Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06192024 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 19, 2024 - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chair Bob Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Gary Watts ROLL CALL: Hagel, Ruiz, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watts PUBLIC COMMENT A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images maybe displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to 6:00 p.m. and submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Minutes Recommendation: Approve the Action Minutes of June 5, 2024 Attachments: Minutes Page 1 Planning Commission Agenda June 19, 2024 BUSINESS Members of the public may address the Commission on Business items that appear on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images maybe displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 2. (Continued from March 20, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting) Long Range Application No. LR24-0028, Amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Julie Tarrant / Stacy Fox Recommendation: Receive Update and Recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code Attachments: Agenda Report Draft City Council Ordinance Notice of Exemption PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Commission 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 Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. The appeal must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department form and be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 3. Planning Application Numbers PA22-0929. 0930. 0931. a Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel, PA22-0930, a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for an architectural tower element; and PA22-0931, a Variance to allow for parking within the creek side parkin facility acility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street due to the narrow width of the project site. The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road (APN: 922-100-048). Scott Cooper Recommendation: Adopt resolutions entitled: Page 2 Planning Commission Agenda June 19, 2024 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA22-0929, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 60,258 SQUARE FOOT, FOUR-STORY, 50 ROOM HOTEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, APPROXIMATELY 400' SOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (APN: 922-100-048) PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA22-0930, MINOR EXCEPTION FOR A TWO FOOT INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL TOWER ELEMENT LOCATED ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 400 FEETSOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (APN: 922-100-048) PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA22-0931, VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR PARKING WITHIN THE CREEK SIDE PARKING FACILITY SETBACK AND ENCROACHMENT OF THE BUILDING OVER THE BUILD -TO LINE ALONG OLD TOWN FRONT STREET LOCATED ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (APN: 922-100-048) Attachments: Agenda Report Aerial Map PC Resolution - Development Plan Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval - Development Plan Exhibit B - Plan Reductions - Development Plan PC Resolution - Minor Exception PC Resolution - Variance Notice of Exception Notice of Public Hearing Page 3 Planning Commission Agenda June 19, 2024 4. Planning Application Number PA14-0087, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and nine (9)open space lots on 42.64 acres for Planning Area 4 within the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, Scott Cooper Recommendation: Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA14-0087, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 36483) FOR THE CREATION OF 164 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND NINE (9) OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 42.64 ACRES FOR PLANNING AREA 4 WITHIN THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457 (APNS: 959-400-001, 002) Attachments: Agenda Report Aerial Map PC Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Plan Reductions Exhibit C - Consistency Evaluation Exhibit D - Consistency_ Evaluation Revalidation Notice of Exemption Notice of Public Hearing COMMISSIONER REPORTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Wednesday, July 3, 2024, at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. lecol1141*111111,110all .110I J The full agenda packet (including staff reports and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6444. Page 4 Item No. 1 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 5, 2024 - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Chair Bob Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Fernando Solis ROLL CALL: Hagel, Ruiz, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watts (Absent) PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the Commission: • Nolving Merlara (Item #3) CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0, Watts absent): Motion by Turley-Trejo, Second by Ruiz. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Watts absent. 1. Minutes Recommendation Approve the action minutes of May 15, 2024 2. Director's Hearing Summary Report Recommendation: Receive and File Director's Hearing Summary Report. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Long Range Planning Project Number LR23-0429, amending Title 9 (Public Peace Morals and Welfare), Title 17 (Zoning), and Old Town Temecula Specific Plan (SP No. 5) as detailed in the proposed Ordinance and Resolution attached as Exhibits A and B, Mark Collins Recommendation: Adopt resolutions entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 9 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO 1) IMPLEMENT AND DEFINE A CLASS IV ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE, 2) AMEND TABLE 17.08.030 (SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED USES COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS) TO INCLUDE CLASS IV ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT AS A NON PERMITTED USE IN ALL ZONES BUT ALLOWED IN THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADD NOTE REFERENCING CHAPTER 17.09 (ALCOHOL), 3) CREATE A NEW CHAPTER 17.09 (ALCOHOL) AND RELOCATE ALL ALCOHOL REQUIREMENTS FROM CHAPTER 17.10 (SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) TO CHAPTER 17.09 (ALCOHOL), 4) CREATE STANDARDS FOR ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS; AND 5) MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3)" Motion to approve staff recommendation with amendments to change section 9.10.125 (B) (1) regarding the first -come, first -served basis; as well as the new (C) (4) regarding alcohol sales identification; and to include a recommendation that staff clarify the language regarding the hours of last call. (4-0, Watts absent): Motion by Turley-Trejo, Second by Ruiz. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Watts absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO 1) ADD CLASS IV ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT 2) IMPLEMENT A ONE YEAR OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PILOT PROGRAM 3) AND MAKE A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3)" Motion to approve staff recommendation with an amendment to add that the businesses shall be subject to Chapter 9.20. (4-0, Watts absent): Motion by Turley-Trejo, Second by Solis. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Watts absent. COMMISSIONER REPORTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT 2 At 7:26 PM, the Planning Commission meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday, June 19, 2024, at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Bob Hagel, Chair Matt Peters, Acting Director of Community Development Item No. 2 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2024 PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst PROJECT (Continued from March 20, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting) SUMMARY: Long Range Application No. LR24-0028, Amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code CEQA: Categorically Exempt Sections 15378 (b)(5) and 15061 (b)(3) BACKGROUND SUMMARY On March 20, 2024, staff provided a staff report and brief presentation regarding the Amendment to Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code, to establish the City of Temecula Protected Tree Ordinance. The Amendment effectively provides for a name change to Chapter 8.48 of the city's municipal code, from the original `Heritage Tree' Ordinance, as adopted by City Council on July 28, 2009, to `Protected Tree'. The Amendment also adds new language to incorporate the City's Urban Forest Management Plan which sets forth the City's policies and guidelines for planting, maintenance, and care and protection of its trees, new and updated definitions, consolidated verbiage for designation of protected trees, the size, diameter, and species. After considerable review, multiple questions posed, and recommendations made by Members of the Planning Commission, staff was asked to take the additional time needed to address the Commissioners requests and bring the item back for consideration at a later meeting. Staff have now completed their review of all major points of concern that were raised by the Planning Commission at the March 20, 2024 meeting, and compiled a list of these key topics, along with responses and notations that effectively address each item. On April 17, 2024, staff met with the Planning Commissions Municipal Code Maintenance Sub - Committee, including Commissioner's Hagel and Ruiz. At the meeting, staff presented the list of the most pertinent issues brought about at the March 20, 2024 meeting, and reviewed each topic with the Commissioner's. Each of the items were thoroughly discussed and effectively addressed to resolve any concerns and answer further questions throughout the meeting, as follows; 1. Fire Hazard/Health & Safety Concerns — permit is required except; Edited - Fire department personnel have determined that removal of the tree is necessary to their firefighting efforts. Added — An owner of real property is prohibited from obtaining insurance coverage to adequately secure and protect said property. (Refer to: Section 8.48.210 B. 4 & 5, pg.10) All other exceptions remain as is per original Ordinance — (i.e. tree is diseased or dead or poses imminent danger; removing or relocating in conjunction with a capital improvement, right of way, site line, utilities, etc). 2. Clarification of permit application & approval process (applies to all owners of real property) — an applicant for a Protected Tree removal or relocation permit shall submit an application, and; If five or fewer trees on a single parcel, the `Director' shall review and make determination to approve or deny. For more than five trees application is reviewed by `Planning Commission'. If denied by `Director' it may be appealed to the `Planning Commission'. If denied by `Planning Commission' it may be appealed to the `City Council'. (Refer to: Section 8.48.220 A - D, pgs. 10-11) 3. Violations, Enforcement, Restitution — removal of Protected Tree without a permit; Violations include intimidating, harassing, or retaliating against any one who seeks to meet compliance, and any one causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of this Chapter. Any violation of this Chapter is subject to criminal misdemeanor penalties and administrative citations per Chapter 1, Sections 1.16, 1.20 & 1.21 of the municipal code. (Ch. 1, Section 1.16-notice to appear in court / issuance of citations by designated officers or employees; Section 1.20-subject to misdemeanor charges and associated penalties, fine or imprisonment; Section 1.21-administrative citation & fine per fee schedule- I st offense-$50, 2nd offense-$150, 3rd offense-$250, (in accordance with Government Code Section 53069.4) Remedies of the Chapter — City may seek to remedy any violations by a civil action, including, without limitation, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement, or civil or criminal code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. In addition to any other remedy or penalty of this Chapter; the City may seek restitution from any person. The `Director' shall determine the form of restitution N and may include fines to include costs to procure, transport, plant, establish, and maintenance for a period of 3 years, having the approximate size, age, and health, and at a ratio of 3:1 for every one damaged or destroyed tree. Therefore, fines could be well in excess of the recommended $5,000 flat fee. Decisions of the `Director' may be appealed to the `Planning Commission'. (Refer to: Sections 8.48.300, 8.48.310, & 8.48.320, pgs. 12 —14) 4. Approval of Permit for the removal or relocation of Protected Tree — ratios & size of replacement trees; The `Director' shall make determination to approve or deny permit for the request to cut, remove, relocate, or for encroachment and may impose conditions to offset or mitigate, to include, but not limited to the following; Relocate subject tree to another site. On -site planting at 3:1 ratio of replacement trees of species which will achieve same approximate size at maturity as Protected Tree. Off -site planting of 2:1 ratio of 48" box trees of species which will achieve same approximate size at maturity as Protected Tree, when not feasible to plant on -site. The initiation of a maintenance and care plan for a period of 5 years. Payment of a fee equal to the cost to procure, plant, establish and maintain one replacement tree for every one Protected Tree. Replacement trees for off -site planting are to be 48" versus 36" box trees, or as determined by `Director', when and/or where feasible. (Refer to: Section 8.48.230 C.1-5, pg. 12) 5. Applicability of Amended Ordinance as it pertains to Private Property- right of way; Edited — Any Protected Tree that is located on private property. (Refer to: Section 8.48.120 A.1, pg. 2) Summary of Revisions to Chapter 8.48, to include but not limited to, as follows: Title 8 — Chapter 8.48: Change Title of Chapter 8.48 from `Heritage' Tree Ordinance to `Protected' Tree Ordinance, and • Incorporate UFMP to set forth City's policies and guidelines for planting, maintenance, and for care and protection of its trees, and trees on the street tree master list shall be periodically reviewed, and • Include species of oak trees, common names and Latin names genus of each tree species protected by ordinance, and • Update the definition of a Certified Arborist, as an arborist that is certified by either the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), and • Revise applicability to any protected tree located on private property, and • Add specificity and align with International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards, and • Specify diameter at standard height (DSH) measurement to be taken for identifying a protected tree, and • Add designation of protected trees as a valued environmental asset, ecological resource, permit requirements and exemptions, truck diameter, and protected species of trees including oak trees, and • Add clarification on pruning, routine maintenance, and determination to be made by a certified arborist that a tree is dead or diseased, or poses a danger to public safety or property damage, and • Add details regarding the permit review process to remove or relocate protected trees, person responsible for decision making, standards of approval. (Refer to: Copy of Amended Ordinance Chapter 8.48-Protected Tree Ordinance, as provided in Agenda Packet to review all incorporated `highlighted' changes) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review as there is no possibility the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15378 (b)(5). The amendment to Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code makes revisions to the Heritage Tree Ordinance and updates to tree care and preservation regulations. The amendment does not permit any physical changes to the environment and no construction of any kind will occur due to the passage of this Ordinance. A Notice of Exemption will be prepared and will be filed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Ordinance 2. CEQA Notice of Exemption City of Temecula, CA § 8.48.100 Article I General Provisions § 8.48.100. Title. § 8.48.130 This chapter shall be known as "The City of Temecula Her-itage Protected Tree Ordinance" and is referred to herein as the "Ordinanee. hereby amended in its entiretX to read as follows: ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.110. Purpose. A. This Chanter will incorporate the Citv's Urban Forest Management Plan which sets forth the Cit'spolicies and guidelines for planting and maintenance programs for the care and protection of its trees. The Public Works Director shall periodically update and make revisions and amendments to the plan, subject to City Council approval. This plan shall include the species, sizes, and locations of street trees to be planted. B. This Chapter will set forth that trees on the street tree master list shall be designated by the Director and approved by the City Council. The list shall be reviewed Deriodicallv by the Director and Commission and shall be kept on file in the Director's office. C. The pttfpa This Chapter Or-dina-neeis established to recognize to „foteet-� preserve oak (Quercus spp.), California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica), California Black Walnut (Juglans californica), Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Califemia Holly, and California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees as well as other mature trees as significant valuable ecological resources as well as valuable environmental assets of special significance to the community; and to justify special efforts to preserve and protect them from development activity. D. This Chapter O anee will also encourage the application of management techniques to control the pruning, cutting, shaping, removal, and relocation of Heritage Protected Trees within the city. The preservation program outlined in this Chapter O will contribute to the welfare and aesthetics of the community and retain the great historical and environmental value of these trees. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.120. Applicability. A. Except as noted under subsection B of this section, this Chapter rose shall apply to: 1. Any Protected Tree that is located on private property; between the eity right of way and an adjaeeat residential single RH:nily or- w.,H16 family heme; 2. Any development application that requires a discretionary permit; 3. Any tree designated as a Her-itage Protected Tree through the nomination process; or Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA 4. Designated species pursuant to Section 8.48.160(A), located within General Plan Open Space areas, within riparian areas, within Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan Important Wildlife Corridor Linkage areas, or within Her-itage-Protected Tree Grove areas. B. This Chapter Heritage Tree Or -di anee shall not apply to: 1. Statutory extensions of time for previously approved parcel and tract maps when there are no changes to the project and no amendments to the adopted conditions of approval; 2. Previously adopted specific plans and future specific plan areas. Such plans contain their own requirements for protection and preservation of Hetitage Protected Trees. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.130. Definitions. For purposes of this Chanter Ranee, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth in this section. "Certified arborist" means an are third party arborists that are certified by either who is the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). and aoa by the i3la nine dire,.*�r "City" means the city of Temecula. "City right-of-way" means the part of the public street right-of-way between the curb, or edge of paved roadway where there is no curb, and the property line separating the street right-of- way from abutting private property. Parkways are generally used for public sidewalks, public utility poles, fire hydrants, street signs and other public facilities. "City's tree policy" means a document prepared by the public works department which states policies, standards, procedures, and other relevant information regarding the selection, planting, maintenance. and removal of all citv trees. "Cutting" means the detaching or separating, from a protected tree, any limb, branch, or root. Cutting shall include pruning. "Damage" means any unpermitted action, including, but not limited to, cutting, poisoning, over watering, removal, relocation, transplanting, trenching, excavating, or paving within the protected zone of a tree, that causes the injury, death, or disfigurement of a Protected Tree. "Director" means the City's Director of Community Development or his or her designee or such person as designated ted by the City Manager. Director shall also mean the Director of Planning or Planning Director as used elsewhere in this Code. "Discretionary permit" means an application for new construction that requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation or decision on the part of the decision -making authority in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the decision -making authority merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA n n heading,but not limited to tfee tfiffffaing pFaetiees not in eenfoFmanee with standards establishe heading baek,stubbing off-,pollarding,tipping,topping off,de heming,lo. .and r-otmdifig, "Deadwood" means limbs, branches, or a portion of a tree that contains no green leaves during a time of year when they would be present on a healthy tree of that type. "Development" means the improvement or use of real property that requires the city's discretionary review and approval. "Drip line" means the area from the trunk of a tree to the outermost edge of the tree canopy. , whieh when depieted on a map, will appea-F as an iffegplar- shaped eir-ele tha4 follow eontouf of the tfee's br-anehes as seen from ever -head. "Excessive Druniniz" means removing more branches. stems. and roots than necessary to accomplish the desired objective. Typical maintenance requires that no more than twenty-five (25) percent of a tree's total number of major branches or canopy volume be removed in a single year. Any maintenance that requires pruning in excess of the twenty-five (25) percent threshold described this section can injure a tree and is prohibited unless approved by the tree manager. "Encroachment" means any intrusion into or human activity within the protected zone of a age Protected Tree including, but not limited to, pruning, grading, excavating, trenching, parking of vehicles, storage of materials or equipment, or the construction of structures or other improvements. "Hazard" or "hazardous" means a tree. or Dart of a tree. that has been assessed for risk and found to be very likelv to fail and cause severe conseauences by causing iniurv. damaize. or disruption. "Injury" means any damage to a tree resulting from any activity, including but not limited to excessive pruning cutting, topping, trenching, excavating, altering the grade, paving or compaction within the tree protection zone, including deliberate damage such as vandalism. "International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)" is a tree care industry (private and publicl membership association and credentialing program for the professional practice of arboriculture. "Licensed landscape architect" means an individual who holds a professional license to practice landscape architecture, as defined under Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 5615, or is licensed by the state of California Landscape Architects Technical Committee (the licensing and regulatory agency for the practice of landscape architecture in California). "Oak Tree" means any oak tree of the genus Quercus including, but not limited to, California or Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Coastal Sage Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Engelman Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Scrub Oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and Valley Oak (Quercus lobata). Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA "Owner" means a legal owner of real property within the city of Temecula or any lessee of the owner. "Person" means any individual, firm, association, corporation, organization, or partnership or any city, county, district, the state or any department or agency thereof. "Planning director" means the city's planning director, or designee. "Private property" means any land or property not owned by the City or another governmental agency. image "Protected Tree" means a tree designated as a-l-ritage Protected Tree pursuant to Section 8.48.160 of this Chapter. "Heritage "Protected Tree grove" means a location confirmed by site visit or other empirical evidence that is known to contain multiple-Her-itage Protected Trees. Such44efitage Protected Tree grove areas may occupy portions of one or more parcels, the location(s) of which shall be indicated on maps maintained by the planning department. "Protected Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines" means the collection of rules, procedures, and requirements prepared and published by the Director pursuant to Section 8.48.140 of this Chapter. "Protected zone" means the area extending horizontally outward from the trunk of a Heritage Protected Tree to a point five feet beyond the drip line but in no case extending less than fifteen feet from the trunk. "Pruning" means , or- other- unhealthy br-anehing to reduce the size of a tree in order to control the height and spread of a tree, preserve its natural appearance, improve structure, increase safety in the landscape by removing dead, damaged, _ or diseased branches, or make adjustments which will increase its longevity in an urban environment. "Relocation" means the transplanting of a tree from its original location to another suitable location. "Removal" means the physical removal of a tree or causing the death of a tree through damaging, poisoning, or other direct or indirect action. "Right-of-way" means any dedicated street right-of-way, or recorded easement for maintenance or utility purposes. "Routine maintenance" means aetiens needed for- the eentinmegeod hear* Heritage Tree- ineluding, but not limited to, removal of dead7wood, inseet eon4o! spr-aying, and watering. pruning, spraying, fertilizing, watering, treating for disease or injury, or other similar acts which promote the growth, health, safety, beauty, and the life of trees. "Special district" means an agency having a board of directors that is voted in by the public, such as a school district or water district. Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA "Street trees" are any City owned or maintained tree located within the City right-of-way or easement, including, but not limited to, park -strips located between the sidewalk and the curb, City -maintained medians, and all trees located within 12 feet from the curb -line in locations where the sidewalk and curb are adjacent. "Tree canopy" means the top layer or crown of maturetrees. "Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)" is the City of Temecula's Manangement Plan, on file with the City Manager. This plan shall be periodically reviewed by the Director of Public Works and Community Development, subject to City Council approval. (Ord. 09-05 § 1) Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA § 8.48.140 § 8.48.160 § 8.48.140. Heritage Protected Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. The city shall formulate and publish "The City of Temecula Heritage Protected Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines." The planning commission shall have the authority to change, update, or revise the guidelines as necessary in order to implement the provisions of this Chapter O . ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.150. Heritage Protected Tree Preservation and Protection Plan. Upon submittal of an application for a discretionary permit on parcels larger than five acres, the applicant shall also submit a tree inventory as part of the required conceptual landscape plans which shall list and identify all trees located within the proposed project site. Such tree inventory shall identify all trees by their common and scientific names, diameter at standard height, and location on the site. If Heritage Protected Trees are identified on site, the applicant shall adhere to the preservation standards contained in the Heritage Protected Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, or may hire a certified arborist or a licensed landscape architect to prepare a Heritage Protected Tree Preservation and Protection Plan for each potential Tentage Protected Tree to protect them during grading and construction activities and for the life of the project. