound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TBA tertiary butyl alcohol TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UHS Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank v/c volume -to -capacity VOC volatile organic compounds 5.2 References California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/, August 11, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12, 2005. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-3 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. — Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), October 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm, March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. 5.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency - City of Temecula Shawn Nelson, City Manager Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager Bill Hughes, Public Works Director Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner Steve Brown, Principal Planner Emery Papp, Senior Planner Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradley Scott Crane Tim Rielly Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-4 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers (Subsurface/Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project Professional/Geologist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) John Boarman, Principal Narasimha Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Rebecca Skaggs, Associate Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Lisa Bautista, Document Manager Melissa Gross, Document Manager Eugene Williams, Word Processor Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-5 ESA/ D207434 January 2008 Appendix A \otice of Preparation of Supplemental Environments mpact Report r ESA Appendix B Responses to \otice of Preparation Appendix C Soil Vapor Survey Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis Update Appendix E \oise Impact Analysis Update Appendix F Scoping Session Speaker Slips Appendix G Response to Comments Appendix H Vitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: PA10-0194 Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), and addendum to the previously adopted Supplemental EIR for the project was prepared for this modification application. Stuart Fisk, (951) 506-5159 City of Temecula, Council Chambers (At the new Civic Center in Old Town, located at 41000 Main Street) December 15, 2010 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at (951) 506-5159. RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10-0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL TO CHANGE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BEDS FROM 170 TO 140 FOR PHASE I OF THE PROJECT, TO MODIFY THE BUILDING FACADES OF THE HOSPITAL TOWERS, TO RELOCATE THE TRUCK LOADING BAYS AND SERVICE YARD, AND TO RELOCATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM AN OUTDOOR AREA AT THE SERVICE YARD TO AN EXPANDED INDOOR AREA AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING ON 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-001 THRU 004 AND 951-080-007 THRU 010) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application Nos.PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. CC. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on , at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. DD. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the City Council adopted Resolution No. subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines, and declares that: A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital, and on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital. B. The City determined that the proposed modifications to the project do not trigger any of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR and that an Addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. C. The Addendum relied on use of an Environmental Checklist Form as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) to evaluate whether there were any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under the Addendum and the proposed amendments and to review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. The analysis in the Addendum indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by the proposed modification to the project, nor will the proposed modification increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Hospital FEIR and FSEIR. D. The Addendum also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Addendum found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. E. Further, the Addendum analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the project would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in facts feasible. The Addendum found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. F. Because the Addendum finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously discussed, the Planning Commission finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed modification application. G. The City Council finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Addendum prepared for the proposed modification application. The City Council further finds that the conclusions reached in the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the City Council. H. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, and the Addendum for the modification application and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. I. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification Application, PA10-0194: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA) Section 15164, an Addendum to the FSEIR adopted in 2008 was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification Application, as described in the FSEIR Addendum ("the Project"). B. The City Council has reviewed the FSEIR Addendum prior to and at the December 15, 2010 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the FSEIR Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) Based on the findings in the FSEIR Addendum there is no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified; and (3) the FSEIR Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA), the City Council has considered the proposed Major Modification Application. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Project, approved by the City Council as Planning Application No. PA07-0200 on January 22, 2008, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the City Council finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, the City Council also finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Major Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FSEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Major Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FSEIR. An Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Major Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. D. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the FSEIR Addendum prepared for this project. Section 5. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 thru 959-080-004 and 951-080-007 thru 951-080-010, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA10-0194, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of February, 2011. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA10-0194 Project Description: A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Approval Date: February 8, 2011 Expiration Date: February 8, 2013 WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty -Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the 1 City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; any time extension beyond the initial two years from approval of this modification will require the preparation of a new environmental document. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 5. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 6. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be submitted for review and approval for the project site. 7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 8. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 9. The applicant shall paint a three-foot by three-foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 11. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs' prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Condition of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 2 Material Color Exterior Plaster Color No. 1: Dryvit #456, "Oyster Shell" in Dryvit "Sandblast" texture Exterior Plaster Color No. 2: Dryvit #383, "Honey Twist" in Dryvit "Sandblast texture Tile Base: Daltile #CS51, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red Painted Trim: To match color of "Indian Red" in tile base Ceramic Roof Tile: Monier Lifetile, Duralite Villa Tinted Glass: Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M Window Frame: Kawneer, Medium Bronze 12. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 13. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A three-foot clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities shall not look like an after -thought. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 14. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines. 15. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) are required to be met. 16. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. 17. The split rail fencing for the multi -use trail proposed along the northern property lines, adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western edge of the property line. Said fence shall be a continuous fence beginning from the secondary driveway at DePortola to the western property line. (Added by City Council, January 22, 2008). 18. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 19. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. 20. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways, perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting. 21. All major equipment (elevator motors, generators, air conditioning, etc., and soundproofing of same) shall conform to the latest best standards for noise reduction such that noise from these sources conforms to the City's Noise Ordinance. (Added per Planning Commission recommendation, December 15, 2010). 3 22. Trash service and deliveries to the loading dock shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All vehicles providing these services shall enter and leave the hospital grounds via the Temecula Parkway or Dona Lynora Road entrances only. (Added per Planning Commission recommendation, December 15, 2010). 23. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Police Department 24. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. 25. Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department. 26. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should be placed in a well - lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call -out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the building. 27. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows. a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 28. All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 29. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 30. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. 31. Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24 hours a day by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi -tenant offices/suites/businesses located within a specific building shall have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is opened 2417. 32. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 33. Any emergency generator system shall be inside a secure enclosure to prevent theft of fuel or tampering with the equipment. 34. All pressurized gas cylinders not in use shall be stored in a secure location to prevent theft. 4 Building and Safety Department 35. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 36. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday -Friday 6:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays Fire Prevention 37. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 38. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 -hour duration. The fire service loop will be a complete looped system with two points of connection (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). 39. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. A combination of on-site and off-site 6" x 4" x 2-2 %" outlets on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. The fire hydrants will provide coverage for the entire site, including all buildings, open space and parking areas (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). 40. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided (CFC Chapter 5, Section 508.5). 41. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. This includes the fire service lines and hydrants must be completed for the entire site prior to combustibles being brought on site. (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4 Public Works Department 42. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City -maintained street right -of way. 5 43. Ari Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 44. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 45. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 46. The undergrounding of electrical and telecommunication facilities per Temecula Municipal Code, Section 15.04.080 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3 (Medical Office Building 2). 47. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Planning Department 48. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance. 49. The applicant shall submit cross sections verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 50. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and structures, excluding trash enclosures. 51. Trash enclosures shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall comply with the following: a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning. c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide shrubs and wall vines on three sides of enclosures as required to provide screening. 52. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting, shall be provided on the plans. 53. The Applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing to show a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a mariner that deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per Section 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code. 6 54. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 55. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations riot visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 56. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is riot an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." 57. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 58. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. 59. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 60. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 61. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 62. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. 63. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving activities. 64. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground -disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 65. The Applicant shall enter into a pre -construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground -disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre -construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 66. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 67. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luise* Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 68. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 69. The applicant must enter into a written pre -excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. A copy of the signed document shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 70. The grading plan shall include the following: a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79 South as discussed in these Conditions of Approval. b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within six months shall be hydroseeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion. 8 c. Show the five-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1 -foot concrete landing strip (seven feet total width). One parking island is required per ten parking spaces. Public Works Department 71. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for