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.160. Designation of Heritage Protected Trees. A. Protected Trees are recognized as valued environmental assets and significant aesthetic and ecological resources. Any proposed removal or encroachment upon the canopy or Protected Zone of a Protected Tree shall be subject to the provisions set forth in subsection 8.48.210 Permit Requirements and Exemptions. Protected Trees shall include the following: Any of the following species with a trunk diameter that measures twelve (12) inches or more when measured at a point four and a half feet above the natural grade of the base of the tree. Trees with multiple trunks are deemed to have reached the required diameter if the sum of the diameters of the multiple trunks exceeds the diameter required for a single trunk tree by two inches: a Oak trees of the genus Quercus including, but not limited to, California or Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Coastal Sage Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Engelman Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Scrub Oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) more than eighteen inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree; b. California Sycamore (Platanus racemose); , more than tt ek,e ;,,eh �^ diametef- when measiffed at a pein4 feiff feet above the natffal grade base of the tFee; Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA c. California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica); m e fe than twelve :.,ehe i diametef when fneasufed at a pein4 �� feet above the aa4ttr-ai gr-ade at the base of the t, e d. California Black Walnut (Juglans californica); more than twelve4nehes—in o f tortree; Toyon (Heteromeles arbutafolia); (Calif Holly) or (Toyen) more than twelve ;,,ehes i diameter- when measiffed .,t a point four feet above the „atu a1 -ade .,t the base of the tree. B. Mature Tree. Any tree that has a trunk diameter larger than twenty-four24, inches measured at a point four and one-half (41/z) feet above the root crown, or trees with multiple trunks if the sum of the diameters of the multiple trunks exceeds the diameter required for a single trunk tree by two inches. C. Designated Areas. For purposes of this Chapter Ordinanee, designated species pursuant to Section 8.48.160(A) and located within the following areas are determined to be Heritage Protected Trees: 1. General Plan Land Use Map Open Space areas; 2. Riparian areas; 3. Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan Important Wildlife Corridor Linkage areas; 4. Heritage Protected Tree grove areas identified by the city of Temecula and shown on exhibits maintained by the planning department. D. Designation of Heritage Protected Trees Through Nomination. 1. Public Initiated Nominations. Upon the submission of a Heritage Protected Tree nomination application by any member of the public, the planning commission may, after holding a noticed public hearing, designate any tree, regardless of species or location, as a Herbage Protected Tree if the owner of the subject tree supports the application and the planning commission determines the tree should be preserved and protected due to one or more of the following criteria: a. Rarity. The nominated tree is an unusual species in Temecula, California, or North America; b. Size. The nominated tree is of notable size, height, diameter, or canopy width compared to other trees of the same species; Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA c. Age. The nominated tree is of significantly advanced known or estimated age for its species; d. Historical Association. The nominated tree is related to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person or event; e. Ethnic Cultural Appreciation. The nominated tree is of particular value to certain ethnic groups in the neighborhood or the city; f. Neighborhood Appreciation. The nominated tree is supported by multiple indicators including but not limited to letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings and celebrations adjacent or related to the tree; g. Planting Defines Neighborhood Character. The nominated tree defines or contributes to the neighborhood aesthetic; h. Profiled in a Publication or Other Media. The nominated tree has received print, internet, and/or video media coverage; i. High Traffic Area. The nominated tree has a high level of visibility and/ or a possible traffic calming effect; j. Low Tree Density. The nominated tree exists in a neighborhood with few trees; k. Extends Between Multiple Properties. The nominated tree has a high level of visibility and provides benefits to two or more adjacent properties; 1. Accessible from Public Right -of -Way. The nominated tree possesses high visibility and provides benefits to the general public; in. Important Wildlife Habitat. The nominated tree provides or potentially provides source of shelter and/or food for wildlife; n. Interdependent Group of Trees. The nominated tree is part of a supercanopy and removal may have an adverse impact on adjacenttrees; o. Erosion Control. The nominated tree contributes to soil stability and prevents erosion; p. Wind or Sound Barrier. The nominated tree reduces wind speed or deflects wind, and/or mitigates undesirable noise; q. Prominent Landscape Feature. The nominated tree is a striking and outstanding natural feature; r. Character Defining Form. The nominated tree is an example of good form for its particular species; s. Tree Condition. The condition of the nominated tree shall be a factor in determining its status for protection as a 14ef4age Protected Tree. 2. City -Initiated Nominations. The city, in exercising its police powers, may designate any tree in the city of Temecula as a Heritage Protected Tree, regardless of species or size. Any city -initiated Heritage Protected Tree nomination application shall be subject to the same noticed public hearing of the planning commission as detailed in Section 8.48.160(C)(1), except that there shall be no application fee and the property owner's consent shall not be Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA required. The property owner shall be notified of the public hearing and will have the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the nomination. A city - initiated Hefitage Protected Tree nomination application shall be approved only if the decision maker determines that: (i) the tree should be preserved and protected due to its age, size, rarity, location or appearance; or (ii) the tree is determined to be historically significant. A tree shall be deemed historically significant if any of the following findings can be made: a. The tree is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; b. The tree is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c. The tree embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d. The tree has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. e. The planning commission or city council, may, when reviewing a development application, designate any tree on the site of the proposed development, regardless of species, as a He1•itage Protected Tree if it determines the tree should be preserved and protected as a condition of development due to its age, size, rarity, location or appearance. Any Heritage Protected Tree so designated shall continue to be a Heritage Protected Tree for purposes of this Chapter Or-dinanee regardless of whether the approved development is ever initiated. f. Any tree planted as a replacement for aHer-kage Protected Tree pursuant to this Chapter Or-dinanee shall constitute a Her-itage Protected Tree. g. Any tree designated as a Her-itage Protected Tree shall cause the applicant/owner to record with the Riverside County clerk and recorder's office a covenant and/or a Notice of Condition Affecting Real Property to protect the tree from future ground disturbing activities. h. If a tree is designated as a HeFitage Protected Tree under Section 8.48.160(C)(2), the city shall pay the recordation fees. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.170. Non -liability of city. Nothing in this Chapter Or-dinanee shall be construed to impose any liability for damages or a duty of care and maintenance upon the city or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA § 8.48.200 § 8.48.210 Article II. Cutting, Removal, Relocation, or Encroachment Upon Heritage Protected Trees § 8.48.200. I4enitage Protected Tree maintenance and preservation. A All owners of real property on which a Heritage Protected Tree is located and that is improved, approved for development, or part of or associated with the approved development of another piece of property, including but not limited to property required to be maintained as permanent open space or for recreational purposes, shall maintain such Her-itage Protected Trees in a state of good health. Failure to do so will constitute a violation of this Chapter O . i. MNMM- C. Damaging a Heritage Protected Tree is prohibited. Each action that damages a Heritage Protected Tree shall be a separate violation. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.210. Permit requirement and exceptions. A. Except as allowed under subsection B of this section, no person shall cut, remove, or relocate a Her-itage Protected Tree, or encroach into the protected zone of any Heritage Protected Tree without first obtaining a Heritage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit from the city in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter Ranee. B. A Heritage Protected Tree may not be cut, removed, relocated, or encroached upon without a Hef:itage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit, except under the following circumstances: Pruning and fine .,..mite, mee according to International Society of Arboriculture standards and maintenance activities that promote the health and vigor of the tree; 2. The tree has been determined by a licensed l raseape ar-e>,; city arborist to be irreparably diseased or dead; A peace officer, fireman, civil defense official, or code enforcement officer, or city arborist, has determined in his or her official capacity that the tree poses an imminent danger to the public or to property, in which case the tree may be cut, removed, relocated, or encroached upon only to the extent necessary to avoid the danger presented. The Director shall be promptly noticed of the nature of the emergency and action taken; 4. Fire department personnel .,etively engaged in fighting a fire have determined that removal of the tree is necessary to their firefighting efforts; Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA § 8.48.210 § 8.48.220 5. An owner of real property is prohibited from obtaining insurance coverage to Adequately secure and protect said property; 6. City staff has determined it is necessary to cut, remove, relocate, or encroach upon the tree to prepare a site or undertake an approved capital improvement project that has received environmental clearances under the California Environmental Quality Act; 7. The director of public works or the city traffic engineer has directed the cutting, removal, relocation, or encroachment in order to: (i) maintain public rights -of - way or adequate line -of -sight distances; and (ii) construct improvements within existing or proposed General Plan Circulation Element rights -of -way, adjacent slopes, and appurtenances; 8. Cutting, removal, relocation, or encroachment is required to widen a principal intersection to accommodate additional dedicated turning lanes in accordance with adopted goals, objectives and policies contained in the General Plan Circulation Element; 9. Cutting, removal, relocation, or encroachment occurs as part of construction or maintenance activities for facilities owned or operated by or for a public agency, special district, or a utility company under the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission; • ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.220. Permit application and review. A An applicant for a Heritage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit shall submit an application on a form designated by the planning Director and pay the appropriate filing fee as set by council resolution. B. If an application for a Heritage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit pertains to five or fewer trees located on a single parcel, the planning Director, or designee, shall review the application and approve, deny, or conditionally approve the request. The plannin Director's decision may be appealed to the planning commission, which may uphold, modify, or reverse the decision of the planning Director. C. The planning commission shall review all applications for a Iel=itage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit not reviewed in the first instance by the plafmin Director, or designee. The planning commission shall approve, deny, or conditionally approve the request. The planning commission's review shall be consolidated with its consideration of all other entitlement applications for the property, if any. Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA D. All decisions of the planning commission pursuant to this Chapter Or-dinanee may be appealed to the city council in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.230. Standards of approval. A. An application for a Heritage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit may be approved only if the decision -maker finds and determines that the requested cutting, removal, relocation, or encroachment is necessary to: Maintain or aid the health, balance, or structure of the Heritage Protected Tree; 2. Protect life or property from a danger posed by the Her-itage Protected Tree that cannot be reduced or eliminated by use of reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; or 3. Enable the reasonable and conforming use of the property, which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree. B. When deciding whether to approve, deny, or conditionally approve a heritage Protected Tree Removal or Relocation Permit, the decision maker may consider the following factors: Whether a public purpose is being provided by the issuance of the permit or if the removal is primarily to facilitate private development; 2. The overall condition, species, approximate age, size and general health of the heritage -Protected Tree(s) to be removed; A certified arborist's or- h erase a ' -ndse pe ar-ehite is report on the likelihood for survival of any heritage Protected Tree(s) to be relocated; 4. The species, size and number of replacement tree(s) being provided as mitigation; and 5. Other factors as appropriate, in accordance with a certified arborist's or licensed landscape architect's report. C. The decision maker may impose conditions to offset or mitigate the requested cutting, removal, relocation, or encroachment, including, but not limited to, any of the following: The relocation of the subject tree to another location on -site or off -site; 2. The on -site or- off site planting of one three replacement tree of the same 0 simil species which will achieve the same approximate size at maturity as the removed Protected Tree for every one Protected Tree removed; age and 1,0.,l as the Her-kage Trees for- evefy one Her-itage Tree remove ; The on off -site planting of two forty -eight -inch box trees of the me species which will achieve the same approximate size at maturity as the removed hel=itage Protected Tree for every one heritage Protected Tree removed when it is not feasible to meet the requirements of Section 8.48.230(C)(2); Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA 4. The initiation of an objectively observable maintenance and care program in accordance with a certified arborist's or- heensea lands ape ar report to insure the continued health and care of Protected Trees on the property for a period of 5 years; 5. Payment of a fee equal to the cost of procuring, planting, establishing, and maintaining one replacement tree for every one Her-itage Protected Tree removed, which cost shall be based on the latest edition of either the "Guide for Plant Appraisal" by the International Society of Arboriculture or the "Standards for Valuation of Amenity Trees" of the International Society of Arboriculture. Such payments shall be used solely to fund the cost of replacing trees that have been removed. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA § 8.48.300 § 8.48.320 Article III Violations and Enforcement § 8.48.300. Violations. A. Violations of this Chapter O are subject to criminal misdemeanor penalties and administrative citations civil penalties pursuant to Chapters 1.16, 1.20 and 1.21, of this Code. B. Intimidating, harassing, or otherwise retaliating against any person who seeks to attain compliance with this Chapter O is prohibited. C. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of this Chapter O is prohibited. D. A violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated pursuant to the procedures I Chapter 8.12 of this Code. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.310. Remedies. A The remedies provided by this Chapter O are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. The city may seek to remedy any violation of this Chapter nose by a civil action, including, without limitation, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil or criminal code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. R If a violation occurs during development, the city may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and the issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been prepared by a certified arborist or -a lieensed landseape—arEki-teet, filed by the developer and approved by the planning Director. C If a violation occurs in the absence of development, or while an application for a building permit or discretionary development approval is pending for the property upon which the tree is located, the planning Director may: (1) issue a stop work order halting all activity on the parcel; or (2) request the city council issue a temporary moratorium on development of the subject property pursuant to law if the violation is found to be the result of willful misconduct. The purpose of this stop of activity shall be to provide the city an opportunity to determine appropriate mitigation measures, if any, for the tree removal and to ensure such measures are incorporated into any future or pending development approvals for the property. Mitigation measures may be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject property. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.320. Restitution. A. In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided for by this Chapter O ee, the City Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA § 8.48.320 § 8.48.330 may seek restitution from any person who damages, removes, or relocates a Her-itage Protected Tree in violation of this Chapter Or -din nee in the form of replacement of the age Protected Tree so removed or damaged or a fine in lieu of restitution. The deeisio ,...,,',o, Director shall determine the form of restitution required. 1. If the deeisio mal Director determines that restitution should be made in the form of a replacement of the I4eritage Protected Trees removed or damaged, the replacement trees shall be the same or similar species of tree, having the approximate size, age and health as the tree(s) damaged or destroyed, at a ratio of two three new replacement trees for every one damaged or destroyed tree. Additional funds will be provided to the City that will cover the cost of the CitX to water and maintain the replacement trees for a period of three (3) years after lap nting. The location of such plantings shall be determined by the lion der Director; 2. If the deeisio ,,..,,',or Director determines that payment should be made in lieu of restitution, the payment required shall include but is not limited to, the costs of procuring, transporting, planting, establishing, and maintaining replacement trees for the life of the project at a ratio of two new replacement trees for every one damaged or destroyed tree. The cost of the replacement trees shall be based on the actual replacement cost for the damaged page Protected Tree or the latest edition of either the "Guide for Plant Appraisal" by the International Society of Arboriculture or the "Standards for Valuation of Amenity Trees" of the International Society of Arboriculture. Payments made in lieu of restitution shall be used solely to fund the cost of replacing trees that have been damaged or removed in violation of this Chapter O e. B. If the size of a Heritage Protected Tree cannot be determined due to its unauthorized removal, the size shall be determined by measuring the stump that remains, anecdotal evidence, or interpolated from photographs or adjacent trees. The decision make Director shall presume that a missing Her-itage Protected Tree was in perfect health, unless the photographs or other verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise. C. All decisions of the Direct pursuant to this Section may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) § 8.48.330. Collection of penalties. A. Fines and payments in lieu of restitution for violation of this Chapter O are payable at the city's finance/cashier office. Fines must be paid within thirty business days of the citation date. The city's finance department is authorized to collect all unpaid civil fines. B. Any unpaid costs or penalties, or payments in lieu of restitution imposed pursuant to this chapter shall constitute a special assessment against the real property upon which a violation of this chapter has occurred. All costs and/or fines shall be itemized in a written report of assessment. The planning Director shall cause a copy of the report and assessment to be served on the owner of the property not less than five days prior to the time fixed for confirmation of the assessment. Service may be Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula, CA made by enclosing a copy of the report of assessment in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner at his or her last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment rolls of the county of Riverside and depositing the same in the United States mail. Service shall be deemed complete at the time of mailing. C. A copy of the report of assessment shall be posted in the city clerk's office on the bulletin board designated for the posting of agendas, not less than three days prior to the time when the report shall be submitted to the city council. The city council shall hear the report, together with any objections by the property owner. After the assessment is made and confirmed by the city council, it shall be a lien on said property. The lien shall be tumed eve submitted to the Riverside County tax collector, where it shall be levied on the next regular property tax bills for said property, and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and procedures under foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for other municipal taxes. ( Ord. 09-05 § 1) SECTION 2. Chapter 8.49, City Tree Care and Preservation, of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(5) and Section 15061 (b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor policy changes, reorganization of existing ordinance provisions, changes required by state law or revisions that reflect the City's standard practice and patterns with respect to preservation, protection, management, and maintenance of trees. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts a Notice of Exemption for the Ordinance and directs the City Manager to file it as required by law. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. Downloaded from https:Hecode360.com/TE5022 on 2024-04-11 City of Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL CEQAProces sing_(a,asrclkrec. com July 10, 2024 Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Long Range Application No. LR24-0028, Update to Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a receipt in the amount of $50.00, for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The City of Temecula is paying the $50.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Katie Garcia at email Katie. Garcia(d), TemeculaCA. gov. Sincerely, Matt Peters Acting Director of Community Development Attachments: Project Notice of Exemption Form County Administrative Filing Fee Receipt City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Notice of Exemption TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Long Range Application No. LR24-0028, Update to Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code Description of Project: An amendment to Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code making minor revisions to the Heritage Tree Ordinance and updates to tree care and preservation regulations. The amendment is part of the implementation of the recent Urban Forest Management Plan adoption. Project Location: City of Temecula, Citywide Applicant/Proponent: City of Temecula The City Council approved the above described project on July 9, 2024 and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Exempt Status: (check one) ❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268); ❑ Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: ) ❑ Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section ® Categorical Exemption; (Section Number 15061 (b)(3) 15269(a)); & 15378 (b)(5)) ❑ Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section ❑ Other: Section 15162 Categorical Exemption 15269(b)(c)); Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance has been deemed to be exempt from further environmental review as there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15378 (b)(5). The amendment to Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code makes minor revisions to the Heritage Tree Ordinance and updates to tree care and preservation regulations. The amendments do not permit any physical changes to the environment and no construction of any kind will occur due to the passage of this Ordinance. Contact Person/Title: Katie Garcia/Planning Technician Phone Number Signature: Matt Peters, Acting Director of Community Development Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office: (951) 240-4216 Date: Item No. 3 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Peters, Acting Community Development Director DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2024 PREPARED BY: Scott Cooper, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA22-0929, a Development Plan for an SUMMARY: approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel; PA22- 0930, a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for an architectural tower element; and PA22-0931, a Variance to allow for parking within the creek side parking facility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street due to the narrow width of the project site. The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road (APN: 922-100- 048) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval CEQA: Categorically Exempt Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Sam Mohan Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) Old Town Specific Plan (SP-5) Site: Vacant / Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) North: Commercial Business / Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) South: Vacant / Service Commercial (SC) East: Old Town Front Street, Commercial Buildings / Service Commercial (SC) West: Murrieta Creek / Open Space (OS) Existing/Proposed Lot Area: 0.98 Acres Parking Provided/Required: 50 Parking Spaces BACKGROUND SUMMARY Min/Max Allowable or Required 0.08 Acres Minimum 50 Parking Spaces (required) On August 19, 2022, Sam Mohan submitted Planning Application Nos. PA22-0929, PA22-0930, and PA22-0931, a Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel; a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for an architectural tower element; and a Variance to allow for parking within the creekside parking facility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street due to the narrow width of the project site The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road. 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 Site Plan The proposed project entails an approximately 60,258 square foot, four (4) story, 57-foot, hotel. A floor -by -floor breakdown of the programming of the hotel is as follows: • lst Floor (street level): four (4) retail/commercial spaces along Old Town Front Street, two (2) retail/commercial spaces along Murrieta Creek with outdoor patio areas, lobby, gift shop, and back of the house uses. • 2nd Floor: guest rooms, reception and seating areas, wine tasting, gym, guest lounge, and offices • 3rd Floor: guest rooms • 0 Floor: guest rooms, pool area, kitchen, and bar/dining The vehicle access to the proposed project is from Old Town Front Street utilizing both a parking garage and uncovered parking. The project proposes 50 parking spaces which meets the minimum parking requirements for hotels within the Old Town Specific Plan as parking is not required for the retail/commercial spaces of the project. Per the Old Town Specific Plan parking shall not be visible from the street or Murrieta Creek. This is accomplished by adding commercial spaces to the rear of the project along the creek and architectural planting screen for the approximately 64'-0" where a retail or hotel use is not proposed. It should also be noted that within the southern end of the project site which is uncovered by the building and contains parking is an existing storm drain that cannot be built upon. This is delineated on both the site plan and conceptual grading exhibit. Pedestrian access to the hotel is both from Old Town Front Street through the main entrance or the retail/commercial spaces and from Murrieta Creek utilizing the entrance to the lobby or the retail/commercial spaces. All rooms of the proposed hotel have functioning and useable balconies. Architecture The primary architectural style of the proposed project is Andalusian with elements of Spanish Renaissance and Mission Revival to reflect the historical character of the Old Town Specific Plan. Style elements included within the design of the project include smooth stucco finishes, u- shaped clay tile roof, asymmetrical fagades, gallery frontage, arched windows with painted trim, dark exposed EIFS beams, curves and arches as decorative wall elements, quoin design details, and stained glass. Staff has worked with the applicant since submittal of a pre -application on the architectural design in order to adhere to the Old Town Specific Plan. Minor Exception The height of the building's central tower element along Old Town Front Street is 57"-0", which exceeds the allowable building height of 55'-0" per the Old Town Specific Plan. The applicant has applied for a Minor Exception to the allowable building height, which allows for a 15% increase in building height. The additional two feet in building height will allow for a roofline architectural element, which will enhance the architecture of the building and the overall project. Variance The Old Town Specific Plan has parking placement standards for lots with Murrieta Creek frontage that call for a 20'-0" setback both from the build -to line along Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek. Given the other requirements of the Specific Plan, including the screening of parking and activation of streetscapes, strict adherence to the creek parking placement development standard would not provide enough space for the required parking due to the narrow width of the project site. Additionally, the ground floor street facing retail along Old Town Front Street will encroach beyond the build -to line up to 10'-0" feet in order to provide street facing shopfront & retail uses which adheres to the Specific Plan. Also, in this area of the Old Town Specific Plan, outside the southern arch of the heart of Old Town Temecula, twenty - foot sidewalks are not necessary as any future development to the south of this parcel will not require twenty -foot sidewalks. A reduced sidewalk width of 10'-0" is more appropriate as it will be consistent with future development to the south (outside of the Old Town Specific Plan boundary) and also provides adequate space for pedestrian movement and street trees. Landscaping The project provides the required street trees along with additional shrubs, accent plantings, and trees along Murrieta Creek. All plant materials proposed are consistent with the requirements of the Old Town Specific Plan. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS The notice of the public hearing was published in the Press Enterprise on June 6, 2024, and mailed to the property owners within a 600-foot radius. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects); (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning designation of the Old Town Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning regulations including General Plan Land Use Policy 7.1 which encourages revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 0.98 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial development, vacant land zoned for commercial development, a major roadway, and Murrieta Creek. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The proposed project is located on a project site that is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. As part of the entitlement on this site the project went through the HANS/JPR process with the Regional Conservation Authority in which JPR 23-09-26-01 determined that the project is consistent with other plan requirements and no conservation of land was required. The JPR also determined that the project site did not contain any riparian/riverine/vernal pools on the site. The project site lacks suitable riparian habitat to support riparian birds. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A traffic analysis was not required as part of this project as the proposed use is allowed within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan, and there is nothing unique about this project that would trigger the need for a traffic analysis. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and the zoning district. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010.17) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. Hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan. Therefore, the use is consistent with the General Plan for Temecula and the Old Town Specific Plan as well as the requirements for State law and other Ordinances of the City. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working and living in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Minor Exception (,Code Section 17.03.060.D) That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. The proposal is for a 3.7% increase in the allowable height within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan from 55'-0" to 57'-0". Due to the narrow width of the project site and the existing storm drain on the southern end of the parcel that cannot be constructed upon the building is forced vertical within a constrained area. The allowance of the two foot increase in height will allow for a roofline architectural element which will enhance the architecture of the building and will allow the project to meet the development standards of the Specific Plan with respect to architecture. The Minor Exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. Permitting this Minor Exception will not grant special privileges to the applicant that are not otherwise available to surrounding properties because of the unique configuration of the property. The result of permitting this Minor Exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons as the increase in height allows the project to meet the intent of the Specific Plan's architectural standards with a roofline architectural element which will exceed the 55'-0" height limit. The project has been reviewed and, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The Minor Exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. The project has been conditioned by the Planning, Fire, Building, Police, and Public Works Departments to protect the surrounding properties. The hotel land use proposed is permitted per the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan. Variance (Code Section 17.04.040.F) That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other properties in the zone. Due to the narrow depth of the project site, and the requirement for on -site parking, there are very limited options to locate the parking on site and comply with the Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek frontage surface parking setbacks. The ground floor street facing retail along Old Town Front Street will encroach beyond the build -to line up to 10 feet in order to provide street facing shopfront & retail of the minimum dimension required/recommended by the Old Town Specific Plan development standards (20' depth required, 50' recommended). Parking is being provided within the setback (required setback is 20' behind the build -to line) adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The creekside parking setback will not be entirely met; there are practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to physical circumstances and characteristics that are unique to this property due to its narrow width and location between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek. Strict adherence to all applicable setbacks required under the Old Town Specific Plan would result in an undevelopable site; not just for this project but for any project requiring parking. The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the applicant. Strict adherence to the Old Town Specific Plan build -to line standards and parking setbacks adjacent to Murrieta Creek were not created by the applicant. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the project that would result in a reduction of the size of the parcel. As a result, the applicant is developing the parcel as it is currently configured. The site plan has been developed to meet the majority of these requirements and meets the intent of the Old Town Specific Plan by not allowing parking to be a dominant visual feature on the site or from Murrieta Creek. The variance does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. This is the southernmost parcel of the Old Town Specific Plan on Old Town Front Street. The variance will not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. R The variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties. The variance for this project will not affect surrounding properties as the proposed use of a hotel is a permitted use per the Old Town Specific Plan and the project is contained fully on the project site. No additional conditions are required as part of the project. The variance does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. A hotel is a permitted use of the Downtown Core Zoning District of the Old Town Specific Plan therefore the variance is not permitting a use otherwise not allowed in the zoning district. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. PC Resolution — Development Plan 3. Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval - Development Plan 4. Exhibit B - Plan Reductions - Development Plan 5. PC Resolution — Minor Exception 6. PC Resolution - Variance 7. Notice of Exemption 8. Notice of Public Hearing 922-100-048 CITY OF TEMECULA PA22-0929 el � � 'r. II5'i3't3tVT� Fr ;:Project Site {, t �'/� � ���' ph.µ• '•,y 4 R� ' 3 06,1 % 1 inch = 400 feet 1:4,800 0 100 200 Feet I I I I M'--M •µgo- e Ak �i lino Hcar• of Southern CanforNa Date Created: 8/19/2022 V W e Counyry The map PA22-0929.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at hftps://temeculaca.gov/gis PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA22-0929, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 60,258 SQUARE FOOT, FOUR- STORY, 50 ROOM HOTEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 400' SOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (APN: 922-100-048) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 19, 2022, Sam Mohan filed Planning Application No. PA22-0929 a Development Plan; Planning Application No. PA22-0930 a Minor Exception; and Planning Application No. PA22-0931 a Variance. These applications (collectively "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on June 19, 2024, 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. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA22-0929, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Plan (Development Code Section 17.05.010.F): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. Hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan. Therefore, the use is consistent with the General Plan for Temecula and the Old Town Specific Plan as well as the requirements for State law and other Ordinances of the City. B. The overall development of the land not designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working and living in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects); (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning designation of the Old Town Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning regulations including General Plan Land Use Policy 7.1 which encourages revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 0.98 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial development, vacant land zoned for commercial development, a major roadway, and Murrieta Creek. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The proposed project is located on a project site that is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. As part of the entitlement on this site the project went through the HANSUPR process with the Regional Conservation Authority in which JPR 23-09-26-01 determined that the project is consistent with other plan requirements and no conservation of land was required. The JPR also determined that the project site did not contain any riparian/riverine/vernal pools on the site. The project site lacks suitable riparian habitat to support riparian birds. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A traffic analysis was not required as part of this project as the proposed use is allowed within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan, and there is nothing unique about this project that would trigger the need for a traffic analysis. Therefore, theproject is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and the zoning district. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA22-0929, a Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four- story, 50 room hotel located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road, and makes a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), subject to the Final Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A and Plan Reductions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of June, 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of June, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Matt Peters Secretary EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA22-0929 Project Description: A Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel that includes retail spaces, a gym, meeting space, and a rooftop restaurant and pool area. The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-100-048 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Quimby Category: N/A (non-residential) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (project not located in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area) Approval Date: June 19, 2024 Expiration Date: June 19, 2027 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval Page 1 of 22 Applicant Filing Notice of Exemption. APPLICANTACTION REQUIRED: The applicant/developer is responsible for filing the Notice of Exemption as required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062 within 48 hours of the project approval. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not filed the Notice of Exemption as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of this condition. Failure to submit the Notice of Exemption will result in an extended period of time for legal challenges. FEES: Fees for the Notice of Exemption include the Fifty Dollar County ($50.00) administrative fee. The County of Riverside charges additional fees for credit card transactions. FILING: The City shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Exemption within 24 hours of approval via email. If the applicant/developer has not received the Notice of Exemption within 24 hours of approval, they shall contact the case Planner immediately. All CEQA documents must be filed online with the Riverside County Assessor — County Clerk- Recorder. A direct link to the CEQA filings page is available at TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA. COPY OF FILINGS: The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the required filings within 48 hours. General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Page 2 of 22 Expiration. This approval shall be used within three years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. (enter SP # here). 6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 7. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 8. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development 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. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 10. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. Page 3 of 22 11. Materials and Colors. 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 City 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 Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Material Color Stucco Shell White Stucco Pediment Brick Veneer Adobe Brick, Saltillo Beam Espresso Roof Tile Java Blend Window System Clad Wood Moulding Espresso Awning Bronze 12. Modifications or Revisions. The developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 14. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 15. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover in accordance with T.M.C. 17.10.020.S 16. Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment Screening. The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of all residences and public right of ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any 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 that shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 17. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 18. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Page 4 of 22 19. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on -site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 20. Compliance with Regional Conservation Authority. The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the conditions set forth in the Regional Conservation Authority's Joint Project Review letter (JPR# 23-09-26-01) dated April 11, 2024. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 21. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 22. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 23. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. 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 Community Development at their sole discretion may require the property owner 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 Community Development 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 Community Development 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 Community Development." 24. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. The agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a grading permit. To accomplish this, the applicant should contact the Pechanga Tribe no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Pechanga monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the project archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. 25. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and the qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga monitor shall investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment." Page 5 of 22 26. Archaeological Monitorinq Notes. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "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." 27. Tribal Monitoring Notes. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A Pechanga Tribal monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the project archaeologist and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property." 28. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "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." 29. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." Page 6 of 22 30. Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). i. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. ii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources. iii. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed. iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non -Disclosure of Reburial Condition. v. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. vi. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council." Page 7 of 22 31. Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Temecula Community Development Department: Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property (as identified on Burial Area Exhibit). The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. 32. Archeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report, if required, and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre -grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s). 33. Archaeologist Retained. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified/City of Temecula approved archaeological monitor to monitor all ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. The archaeologist shall provide a final monitoring report at the end of all earthmoving activities to the City of Temecula, the Pechanga Tribe and the Eastern Information Center at UC, Riverside. Page 8 of 22 34. Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the Treatment Agreement described in these conditions. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 35. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The Western Riverside County of Governments administers and collects the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance (paid to WRCOG). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Additional information on payment, fees, and points of contact can be found at http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/174/TUMF 36. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. Developers may request an audit of impact fees and/or may request notice for meetings related to the fee account or fund information. 37. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 38. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will 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 are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. Page 9 of 22 39. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 40. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 41. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail 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. 42. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will 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 are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 43. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 44. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 45. Building Construction Plans for Outdoor Areas. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape, etc.) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 46. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. Page 10 of 22 47. Utility Screening. 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 ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 48. Letter of Substantial Conformance. The applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. Such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. 49. Screening of Loading Areas. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of all 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 reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 50. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. 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 Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 51. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division 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 Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 52. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 53. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this approval. Outside Agencies 54. Flood Protection. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control Districts transmittal dated September 6, 2022, 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. 55. Compliance with Geotechnical. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Leighton Consulting, Inc. transmittal dated June 28, 2023, a copy of which is attached. Page 11 of 22 56. Compliance with RCWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated June 21, 2023, a copy of which is attached. 57. Compliance with Regional Conservation Authority. The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the conditions set forth in the Regional Conservation Authority's Joint Project Review letter (JPR# 23-09-26-01) dated April 11, 2024. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 58. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 59. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 60. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for on site improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. 61. Haul Route Permit. A haul route permit may be required when soils are moved on public roadways to or from a grading site. The developer/contractor is to verify if the permit is required. If so, he shall comply with all conditions and requirements per the City's Engineering and Construction Manual and as directed by Public Works. 62. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; b. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 63. Street Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit public/private street improvement plans for review and approval by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with Caltrans and City codes/standards; and shall include, but not limited to, plans and profiles showing existing topography, existing/proposed utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. 64. Right -of -Way Dedications. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by Public Works. 65. Vehicular/Traffic Movement Restrictions. The developer shall comply with the following vehicular movements restrictions: a. The future north access from Front Street shall be restricted to no entry/exit only movement. 66. Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 67. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Page 12 of 22 68. Right -of -Way Dedication. The Developer shall submit a Right -of -Way Dedication application to Public Works for review and approval. a. Front Street 69. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearances/permits from applicable agencies such as RCFC&WCD and other affected agencies. 70. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/ECM 71. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 72. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml 73. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff, the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link: www.TemeculaCA.gov/WQMP. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require Alternative Compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. 74. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. The developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. Page 13 of 22 75. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 76. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 10 and 100-year storm event for 24 hour storm duration peak flow) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 77. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 78. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 79. Sight Distance. The developer shall limit landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all street intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 80. Habitat Conservation Fee. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in the ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 81. American Disability Act. The developer shall ensure that all frontage areas to the proposed development within the public right of way are ADA compliant. Any sidewalk within the public right of way found to be non -compliant shall be the responsibility of the property owner to be removed and replaced with ADA compliant sidewalk per the Streets and Highway Code Section 5610. Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit(s) 82. Public Utility Agency Work. The developer shall submit all relevant documentation due to encroaching within City right-of-way; and is responsible for any associated costs and for making arrangements with each applicable public utility agency. 83. Traffic Control Plans. A construction area traffic control plan (TCP) will be required for lane closures and detours or other disruptions to traffic circulation; and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The TCP shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and City standards. Page 14 of 22 84. Improvement Plans. All improvement plans (including but not limited to street, storm drain, traffic) shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 85. Street Trenching. All street trenches shall conform to City Standard No. 407; refer to the City's Paving Notes. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 86. Right -of -Way Dedication. A recorded copy of the Right -of -Way Dedication shall be submitted to Public Works prior to building permit issuance. 87. Construction of Street Improvements. All street improvement plans shall be approved by Public Works. The developer shall start construction of all public street improvements, as outlined below, in accordance to the City's General Plan/Circulation Element and corresponding City standards. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Front Street (Secondary Arterial (4 lanes undivided) Highway Standard No. 102 — 88' R/W) to include 8-foot dedication of street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 88. Undergrounding Wires. All existing and proposed electrical and telecommunication lines, except electrical lines rated 34KV or greater, shall be installed underground per Title 15, Chapter 15.04 of the Temecula Municipal Code and utility provider's standards. The developer is responsible for any associated costs, for making arrangements with each utility agency and for obtaining the necessary easements 89. Street Lights. a. Street Light Plan — Street lighting shall be designed in accordance with the latest City Standards and Specifications for LS-3 street light rates, and as determined by the City Engineer. b. Onsite and Offsite Street Lights Ownership and Maintenance — All proposed public and private street lights shall be designed in accordance with City approved standards and specifications, or as determined and approved by the City Engineer. The City shall have ownership and maintenance of all proposed public street lights and associated appurtenances, and shall be provided with adequate service points for power. The design shall be incorporated in the project's street improvement plans or in a separate street light plan as determined and approved by the City Engineer. c. Streetlight Design as LS-3 Rate Lights — All new streetlights shall be designed as LS-3 rate lights in accordance with approved City standards and specifications, and as determined by the City Engineer. d. Street Light Service Point Addressing — The developer shall coordinate with the PW Department and with Southern California Edison the assignment of addresses to required street light service points. Service points serving public streetlights shall be owned by the City and shall be located within public's right of way or within duly dedicated public easements. 90. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of -record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer -of -record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 91. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all on site work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. Page 15 of 22 92. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 93. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 94. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. 95. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Verification. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require alternative compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 96. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 97. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Temecula Municipal Code as identified in Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 98. ADA Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. c. Accessible path of travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Accessible path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures, clubhouses, and picnic areas. 99. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. 100. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. Page 16 of 22 101. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 102. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 103. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 104. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 105. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 106. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Code Section 9.20.060, for any site within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 107. House Electrical Meter. 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 how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. 108. Protection of Drains and Penetration. Protection of joints and penetrations in fire resistance -rated assemblies shall not be concealed from view until inspected for all designed fire protection. Required fire seals/fire barriers in fire assemblies at fire resistant penetrations shall be installed by individuals with classification or certification covering the installation of these systems. Provide certification for the installation of each area and certification of compliance for Building Official's approval. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 109. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2 '/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all Commercial projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, 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 hydrant(s) in the system. The fire line may be required to be a looped system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 110. Fire Dept. Plan Review. 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. Page 17 of 22 111. Fire Flow. 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 2,400 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 4-hour duration for this commercial project. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 112. Occupancy Management. Per the California Building Code and California Fire Code, along with Title 19 for Public Safety, the occupancy for this establishment must be complied with at all times. The owner will be responsible for assigning designees to count patrons as they enter and exit. At any given time, if the fire department and/or building department find you in violation of this they will be required to either close the facility entirely, have the owner remove patrons until the occupant load is at or less than allowed and request fines to be issued to the owner. If there is continued violations occurring within the establishment the building department and/or fire department will recommend that the city planning department revoke the owners CUP. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 113. Access Road Widths. 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 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 114. All Weather Access Roads. 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 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 115. Gradient of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 116. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall submit electronic 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. 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 being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). 117. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. sprinkler plans must be submitted electronically by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. The fire sprinkler riser will be placed in the fire sprinkler riser room. This room only houses the fire alarm control panel and fire sprinkler riser. 118. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Fire alarm plans must be submitted electronically 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. The fire alarm control panel will be placed in the fire sprinkler riser room. this room only houses the fire alarm control panel and fire sprinkler riser. Page 18 of 22 Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 119. Gates and Access. 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 firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5). 120. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 121. Knox Box. 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). 122. Addressing. 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 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 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 123. Site Plan. 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). 124. File Format Requirements. 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 General Requirements 125. Landscape Height. The applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor window sills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery shall be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings utilizing lower level windows. 126. Tree Pruning. The applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding all building rooftops be kept at a distance to deter roof accessibility by "would-be burglars." Since trees also act as a natural ladder, the branches must be pruned to have a six-foot clearance from the buildings. 127. Berm Height. Berms shall not exceed three feet in height. 128. Knox Box. Knox boxes with Police access are required at each gate leading into the property. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured opening or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving purposes, the Temecula Police Department is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access. 129. Parkinq Lot Liqhtinq. All parking lot lighting shall be energy saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Page 19 of 22 130. Exterior Door Lighting. All exterior doors shall have a vandal resistant light fixture installed above the door. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one -foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. 131. Exterior Building Lighting. All lighting affixed to the exterior of buildings shall be wall mounted light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness. 132. Outdoor Lighting During Non -Business Hours. The applicant shall comply with the Governor's order to address the power crisis. This order became effective March 18, 2001 calling for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non -business hours. The order, in part, states, "All California retail establishments, including, but not limited to, shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non -business hours except as necessary for the health and safety of the public, employees or property." Failure to comply with this order following a warning by law enforcement officials shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1,000 in accordance with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. 133. Commercial or Institutional Grade Hardware. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 134. Graffiti Removal. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings must be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being discovered. Report all such crimes to the Temecula Police 24-hour dispatch Center at (951) 696-HELP. 135. Alarm System. 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. 136. Roof Hatches. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 137. Rooftop Addressing. 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. 138. ADA Parking. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 139. Employee Training. Employee training regarding retail/credit card theft, citizens' arrest procedures, personal safety, business security, shoplifting or any other related crime prevention training procedures is also available through the Crime Prevention Unit. 140. Compliance with State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Any business that serves or sells any type of alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 141. Inspections and Training. Contact the Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes special events held at business locations where alcohol will be served for a fee and the event is open to the general public. 142. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited. The applicant shall comply with Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.010, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited. Page 20 of 22 143. Employee Training for Identification Checks. The applicant shall ensure all employees involved with the sales, service and identification checks for the purpose of any sales of alcoholic beverages are trained in the proper procedures and identification checks. The Temecula Police Department provides free training for all employers and employees involved in service and sales of alcoholic beverages. It is the responsibility of the applicant to set up a training session for all new employees. Contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Office at (951) 695-2773 to set up a training date. Training should be completed prior to the grand opening of this business and periodic updated training should be conducted when new employees/management are hired. 144. Identification Verification. Identification will be verified utilizing one of the following: (a) valid California driver's license; (b) valid California identification card; (c) valid military identification card (active/reserve/retired/dependent); (d) valid driver's license from any of the 50 States or Territories of the United States; (e) valid U.S. Passport; (f) valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, and County or City agency. 145. Acceptable Forms of Identification. As noted above, only a valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, County or City agency is acceptable, providing it complies with 25660 of the Business and Profession Code (B&P), which includes the following requirements: (a) name of person; (b) date of birth; (c) physical description; (d) photograph; (e) currently valid (not expired). It is the responsibility of business owners and any person who sells or serves alcoholic beverages to be aware of current laws and regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverages. Page 21 of 22 146. Crime Prevention Throuqh Environmental Design. Crime prevention through environmental design as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." The nine primary strategies that support this concept are included as conditions below: a. Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. b. Provide clearly marked transitional zones. Persons need to be able to identify when they are moving from public to semi-public to private space. c. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control. d. Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location less attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention. e. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. f. Redesign the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. g. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. h. Redesign space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be aware of the risk of detection and possible intervention. Windows and clear lines -of -sight serve to provide such a perception of surveillance. i. Overcome distance and isolation. This strategy may be accomplished through improved communications (portable two-way radios, for example) and design efficiencies, such as the location of restrooms in a public building. 147. Business Security Survey. Businesses desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department at (951) 695-2773. 148. Questions Regarding Conditions. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 695-2773. Page 22 of 22 f111 Leighton City of Temecula, Planning Department 4100 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Scott Cooper, Senior Planner Leighton Consulting, Inc. A Leighton Group Company June 28, 2023 Project No. 11760.035 Subject: Geotechnical Peer Review - Final Proposed Old Town Front Street Hotel (PA22-0929) APN 922-100-048, Temecula, California References: (1) Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor's Parcel Number 922-100-006, Lot Number 2 of Town of Temecula, Subdivision, located on the West Side of Old Town Front Street and South of First Street, Temecula, California, by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Project No. 182385-10A, dated December 03, 2018 (2) Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor's Parcel Number 922-100-006, Lot Number 2 of Town of Temecula, Subdivision, Temecula, California, by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Project No. 182385-10B, dated November 17, 2022 (3). Response to the Third Party Review Comments Regarding Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor's Parcel Number 922-100-006, Lot Number 2 of Town of Temecula, Subdivision, Temecula, California, by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Project No. 182385-70B, dated June 14, 2023 In accordance with your request, we performed our review of the submitted response (Reference 3 above). Based on this review, the project geotechnical report (Reference 1) and subsequent clarifications/responses are considered satisfactory from a geotechnical perspective and no further action is required by the consultant. The above referenced responses should be considered as addendums to the project geotechnical report and part of the project design/construction documents. Our above opinion/peer review is to help the City in their review process of the submitted documents and the consultant remains solely responsible for their findings and recommendations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to City and please do not hesitate to us if you have any question. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. ° Np. 1421 - CERTINED Robert F. Riha, CEG * ENGINEVIIING Senior Principal Geologist GEOLOGIST Ext 8914, rriha@leightongroup.co Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF copy via email) r f Simon I. Saiid, PE, GE Senior Principal Engineer Ext 8013, ssaiidleightongroup -50At_ tic 2641 41715 Enterprise Circle N, Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590 www.leightongroup.com T: 951.296.0530 JASON E. UHLEY General Manager -Chief Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Scott Cooper September 6, 2022 Re: PA 22-0929, APN 922-100-048 245613 The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District's review is based on the above -referenced project transmittal, received September 1, 2022. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ❑ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. ❑ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ❑ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. City of Temecula - 2 - September 6, 2022 Re: PA 22-0929, APN 922-100-048 245613 0 This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek / Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. If the project is proposing to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees should be paid (in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans) to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. © An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Murrieta Creek Channel. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ❑ The District's previous comments are still valid. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report) and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if a CEQA document was prepared for the project. The project proponent shall also bear the responsibility for complying with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, AMY MCNEILL Engineering Project Manager ec: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy WMC J ss JU J p Y r� �Y s Q E • Y 1 aA +II y a 6 Af. egional Conservation Authority Western Riverside County Project Information Permittee: Case Information: RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Site Acreage: Portion of Site Proposed for MSHCP Conservation Area: JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Date: 04/ 11 /24 City of Temecula PA22-0929 / Boutique Hotel 1.1 acres' (0.9-acre on -site permanent, 0.2-acre off -site Dermanent, and less than 0.1-acre off -site temnorarv) 0 Criteria Consistency Review Consistency Conclusion: The project is consistent with Other Plan requirements with implementation of the measures presented in these Findings (including any within the project information provided to the Regional Conservation Authority by the Permittee for this JPR). A determination of consistency with Criteria cannot be made because the Criteria did not take into account the effects of a pre-MSHCP approved project that rendered the project site incompatible with the intent of Constrained Linkage 13 (e.g., floodplain processes). Therefore, the project site is not needed for reserve assembly. Core/Linkage: Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10 Area Plan: Southwest APN Sub -Unit Cell Group Cell 922-100-048 SU1 - Murrieta Creek N/A 7166 922-100-038* 922-100-039* 922-100-042* 922-100-043* 922-100-051 * Right -of -Way *Denotes APNs that are partially impacted. The City will require any future proposed development in these APNs to demonstrate MSHCP consistency and be processed through a separate joint project review. Project Information a. Project Documentation. JPR submittal materials provided by the Permittee included a JPR Application Form (September 19, 2023), a HANS Application (September 19, 2023), City of Temecula Conformance JPR supporting documentation acreages are based on legal surveyed boundary (i.e., AutoCAD file from 4M that was converted for GIS use); therefore, property and project acreages throughout JPR supporting documentation may not be exact and may not match other sources (i.e., County APNs, RCA, etc.) due to the conversion process. 1 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/11/24 Western Riverside County Memorandum (September 19, 2023), a project site plan (September 19, 2023), and a Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis prepared by Searl Biological Services (Analysis; March 13, 2024). b. Project Location. The project is located in the City of Temecula, west of Old Town Front Street, south of First Street, and north of Temecula Parkway (Exhibit A). It is located in the southern portion of the MSHCP Area (Exhibit B). Project Description. The project includes the construction of a luxury hotel. According to the Analysis, the project occurs on a compacted, disturbed/maintained vacant lot, in an urban setting. It is situated above channelized Murrieta Creek and separated from the Creek by a flood wall, paved access/road trail, landscaping, and fencing. The project is currently used for overflow parking for adjacent businesses and is routinely maintained through scraping and other vegetation suppression mechanisms. The project site is primarily comprised of disturbed and developed land, but also contains a narrow strip of coastal sage scrub/ruderal. MSHCP baseline vegetation communities (1994) within the project site consist of grassland, riparian scrub, woodland forest, and developed or disturbed land (Exhibit C). Soils mapped on the project site include Hanford coarse sandy loam, Chino silt loam, drained, saline -alkali, and Riverwash (Exhibit D). The project includes on -site permanent development of 0.9 acre, off -site permanent development of 0.2 acre, and off -site temporary impacts of less than 0.1 acre (Exhibit E). Off -site temporary impacts are associated with ingress/egress. Information on staging of equipment and construction materials was not provided. No weed abatement/f iel modification zones are proposed or required. The project site is located adjacent to Murrieta Creek (MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 13). Relation to Reserve Assembly a. Reserve Assembly Summary. The project site is located along Murrieta Creek within Independent Cell 7166. Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, "Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 10 in the south. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban development and agricultural use and the planned land use surrounding the Linkage consists of City (Murrieta and Temecula). Therefore, care must be taken to maintain high quality riparian habitat within the Linkage and along the edges for species such as yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the creek. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek is also important to western pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area." Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral habitat in the western portion of the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 2 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/11/24 Western Riverside County 7079 to the north, to chaparral, grassland, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7264 to the south and to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7164 to the west. Conservation within this Cell will range from 35%-45% of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. Cell 7166 totals approximately 139.0 acres. Using the low -range (35%) conservation goal, approximately 48.6 acres are described for conservation within this Cell to support both Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. In review of the MSHCP description of conservation in this Cell in combination with 1994 baseline vegetation mapping, roughly 28 acres of chaparral are to support Proposed Linkage 10 while the remainder are to support Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (roughly 20 acres) in the form of riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat. To date, no MSHCP conservation has occurred. Because Proposed Linkage 10 in this Cell is outside the sphere of the proposed project, no further discussion will be provided on this Linkage. Prior to completion of the MSHCP (June 2004), the Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project (MCFC Project), a public project by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) was finalized in 20002 with revisions to Phase II of the MCFC Project processing a final Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Supplement Environmental Impact Report in 20143. The high-level elements of the MCFC Project were to improve flood control, create a multi -purpose trail, and establish higher quality riparian habitat along the existing Murrieta Creek channel. The Corps was to construct the MCFC Project while RCFC owned the channel right-of-way and was to provide project funding and operation and maintenance of the completed Project. The MSHCP was in development prior to and after finalization of the MCFC Project (2000) and established Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 along Murrieta Creek including bringing the Creek into the MSHCP reserve as conservation lands expressly managed for MSHCP-covered species. A wildlife corridor as envisioned by the MSHCP for Murrieta Creek was not incorporated in the MCFC Project and is incompatible with the MCFC Project as the latter is a maintained channel and is managed for flood control, not species. Specifically, the project site occurs in Phase II of the MCFC Project which began construction in 2015/2016 and has been completed. Prior to construction of Phase II, the project site was part of the Murrieta Creek floodplain and provided refugia for some of the MSHCP Planning Species for Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Construction of the MCFC Project lowered Murrieta Creek elevation and included the installation of retaining walls separating Murrieta Creek from the adjacent floodplain, including the project site. The project 2 Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project and Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), September 2000. 3 Murrieta Creek Flood Control/Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project and Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, July 2014. egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/11/24 Western Riverside County site was used for staging by the Phase II MCFC Project with all biological resources removed and resulting in a roughly 15-foot flood wall, a paved access/road trail, landscaping, and fencing all between the project site and the Creek. Due to the pre-MSHCP approved MCFC project, the project site has no potential to functionally contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The site is nearly devoid of vegetation, does not provide riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat to support MSHCP Planning Species for this Linkage, nor does it provide refugia during large-scale flooding events because the project site is separated from the Creek, as discussed above. The project site is not suitable and is incompatible to support MSHCP reserve establishment for Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and there is no potential for it to provide such functionality in the future. The MSHCP provides for a Criteria Refinement when a project covered by the MSHCP is proposed to remove land described for conservation. The MCFC project was not processed under the MSHCP', so there was no nexus to require the MCFC project to implement a Criteria Refinement to replace impacted land (including the project site) that was described for conservation. The RCA is working with the Wildlife Agencies on the feasibility of replacing, within the MSHCP Plan Boundary, the ecological values and functions affected by the MCFC Project in Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. b. Rough Step. The proposed project is within Rough Step Unit 5 which tracks five vegetation types: coastal sage scrub; grasslands; woodlands and forests; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. MSHCP baseline vegetation communities (1994) within the project site for those tracked by this Unit consists of 0.1 acre of grassland and 0.3 acre of riparian scrub, woodland forest (Exhibit Q. All vegetation categories were in Rough Step at the time of these Findings and the proposed project does not conflict with Rough Step. However, the Rough Step Unit 5 development allowance may have changed by the time this project submits for a grading permit. As such, the RCA provides the following required Measure to ensure the City does not exceed Rough Step allowances: ROUGH STEP MEASURE. In accordance with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.7, it is the Permittees responsibility that [iJf the rough step rule is not met during any analysis period (performed annually by the Regional Conservation Authority [RCA]), the Permittees must conserve appropriate lands supporting a specified vegetation community within the analysis unit to bring the Plan back into the parameters of the rule prior to authorizing additional loss of the vegetation community for which the rule was not achieved The Permittee is encouraged to consult with the RCA on current rough step allowances prior to working with project applicants developing grading plans. The Permittee must not cause additional loss of any rough step vegetation that is out of balance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Permittee will a Murrieta Creek Flood Control/Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project and Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, July 2014. egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/11/24 Western Riverside County confirm with the RCA that the Project will not impact out -of -balance Rough Step vegetation in the applicable Rough Step unit. Other Plan Requirements (MSHCP Volume I) Section 6.1.2 — Was Riparian/RiverineNemal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. There are no Riparian/Riverine areas on the project site. There are no vernal pools on the project site, and the soils and topography present on the site do not support habitat considered suitable for fairy shrimp. There is no suitable riparian bird habitat on the project site. Section 6.1.3 — Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area. Section 6.3.2 — Was Additional Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area for plants. The project site is not located in Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Areas for amphibians or small mammals. The project site does not support Delhi sands (Exhibit D) or in areas that would trigger additional review for Delhi sands flower -loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis). However, a portion of the project site is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Section 6.1.4 — Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The property is located adjacent to existing or proposed conservation areas. Comments on Other Plan Requirements: a. Section 6.1.2. The following discusses each requirement under this policy. Riparian/Riverine. The project site was assessed for riparian/riverine features on June 24, 2022 and additional site assessments were conducted on March 9 and April 11, 2023. As presented in the Analysis, the project site is not hydrologically connected to Murrieta Creek. The site is isolated and located above Murrieta Creek; separated by a flood wall, paved access/road trail, landscaping, and fencing associated with the MCFC Project. The entire project site was used for staging by the MCFC Project. Currently, a heavily manipulated erosional ephemeral swale (swale) occurs along the southern project site boundary that collects storm runoff form Old Town Front Street. This swale is not connected upstream, nor is it connected downstream to Murrieta Creek due to the MCFC Project. There is a box storm drain approximately 15-feet off -site to the west; however, due to its location and elevation, it does not function as a drain collection for the swale and may have been installed to collect runoff from the surrounding MCFC Project landscaping. Riparian/riverine resources are absent from the project site. Based upon this information, the proposed project will not result in impacts to riparian/riverine resources. 5 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/11/24 Western Riverside County Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp. The project site was assessed for vernal pools and suitable fairy shrimp habitat on June 24, 2022, and additional site assessments were conducted on March 9 and April 11, 2023. According to the Analysis, the project site lacks suitable soils (including placement of gravel), vegetation, and hydrology to support vernal pools. The project site is highly disturbed and heavily compacted from past grading operations, including construction of Phase II of the MCFC Project, when the entire project site was used for staging. Across the years the project site has been used also for overflow parking from Old Town Temecula. The RCA completed a desktop analysis and field review and determined there is no potential for vernal pool resources at the project site. This conclusion is based on a review of aerial imagery from Google Earth and available online historic aerials and past disturbances of the project site. The desktop analysis noted signs of ponding or moist/wet soils in aerial imagery from 2018, 2020, and 2023. However, the MCFC Project graded the project site in 2015/2016, thereby precluding the presence of fairy shrimp or vernal pools but likely causing soil compaction and hence creating potential for ponding as observed in satellite imagery dating after the MCFC Project began. It is less than reasonable to assume listed fairy shrimp have been transported to the project site since grading operations and specifically since the MCFC Project. Focused surveys are not warranted. Riparian Birds. The project site lacks suitable riparian habitat to support riparian birds, including least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) and is outside the sphere of influence of potentially occupied habitat for these species. Therefore, focused surveys were not warranted. Based on the information provided in the Analysis, the project meets Section 6.1.2 MSHCP requirements. b. Section 6.1.3 NEPSSA Plants. The project site is not located within a NEPSSA plant survey area; therefore, NEPSSA plant focused surveys were not warranted, and the project meets Section 6.1.3 MSHCP requirements. c. Section 6.3.2. Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The following describes Additional Survey Needs and Procedures applicable to the proposed project: Burrowing Owl. A portion of the project site is located in the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl. In accordance with the County of Riverside's Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (County of Riverside 2006), a Step I Habitat Assessment was conducted on June 24, 2022. As presented in the Analysis, the project site contains heavily compacted soils from past anthropogenic disturbance that preclude an animal from establishing a burrow. As such, Step II Part A Focused Burrow Survey and Step II B Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys were not warranted. Based on the information provided by in the Analysis, the project meets Section 6.3.2 MSHCP requirements. 0 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/ 11 /24 Western Riverside County d. Section 6.1.4. Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. To preserve the integrity of biological resources in Murrieta Creek, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP should be considered by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. Therefore, the Permittee should include the following measures as project conditions of approval, as applicable: SECTION 6.1.4 MEASURE. i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm downstream biological resources or ecosystems. ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. iii. Night lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species from direct night lighting. Post -project ambient light levels within the MSHCP Conservation Area shall not exceed that of pre -project conditions as a result of light spill from the Project site. A responsible party, such as a Homeowners Association or other legally recognized entity, will be assigned prior to occupancy and will be responsible for maintaining the lighting in perpetuity. Any lighting issues will be addressed within 30 days of receiving input from the RCA. iv. Proposed noise -generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas, shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Avoid use of invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including avoidance areas. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas and designated avoidance areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. vi. Fencing shall be designed to prevent access to the MSHCP Conservation Area by unauthorized public access, domestic animals, and illegal trespass or dumping. This shall include, at a 7 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/ 11 /24 Western Riverside County minimum, barriers with a minimum height of 6 feet with no greater than 2-inch openings (i.e., tubular steel fencing with tines set on 2-inch centers) and shall include a metallic or masonry component (i.e. wire mesh cloth) buried to a minimum depth of 12 inches below ground surface level to prevent domestic animals from gaining access to the MSHCP Conservation Area by digging under. This fencing shall be installed at the interface with the MSHCP Conservation Area, as well as other portions of the Project where access to the MSHCP Conservation Area could be achieved. vii. Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. viii. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area, including designated avoidance areas. e. Appendix C. The following best management practices (BMPs), as applicable, shall be implemented for the duration of construction: APPENDIX C MEASURE. i. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. ii. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. iii. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. iv. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. V. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. vi. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/ 11 /24 Western Riverside County vii. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. viii. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG [CDFWI, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. ix. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. X. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. xi. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. xii. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. xiii. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). xiv. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. 0 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Findings Conservation JPR #: 23-09-26-01 Authority Date: 04/ 11 /24 Western Riverside County xv. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. BS/TC/AG 10 Q a W SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2023; County of Riverside 2023; Esri Basemap 2023. Map created on 10/2/2023. r14542 EXHIBITA Permittee: City of Temecula e 0 500 1,000 PA22-0929 Boutique Luxury Hotel Feet JPR Log No. 23-09-26-01 - Regional K 4 61 Proposed Linkages Constrained Linkage 0♦,* Linkage l%%.. Existing Channel Existing Cores & Linkages Constrained Linkage Core Linkage Noncontiguous Habitat Block Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks Core Ifs Proposed Extension of Existing Cores M Noncontiguous Habitat Block SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC-RCA). Map created on 4/11/2024 rl4542 Permittee: City of Temecula e 0 2 4 ."� PA22-0929 Boutique Luxury Hotel Miles A AJV4 jq♦8 `7 A 4 19 8 1; -12 12 ---------- t �B� JPR Log No. 23-09-26-01 ' 7 18 M 1W# F K :r1u 16 .6. IL L EXHIBIT B JPR Log No. 23-09-26-01 - Vicinity Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages SOURCE: WRC-RCA MSHCP Baseline Vegetation (1994). Map created on 101212023. Permit e ee: City of Temecula 0 50 100 PermittFeet PA22-0929 Boutique Luxury Hotel EXHIBIT C JPR Log No. 23-09-26-01 - MSHCP 1994 Baseline Vegetation SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2023; County of Riverside 2023; USDAINRCS Soils 2020 r14542 Permittee: City of Temecula e 0 100 200 .� r PA22-0929 Boutique Luxury Hotel Feet EXHIBIT D JPR Log No. 23-09-26-01 - Soil -R Temporary disturbance area Mw ` dF t � - 4 1 ,5 5 aJPR Proposed Project Boundary MSHCP Covered Road Development Impact 0 Criteria Cell ® Off -Site Permanent Parcel Boundary yya Off -Site Temporary Centerline 7264 0 On -Site Permanent SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2023; County of Riverside 2023; Esri Basemap 2023. Map created on 10/2/2023. i r14542 oaaNa„ Permittee: City of Temecula 0 100 200 PA22-0929 Boutique Luxury Hotel Feet Y _ Y4 IL City of a Temecula V_ !� # Ok 0 EXHIBIT E JPR Log No. 23-09-26-01 - Project Detail (IP June 21, 2023 Rancho rater Case Planner City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Board of Directors SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY John V. Rossi OLD TOWN FRONT STREET President PA 22-0929 Brian J. Brady LOT 2 IN BLOCK 32 Senior Vice President APN 922-100-048 Carol Lee Gonzales -Brady [OM RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE, LLC] J. D. Harkey John E. Hoagland Dear Case Planner: William E. Plummer Please be advised that the above -referenced project/property is located within Bill Wilson the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (Rancho Water/District). The subject project/property fronts an existing 20-inch diameter Officers water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) and an existing 20-inch recycled water Robert S. Grantham pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone) within Old Town Front Street. Please refer to the General Manager enclosed exhibit map. Jake Wiley, P.E. Assistant General Manager Engineering and Operations Water service to the subject project/property does not exist. Additions or Kathleen M. Naylor modifications to water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Chief Financial Officer Regulations (governing) Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the Kelli E. Garcia completion of financial arrangements between Rancho Water and the property District Secretary owner. James B. Gilpin Best Best& Krieger LLP Water service to individual lots will require the extension of water facilities within General Counsel dedicated public and/or private right-of-ways. Individual water meters will be required for each lot and/or project unit, including separate water services/meters for domestic service, fire service, and landscape irrigation service, as applicable. Beginning in 2018, newly constructed multi -unit residential structures are required to measure the quantity of water supplied to each individual residential dwelling unit. Where private on -site water facilities (for water service, fire service, irrigation, or other purpose) will cross or will be shared amongst multiple lots/project units (only by special variance of the Rules and Regulations), and/or where such 'common' facilities will be owned and maintained by a Property Owners' Association, Rancho Water requires execution and recordation of a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement or equivalent document of covenants, codes, and restrictions. 23\EP:mb037\F450\FEG Kanen0 Lailiornla 1Na[er Pistrlct 42135 Winchester Road - Temecula, California 92590-4800 - (951) 296-6900 - FAX (9S1) 296-6860 - www.ranchowater.com Case Planner/City of Temecula June 21, 2023 Page Two Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to Rancho Water. In addition, water availability is subject to water supply shortage contingency measures in effect (pursuant to Rancho Water's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances and policy), and/or the adoption of a required Water Supply Assessment for the development, as determined by the Lead Agency. In accordance with Resolution 2007-10-5 and subject to a Notice of Determination by Rancho Water, the project/property may be required to use recycled water for all landscape irrigation, which should be noted as a condition for any subsequent development plans. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on -site and/or off -site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between Rancho Water and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from Rancho Water. As soon as feasible, and prior to the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, the project proponent should contact Rancho Water for a determination of existing water system capability, based upon project -specific demands and/or fire flow requirements, as well as a determination of proposed water facilities configuration. If new facilities are required for service, fire protection, or other purposes, the project proponent should contact Rancho Water for an assessment of project -specific fees and requirements. Sewer service to the subject project/property, if available, would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. If no sewer service is currently available to the subject project/property, all proposed waste discharge systems must comply with the State Water Resources Control Board, health department, and/or other requirements as they relate to the protection of groundwater quality, pursuant to Rancho Water's Groundwater Protection Policy. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Technician at the District office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Erica Peter Senior Engineering Technician Enclosure: Exhibit Map cc: Jeff Kirshberg, Director of Planning Corry Smith, Engineering Services Supervisor Kim Moring, 4M Engineering & Development, LLC 23\EP:mb037\F450\FEG Rancho Californla Water District 42135 Winchester Road • Temecula, California 92590-4800 • (951) 296-6900 • FAX (951) 296-6860 • www.ranchowater.com i 1 u= n a 922-100-048 a ` N n o � Q� 1 n RG�y5�GP A y xo � 1 OLD TOWN BOUTIQUE HOTEL OLD TOWN FRONT STREET RIVERSIDE COUNTY. TEMECULA, CA. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 PA22 - 0929 PA22 - 0930 PA22 - 0931 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT INFORMATION TOTAL GROSS SITE AREA: I .98 AC 5/15/2023 42,519 SF UTILITY WATER - RCWD I PROVIDERS APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE/ARCHITECT COMPANY NAME: WALTER R. ALLEN ARCHITECT + ASSOCIATES I VICINITY MAP THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SELECT SERVICE HOTEL. THE FACILITY IS A 24/7 OPERATION. REQUIRED PARKING STALLS IS 50 STALLS. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS IS EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING. AS THIS IS A ADDRESS: 28465 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET #201 TEMECULA CA. 92590 HOTEL. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/CHEMICAL PROCESSING/ OR SIGNIFICANT EQUIPMENT IS PROPOSED. THERE WILL BE A KITCHEN/BAR/ AND POOL AREA AS AMENITIES FOR THE GUESTS AND FOR VISITORS. NET COVERAGE: 27 % 11,633 SF SEWER - EMWD PHONE: 951-693-0301 N FLOOR AREA RATIO 60,258 (GROSS BLD SF) / ELECTRIC - SO CAL EDISON 42,519 (LOT SF) = 1.41 FAR SHEET INDEX LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 60,258 SF 1ST: 2ND: 3RD: 4TH: LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 11 % OF TOTAL SITE 11,633 SF 17,535 SF 17,384 SF 13,705 SF 4,684 SF s� s o gtir � q� � o'�o o y po T100 TITLE SHEET A1.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A1.1 SITE DETAILS A1.2 ACCESSIBLE EGRESS PLAN A2.0 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN COMPANY NAME: ALHAMBRA GROUP ADDRESS: 41635 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, SUITE C, TEMECULA CA 92590 PHONE: (951) - 296 - 6802 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SELECT SERVICE HOTEL. THIS PROJECT WILL CONSISTS OF 50 LUXURY ROOMS, THERE WILL BE 4 TO 6 COMMERCIAL UNITS. THE FACILITY IS A 24/7 OPERATION. REQUIRED PARKING STALLS ARE 50 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. WITH 24/7 VALET PARKING. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS IS EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING. AS THIS IS A HOTEL, PARKING REQUIRED: A2.2 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN APN: 922-100-048 M.B. 15/726 LOT# 2 BLOCK 32 A NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/CHEMICAL PROCESSING/ OR SIGNIFICANT EQUIPMENT IS PROPOSED. THERE WILL BE A KITCHEN/BAR, GYM, AND POOL AREA AS AMENITIES FOR THE GUESTS AND FOR VISITORS. ALCOHOL 50 HOTEL ROOM @ VROOM 50 STALLS A2.3 A4.0 FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN TA UA 'PA WILL BE SERVED AT THE PROJECT SITE. TOTAL REQUIRED 50 STALLS A8.0 A8.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS BUILDING ELEVATIONS m �� SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT INFORMATION PARKING PROVIDED BICYCLE RACK PROVIDED: STANDARD ADA TOTAL 47 STALLS 3 STALLS 50 STALLS 1 A8.2 A9.0 A9.1 A9.2 C-1 E1.0 E1.1 DOWNTOWN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 3D VIEWS ISOMETRIC VIEW #1 ISOMETRIC VIEW #2 GRADING PLAN LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATION PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4-STORY LUXURY HOTEL PROJECT WITH GROUND LEVEL PARKING. CONSISTS OF GUESTROOMS, RESTAURANT, COMMERCIAL SPACES (GROUND LEVEL), BAR, GYM AND OUTDOOR POOL. 4TH LEVEL CONTAINS OPEN AIR POOL AREA AND RESTAURANT/BAR AREAS. PROJECT LOCATION BUILDING TYPE: 4 STORY, TYPE III B CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY: A2 / A3 / B / R1 SPRINKLER: YES BUILDING HEIGHT: 57' ZONING DESIGNATION: OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-5) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - SPI E1.2 SPECIFICATION SHEET EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT; PROPOSED LAND USE: 4 STORY HOTEL L-1 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN NORTH DOWNTOWN BOUTIQUE HOTEL PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 TEMECULA, CA Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT#2 BLOCK32 Title Sheet Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER T100 (EASTERN ADJACENT PARCEL) APN: 922-091-003 LOT 1 TM 21375 M.B. 165 125-26 EX. ZONING: SC CENTERLINE EX. LAND USE: DEVELOPED 17L — (L � OLD TOWN FRONT STREET EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON EXISTING FUTURE FACE OF CURB EXISTING UTILITY POLE (TO PROPOSED DECORATIVE SIDEWALK EXISTING EXISTING UTILITY POLE (TO PROPOSED FUTURE FACE OF CURB -1 00, ADJACENT PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE BE UNDERGROUNDED) PROPERTY LINE LIGHT (TYPICAL 7) PROPERTY LINE BE UNDERGROUNDED) PROPERTY LINE o i CURRENT PROPERTY LINE ----- -�— — —— — — — —_ 334'-11" z .0 / o I 26'-0" 18'-0" 00, / N 04 I 61 61 61 61 16 61 61 61 61 61 16 61 FUTURE FACE OF CURB / AWNING I CD/ CONCRETE PAD 1" N 15o 42i 01n W 334.91 I- 39," 6' TALL VERTICAL LATTICE WITH RECESSED STOREFRONT ENTREE RECESSED STOREFRONT ENTREE - PLANTING (ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN) JF - PROPERTY LINE ^; C11 11 I / N PHONE BOX I I PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ON I BOX _ _ WATER METER ADJACENT PROPERTY PASSAGE FROM ELEVATED I _� FRONT TO BACK STORE FRONT BACKFLOW AND POST LOBBY FIRE RISER ROOM _ INDICATOR VALVE NORTHERN ADJACENT COMMERCIAL 1 COMMERCIAL 2 COMMERCIAL 3 COMMERCIAL 4 DIRECT EXTERIOR ACCESS I W 5' - 6" ( DETECTOR CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY PARCEL) —5' - 7 1/2" �F.. FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL I , _ APN: 922-100-042 �, 0 6 3' - 61' _ n n r n r_ 6 PAR. 3 PM 7674 2 T 49 - 2 57 7 1 /2 24 � 11 57 6 67 - On' ( 3 _6 r n P.M.B. 86150-51 J - - i ,10 EX. ZONING: SCISP-5 Tr-w UP" -"" �.. _ � - . - . _ -- —APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF rr EX. LAND USE: VACANT - EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO -� -, I- _ BE VERIFIED, SEE CIVIL -cnu -- -- _ LAUNDRY CHUTE =--AII -4' I (SOUTHERN ADJACENT PARCEL) COLLECTION AREA ,°� _ _ _ _ _ l TRASH CHUTE _ i "=� „ BELOW STAIR LANDING i,,-='I APN: 922-100-038 26 9' x 18' I - - - - \ M.B. 151726 SERVICE ;, o� PARKING of STAIR WELL \ EXIST. ZONING: SC �� --- -� \ EXIST. LAND USE: VACANT ELEVATOR MACHINE TYP. r T- EDGE OF BUILDING ROOM u�� v rn \ ABOVE I --� ->-- --� 0'NDE YARD SE BACK-�--9'x18'PARKING SPACES TYP. v 7 COLUMN I 2 '-0"� 18'-0" A1.1 MAIL BOX & PARCEL PICK-UP 01 i LOADING AREA - - - - v - - - - - - - LOCATION (EXTERNAL ACCESS) I I /� COLUMN v SHEET - E1.2 (GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL) 11 _ _7 N LIGHTING IN PARKING CANOPY AREA IS TO REMAIN ACTIVE (ON 1 6 EDGE OF BUILDING 4" LIT) 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK FOR SECURITY AND 1 A1.1 I ABOVE BICYCLE RACK AREA SURVEILLANCE PURPOSES v LIGHTING IN PARKING CANOPY AREA IS TO REMAIN ACTIVE (ON 1 I SHEET - E1.2 (BELSON OUTDOORS) LIT) 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK FOR SECURITY AND COLUMN SURVEILLANCE PURPOSES U SIDE YARD SETBACK 11 ` , CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN I I _ o AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR PIL CLEAN LOBBY ` _ T o J a o AIR ; " " 11 VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN T _ _ COMMERCIAL 6 \ o POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL VAN ti 7 _ _ TE" N POOL N LAUNDRY EV EV EV EV EV EV EV-SE M ,. GIFT SHOP �"- �- _ EV-SE N ELEVATOR SHAFT _ — � W i 1 W Oo Lv --� j W W W W W W W V HOTEL UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL PANELS w , c� COMMERCIAL CAFE _ _ _ ti CO C 5/C - EO — — < " -- , EDGE OF BUILDING 20' (B.T.L.) _ - -<- -�� W 1 ti <- <- - - - - - I N, z ABOVE - `— - - - < ' -- - — _ -e W I W _ G W W _ _-- W > NpgCAPIN _ - W _ LA ' REFER T - --- - - - -> _ o EXISTING>- W W W W W W W 2 PROPERTY LINE -___ -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� - — 8' PATIO SEATING AREA WITH - - a - a 2 B ILD W W W W W W W W W W W VERTICAL LATTICE WITH PLANTING 0 U TO LINE VERTICAL LATTICE WITH PLANTING WROUGHT IRON RAILING PL SEE CIVIL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN (SOUTHWESTERN �, �, �, �, � � � ( ) ( ) CONNECTION TO TRAIL - - - - - - - - I I ADJACENT APN 922 PARCEL) W W N 150 42' 00V 150.04' 7021-14 R.S.114195-99 W �W ° 7' 4T\N 186�60 20' BUILD TO LINE APPROXIMATE I R.C.F.C.D. W.C.D. 2 N23 LOCATION OF EXISTING I I EX. ZONING: OPEN W W 8' PATIO SEATING AREA WITH STORM DRAIN TO BE 1 SPACE WROUGHT IRON RAILING VERIFIED, SEE CIVIL I I EX. LAND USE: VACANT 138'- 11" 48'-6" 64'-0" 83'-611 334' - 11 " SEE CIVIL FOR (WESTERN ADJACENT PARCEL) CONNECTION TO TRAIL APN: 922-100-051 7021-15 INORTH R.S. 114195-99 GRAPHIC R.C.F.C.D. W.C.D. EXIST. ZONING: OPEN SPACE 0 5 I 10 I 20 EXIST. LAND USE: VACANT Site Plan 1 if = 10'-0" SITE LEGEND M CEILING MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE WALL MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHT DECORATIVE SIDEWALK LIGHT W W W W W W W W LANDSCAPE AREA W W 18' Length t STANDARD PARKING STALL EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING UTILITY POLE (TO BE UNDERGROUNDED) EASEMENT NOTES: 9 Easement and rights incidental thereto for public utilities, public service uses, as set forth in a document recorded February 7, 1975, as Instrument No. 15887, of Official Records. NOT PLOTTABLE Easement and rights incidental thereto for temporary construction easement, as set forth in 11 a document recorded April 3, 2009, as Instrument No. 2009-0163110 and July 29, 2010 as Instrument No. 2010-0355371, both of Official Records. TO BE VACATED PUPA22-0930, PA22 0931 ( ) SUBMITTAL L #5 <�/> KEYNOTES 1 NEW DRIVE CUT, PER CITY STANDARDS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ENHANCED PAVING DESIGN IF APPLICABLE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. --� ----� ----� ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL 2 CONCRETE PAVING, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SECTION AND DRAINAGE. G.C. TO COORDINATE WITH SOILS REPORT. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR 18' Length CONCRETE DESIGN AT TRUCK APRONS IF APPLICABLE. L 4 PARKING SET BACK CLEAN VAN POOL/EV PARKING 5 TRUNCATED DOMES STALL 6 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA 11 ADA SITE ENTRY SIGN PER CODE TYP 12 ADA PARKING STALL SIGN PER CODE, TYP. PROVIDED AT ALL ADA STALLS 18' Length 14 PRECAST CONCRETE WHEEL STOP 15 ZERO CURB FACE r 16 CONCRETE WALK, 4" MIN THICKNESS, SCORE CONCRETE @ 5O.C., PROVIDE A ADA PARKING STALL LIGHT BROOM FINISH OR PER CITY STANDARD PAVING (STAMPED AND COLORED) 17 REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR RIGHT OF WAY DETAIL 28 LAUNDRY CHUTE LOCATION 31 CONCRETE TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS J KEYNOTES 32 FUTURE EV CHARGING STATION 39 TRANSFORMER 52 BIKE RACK - DERO ROUND RACK COLOR BLACK SURFACE MOUNT- SEE SPECIFICATION ON A1.1 61 TREE GRATES O.T. STANDARD TREE GRATE (30' SPACING) 62 INTERNAL LOT LINES PER CIVIL PLAN Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 ILOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: As indicated SHEET NUMBER A1.0 PROPERTY LINE TRASH ENCLOS SOUTHERN POF rash Enclocure Location K_y NORTH NOTE: MASONRY WALL WILL BE STUCCO FINISHED 4 Elevation 3 - a 17' - 10 1 /2" _ Site Plan - Trash Enclosure Callout 1 1/4" = 1'-0" MASONRY WALL Site Plan - Callout 2 ADA Space 3 1 /4" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES 5 TRUNCATED DOMES 10 ADA PATH OF TRAVEL 12 ADA PARKING STALL SIGN PER CODE, TYP. PROVIDE A ALL ADA STALLS 14 PRECAST CONCRETE WHEEL STOP 15 ZERO CURB FACE 25 ELEVATORS 52 BIKE RACK - DERO ROUND RACK COLOR BLACK SURFACE MOUNT- SEE SPECIFICATION ON A1.1 13' - 5 1 /2" Elevation 2 - a 1 /4" = 1'-0" Elevation 4 - a 1 /4" = 1'-0" I I I I I I I I v v I I I I FLOOR PLAN WALL LEGEND WOOD OR STEEL CONSTRUCTION FIRST FLOOR WOOD SHEAR WALL AT SECOND TO FOURTH FLOOR INTERIOR METAL STUD PARTITION TYP. ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM EXTERIOR WINDOW (SEE ELEVATIONS) ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN PER CBC AND FIRE DEPT. EE "E" DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION. SIGN SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN. IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 13' - 5 1 /2" 4 Elevation 3 - a 1 /4" = 1'-0" BICYCLE RACK SPECIFICATION BELL ' of ' uWo r u Prato a 1- - - 64 0 U T D 0. 5 M-F 8:00iam - 4;30prn CT 1. FINISH FLOOR SLAB IS FLAT. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. PROVIDE STEGO WRAP 15 ML BARRIER BELOW SLAB PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS AND PER SOILS REPORT IN LOCATIONS FOR PROPOSED OFFICE AREAS. SEE FLOOR PLAN LEGEND FOR HATCHED AREAS. 3. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATION. 4. POUR STRIP TO BE SLOPED TO EXTERIOR DOORS 1/2" 5. PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CBC/CFC 6. PROVIDE ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS AT ALL EXTERIOR EXIT DOORS, DOORS EXITING FROM TENANT SPACES, DOORS INTO EXIT ENCLOSURES, AND ANY ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS NOTED ON PLANS. SEE "E" DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. SIGN TO BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. 7. ALL FIRE RATED PARTITIONS TO EXTEND TO DECK ABOVE, AND PENETRATIONS TO BE SEALED. 8. DO NOT USE CURING COMPOUND OR RELEASE AGENTS TO CURE SLAB. 9. CRANES, CONCRETE TRUCKS, AND SIMILAR HEAVY EQUIPMENT PROHIBITED ON SLAB. 10. FLY -ASH PROHIBITED IN CONCRETE SLAB MIX. 11. STOREFRONT FRAMING TO BE RECESSED IN SLAB 1/2". SEE DETAIL SHEETS. r11 2-WS' 0.D TuNng Simple, Attractive & Effective Bike Parsing The Heavy -Duty Challenger wave bike racks are similar to the Challenger Plus bike racks, except for the narrower spacing between loops. The compact design allows the effective use of high security U-locks to secure the frame of the bike to these wage bike racks. The robust frame of the Heavy -Duty Challenger is ConstFLIcted of 2-3/8" O.D. tubing which makes it well suited for even the most brutish weather. The racks are offered in a galvanized: powder -coated. and stainless steel finish. Matching Products Heavy -Duty Winder Wave Bike Fuck Rflfl Challenger Plus Outdoor Bike Rack, The Heavy -Duty Challenger wave bile racks Come in various lengths up to 21-bike capacity to maximize your bike storage and are available in in - ground and surface mount- Drop In Anchors available for concrete installation. PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 12. FLOOR SLAB TO BE CLASS V PER ACI 302-IR-89 13. SEE "S" DWGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 14. FLOOR COMPACTION TO BE 95% MIN. 15. TRENCH COMPACTION TO BE 90% MIN. 16. SLAB FINISH TO BE STEEL FLOAT HARD TROWEL BURNISHED FINISH. 17. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE PANEL, FINISH FACE OF DRYWALL, FINISH OPENING, TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 18. PROVIDE EXIT SIGNS INCLUDING TACTILE SIGN - DETAILS 'N' &'P'/A0.2. REQUIRED BY SECTION 1011 OF 2013 CBC. SIGN TO BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. 19. ALL MAN DOORS, OVERHEAD DOORS, AND ROLL -UP DOORS TO BE DESIGNED FOR WIND LOAD AND EXPOSURE DETERMINED BY BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. 20. ALL STOREFRONT SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGNED FOR WIND LOAD AND EXPOSURE DETERMINED BY BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. STORE FRONT SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGN BUILD 21. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL POINT OF CONNECTIONS FOR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS. 22. PROVIDE STEEL BOLLARDS FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED PER FINISH SCHEDULE AT FIRE RISERS, PIVS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED. SEE 10/AD.1. Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 SITE DETAILS Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: As indicated SHEET NUMBER Al. 1 so 16' - 11" 16' - 11" EXIT ONLY --- OLD TOWN FRONT STREET -- - - - - - - - --- 334' - 11 " 274' - 0" 32'-0" 70'-0" 31'-4" 7'-4" 31'-4" 70'-0" 32'-0" J-4 Of Al" FUTURE FACE OF CURB o 26'-0" 26'-0" do DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY / F PL o / ao n I 'PASSAGE FROM �� • X, FRONT TO BACK I KNOX I LOBBY I BOX o I FIRE RISER ROOM COMMERCIAL 1 COMMERCIAL 2 COMMERCIAL 3 DIRECT EXTERIOR ACCESS I COMMERCIAL 4 N / BACKFLOW AND POST INDICATOR VALVE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE - u I ASSEMBLY N1#41 ilk ATING AREA CONTROL PANEL 0 - 6" 6 3' - 61' II CENTER FIRE ALARM ' 2 -� „ 24'�; : EA 5"�' 6': 66`- 81�" I 3' - 6" ---> > - - - UP= I �97==gym -- - --gym -- " O O,, , . -- -- -- - -- - -- - - - -- -- -- - - - ---- -- - - -- - -, - - =- - -= - - - -<__i>t____' - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ACCESSIBLE PATH < E < C, - . <, < < t , < - <• --------'-------< <<<- - <- t C- <<<- rC C — . < < ' < - C- <. < - C- C- C- - <- - <- S- <-C - - <- - <- < <- <- .> > > > > > � > > . > >. > >> _ � > > s > > . > -> ---->� -- a �---a - >_- >� - --> .-->.-�-> �- - >.- �> - - S = -> ----- - - > - -> - --� > --->. - --> ----a =--> - > --: > ----a - --> --> �---> --=-a -> _ --> . ---� ---> =-> � -> �---a ---�� ---> .-- >� = >-----a . - --=> = ==a - "> r--> ---- � � OF TRAVEL TO STAIR WELL -- 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE II LAUNDRY CHUTE uqi- TRASH II -� o I _ A \ COLLECTION AREA - - --- CHUTE I � = \ (UNDER STAIR) / Sri '�26 ao SERVICE ; I u STAIR WELL ELEVATOR MACHINE T ROOM rn \ 9'-On 44'-On 0' IDE YARD SE BACK i ACCESSIBLE EGRESS PATH / I I TRASH CHUTE 1 _ Of 1 _ 1r II -- ' - " 2 0 18 0 0 0 PATH TO TRASH ENCLOSURE MAIL BOX & PARCEL PICK-UP EDGE OF BUILDING �� ' - 0' o LOCATION (EXTERNAL ACCESS) I " �_. TjBOVE SHEET - E1.2 (GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL) 11 1 LAUNDRY CHUTE %' REINFORCED 1 - "��I EDGE OF BUILDING _ CONCRETE PAD Ln I ABOVE i A oo„ 9'-0" 1'- " 48'-6" 01-611 PL CO ppm I LOBBY / RECEPTION GIFT SHOP CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN �k AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR AIR , _ — — " _ COMMERCIAL 6 TE)- - \ \ o VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN i 7 POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL POOL— N LAUNDRY EV EV EV EV EV EV EV - SE EV - SE v Y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W\ v \ _ 0 ELEVATOR _, _ �, �, �, �, �, �, \ w w 14 JF HOTEL UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL PANELS , IL��� �� >Y — — ,t 5' PATIO AREA �I fj ;,, ,_. t W W �v w 1• W v W v v , COMMERCIAL 5 /CAFE _ .'_ � � � � � _— y . -> - —> �W W 4 2 p� A4.0 5' pAT10 AREA W �• < <= -<- �- <_ o o - - - - - - - -� - - - - pL APPROXIMATE PL {<--< E- < LOCATION OF <- - <- - EXISTING STORM <- W W W W W W W W W W W W- - ----- - - W DRAIN TO BE f 20' (B.T.L.) CIVIL VERIFIED, SEE 138'-11" 48'-6" 64'-0" 57'-6" 26'-0" — — ACTIVE AREA ACTIVE AREA NON -ACTIVE AREA ACTIVE AREA _ 334' - 11 " I I I I NORTH BENCHMARK: SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: NON -ACTIVE FRONTAGE REQ. 30% MAX (REAR OF PROJECT) PARKING COUNT: SCALE: SITE ADDRESS: I n Ground Floor Egress Plan GRAPHIC SCALE RIVERSIDE COUNTY 600-6-81 RESET RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 1. 64'NON-ACTIVE AREA WILL BE ARCHITECTURALLY 47 9X18 SPACES 1" = 10' APN: 922 -100 -048 1" - 10'-0" ELEVATION 996 .609 NAVD-88 (BENCHMARK BY M.W.D. SURVEY SCREENED WITH PLANTING 3 ADA SPACES I - ° s ° zo BLUEBOOKED WITH NGS NETWORK 2.26' NON -ACTIVE AREA SOUTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY 50 TOTAL STALLS 3. TOTAL LENGTH OF THE LOT IS 335' CALC: 90' / 334'-11" = 26.8% FRONTAGE REQ. 70% -100% (FRONT OF PROJECT) 1.274' OF PROPOSED BUILDING RESIDES ON BUILD TO LINE WITH RECESSED ENTRYS TO COMMERCIAL SPACES. 2. TOTAL FRONTAGE LOT WIDTH 334'-11" CALC: 274" / 334'-11" = 81.8% BICYCLE RACK AREA SHEET - E1.2 (BELSON OUTDOORS) SITE LEGEND ffl CEILING MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE WALL MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHT • DECORATIVE SIDEWALK LIGHT • W W W W W W W LANDSCAPE AREA 18' Length STANDARD PARKING STALL EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING UTILITY POLE (TO BE UNDERGROUNDED) ----� ----� ----� ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL 18'Length CLEAN VAN POOL/EV PARKING STALL 18'Length ADA PARKING STALL PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 EASEMENT NOTES: 9' Easement and rights incidental thereto for public utilities, public service uses, as set forth in a document recorded February 7, 1975, as Instrument No. 15887, of Official Records. NOT PLOTTABLE PROPERTY LINE Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 ACCESSIBLE EGRESS PLAN Date: 5/17/2023 11 Easement and rights incidental thereto for temporary construction easement, as set forth in a document recorded April 3, 2009, as Instrument No. 2009-0163110 and July 29, 2010 as Instrument No. 2010-0355371, both of Official Records. (TO BE VACATED) Scale: As indicated SHEET NUMBER A1.2 LA Level 1 1 " = 1 0'-0" A8.0 2 1 A8.1 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5 10 20 PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 _ SUBMITTAL #5_- KEYNOTES FLOOR PLAN WALL LEGEND FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES ANII Consultant: 1. FINISH FLOOR SLAB IS FLAT. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS AND ADDITIONAL 12. FLOOR SLAB TO BE CLASS V PER ACI 302-IR-89 Walter R. Allen 21 INTERIOR METAL STUD FRAMING WILL TYP. WOOD OR STEEL CONSTRUCTION FIRST FLOOR INFORMATION. 13. SEE "S" DWGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 23 CONCRETE SHEAR WALL 0 WOOD SHEAR WALL AT SECOND FOURTH 2. PROVIDE STEGO WRAP 15 ML BARRIER BELOW SLAB PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS AND 14. FLOOR COMPACTION TO BE 95% MIN. Architect + Associates 25 ELEVATORS FLOOR INTERIOR METAL STUD PARTITION TYP. PER SOILS REPORT IN LOCATIONS FOR PROPOSED OFFICE AREAS. SEEL FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 15. TRENCH COMPACTION TO BE 90% MIN. License Number: 26 INTERIOR STAIRS FOR HATCHED AREAS. 16. SLAB FINISH TO BE STEEL FLOAT HARD TROWEL BURNISHED FINISH. C24288 27 INTERIOR DOOR, TYP. 3. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATION. 17. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE PANEL, FINISH FACE OF DRYWALL, FINISH OPENING, APN:922-100-048 43 ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM, SEE EXTERIOR 4. POUR STRIP TO BE SLOPED TO EXTERIOR DOORS 1/2" TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. COLOR SCHEDULE. 5. PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CBC/CFC 18. PROVIDE EXIT SIGNS INCLUDING TACTILE SIGN - DETAILS'N' &'P'/A0.2. REQUIRED BY SECTION BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 44 CONCRETE TILT UP PANEL SEE EXTERIOR ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM 6. PROVIDE ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS AT ALL EXTERIOR EXIT DOORS, DOORS EXITING FROM 1011 OF 2013 CBC. SIGN TO BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN IN CASE COLOR SCHEDULE TENANT SPACES, DOORS INTO EXIT ENCLOSURES, AND ANY ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS NOTED ON OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. 53 PROPOSED INTERNAL DOWNSPOUT LOCATION PLANS. SEE "E" DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. SIGN TO BE CONTINUOUSLY 19. ALL MAN DOORS, OVERHEAD DOORS, AND ROLL -UP DOORS TO BE DESIGNED FOR WIND LOAD FLOOR PLAN 39 42" GUARD RAIL ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. AND EXPOSURE DETERMINED BY BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. LEVEL 1 58 WOOD ACCENTED BALCONY EXTERIOR WINDOW (SEE ELEVATIONS) 7. ALL FIRE RATED PARTITIONS TO EXTEND TO DECK ABOVE, AND PENETRATIONS TO BE SEALED. 20. ALL STOREFRONT SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGNED FOR WIND LOAD AND EXPOSURE DETERMINED BY 8. DO NOT USE CURING COMPOUND OR RELEASE AGENTS TO CURE SLAB. BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. STORE FRONT SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGN BUILD 9. CRANES, CONCRETE TRUCKS, AND SIMILAR HEAVY EQUIPMENT PROHIBITED ON SLAB. 21. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL POINT OF CONNECTIONS FOR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR TO Date:5/17/2023 10. FLY -ASH PROHIBITED IN CONCRETE SLAB MIX. VERIFY LOCATIONS. ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN PER CBC 11. STOREFRONT FRAMING TO BE RECESSED IN SLAB 1/2". SEE DETAIL SHEETS. 22. PROVIDE STEEL BOLLARDS FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED PER FINISH SCHEDULE AT Scale: As indicated AND FIRE DEPT. EE "E" DRAWINGS FOR FIRE RISERS, PIVS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED. SEE 10/AD.1. SHEET NUMBER LOCATION. SIGN SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN. IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. A2.0 A8.1 3 0 ti NOTE: AVERAGE ROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 800 SF Level 2 1 if = 10'-0" A8.0 2 290' - 11 " KEYNOTES 1 A8.1 FLOOR PLAN WALL LEGEND FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. FINISH FLOOR SLAB IS FLAT. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATIONS AND ADDITIONAL 21 INTERIOR METAL STUD FRAMING WILL TYP. WOOD OR STEEL CONSTRUCTION FIRST FLOOR INFORMATION. 23 CONCRETE SHEAR WALL 0 WOOD SHEAR WALL AT SECOND TO FOURTH 2. PROVIDE STEGO WRAP 15 ML BARRIER BELOW SLAB PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS AND 25 ELEVATORS FLOOR INTERIOR METAL STUD PARTITION TYP. PER SOILS REPORT IN LOCATIONS FOR PROPOSED OFFICE AREAS. SEEL FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 26 INTERIOR STAIRS FOR HATCHED AREAS. 27 INTERIOR DOOR, TYP. 3. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATION. 43 ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM, SEE EXTERIOR 4. POUR STRIP TO BE SLOPED TO EXTERIOR DOORS 1/2" COLOR SCHEDULE. 5. PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUIMEN SHERS AS REQUIRED BY FIRE DEPARTT AND CBC/CFC 44 CONCRETE TILT UP PANEL SEE EXTERIOR ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW SYSTEM 6. PROVIDE ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGNS AT ALL EXTERIOR EXIT DOORS, DOORS EXITING FROM COLOR SCHEDULE TENANT SPACES, DOORS INTO EXIT ENCLOSURES, AND ANY ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS NOTED ON 53 PROPOSED INTERNAL DOWNSPOUT LOCATION PLANS. SEE "E" DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. SIGN TO BE CONTINUOUSLY 39 42" GUARD RAIL ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. 58 WOOD ACCENTED BALCONY EXTERIOR WINDOW (SEE ELEVATIONS) 7. ALL FIRE RATED PARTITIONS TO EXTEND TO DECK ABOVE, AND PENETRATIONS TO BE SEALED. 8. DO NOT USE CURING COMPOUND OR RELEASE AGENTS TO CURE SLAB. 9. CRANES, CONCRETE TRUCKS, AND SIMILAR HEAVY EQUIPMENT PROHIBITED ON SLAB. 10. FLY -ASH PROHIBITED IN CONCRETE SLAB MIX. ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGN PER CBC 11. STOREFRONT FRAMING TO BE RECESSED IN SLAB 1/2". SEE DETAIL SHEETS. AND FIRE DEPT. EE "E" DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION. SIGN SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN. IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. 2 A8.1 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5 10 20 PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 12. FLOOR SLAB TO BE CLASS V PER ACI 302-IR-89 13. SEE "S" DWGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 14. FLOOR COMPACTION TO BE 95% MIN. 15. TRENCH COMPACTION TO BE 90% MIN. 16. SLAB FINISH TO BE STEEL FLOAT HARD TROWEL BURNISHED FINISH. 17. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE PANEL, FINISH FACE OF DRYWALL, FINISH OPENING, TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 18. PROVIDE EXIT SIGNS INCLUDING TACTILE SIGN DETAILS'N' &'P'/A0.2. REQUIRED BY SECTION 1011 OF 2013 CBC. SIGN TO BE CONTINUOUSLY ILLUMINATED FOR DURATION OF 90 MIN IN CASE OF PRIMARY POWER LOSS. 19. ALL MAN DOORS, OVERHEAD DOORS, AND ROLL -UP DOORS TO BE DESIGNED FOR WIND LOAD AND EXPOSURE DETERMINED BY BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. 20. ALL STOREFRONT SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGNED FOR WIND LOAD AND EXPOSURE DETERMINED BY BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. STORE FRONT SYSTEMS TO BE DESIGN BUILD 21. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL POINT OF CONNECTIONS FOR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS. 22. PROVIDE STEEL BOLLARDS FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED PER FINISH SCHEDULE AT FIRE RISERS, PIVS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED. SEE 10/AD.1. Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: As indicated SHEET NUMBER A2.1 NOTE: AVERAGE ROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 800 SF Gi Grand Suite TBD 765 SF 36 LAUNDRY CHUTE 48' - 11 " Roomy 48' - 6 1 /2" 561 SF ; JAIF -FT11 SERVICE Restroom-, STOR. ELEVATOR 55 SF) 88 SF TRASH CHUTE OPEN TO BELOW 22' - 3" 22' - 0" 290' - 11 " 22' - 0" 22' - 0" 32' - 4 1/2"34' 7 !2".4'- 7 1/2"" .- 32' - 1 1/2" Room ILT 0 Room 0 ❑ 979 SF �� Room _-_, Room 876 SF ZQ c� . T I 963 SF 963 SF _ ❑C) M co Room ❑i ❑❑ 807 SF 0 0 L-L e 1 r LOCKED CABINETS - Room Room Room 829 SF 704 SF� 712 SF EE '3 2 A4.0 El . " .31' Room 811 SF U RASH CHUTE JNDRY CHUTE —32' - 2 1 /2" 26' - 4 1 /2" 27' - 11 1 /2" 34' - 6" 29' - 1 " 17' - 6" 30' - 10" 33' - 4" 26' - 3 1 /2" 32' - 10" 290' - 11" Level 3 1 It = 10,41 0 N rn NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5 10 20 PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 LOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: As indicated SHEET NUMBER A2.2 NOTE: AVERAGE ROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 800 SF Level 4 1" = 10'-011 34' - 1 1 /2" 11'-911 oe 22'-41/2" 4'-11" _ 6'-10" n C 1 WALKWAYS 32' - 0" 12' - 4 1 /2" oe 10 1 /2" 7' - 6" _ 19' - 7 1 /2" 0 E] N 00 Lf) Lop WALKWAY STAIRWELL -- GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH 0 5 10 20 CV PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 1 N I rl ^^M 111 A \1 1A1A 1 1 1 c^ kl r% rl ^^M 111 A \1 A 1 GRAPHIC SCALE n Typical Single King Suite Layout o 4 3 6 U 1 /8" = 1'-0" Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 LOCK NUMBER: M.B. 15/726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 4 Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: As indicated SHEET NUMBER A2.3 Typical Double King Suite Layout 1 /811 = 1'-011 \,- Typical Double Queen Suite Layout 1 /811 = 1'-011 Roof Plan 1 if = 10'-0" 2 Section 1 /8" = 1 ULU I UVVN t-KUN 15 I Ktt I ..... ................... ........ ........................ ........ ........................ ROOF PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY POSITIVE ROOF DRAINAGE. ROOFING CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRIOR TO INSTALLING RIGID INSULATION OR ROOFING. SEE "S" DRAWINGS FOR CRICKETS, ETC. ARCHITECTURAL 2. BUILT UP ROOFING TO BE CLASS 1 UL LISTED ROOFING ASSEMBLY DESIGNED TO RESIST 90MPH OR AS REQUIRED. DESIGN ELEMENT D (PHO BRACKET 3. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ROOF ELEVATIONS, TYP. 4. REFER TO DETAIL 1/AD.1 FOR TYPICAL ROOF SECTION. 3� 5. PROVIDE CRICKETS ON (HIGH SIDE) OF ALL MECHANICAL UNITS AND ROOF EQUIPMENT AT SKYLIGHTS & SMOKE HATCHES. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AROUND UNITS AT 1/21, PER SLOPE MINIMUM. a 6. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS. SEE ROOF DETAIL SHEET FOR - PENETRATIONS. 7. ALL SKYLIGHTS AND SMOKESTACKS TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET WINDLOAD AS DETERMINED BY PA22-0929, PA22-0930, _. THE BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. PA22-0931 1 8. ALL MECHANICAL CONDENSATE DRAINS TO BE BELOW ROOF. SUBMITTAL #5 21- 6„ _ 9. G.C. TO CONFIRM REQUIREMENT FOR ROOF WALK PADS WITH OWNER. O 4- _ O„ 10. ROOFING CAP SHEET TO HAVE MINIMUM AGED SOLAR REFLECTANCE EQUAL TO OR GREATER 04 THAN 0.63, AND AN SRI EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 72 PER 2014 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GREEN -- 7- BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CLEAR 11. ROOF ELEVATIONS TO BE VERIFIED WITHTABLE A5.106.11.2.2 STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WALKWAY I 12. FOR ALL PIPE AND DUCT PENETRATIONS THRU ROOF, SEE DETAILS ON AD SHEETS 4' - 6r' consultant: 13. ALL CONDENSATE LINES FROM HVAC UNITS MUST BE INSTALLED BELOW ROOF 14. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WEIGHTS ARE OPERATING WEIGHTS. Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates 17 15. PROVIDE A FULL TIME OSB MOISTURE INSPECTION AND GAP DISTANCE, BY A QUALIFIED License Number: ROOFING INSPECTION FIRM APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND THE OSB MANUFACTURER. C24288 W 1 Z INSPECTION FIRM TO BE ON SITE PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY BUILT UP ROOFING WORK. J APN: 922-100-048 (IfLU I 16. ALL WOOD CURBS TO BE P.T. D.F. BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 Z W O W W ' � 17. ROOF EXHAUST FANS SHALL BE CENTERED DIRECTLY ABOVE A SPRINKLER HEAD. VERIFY � Q Of p WITH FIRE PROTECTION PLANS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. a- < I =) � ROOF PLAN W J U 18. ALL SUB-PURLIN HANGERS HALL BE "Z-MAX" TRIPLE ZINC COATED AS MANUF. BY SIMPSON OR z z 0 co , APPROVED EQUAL. $, - Or, %r - Qrr 19. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SERVING MORE THAN 100 SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE Date: 5117/2023 f SUPERVISED BY AN APPROVED CENTRAL PROPRIETARY, OR REMOTE STATION SERVICE, OR A Scale: As indicated LOCAL ALARM WHICH WILL GIVE AN AUDIBLE SIGNAL AT CONSTANTLY ATTENDED LOCATION. SHEET NUMBER n Section 1 - Callout 1 1 /4" = 1'-0" A4.0 13' - 5 1 /2" Front Elevati 1 /8" = 1'-0" le17'-711 27'-611 15'-6" ✓ 22'-0" ✓ ✓ ✓ A*✓ 20'-10" 20'-81/2" 27'-51/2" 22'-211 20'-10" 22'-0" A*15'-9" ✓ 12'-7" A*36'-1" A*12'-611 ✓ ✓ ✓ PILVIVIIIYVIVI VI.-MaJ VVVVLJ VVIIYL/VVV J I J I LIVI MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING 3'-011 13'-011 4'-011 TYP. Front Elevation - Callout 1 1 /2" = 1'-011 PILVIVIIIYVIVI VLr%LJ VVVVLJ VVIIILJVVV J I J I LIVI MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING Me Level 2 -- 12'0" _ Level 1 � 0'-0" V P1L\Jlllll111.01111 VL.MLJ VVVVLJ 11VIIVLJVIIV J I J I LIVI MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING Enlarged Frontal Entrance Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0" ALvlrlll9vlrl VLP9LJ VVvvv VVIIVLJVVV J I J I LIVI MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING r7'-0" MLUIVntvuM %.Lrw VVvvv VVnvuvvV 0 r %D I EIVI MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING -� MLVIVIIIYVIVI VL.P%lJ VVVVLJ VVIIILJVVV Q I Q I LIVI PILVIVIIIYVIVI VL.P%LJ VVVVLJ VVIIILJVVV J I J I LIVI MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING Level 4 34' - 0" Level 3� 23'-0" Level 2 12'-Oil Level 1� 0'-0" LEGEND r fz11 GLAZING EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEDULE OA SMOOTH STUCCO PAINT COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SHELL WHITE OSMOOTH STUCCO PAINTED COLOR: SHERWIN WILLAMS - PEDIMENT CO BRICK VENEER MANUF:CORONADO STONE COLOR: ADOBE BRICK, SALTILLO DO PAINTED FAUX BEAM MANUF:TBD COLOR:ESPRESSO OU SHAPE CLAY ROOF TILE MANUF: BORAL AMERICA STYLE: SPANISH CLAYTILE COLOR: JAVA BLEND FO ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW SYSTEM MEDIUM PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLAZING �G DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE MANUF: KICHLER LIGHTING STYLE: ROCHDALE COLLECTION COLOR: OLDE BRONZE PRECAST MOULDING COLOR:ESPRESSO OBLACK WROUGHT IRON DECORATIVE RAILING / SCREEN OBRONZE / METAL AWNING OQUOIN PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: L' R INlIEl��! 11 111 li 111 ii IIIII ilflill ��IIIIIIIIIIlII� II�IIII�� �������� E[==LL 1111 - 11 111 ■ 1111 ■ ._ . iiiiilii� iii�iiE ]- .- ■ �IIIIIIIIIIIlII� IIIIIII�� �I��III ■ ■ Il'llll'� ilopipm 111 11II111111 i1■■ 1111 1111 11I11111 1 111 m, iiiI�i!i Ili 11111 ii111 lillll�llllllilllllllllll IIIIIIII ■ IIIIIIIiililll IiiiIiill III I� Sol ■ ■■■■■■■■ u ■■■■■■■■ raiiiiiji iiii��iiii iliiig� ii�:i:i:il rGGGGGf ii�iiSl�������il■��IIiI16444Ri4ir ■ ■ ■ F low. �I�+j+j I � i� �9 `iii! ■■ i�lll �Il I li�.. I.I .. -----i i .. it ■■ .� �Illl � ilil� i�r.li .,_111111... ':�:_.".' ..'..■ i� � It II _ _ ■ I� I lIIlIIIIII I. II.II I.I. I� I I I.IIIl I IIII � �li�ll � ll ilk lIi ■ iI'Ii.:ii�fir■ i■ i■ .., ...-----.-•.. ll Vi ■ ll�i I I E�.. �i Il iil I ■ :s Iii flail �� illll :fill �IiIIIM_�_�#11I� ,,„ ..____.___.■ I■ II r - I I i. l I■ .I ! IIIII ,I ![III. I I r � 1 1 II11� # rr rr 1 ! IIIIL.i 1[IIIG� 11 i I I ■ I I II IIIIIII ' .iilll � " ire ii - I i!il II^ jl 1 IIlII .111km lid 111111 ■_ 11 11 i !!!s 0111HUH11 111 mno 11111111 m lIIllP111i IIII! SIR11m IIIIIII��I�I�I��jt������1 IIII�II�II ■ iii iii 1111 ■ 1111 111 111 li 11 1111 ____ II I IY IiH11!::iiii' 1111111111lII I II Illlfll ■■'I" !! !! ■■R■■■II ■#■� ■■■■ Illiil � `illiill _.i._.__._ IIIIIIIIIiI ■ II ■■..a ■II■■■a■■■II!001 co caMEN iiq�iiiiiii `iiiiiii • o on jruq■■■jj]�11II Yi11I I III IIIIIII Illlfll IIII ■ ii ii...i.iii.;,�. iiiiiiiiiiiir::r�ir ■■■■■� i i............., . .... ■. ■ iiit:ii iiiiiii .............. ................. .......... ■ 11 1 1 i � �/ �► ■■ �1lII! ■ lIIIIIII llllllll l�lf IIIli�l��lll.��l�llll - ■ IIImine,ww E ME lliiil 1111111111119 11il�lIll � A,1 ■■ jI ■ Ifllllfl aiflil4 IIIIIII RIIIIII - �� IIj4yIy / I I.I..II ICEL SSIICS.LCCS .I�IIII�IME ■ ■ 1111 1111 ■ �i f�l��' 1111 oil IIIII II 11 — � — ■■ i II 11 ,;! -. - - - - -, ,EA . �- : - - - - ---• - - L L 1111 1111 ■ � � ■ Ri 11 ■ ■ ■®■ ■■�■ II 11 II II � �� ■ ■■ II 11 �,;; ;;;.;; 3:-.-.-� -�: C ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ iillilsf�ilIIllii� ■ ■ �� ■ ■ ■■ ■m■ 1111 li 11 ■ ■ i ■■ 1111 ■ III IIIII II 11 w ®■ 11 li i; ;il�lll� �r i; ■■■ ■■■ ■ - � ��lifl ��I�Ii - ■■■ ®■■ .. r. r, .......................i.: ��i.r. r..r ,,. �,.. �... .''siii.. s,,.r iiiii� I ii;i�e�������i�iiii��•i �>'' Yiiiiiii.'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;ii�iiiiiiiii.i .. A . L' •siiiii�iiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiii;iii ii iiii ��i.i ..;Lien i...iiiiiiiii.....;iiiiiii riii P�ii iirr i r I .................... iiiiiiii �iii.iiiiiii.iiiii.i ii iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii. ■ ■ ■•.�'..;..'.......ir.......�..;....� •iiii —- iiiiiii,�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii i�iiiiiiiiiiiiii '.iiii '.:.iiiiiiiii '.ii.iii�.ii ...................iiiiiii... i....................i iiii.: �i'iiiiii fir.:iiiiiiiii .::iiir ■ ■ ■ .iiiiii...iiiiiii.i�ii..iiiiiii...;iiii..i -- - 1111IIli�IlYl J1IIUIIIII�iII1III! ! IIIII ii����ii'llili I�II�III 111 111 1a1 11 LFF11 ■■■ ■■ Wilmm -- Ilu[Guudi,lf,iiiiiiui,l ir11iiiiiii! Blfi�iGlIlill .IF a1111 M' 11 1 11 IN , sul M IIII •, ,,,. rrn„rn��r„rr.������r�rr,,,rr�� n. . s, s......si..� �r.rr..i,i�i..iii�i'iiiiiiiiii�i•i :iiii iii;-; ��'ii �i. iiii..s'iriiiii.iiiiriiiiiiiiiis's .iii ii. •iiir. ••i ill.ii....... p. .......,l l..i...3.. iiii....... 3 ..ii.li.�•Il lilTl...l..11ll..i1....." 1 .....i.1111 iI[IIIli1;ll......i.11ll �illil. .............................................................. 1 ■■ r 1111.............. ........... r...3 ..... ...................ii lr.. Illlr..,1111111 rr1111l1111111 ..11111111.r11111111 r. rrrrr„i �� .IIIII ................ iiiiiiiiii,iiiiiiiiiii,.iiiiiiiiii,ii .iiiii.i i,i iiiiiii'iii.firiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.iiiiiiiii;iii iYiii.... e:i R■■• iiiiiiiiiii�fiii.iii.iiii:iiiiiii ii ii �iiii�'i.iiiir :iiii �iiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, �,�iiii.iiisiiiiii.ii.'ii i, i.. iiiiiiiiiiiii;,�iiiiiiii,,'iiiiii, ..i.iii,�.......iiii.............iii :....iii■■■.0 I'..i.,�i.iii.iii ii.ii.,..4.... it 'i iii:.i�i.iiiiiii.::iiiiiii.ii,�iiiiii.i..:iiii.i..r'i,;1 �.. Y.i fi ..i...iiiiii.�:i-, �'.iiiii. .-,-ii,-:iiiiiii iiii �i�iiiii.i..:iiiii.iIi.i 14,.i •i:iiii i iiii.i..i i�•iiiii.s iiiiii'ii,iiiiii.i.i.r•ii.i.ii�..i, i.•.•iii......iiii..i :.:iiii.: 'i�iiii ••�•iiiiiii.iii�.iiiiiiiiiii�iiii�'i;i iiiriiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiii.i •iiiiiii�iiiiiiiiii,iiiiiiiiii�'i�iii �. i,t......i....i..........i......ii�ii.i.....i.iiiiiiiii,i�i.i Y:iiii 'I.If111.IIII.i1...111111....i �'1'; ....i 1'.Ili..f.,It.11ll Illl.i..11l...f.,'.I .Ili.illliillllii.i I1111[.-I.illl iiii.iii.ii..i..ii�ii.i its iiii i.i i,�i.iii.iiii.iiiiiiiiiiii�iiii..iiii,iiii.ii..iii�i�.'.�riii 11 11 ME MIN Ilion■■■A ' M E in11 11 ■. ■ ■ I ■■ �•iiill[I iillllii IIII![I Illlfll! IIIII II _ i m■■■ iEPP,' 7iiili7iiriiiatiilii .iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiill ■Ill��lli I.�i[I���II1.�iil� IN i1 ARCHED WINDOWS WITH PAINTED TRIM n Front Elevation Exhibit U 1 /8" = 1'-0" II\VIV U/--�Ll.ilJlV I /'11VL.//'1LV�.71/--�IV MISSION REVIVAL ARCHITECTURE: QUOINS ARE A DESIGN DETAIL USED IN MISSION REVIVAL ARCHITECTURE EVOKING NEOCLASSICAL ELEMENTS AND CUT STONE I J NOTE: VARIED / ASYMMETRIC ROOF AND BUILDING DESIGN IS HEAVILY COMMON IN BOTH ANDALUSIAN STYLE AND MISSION REVIVAL MAM1! CVr-)n ClrrM U-SHAPED CLAY ROOF TILE AIA/nllnt!-' AnmAI I lQlAnt RENAISSANCE AND MEDITERRANEAN STYLES, ARCADES, S, AND COLONNADES ARE TYPICALLY PAVED WITH TILE, BRICK, OR STONE. — — — L Entry E ra V CAI IV ATTIl� X=Kl-rIAIl� VVI\L./VU/--VII\VVL/--I\ /--IVVILIV I STAINED GLASS WINDOW ANDALUSIA SPAIN ! �- I I C1LJAr7Cr% n1 AN/ onnC %/Ar7)ICC1 L=If�L=C' !�I IMN=C' IRON BALCONY: ANDALUSIAN DESIGN ELEMENTS V-21 SHOPFRONT FRONTAGES MAY BE USED FOR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES AND MAY INCLUDE ENTRANCES TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON UPPER FLOORS. THE BUILDING FACADE IS ALIGNED WITH THE BUILD -TO LINE, WHICH IS 10 FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. RECESSED ENTRANCES ARE PERMITTED. BUILDING ENTRANCES ARE AT SIDEWALK GRADE. SHOPFRONT ELEMENTS INCLUDE DISPLAY WINDOWS, ENTRANCES, AWNINGS, CANOPIES, SIGNAGE, LIGHTING, CORNICES, AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS. A SOLID BASE OR BULKHEAD MUST BE PROVIDED BELOW THE DISPLAY WINDOWS. A CORNICE OR HORIZONTAL BAND MUST BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE DISPLAY WINDOWS TO DIFFERENTIATE THE SHOPFRONT FROM THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE BUILDING ARCHED WINDOWS WITH PAINTED TRIM ASYMMETRICAL FACADE, ANDALUSIAN STYLE i NMI 01 V-32 SPANISH INFLUENCE INCLUDES MISSION REVIVAL, SPANISH RENAISSANCE, AND ANDALUSIAN. THEY SHARE ELEMENTS SUCH AS TILE ROOFS. SMOOTH STUCCO EXTERIOR WALLS AND IRON BALCONIES. THEY REPRESENT DIFFERENT SPANISH ARCHITECTURAL TRADITIONS. IN PRACTICE, ELEMENTS OF THESE THREE STYLES ARE OFTEN BLENDED TOGETHER. ANDALUSIAN IS THE PRIMARY STYLE OF THE HOTEL. THE GROUND LEVEL IS A MIX OF GALLERY AND SHOPFRONT DESIGN. V-33 FACADES ARE ASYMMETRICAL, AND BUILDING MASSING MAY CONSIST OF A MIX OF HEIGHTS. V-35 A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL SPANISH INFLUENCED STYLE ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL THREE SUB -STYLES INCLUDED: • SOLID, MASSIVE WALLS WITH SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHES; • LARGER OPENINGS ON THE GROUND FLOOR, SMALLER WINDOWS ABOVE; • DOOR AND WINDOW OPENING RECESSED FROM THE FACADE; • ARCADES OR GALLERIES WITH ROUND ARCHES, FLAT ARCHES, FLAT ARCHES OR RECTANGULAR OPENINGS, SET ON COLUMNS OF WOOD OR STUCCO; • WHITE OR SOFT PASTEL EARTH TONE COLORS; • CERAMIC TILE ACCENTS Level 4 34' - 0" V Level 3� 23'-0" Level 2� 12'-0" Level 1 � 0'-0"v Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 :K NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 DOWNTOWN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: 1/8" = V-0" SHEET NUMBER A8.2 -.If.a�Ie�A. Illl+rlli��1.1!� A IIit r r II ii II.� lu' IIIr11L � , � -•-ply y _ � S smo■ IIII Iglu :I��!II Irw 1111 If I IIII I 'il III I. 1111 �I •t' U IIIiI II � � I' 'l'I .i I: IIIIIiIII ii Ii iil I III lil .! °I IIIIII � II IIII III III ... i 1�� IIIIII �I ru kl,:-, Iu�ll�"I III" II �Ila% I II ii III Ii11!III II III I I!I I!I I II 11111111 I !I !!I I III III I i1 woman �� l isl� ,11 I I IF: „ owl • II Ii' iillllll IIIII IIIIII;IIIIII !IIIII IIIII IIIIII+III"IIIIIIIIf� IIIII �il 1111111 ! II I;; IIII rl l l l l l IIIIII !+� b Illll�l!Illlf� ?3LV ! 7IM N_ il III IIIIIIilliililil Jill r Af4 '1 ii 1111 IIII'i i::, I iIl it III II _IIIIII lulul�llllj ii lu i I IIIII „l: IIIII liin IJ� I11 �� all all, �A�� I 'I II IIIIII I", �+ill II ill - - II " '� IIIIII I Ililn,lll li _MIMI! 1K II 1 1 IIIII .I. VAN ' Al IIII i IIII lii :e� x IIIII II Iuuul uol 111 I !; I; II I II I I I I IIII if � ii II III - . u I u l IIIIunInnll II nI 'A14 aim I loll ■ i� i II 111 IIIII il��, IIIII1111 IIIiIIIu ilnllou uIVIIV,. IIII � INI N IIII ill IIIII "I"'` II1111111 i IIIII III Illu iUiiioil uIVIIV ..I ' IIIII M IIIIII I I i IIIIIIII i111il1�i� (IIIIIIII I .I III Now' MWHOW11111111 ■00R_�E 111 II IIII .. `� � III i III II11 '�"i I' I�I IIIIIIIIIII III I' Ly�i�� ii IIIII III IIII I 7 I��.+�_ ���•��y. NOR ir. IIII ►li }' �111 I I = I I ' III II I II II all �" 3 ��I (IIIIII '��I IIIII ll II i1 Wall pmr I I 1 IIII I IIIIII III IIII �� Illll 111 � �Ilu Ili . - II 11 II IIIII!; ; IIII II q IIII JI I IIu 1r�'gas all- ` - I l' i'- i ii II jj 1 I I�,II� i II ���A �I11■ I� �� III 11- �I (IIIIII III ii i�i II' Ii111 i III �� N�� - lul Ili �•��.=. #+� 1. (IIIIIIII III IIII 1N11 11! � it !I I III'iill, ■.� . , �,�,, IIIII ' i IIII ,• , . II ii II IIIII; III IIII �� � _-IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIu me 111 �rl IIIIN r�' i`.a�?� � 4 ..r � ri�l Mn � I.I @ II In I I � r- ��III1 Ia I grolnot IMNL N ANWRIi _ I I IIII Ill IIIII Illr �7 III i snows'! I liiilii I 'I I' Ill r■ i �'• IIIIII ■11 II I I I I'lllil ■ ■ IIII II .,. I III III„ •5 � I �ii!III IIIII I !I ii i '' - . IIII IN I,; III III IIIIIIII Ili r lid■ r � � _ .. ll l �! IIIII � IIIII III 111 1T7 ■ it ■�i I: �� i iiii l IIIII ■11 ■�I II II II "li.l IIIII .��. I rll lla • I. r■ ■r�' I IIIII IIII I IIIIII...' ' �� �� ' IIII IIII I: I I I I IIIIIIII 11i11.I IIII111III (IIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIII III - III r IIIIIIII IIIII III III I . r w _ 11 11 - - - IJI III ll I IINI IIIIy II II I IIii 1 •I " OROS A �I I I i!I II ' III: I: IIIII Hill IIIIIIII IIIII 1 IIII r■,rl ! ' Ii iIl � ull a lioulinili II ullu,..' ill ��IIIIIIII IIIII III III I IIIII !'.!(IIIIIIII! � air IMr Mr IJ ■ a, IIII � I I III II IIIIIIII r I �■ ri r Ir■ 1 Mir,r III s� IIII I I !!I !III IIIII II IIII; IIIIII : , O1 ;on 101= 01111101101 rN _..iiiiiam 1� ■I _ ` IIIIIIpIIIIIIII II�IIIII r r �1 II oil I�Mr III III qS _ uuiniiiulli ��IIIII r� ry. ... IIy rII I III M IIIII Agll�� �� I (IIIIII Ali IIIIIIII1j I111111 � _ IIIII II�IIIIIII ��IIII: _ IIIII IIII it I IIII I III IIII IIII .-. "" lowmoo ilr �.. _ ll � �i w�� u�i �i iii �I��liur�Il111 l I I'IIIIIII�� IIIII II �� .:IIII � 1 IIIIIIII Illlliil iil �nllu„I,,,i„(loom IS' - Illll r' 'ii`'lli it llplll,�l uIInIIpll 1pluupplp,untll,! Blown, jr 10, of fA w � rr ry IIII ~� IIII k �T�� I' I Illn 1 I � I � .-r. a � • � x fir. rr - , i r � t i r.� rrx f lx _ � r 4 ram' r' \4x -�f I r", I r f � rrr r}r wt - r / r rrr 4� r� 1 4: +� PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 I ISO VIEW 1 OM DEVELOPMENT NT AN D S CbmIIbmit wpm R. A1LEN ARcimEcr + AssocucEs Limme Mmker. C24288 WN: 922-lOG4)48 BLOCK NUMBER: VA 15725 LOT N-28LOCK22 ISOMETRIC VIE #1 OoL�: 5117rM3 SMIL'. Sn EET NU0ER A9, I { r' �f r•' y rrr �rr�r " - - __ id' - - ���. �4 tir'ry!• tl, - 'tr`.'.���ti�l{.'f'~�L4. .� ti-�-- f I 00 - - 00 Y} �.�� i - 4 f� r• r �Ii C d r' � x r� 4 rl X. r' IN Ir '•Y I r 4Q R PA22-0929, PA22-N30, PA22-Mt SUBMITTAL #5 g 9 OM DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION Calsdtw: AicHmECT + AssoamEs Lioen9e �lwnber_ C242aa ISOIiEW 2 AFN: 922-109-M 9L6CK NUMBER: ids. 15725 LOT Ik2 BLOCK 32 ISOMETRIC VIEW #2 Dale- 917=23 SCRIF. 5-.ET !IL'N3== 4 VICINITY MAP 2010 THOMAS GUIDE PG 978, J-1 SEC 12, T8S, R3W NOT TO SCALE W z_I JI �I �I LLJI O I 20' — c� ® In M m ..... m SECTION A — A NOT TO SCALE J ua [i[J19�fuVr�TJ 1'/f/i[1�1/ :IIC Afi fail a ll [!,;I'!: 11p [�r N s n 11 . 18 IW iul OLD TOWN FRONT ST. H I I I I IW Iz IJ I� ILLJ I I0 44' ct I \ \ \ APN 92 2 '�� p51 (101.50 �- D 99.42 R' C 0 W' SPACE 6L- AV R•C.F• : OPEN _ EX. ZONINNNO USE• VACA 3 ' EXIST 100.85F 100.85FS PORTION LOT 2, MB 151726 CONCEPTUAL GRADING EXHIBIT -042 APN 922"M 7674 PAR63g6 S90�SP-5 T P.M 86 C CAN EXIST. Z Nl USE: VA EXIST- I -A N N N \� O2� (°r2� 7 � �� 2 \ CiNp4 . N) y . 2 EXISTING TREE PA22mO929 m x UTILITY PURVEYORS CABLE SPECTRUM COMMUNICATIONS 1250 N. KIRBY STREET HEMET, CA 92545 1-800-921-8101 ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI SON 26100 MENIFEE ROAD ROMOLAND, CA 92585 1-800-684-8123 GAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 1981 W. LUGONIA P.O. BOX 3003 REDLANDS, CA 92373 1-800-427-2200 SEWER EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 2270 TRUMBLE ROAD PERRIS, CA 92572 (951) 928-3777 TELEPHONE/ INTERNET FRONTIER COMM UNI CA TIONS 29310 BRADLEY ROAD, MENIFEE, CA. 92586 1-800-921-8101 WATER RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 42135 WINCHESTER ROAD TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 296-6900 SCHOOL DISTRICT TEMECULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 31350 RANCHO VISTA ROAD TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 676-2661 STORM DRAIN NOTE ACTUAL LOCATION OF STORM DRAIN IS UNKNOWN. NO RECORD INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND THAT SUPPORTS ITS LOCATION HORIZONTALLY IN THE PROPERTY. PROPERTY OWNER TO POTHOLE FOR ACCURACY PRIOR TO OBTAINING GRADING PERMIT. HOLDER OF EASEMENT IS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED, ALL STORM DRAIN TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY LEGEND OEXISTING 8" WATER MAIN OEXISTING 20" WATER MAIN OEXISTING 8" SEWER MAIN ® EXISTING 20" RECLAIMED WATER MAIN OEXISTING 3" GAS MAIN © EXISTING SEWER FORCED MAIN TEXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LEGEND EXISTING BOX CULVERT I 1 N °'N v 3p APN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER z 0, EX. UTILITIES (TO BE RELOCATED) gi g 48F \\\ \\ O ARV AIR RELEASE VALVE SECTION B—B I I N � �� 99.O9TC � � ASPH ASPHALT NOT TO SCALE 1 A 9.94FS� � 0 98. 9(S�\ O B BOLLARD 1 S 100.03FS 1000 100.20TC �9.ATC EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT \ � ® BFP BACK FLOW PREVENTER \/ 9.7 9 .35 S \ 100.72IS 9g 99.47FS• \ CONC CONCRETE 100.71 S - 59 DOC DOCUMENT 99.901S REFER TO STORM DRAIN NOTE 1 \ o o EMH ELECTRIC DRAIN MANHOLE a. HEREON. (97.11EG) �I FH FIRE HYDRANT I _ 10 .44 C 99,75T \ \ 8'DEDICATION (97°46EG)—99.94FS —9 g GUY GUY ANCHOR '�JSTW \ 0 Od � � , — \ 0. R. OFFICIAL RECORD 88.00' �� � 999.2 40FS \ „ E 12 � � • �, \\ N 708107 013 � T PROPERTY LINE 38.00 g22-1 0- N �3g PGZpt`1\14a 1 \ P. M. B. PARCEL MAP BOOK 30.00' 50.00' PN. 1 O • I ��41/ 95, 0 g22'-726 �XPN� ��� - 28.00 40.00 RS. C p W SPACE p,PN j5 I �gC. PP POWER POLE TO REMAIN AS IS. ' R C.F'G; OPE NAGANT MB'gG EX PG �� w IN E \ ¢ POWER POLE TO BE RE—ROUTED 10.25' oN US ' w w ::X. UAN� UNDERGROUND. o Q o J\ ` \ SDI STORM DRAIN INLET Q00� I a-,\ \ o o SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE W--- o Cn W \ o o SMH SEWER MANHOLE z 0 z cJ \ ` SQ FT SQUARE FEET � W � \ \ \\ O SCO SEWER CLEAN OUT PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT \ \ TELE RSR TELEPHONE RISER TYPICAL STREET SECTION TELE VLT TELEPHONE VAULT NOT TO SCALE \ �\ TRSFMR TRANSFORMER WM WA TER METER ® WV WA TER VAL VE FENCE — TYPICAL GRAPHIC SCALE �OQFtOFESS/0,1 20 0 10 20 40 60 KIRK R. MEDEIROS m No. 86558 ( IN FEET ) I inch = 20 ft. s� CIV �P qTF OF CAUFO�� LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TEMECULA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 32 OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE 726, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY A FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED APRIL 3, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 09-163110 AND JULY 29, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 10-355371, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON RECORD OF SURVEY, R.S. 114195— 99, THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL 7021-15 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. RECORD BEARING BEING NORTH 23' 27' 42" WEST. BENCHMARK J— 63 SECTION 1, T8S, R3W, S.B.M.—AT TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ON MAIN ST., AT A RESTAURANT BUILDING AND THE FORMER FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN THE NORTHEAST CONCRETE WALL A STANDARD DISK STAMPED "J-63 1927" AND SET VERTICALLY. ADJUSTED ELEVATION 1005.651. ADJUSTED 1970 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 600-1-68. FLOOD INFORMATION BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING ONLY, THIS PROPERTY IS IN ZONE(S) "AE" OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 06065C3285G, WHICH BEARS AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF 08 2812008 AND IS IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS ARE DEFINED AS THE AREA THAT WILL BE INUNDATED BY FLOOD EVENT HAVING A 1—PERCENT CHANCE OF BEING EQUALED OR EXCEEDED IN ANY GIVIN YEAR. THE 1—PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE BASE FLOOD OR 100—YEAR FLOOD. STATEMENT OF UTILITIES THE LOCATION OF UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM OBSERVED EVIDENCE AND PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.E.iv. WHILE THE INFORMATION IS ASSUMED TO BE ACCURATE NO GUARANTEE IS MADE TO THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE UNDERGROUND U TI LI TIES. DATA TABLE: 1.) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 922-100-048 2.) PROJECT NAME: OLD TOWN FRONT STREET HOTEL 3.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 32 OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE 726, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY A FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED APRIL 3, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 09-163110 AND JULY 29, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 10-355371, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 4.) ZONING DESIGNATION: (DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT) GENERAL PLAN: SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: SP-5 EXISTING LAND USE/PROPOSED LAND USE: VACANT / HOTEL 5.) SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY. SPIRO LAND SURVEYING DATED OCTOBER 09, 2018. 6.) THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN FEMA MAP 06065C3285G, AND IS NOT WITHIN A FEMA FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODWAY. 7.) TOTAL GROSS AREA: 42,519 S.F. 0.97 ACRES TOTAL NET AREA: 42,519 S. F. 0.97 ACRES TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 8.) PARKING: 47 STANDARD SPACES 3 ADA SPACES 9.) LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED IN THE CITY RIGHT—OF—WAY. CITY RIGHT—OF—WAY LANDSCAPING WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. 10.) GROSS AND DISTURBED ACREAGE: 0.97 AC EASEMENT NOTES: AgEosement and rights incidental thereto for public utilities, public service uses, as set forth in a document recorded February 7, 1975, as Instrument No. 15887, of Official Records. NOT PLOTTABLE AEosement and rights incidental thereto for temporary construction easement, as set forth in a document recorded April 3, 2009, as Instrument No. 2009-0163110 and July 29, 2010 as Instrument No. 2010-0355371, both of Official Records.(TO BE VACATED) OWNER/APPLICANT ARCHITECT OM RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE, LLC WALT ALLEN ARCHITECTS C/O SAMIR MOHAN 28465 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET #201 11606 HARRINGTON STREET TEMECULA, CA. 92590 BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93311-9273 R039 TEL: (951)-693-0301 TEL: (661) 699-5194 EMAIL: CAC.RQTEX@GMAIL.COM EMAIL: sam.bakersfieldclubs@gmail.com LAND SURVEYOR ENGINEER SPIRO LAND SURVEYING 4M ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 603 SEAGAZE DRIVE #113 41635 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH OCEANSIDE, CA. 92054 SUI TE B TEL: (951) 334— 3174 TEMECULA, CA. 92590 EMAIL: matt@spirolandsurveying.com TEL: (951) 296-3466 EMAIL: info@4med.net MAP PREPARED: September 21, 2023 GRAPHIC SCALE n Light Fixture Location Plan iiii 1 " = 10'-0" o s 10 20 NORTH NOTE: TLED-SC-64-VS-Gmm511 WILL PROVIDE 24/7 LIGHTING FOR ADDED SECURITY AND SAFTEY OF THE GARAGE CANOPY SPACE LIGHTNING SCHEDULE SYMBOL LABEL QTY. CATALOG NUMBER DESCRIPTION LAMP NUMBER LAMPS LUMENS PER LAMP LLF WATTAGE A 6 POLE 0.9 RZR-PLED- 4 CIRCUIT BOARDS EACH WITH 40 LEDS, 80 265 266.7 IV-40LED-350mA-40k-HS, 1 CLEAR PLASTIC OPTIC BELOW EACH LED, 1 LAMP 42.7W, 5055 lumens 1 FORMED SEMI-SPECULAR METAL OPTIC PER. MOUNTING PLATE BELOW EACH CIRCUIT BOARD. WALL MOUNTED 24.75" HIGH LED FIXTURE (2) 4.5W LED 2 10 B 32 KICHLER 600 0.9 49513OZ 2700K. CANDELABRA BASE C 23 TLED-SC-64-VS-Gmm511 12"SQ. X 2-1/2"H. LED GARAGE CANOPY 1 7724 0.9 75 oogo88� WITH INTEGRATED OCCUPANCY AND oog°88 DAYLIGHT SENSOR LEDS WITH DINTED -------------------- OPTICS ----- D 13 2 ------------- KICHLER PER CITY OF TEMECULA: -------------------- WALL MOUNTED 24.75" HIGH LED FIXTURE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC (6) 4.5W LED PLAN SPECIFICATIONS 6 1800 60 F 0.9 F 49514OZ 2700K. CANDELABRA BASE qp oe 10, Ile PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 F+8.8+8.7 6 +6. . +4.0 +4.0 +3.8 +3.8 +4. +. +3.3 +2.8 4.1 +3.8 +3. +. +4.7 +4.6 +4.6 +4.5 3. . +3.9 +2.8 +3.4 +3.5 +3. . +5.4 +5.3 +5.1 4. +. +3.8 +3.2 +2.6 +4.0 4. . +4.5 +5.1 +4.9 +4.6 4. . +4.5 +4.6 4.1 +4.8 4. + . +4.8 +4.5 +4.8 +4.9 4.3 +5.5 +5.8 +5.8 +6.0 +6.1 +6.5 +6.4 5+4.6 7 9.5 5. 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.9 3.7 4.1 5.0 4.1 4.3 57 52 57 58 41 50 40 36 39 48 71 68 67 66 5 41 37 37 48 48 54 65 56 54 62 5 46 55 61 53 5 59 52 53 54 53 61 66 69 74 75 77 76 71 49 + t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t ttt6 45 79 89 91 89 86 8.0 6.8 5t + t t + t t t +8.5 11.0 + 1 +4.5 +5.3 7.9 +8.4 +8.5 + .2 +7.5 +6.5 +4. +8.6 +10.4 + 8 +3.9 +4.5 +5.2 +6.5 +7.7 .5 7.1 6.1 4. +9.6 +11.1 + .4 +3.3 +4.0 +4.6 +5.1 +5.6 +6.5 +6.1 +5.0 +9.1 +9.9 + .4 +0.2 TO I +3.0 +3.9 +4.5 +4.7 +4.7 8.5 9.7 3 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.5 2.8 11 3.2 3.4 .5=5+3 3.5 3.6 L4.1 J.9 37 36 37 40 39 37 36 7 40 39 7 37 37 40 39 37 37 37 40 39 37 .6 37 40 39 37 Ll&7 39 38 35 32 29 23 1 .3 45 52 58 60 60 55 47 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 7.7 8.5 6 3.1 4.0 4.7 5.2 5.3 5. 5.5 .5 5.5 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.2 5.9 5 60 .2 62 6.0 5.9 60 62 62 60 5 60 .2 62 6.0 59 60 62 62 5 59 .0 62 6.2 59 58 59 61 6 57 .4 48 4.1 25 36 50 61 67 72 70 65 55 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 7.8 8.0 7 4.8 6.0 6.9 6.9 7.2 7. 7.2 .5 t 7.4 7.4 t t 8.1 8.3 t 8.3 t 8.1 t t t t t t t t. t t t t t t t. t t t t t t t 7 83 .3 83 8. 7.7 83 83 83 81 7 83 .3 84 8.1 77 83 83 83 8 77 .3 83 8.3 81 76 82 83 8 t t t t t t t t t t 79 .1 69 6.0 32 56 67 73 77 75 69 58 t t t t +7.9 +8.0 + +6.7 +8.1 +8.7 +8.9 +8.6 +8. +8.9 .9 +8.6 9.2 +9.3 +10.0 +9.9 +9.4 +9. +9.4 0.1 +9.9 9.6 +9.4 +10.1 +10.0 +9.5 +9. +9.5 0.1 +10.0 9.5 +9.7 +9.5 +10.2 +10.0 +9. +9.6 .3 +9.9 9.8 +9.3 +9.6 +9.4 +10.1 +9. +9.2 .1 +8.2 8.0 +6.7 +3.7 +7.3 +7.2 +7.4 +7.7 +7.5 +6.8 +5.7 IN III 7.9 8.6 _ 0 9.1 10.1 10.2 1® 9.9 9. 10.0 .9 9.8 10.8 10.5 11.2 11.1 10.7 ®11 10.E 1.3.1 .7 11.210.E 11.3 11.1 10.7 ®11 10.7 1.3 11.2 10.8 ®11.4 10.8 11.5 11.3 10 ®11.1 0.3 10.9 10.7 10.4 ®11.1 10.7 11.4 11 10.E ® 0.8 98 9.6 88 0.0 00 79 79 75 71 72 67 62 52 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 7.5 8.4 9.2N8\1+\8�.\+7 9.1 10.3 11.7 11.6 11.1 10.6 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.6 10.7 11.6 12.2 12.2 11.6 11.2 11.8 12.3 12.2 11�11.2 11.8 12.3 12.2 11.7 11.2 11.8 12.3 12.3 11.8 11.4 12.2 12.7 12.4 11.7 10.9 11.3 11.5 11.4 11.2 10.9 11.8 12.4 12.6 11.8 10.9 11.0 10.8 10.2 9.0 8. 7.9 7.1 6.4 6.1 5.8tt t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t +7.2 9.3 .7 +9.3 +9.2 w10.8 +10.8 +11.9 +12.1 +11.9 +11.3 +11.1 +11.1 +11.1 +11.2 +11.5 +12.1 +12.4 +12.5 +12.1 +12.0 +12.3 +12.5 +12.5 12.2 12.0 +12.3 +12.5 +12.5 +12.2 +12.0 +12.3 +12.6 +12.6 +12.4 +12.4 +13.0 +13.1 +13.0 +12.3 +11.6 +11.2 +11.3 +11.3 +11.2 +11.6 +12.4 +13.0 +13.0 +12.7 +11.9 +11.6 +11.2 +10.8 +9.7 iff10.2 +8. +8.3 +7L.6 +6.3 +5.2 +4.4 4.1 3.8 2.9 +6.5 .3 + +8.8 +8.8 +8.7 +9.1 +10.2 +11.7 +11.6 +11.0 +10.6 +10.9 +10.8 +10.8 +10.6 +10.7 +11.5 +12.2 +12.1 +11.6 +11.1 +11.8 +12.3 +12.2 11 11.1 +11.8 +12.3 +12.2 +11.6 +11.2 +11.8 +12.3 +12.3 +11.9 +11.7 +12.5 +13.3 +12.7 +11.5 +10.7 +10.6 +10.4 +10.4 +10.6 +10.8 +11.7 +12.9 +13.1 +12.1 +11.2 +11.1 +11.0 +10.4 +9.3 +8.6 +8. +8.2 +7.3 +6.1 +5.0 +4.4 +4.1 +3.7 +2.8 6.9 +7.1 +7.3 +7.5 +8.1 +9.0 +10.1 +10.1 +10.7 +9.9 +9.8 +10.0 +9.9 +9.7 +10.8 +10.4 +11.2 +11.0 +10.6 +11.2 +10.6 +11.2 +11.1 11.3 +10.6 +11.2 +11.1 +10.7 +11.3 +10.6 +11.3 +11.2 +10.9 +12.0 +11.5 +12.3 +11.4 +11.4 +10.0 +9.5 +9.1 +9.2 +9.4 +10.4 +11.2 +11.7 +12.1 +11.2 +11.4 +9.9 +9.7 +8.9 +8.3 +7.5 t7 t7 t t t 7 4. + +5.1 +5.2 + .2 +6.0 6.8 +8.2 +8.7 +8.8 +8.5 +8. +8.9 .8 +8.6 9.2 +9.2 +10.0 +9.9 +9.4 +9. +9.4 0.0 +9.9 + . +10.2 +11.1 +10.3 +9. +8.6 .3 +8.0 8.0 +8.3 +8.9 +9.8 +10.5 +11 + . t t t t t t t t 3.9 4.9 t t t 6.1 6.9 6.9 t -1!. 7.1 7. 7.2 .5 7.4 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 7. 8.2 .2 8 1 .7 6 8 +3.0 9 0 8 8 8 t t t t t t t t t 7 3 .0 6 5 6.6 7 1 7 4 7 3 5 7 4 4 2 4 2 3 5 t 2 t t t t t t t t 2.0 3.1 4.0 4.7 5.1 5.2 5. 5.5 .4 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 5.8 5. 5.9 .0 6 0 5 5 1 2 4 3 3 5 9 5 5 4 .0 5 0 4.9 4 7 4 9 4 7 4 0 3 3 7 4 0 3 2 2 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 41 t t t +1.1 1.7 +2.4 +2.8 +3.1 +3.2 +3. +3.4 .4 +3.3 3.4 +3.6 +3.9 +3.8 +3.6 +3. +3.6 .8 +3.7 +3.1 +1.4 +2.2 +2.7 +3. +3.4 .3 +3.1 3.1 +3.0 +3.0 +2.9 +2.5 +2. +2.9 +11 +2.7 +1. db It LO.5 1.8 1.7 1. 0. 1.1 .0 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.6 23 19 17 20 12 06 03 03 03 03 06 13 09 09 13 0. 0.3 23 23 21 16 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 1.0 1.41.3 .5 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.7 21 19 15 16 16 20 15 16 19 19 11 08 07 07 07 11 16 14 14 14 09 05 18 18 18 16 tt t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t� t� t t t t t t t t t� t� t� t� t t t� t� t t +0.8 �+0.6�1".+1.2 +0.8 +0.6 +0.9 +1.6 +1.8 +1.8 +1.8 +1.6 1.7 +2.4 +2.5 +2.6 +2.8 +2.6 +2.4 +2.3 +2.5 +2.1 +2.1 +2.2 +2.4 +2.4 +2.2 +2.2 +2.1 +2.0 +1.6 +1.4 +1.4 +1.4 +1.5 +1.8 +2.1 +2.0 .1 +2.1 +1.7 +2.4 +2.5 +2.5 +2.3 +2.3 +0.7 +0.4 +0.3 +0.4 +1.0 +1.8 +1.5 +1.8 +1.6 +1.2 +1.4 +1.4 +1.2 1.1 + . +2.2 +2.4 +2.4 +2.3 +2.5 +2.6 +2.6 +2.7 +2.7 +2.8 +2.8 +2.5 +2.3 +2.5 +2.5 +2.5 +2.5 +2.4 +2.2 +2.1 +2.2 +2.2 +2.0 +1.9 +1.8 +1.8 +1.7 +1.8 +2.0 +2.1 +2.0 +2.0 +2.2 +2.3 +2.8 +2.8 +2.5 +2.3 +2.2 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.0 O.S 1.0 1.4 1.8 1. 18 18 19 21 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 20 20 20 23 25 25 23 23 2.4 t t t t +1.7 +2.0 +1.2 +0.6 +0.4 +0.6 +1.2 +1.2 +0.8 +0.7 1.1 +1.9 +1.9�1.8+1.7 +1.8 +1.9 +2.0 +2.0 +2.0 +2.0 +2.2 +2.1 +2.0 2.1 +1.6 +1.8 +1.5 1.1 + . +1.4 +1.8 +2.0 +1.8 +1.7 +1.8 +2.0 +2.0 +2.0 +2.0 +1.9 +1.9 +2.0 2.1 +1.3 +1.6 +1.7 +1.7 +1.8 +1.9 +1.9 +2.1 +2.3 +2.3 +2.3 +1.2 +1.4 +1.6 1.8 PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #4 DESCRIPTION DATE REV DR BY: PROJECT ADDRESS: SUBMITTAL SET 08/01/2022 0 R.E.E. DOWNTOWN BOUTIQUE HOTEL AHJ RESPONSE 04/28/2023 1 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, RIVERSIDE COUNTY. TEMECULA, CA R. Fy CH BY: C--) �� �-� 2 R.E.E. DATE: w m 04/28/2023 * No. E23239 * rZ E I_ I K TITLE: SHT JJ lFc7R\CPS \Q ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS qTF OF CA��FO�� 3032 N. SHELLY AVE., FRESNO, CA 93727 P: (559) 242-6477 DRAWING NO.: 222-0055 REV 1 OTRACE*LITE commercial & industrial lighting DESCRIPTION The TLED-SC sensor canopy utilizes TRACE'LITE's successful LED surface mount canopy design and brings it to a new level of performance and efficiency by the addition of the factory installed Wattstopper FSP-211 Digital Highli-ow passive infrared sensor. The sensor allows for fully adjustable high and tow dimmed light levels based on motion, adjustable time delay, cut off delay and is controlled via the 0-10V dimming driver in the fixture. It also includes an integrated photocell to measure ambient light levels. This sensor is provided with an FSP-L2 lens that was selected for its proven design and ability to provide maximum coverage at an 8ft mounting height. Other lenses are available for multiple mounting heights. Contact factory for details. The TLED-SC series conforms to the Title 24 requirements in regards to dimming and control of light fixtures. The TLED-SC extends the low profile form factor of the complete line by integrating the Wattstopper Occupancy and Daylight sensor on one side of the fixture, ensuring the ease of installation our LED Canopy is known for- Our next generation high performance LED light engines feature our superior thermal management that make the entire family an attractive, energy saving choice. Constructed of die formed and welded aluminum, the TLED canopy series family has been engineered to deliver optimum optical performance and lamp longevity- The attractive and durable housings have a UV resistant, powder coated finish to protect against the elements and are ETL Listed for Wet Locations- Our TLED series canopies incorporate contractor friendly features that allow for ease of installation In a variety of applications and can be installed by a single person- The TLED-SC series canopies provide an energy saving solution to a wide spectrum of applications including, but not limited to security lighting in schools, office complexes, light commercial development, apartments, parking garages, entryways, and stairwells. The TLED series canopies are Designi-ights Consortium' (DLC) qualified and meet or exceed the efficacy requirements for various rebate programs across the country (consult DLC QPL website for fisted models). SPECIFICATIONS Construction: Precision die formed aluminum housings feature clean architectural lines with ample, integral mounting space for future accessories. The TLED canopy series family's most important construction feature is their integral thermal management. The housing is fabricated using 118" aluminum plate, which not only provides strength and durability but also acts as a substantial heat sink and allows for optimum performance and durability of the LED light engine without sacrificing design aesthetics or increasing the outside dimensions of the housing. LEDLITE/ogic heat sinking technology moves heat away from the LEDs by taking advantage of thermal convection dynamic properties and maximizing system performance that delivers up to a 190.000 hour life with 70% lumen maintenance. The TLED canopy series family is ETL Listed for Wet Locations, and incorporates a UV resistant, long lasting, polyester based powder coat finish. Optics: The TLED canopy series family of luminaires deliver exceptional light quality and efficiency with a garage optic design that provides excellent Type VS distribution- Our garage optic provides more lumens in the 60' to 80' zone, which satisfies the DLC requirements for parking garage luminaires. The stabilized optical PMMA lenses are specifically designed to distribute light where it is needed in the most efficient way possible making it the ideal luminaire for high efficiency applications - Electrical: The available LED light engine wattages are powered by 0-10V dimmable, constant current control drivers and provide up to a 190,000 hour rated life with 70% lumen maintenance, at 4700K CCT, and a C R I of �!72. All drivers are Class 2 power supplies with input voltage range of 120VAC to 277AVC, providing a Class A EMI rating and a high power factor of aO,90. The TLED series canopies are suitable for operation in -40'F to 104°F (-40°C to 40°C) ambient conditions - Thermal Management: LEOLITElogic heat sinking technology moves heat away from the LEDs by taking advantage of thermal convection dynamic properties and maximizing system performance that delivers up to a 190,000 hour life with 70% lumen maintenance - Environmentally Friendly Design: TLED-SC canopy series luminaires consume very little energy and provide long life in comparison to traditional lamp technologies. The TLED-SC is RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) compliant and provides a significant reduction in KW load and carbon emissions. Installation: The TLED series canopies can be installed and wired by a single person. The base plate easily attaches to a 3" or 4' J-box, and the fixture housing is attached to the base plate by four (4) captive fasteners. The TLED-SC can be surface mounted to a recessed J-box or pendant mounted using a standard ''/2' downrod & hardware (supplied by others) - Transient Protection System (Option: TP): The LEDLITElog/c optional transient protection device is designed to be used in conjunction with our LED drivers. The "-TP' option utilizes a 3-leaded device that protects Line -Ground, Line -Neutral, and Neutral -Ground in accordance with IEEE/ANSI C62.41.2 guidelines. The surge current rating of the'-TP' option is 10,000 amps. TLED-SG Surface Mount LED GaragelCanopy Lighting with Integrated Occupancy and Daylight Sensor Model: Date: Accessories: Jab Name: Type: AVAILABLE WHILE SUPPLIES LAST Intertek 18 LED 36 LED I 48 LED Wattage (Nominal) 21 W 41 W 55W Ingress Protection UL Listed for Wet Locations Lumens (1m) 1907 4119 1. 5712 Efficacy (LPW) 92 I 101 104 CCT 4700K Input Voltage 12D-277 Voltage Sensing Optics Performance Optic - Type V Very Short CRI a72 Warranty 5 Years Ambient Temp -40-F to 104°F (-40°C to 40-C) Testing & Compliance: The reliability and performance of the TLED canopy series luminaires are evaluated in accordance with the parameters outlined and reported by LM-79 and LM-80 documents. Photometric data is tested to IESNA LM-79- 08 standard by an independent testing laboratory. Lumen maintenance, or L70, a measure of long term reliability, is determined for the light source, which consists of the LED and PSB sub -assembly as installed in the luminaire, using LM-80 in -situ thermal and reliability data as provided by the LED manufacturer in accordance with DOE/EPA standards. Des ignLights Consortiums [DLC] qualified luminaire (check Q P L for specific models). Listing: The TLED-SC is ETL certified under UL1598 specifications and listed for wet locations. Warranty: Arty component that fails due to manufacturer's defect is guaranteed for 5 years- The warranty does not cover physical damage, abuse or acts of God. Manufacturer reserves the right to charge for such repairs if deemed necessary. Ordering Information Example: TLED-SC-24-VS-G-WW Series O of LEDs input Voltage optics Finish (Housingf7rlm) options (Factory installed) TLED-SC = Standard canopy 18 = 18 LEDs VS = 120-277VAC +;Voltage Sensing) G = Garage Optics WW = whRelWhile TP = Transient Protection System 36 = 36 LEDs LG' = Low Glare Optics 48 = 48 LEDs Note: 64 = 64 LEDs Dimensions 1d.30'� m a see e e eeB o e0. 0 e,9e 12-3o e6 H ee00 1 ced'a e+ee� Qea Q Q QQe p$%9 %peE6 e ® ® a Approximate Weight: 14 lbs. ' Only available with 48 LED model Sample Photometrirs TLE"C-36-VSG Mounted at 10' Mpe V Short) Hoft tal spacing c.,st•"a: 2.88 YV 30' 20' 10, 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 40' 30' 20' 10, 0 10, 20, 30' 40' Digital High/Low Infrared Sensor (Option: SC) Default Settings for Sensor: The TLED-SC sensor canopy utilizes TRACE'LITE's successful LED surface High Mode: 0-10V; default 10V mount canopy design and brings it to a new level of performance and efficiency by Low mode: Off, 0-9.8V; default 1 V the addition of the factory installed Wattstopper FSP-211 Digital High/Low passive Time Delay: Sasso., 5Omin.; default 5min. infrared sensor. The sensor allows for fully adjustable high and low dimmed light Cut off delay: none, 1-60min- 1-5hrs-; default 1hr, levels based on motion, adjustable time delay, cut off delay and is controlled via the 0-1OV dimming driver In the fixture. It alse includes an integrated photocell to Sensitivity: none, low, med, max: default max measure ambient light levels. This sensor is provided with an FSP-L2 lens that was Setpoint: none, 1-250 fc, auto; default disabled selected for its proven design and ability to provide maximum coverage at an 8ft Ramp up time: none, 1-60 sec.; default disabled mounting height. Other lenses are available for multiple mounting heights. Contact Fade down time: none, 1-60sec-; default disabled factory for details. The TLED-SC series conform to the Tlt1e24 requirements in regards to dimming NOTE: Wireless programmable handheld unit to change settings is available and control of light fixtures. through Wamtoper (FSIR-100) Sensor Side and Top Coverage Pattern L2 lens provides maximum coverage at an 8ft mounting height- Other lenses are available for multiple mounting heights. Contact factory for details. 0„ 30' 20' 8 24' 11' 7' 3' 0' 3' 7' 1V 24' 1 f}' Q' } 60, 10' Vol 2fl' 30' 30' 20' 1V .0' 10' 20' 30, Specifications are subject to change without notice_ Installationmust be performed in accordance with Barran Lighting Group installation instructions- 10810309 Rev 8 §ARRON lighting group NO.533.3W • www.bana Wig.com SPECIFICATIONS Certifications/Qualification s vvvww. kich I e r. com1vva rra ntv Dimensions Base Backplate 5.50 X 22.00 Extension 12.75" Weight 13,76 LBS Height from center of Wall opening 16.75 TO 25" (Spec Sheet) Height 39.75" Width 11.001, 1 Light Source Bulb Product ID 4064CLR Lamp Included Not Included Lamp Type B Light Source Incandescent Max or Nominal Watt 60W + # of Bulbs/LED Modules 4 Socket Type CAND Socket Wire 105" Mou ntinglinstallation Interior/Exterior Exterior Location Rating Wet Mounting Weight 15A0 LBS Reinforced Outlet Box Required Yes FIXTURE ATTRIBUTES ALSO IN THIS FAMILY Housing Diffuser Description Vertical Rain l f Primary Material Aluminum Product/Ordering Information i SKU 49514OZ Finish Olde Bronze Style Traditional 49517OZ 49516OZ 49512OZ UPC 783927421935 Finish Options Olde Bronze - 49513OZ Kichler.com SPIE:CIFICATIONS Ce rtiflcatfonslQuaIiflcations KICHLER wm. k ich I e r. cc "vva r ra n ty Dimensions Base Backplate 4.50 X 11.50 Extension 10.50" Weight 7.13 LBS Height from center of Wall opening 13.50" (Spec Sheet) Height 24.75" -- Width 9,00" Light Source Bulb Product ID 4064CLR Lamp Included Not Included 1 } Lamp Type B Light Source Incandescent Max or Nominal Watt BOW f # of Bulbs/LED Modules 2 Socket Type CAND Socket Wire Mountingllnstallation Interior/Exterior Exterior Location Rating Wet Mounting Weight 9.50 LBS FIXTURE ATTRIBUTES ALSO IN THIS FAMILY Housing Diffuser Description Vertical Rain Primary Material ALUMINUM Product/Ordering InformmtionIN ` SKU 49513OZ l Finish Olde Bronze i Style Traditional UPC 783927421911 49517OZ 49516OZ 49512OZ Finish Options Olde Bronze I 1 49514OZ Kichler-corn KICHLER PROJECT NAME: AREA & ROADWAY LIGHTING PROJECT TYPE: BAZAR SERIES - LED LOW PROFILE AREA LUMINAIRE Optical Housing Heavy cast, low copper aluminum assembly (A356 alloy, <.2% copper) minimum wall thickness .188". LED Module mounting area is machined to within a 0.002" surface flatness variance for maximum surface contact and thermal conductivity from the LED modules to the radiating fins. Passive radiating fins above the LED (Optics provide superior thermal management and long LED Iife.The optical and electrical compartments are integrated with the support arm to create one assembly. Cast and hinged driver compartment cover allows access to the drivers and wiring. Electrical Housing w/ Integrated Arm Heavy cast low copper aluminum (A356 alloy; c0.2% copper) assembly with integral cooling ribs surrounding the electrical compartment and a flat surface on the top of the arm to accommodate a photocell receptacle. Solid barrier wall separates optical and electrical compartments. The optical compartment and electrical compartment with the integrated support arm combine to create one assembly. Minimum wall thickness is 188" Cast and hinged driver assembly cover is integrated with wiring compartment cover. PLED" Optics Emitters (LED's) are arrayed on a metal core PCB panel with each emitter located on a copper thermal transfer pad and enclosed by an LED refractor. LED optics completely seal each individual emitter to meet an IP66 rating. In asymmetric distributions, a micro -reflector inside the refractor re -directs the house side emitter output towards the street side and functions as a house side shielding element. Refractors are injection molded HI acrylic. Each LED refractor is sealed to the PCB over on emitter and a I I ref factors are retained by on aluminum frame -Any one Panel, or group of Panels in a luminaire, have the some optical pattern. LED refractors produce standard site/area distributions. Panels are field replaceable and field rotatable in 90' increments. LED Driver(s) Constant current electronic with a power factor of >90 and a minimum operating temperature of-40°FI-40'C. Driver(s) is/are UL and cUL recognized and mounted directly against fhe Electrical Housing to facilitate thermal transfer, held down by universal clamps to facilitate easy removal. In -line terminal blocks facilitate wiring between the driver and optical arrays. Drivers accept an input of 120-277V, 50/60Hz or 347V-48OV, 50,601-11z. (0 -1 OV dimmable driver is standard. Driver has a minimum of 3KV internal surge protection. Luminaire supplied with 20KV surge protector for field accessible installation.) LIED Emitters High output LED's are utilized with drive currents ranging from 35OmA to 1050mA. 70CRI Minimum. LED's are available in standard Neutral White (4000K), or optional Cool White (5000K) or Warm White (3000K). Consult Factory for other LED options. Amber LED's TRA (True Amber) LED's utilize material that emits light in the amber spectral bandwidth Only without the use of phosphors. Finish Electrostatically applied TGIC Polyester Powder Coat on substrate prepared with 20 PSI power wash of 140°F. Four step media blast and iron phosphate pretreatment for protection and paint adhesion.400°F bake for maximum hardness and durability. Most Arm Fitter/Electrical Housing Replaces standard Electrical Housing. Fits standard 2 3/8" O.D. horizontal tenon.Two (2) straps with two (2) bolts each encircle the lower half of the tenon. Upper half of the tenon rests on self -centering steps that position the angle of the luminaire at 0', +1.5', +1 .5 or +3° up from the horizontal. All hardware is stainless steel. U.S. Pole Company Inc 6W West Avenue 0. Palmdale. CA 93561 An Employee Owned Company Phone (661) 233-20D0 www-usaitg-cam RZR SERIES - LED SPECIFICATIONS POLE DRILLING TEMPLATE c L 2' (5)mm) 1 I 2.75' }. 5' [32rrxn7 :.emT1 + 4' F^Z RIRN. WIREWAY (lO7mm) r 563' DIA. RZR -G iona (14mm) 406' DIA. oomm) t31 HOLES ORDERING INFORMATION RZR G Max Weight = 43lbs Max EPA = 0.76 120 LED Max RZRM Max Weight = 261bs Max EPA � 0-45 48 LED Max (MODELS: RZRM, RZR, RZR-G & RZR-MAF `) PATENT PENDING I A 1 RZR-G B c T D 1 RZR, RZRM & RZR-MAF' A {rap View) B � RZR & RZRM c T D 1 RZR-MAF * c 4 07 FIXTURE A 6 C D RZR-G 15, 36.6' 3• 7' 3a1mm 927mm 76mm 1137mm RZR 14.75' 28.25` 2.75" 6.5' 375mm 71$mm 70mm 165mm RZRM 11.5" 22' 2,5" 6.25' 292mm 569mm 64mm 133mm RZR-MAF I6" 28.25° Z5' 4' 98imm 724mm 64mm 102mm _l UU.L. Listed for U Wet Location 2022158 MADE U. RC H ITE CTU RA EPA & WEIGHT PLED MODULES .......... ....• memo* .......... .. .• •• •■ 120 LED Module raR •►•.■ ••►•v Max Weight=341bs ■• •• •■ •• Max EPA=0.67 % ■� i■ ■► 80LEDMax ■...■ •�..• .......... 80 LED Module 16641se%*: EAKI 48 LM Module .......... RZR-MAF •• •• •• •• MaxWeighf=361bs �• .� �• •� Max EPA =0.56 ■•m" "•'• 8o LED Max 40 LED Module ■••■ •••• ■ • • • 24 LED Module Spec/Order Example: RZR/PLED4V/80LED-700mA/CW/2771RAL-8019-S Luminaire optics LED Mode Vo]tage Mounting Finish Options -IF Luminaire Optics LED Voltage Mounting Finish Options PLED" # of LEDs Drive Color Arm Mount Standard DislnbL im Type Current Temp -CCT Textured Finish RIR-G ❑ RZR-G ❑ Type II ® ❑ 120LED ❑ 1050mA' ❑ 27K (27OOK) 171120 ❑ 1 W ❑ Slack ❑ Intemol House side shield im-LEDCount PLED4I El BOILED ❑ 700mA' El30K (30MK) ❑ 208 RAL-9005•T (Eramp+e: HV)LED/46) HS"PLED ❑ Type 11 Row ❑ 525mA ❑ 40K (4000K) ❑ 240 ❑ 2.180 ❑ rno Glare Shield PLED4FFR7 RAL-9003d 4 sided EG54 ❑ Type III Median ❑ 350mA ❑ 50K (5000K) ❑ 277 ❑ Grey ❑External Glare Shield Illuminator El 7 El2.90 PAL-7004-T 3 Sided Rear Wedge EGS3W I 1 RZR PLED41-MIL R2R/RZR-MAF ❑ TRA El Dark Bronze ❑ mound Pale Adapter RPA l^ RZR-MAF ❑ 1 III Med. Type ® True AmbEe ❑ SOLED ❑ 480 ❑ 3L90 ■W■ IZAL-SOMT ❑ twist Lock Receptable PLED411 Consult Factory ❑ Green only TPR ❑ Type III Wide ® ❑ 40LED for Other LED Color, CCT, El3•T 20 RAL-6005-T - Twist Lack [IReceptahle TPR7 PLED411-W & CPI Options RecOnly Premium ❑ High-LowDimoNfor ❑ Type IV PLEDW ® ❑ 4,qo Finishes Sv*h by Olhm/seleci Levels WT00 or 25/100 ❑ RZRM RZRM NOYES; ❑ Rust (Ewmpre: HLsw/25) HLSW El Type 1v 1-7OWand 1050mAnolforuse El Photocell+Voltage PLED4VfT ® El48LED MMTIZALED's Wall Mount ❑ Patina fexampe:Pcl2aVj PC+V Type V NprrpW ❑ 24LED 2-AvdlluMe in MOMA & 525mA drivecurren}a onl Copper PC' Single Fuse PLED-VSt3-N ® ElWM 0(72.277V) $F Double Fuse El Type V Med. 0 Consult rectory for For smooth finish 'T' f v. 2aov} aF PLED-V_sO-M Other Drive CLrrrents wM • woo Mouni provltlEr) wish mounring replace suffix with SUM -5" ❑ Blue-ToothProgrammable © Type V wide br ket and cover. (Example: PAL-9500S) Photo/Motion Sensor PLED•V-SQ•W J Consult foclor for fr o"-Mofnn50/100' Phd075fc) MS-F311 customcoWrs U.S. Pole Company Inca mow%iAven o.vmmdQde.cAa3es1 An Employee Owned Company RF+9ne (bdm) 233-2000 wvrv.uronp.can MAD- THEU.S. ARCHITECTURAL SCAN FOR FULL RAZAR LIGHTING SPECS (15 PAGES) Product Information Customer Review Product Q&A Accessories Recessed Vertical 1250 Series, 6 Door Mailbox, Anodized Aluminum Weights & dimensions Florence vertical mailboxes have long been the ideal solution for small apartment homes. Constructed of corrosion resistant anodized aluminum, these recessed mounted mailboxes are the product of h choice for facilities with limited wall cavity space. The top -loading units are protected from the weather. Feature 5-pin cylinder tenant cam locks with two keys (1,000 key changes) and resident name and Width number JD card holders.. Verticals are UPS TD4B+ approved for replacement uses. Warranty of 5 years- Mailbox Dimensions (W x D x H Height Recessed Vertical 1250 Series, 6 Door Mailbox, Anodized Aluminum Weight Item #: T971368416E Product Details i T Enter zip code for delivery date estimate ors Mounting Localion „ a 0 a 0 Assembty Required Number of Mailboxes I I Type Brand FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Package tUarft URL: https://www.globalindustrial.com/p/recessed-vertical-1250- Series series-6-door-mailbox-anodized-aluminum?ref=42 Material Style Manurfaeturers Part Number Color Fam ily Warranty Warranty Compliance & Certifications Certifications B EL����I d1� OUTDOl1t5 Recessed Wall Mounted Assembled 6 Tap Loading Master Access Florence 1 1250 Aluminum Recessed Silver 5 yr LISPS STD-413+ far Replacement 627 Amersale Dr Naperville, IL 60663 Phone: (840) 323-5664 Fax. (630) 897-0573 sales@belson.com Model # CBBR-9UR-SS Instructions Sheet 9 BIKE WAVE BIKE RACK, STAINLESS STEEL, SURFACE MOUNT Common Tools Needed Tape Measure Marker, Pencil, or Chalk Masonry drill Bits 3/8'' & 3/16" Hammer Drill or Regular Drill Wrench 9116" Step 'I Choose your desired location for the bike rack. The rack site is recommended to be Within 50 feet: not exceeding 120 feet, or a 30 second walk from the entrance of your building. Make sure it is highly visible, Then use a marker, Chalk, or pencil to outline the holes of the flange onto the base material. Step 2 Create starter pilot holes; it will help prevent the hammer drill from drifting. If using a hammer drill, set the depth setting to 3-5/8". Then drill hole that has a 3/8" diameter (and depth of 3-5/8") Step 3 Secure the rack. Use a hammer to set anchors in place. Carefully set the bike rack over the newly drilled holes and place Washers over the flanges and secure bolts. Use a 1/4" Wrench to tighten bolts, *If installing numerous racks, make sure the aisles are measured from tip to tip of the bike tires across the space between the racks. The APBP defines the minimum space between aisles should be 48 inches (4 feet), and in high traffic areas a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) is needed.* www.belson.com PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #5 Consultant: Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates License Number: C24288 APN: 922-100-048 BLOCK NUMBER: M.B. 151726 LOT #2 BLOCK 32 SPECIFICATION SHEET Date: 5/17/2023 Scale: SHEET NUMBER E1.2 REVISED CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ili I \LLf\ I I\P11L ACCESS TYP. PLANTING LEGEND OLD TOWN FRONT STREET HOTEL PORTION LOT 2, MB 151726 SITE CALCULATIONS SITE AREA 42,519 SQ. FT. 0.976 NET ACRES TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 4,684 SQ. FT. 11 % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPE AREA IN R.O.W. 320 SQ. FT. SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE NUMBER REMARKS WUCOL IV TREES + CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS PINK FLOWERING CHITALPA 24" BOX 10 DOUBLE STAKE / HEIGHT 8-10' SPREAD 3'-4' MIN. L 0 PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24" BOX 10 DOUBLE STAKE / HEIGHT 8-10' SPREAD 3'-4' MIN. M SHRUBS 0 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MORNING LIGHT' MORNING LIGHT WESTRINGIA 5 GAL 134 FULL & BUSHY @ 3' O.C. L O LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD' GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 1 GAL 67 FULL & BUSHY @ 5' O.C. L (R HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA 5 GAL 40 FULL & BUSHY ® 3' O.C. L O WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI' PROSTRATE WESTRINGIA 1 GAL 28 FULL & SPREADING @ 5' O.C. L MULCH: NOT SHOWN FOREST BLEND WOOD MULCH SHREDDED WOOD MULCH 3" MAX. AS REQ'D. 1 3" DEEP -TO ALL PLANTING AREAS TYP. 'ACCENT PAVING NSIDE OF 2' WIDE ;ONCRETE HEADER TRANSFORMER VICINITY MAP 2010 THOMAS GUIDE PG 978, J-1 SEC 12, T8S, R3W NOT TO SCALE PROJECT DATA: 1.) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 922-100-048 2.) PROJECT NAME: OLD TOWN FRONT STREET HOTEL 3.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 32 OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE 726, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BY A FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED APRIL 3, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 09-163110 AND JULY 29, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 10-355371, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 4.) ZONING DESIGNATION: (DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT) GENERAL PLAN: SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: SP-5 EXISTING LAND USE/PROPOSED LAND USE: VACANT / HOTEL 5.) SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY. SPIRO LAND SURVEYING DATED OCTOBER 09, 2018. 6.) THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN FEMA MAP 06065C3285G, AND IS NOT WITHIN A FEMA FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODWAY. 7.) TOTAL GROSS AREA: 42,519 S.F. 0.97 ACRES TOTAL NET AREA: 42,519 S. F. 0.97 ACRES TOTAL BUILDING AREA: SEEK TRAIL 8.) PARKING: 47 STANDARD SPACES XESS TYP. 3 ADA SPACES 9.) LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. 10.) GROSS AND DISTURBED ACREAGE: 6.09 AC IMnTF.q: 1. ALL PLANTING AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA WATER EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE 17.32. 2. A DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR THIS PROJECT PER THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE. NO SPRAY IRRIGATION SHALL BE USED. J. ALL MATURE PLANTING SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH UTILITY LINES OR TRAFFIC SITE LINES. 4. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED W/ PLANTING TYP. 5. CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. SHALL BE CALLED PRIOR TO ANY INSTALLATION IN ORDER TO SCHEDULE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE INSPECTIONS. 6. TREES & SHRUBS SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 5' AWAY FROM WATER METER, GAS METER, OR SEWER LATERALS; A MINIMUM OF 10' AWAY FROM UTILITY POLES; & A MINIMUM OF 8' AWAY FROM FIRE HYDRANTS & FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER & STANDPIPE CONNECTIONS. PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #3 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 20 40 80 1 INCH = 20 FT. PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN L,] 0 [L z U N z ° 'Q n Uo Q 0 dr Ld N In o /� V 2 w �00 z� a) U C F- 0)cy) m QLd a-'E z ao a a � o L0 =Ld N cf)— Q J ou 0' (D u a � U W � 0' U N E N H z a 0 J < CD WFLL � O U a z z = J N o °. o W W W a F5 E Cl)W ° 0 a w rrca z O W o� � Q LL J m W Cd co a w J a Z W z W w Cl) W z 0)a cr _ (C) J O O T drawn: V.D. checked: V.D. date: 5-22-23 SHEET L-1 of 1 sheets JOB NO. 22-1 16 ca W Q 0 APN # 922-100— 048 PA22-0929/0930/0931 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, & ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED HEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF ALHAMBRA GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & SHALL BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT ONLY EXCEPT WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SAID ARCHITECTS. ANY CHANGE MADE BY PARTIES OTHER THAN SAID ARCHITECTS SHALL RELIEVE ARCHITECTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FACILITY OR AFFECTED PORTION THEREOF. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK & SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCY TO THE ARCHITECT. REVISED CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA \/1\LLf\ 1 1\/'11L ACCESS TYP. PLANTING LEGEND SITE CALCULATIONS SITE AREA 42,519 SQ. FT. 0.976 NET ACRES TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 4,684 SQ. FT. 1 1 % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPE AREA IN R.O.W. 320 SQ. FT. SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE NUMBER REMARKS WUCOL IV TREES CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS PINK FLOWERING CHITALPA 24" BOX 10 DOUBLE STAKE / HEIGHT 8-10' SPREAD 3'-4' MIN. L • PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24" BOX 10 DOUBLE STAKE / HEIGHT 8-10' SPREAD 3'-4' MIN. M SHRUBS WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MORNING LIGHT' MORNING LIGHT WESTRINGIA 5 GAL 134 FULL & BUSHY @ 3' O.C. L • LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS 'GREEN CLOUD' GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 1 GAL 67 FULL & BUSHY ® 5' O.C. L Q HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA 5 GAL 40 FULL & BUSHY @ 3' O.C. L O WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI' PROSTRATE WESTRINGIA 1 GAL 28 FULL & SPREADING @ 5' O.C. L MULCH: NOT SHOWN FOREST BLEND WOOD MULCH SHREDDED WOOD MULCH 3" MAX. AS REQ'D. 1 3" DEEP -TO ALL PLANTING AREAS TYP. 'ACCENT PAVING ASIDE OF 2' WIDE ;ONCRETE HEADER TRANSFORMER SEEK TRAIL -.CESS TYP. IVOTPR: �v VICINITY MAP 2010 THOMAS GUIDE PG 978, J-1 SEC 12, T8S, R3W NOT TO SCALE 1. ALL PLANTING AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA WATER EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE 17.32. 2. A DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR THIS PROJECT PER THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE. NO SPRAY IRRIGATION SHALL BE USED. J. ALL MATURE PLANTING SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH UTILITY LINES OR TRAFFIC SITE LINES. 4. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED W/ PLANTING TYP. 5. CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. SHALL BE CALLED PRIOR TO ANY INSTALLATION IN ORDER TO SCHEDULE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE INSPECTIONS. 6. TREES & SHRUBS SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 5' AWAY FROM WATER METER, GAS METER, OR SEWER LATERALS; A MINIMUM OF 10' AWAY FROM UTILITY POLES; & A MINIMUM OF 8' AWAY FROM FIRE HYDRANTS & FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER & STANDPIPE CONNECTIONS. PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 SUBMITTAL #4 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 20 40 80 1 INCH = 20 FT. COLOR CONCEPT PLAN APN # 922-100-048 PA22-0929/0930/0931 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, & ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED HEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF ALHAMBRA GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & SHALL BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT ONLY EXCEPT WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SAID ARCHITECTS. ANY CHANGE MADE BY PARTIES OTHER THAN SAID ARCHITECTS SHALL RELIEVE ARCHITECTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FACILITY OR AFFECTED PORTION THEREOF. CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK & SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCY TO THE ARCHITECT. w � z U N )X n U o V) wN n zo -00 U�Cy) m Q �° Q Q o U� N w� C w MQ QQ Woo ry C) U N E N I - �G\.\\(ECT P 2017 %y do U Z� (V N Q 04 O A LO ° O A�j s�932i 5�P Z Q 2 O J a W O U Q Z I N V 0 W Q i 'as � F CO a U w W W v J Q L z 0 W W a LL J m w � 0) Q W J Z W 0 W O o 8 C) U) W Z =W J Q _ � Q O O O m Z J U W z F— ir O W O J W drawn: V.D. w checked: V.D. date: 5-22-23 N SHEET N N L-1 LO 0 of 1 sheets W a 0 JOB NO. �- 22-1 1 6 z aC PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA22-0930, MINOR EXCEPTION FOR A TWO FOOT INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL TOWER ELEMENT LOCATED ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 400 FEETSOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (APN: 922-100-048) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 19, 2022, Sam Mohan filed Planning Application No. PA22-0929 a Development Plan; Planning Application No. PA22-0930 a Minor Exception; and Planning Application No. PA22-0931 a Variance. These applications (collectively "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on June 19, 2024, 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. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA22-0930, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Minor Exception (Development Code Section 17.03.060.D): A. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. The proposal is for a 3.7% increase in the allowable height within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan from 55'-0" to 57'-0". Due to the narrow width of the project site and the existing storm drain on the southern end of the parcel that cannot be constructed upon the building is forced vertical within a constrained area. The allowance of the two foot increase in height will allow for a roofline architectural element which will enhance the architecture of the building and will allow the project to meet the development standards of the Specific Plan with respect to architecture. B. The Minor Exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. Permitting this Minor Exception will not grant special privileges to the applicant that are not otherwise available to surrounding properties because of the unique configuration of the property. The result of permitting this Minor Exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons as the increase in height allows the project to meet the intent of the Specific Plan's architectural standards with a roofline architectural element which will exceed the 55'-0" height limit. The project has been reviewed and, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Minor Exception Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects); (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning designation of the Old Town Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning regulations including General Plan Land Use Policy 7.1 which encourages revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 0.98 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial development, vacant land zoned for commercial development, a major roadway, and Murrieta Creek. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The proposed project is located on a project site that is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. As part of the entitlement on this site the project went through the HANS/JPR process with the Regional Conservation Authority in which JPR 23-09-26-01 determined that the project is consistent with other plan requirements and no conservation of land was required. The JPR also determined that the project site did not contain any riparian/riverine/vernal pools on the site. The project site lacks suitable riparian habitat to support riparian birds. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A traffic analysis was not required as part of this project as the proposed use is allowed within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan, and there is nothing unique about this project that would trigger the need for a traffic analysis. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and the zoning district. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA22-0930, a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for and architectural tower element located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road, and makes a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of June, 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of June, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Matt Peters Secretary PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA22-0931, VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR PARKING WITHIN THE CREEK SIDE PARKING FACILITY SETBACK AND ENCROACHMENT OF THE BUILDING OVER THE BUILD -TO LINE ALONG OLD TOWN FRONT STREET LOCATED ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (APN: 922-100-048) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 19, 2022, Sam Mohan filed Planning Application No. PA22-0929 a Development Plan; Planning Application No. PA22-0930 a Minor Exception; and Planning Application No. PA22-0931 a Variance. These applications (collectively "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on June 19, 2024, 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. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA22-0931, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Variance (Development Code Section 17.04.0401): A. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared by other properties in the zone. Due to the narrow depth of the project site, and the requirement for on -site parking, there are very limited options to locate the parking on site and comply with the Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek frontage surface parking setbacks. The ground floor street facing retail along Old Town Front Street will encroach beyond the build -to line up to 10 feet in order to provide street facing shopfront & retail of the minimum dimension required/recommended by the Old Town Specific Plan development standards (20' depth required, 50' recommended). Parking is being provided within the setback (required setback is 20' behind the build -to line) adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The creekside parking setback will not be entirely met; there are practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to physical circumstances and characteristics that are unique to this property due to its narrow width and location between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek. Strict adherence to all applicable setbacks required under the Old Town Specific Plan would result in an undevelopable site; not just for this project but for any project requiring parking. B. The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the applicant. Strict adherence to the Old Town Specific Plan build -to line standards and parking setbacks adjacent to Murrieta Creek were not created by the applicant. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the project that would result in a reduction of the size of the parcel. As a result, the applicant is developing the parcel as it is currently configured. The site plan has been developed to meet the majority of these requirements and meets the intent of the Old Town Specific Plan by not allowing parking to be a dominant visual feature on the site or from Murrieta Creek. C. The variance does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. This is the southernmost parcel of the Old Town Specific Plan on Old Town Front Street. The variance will not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. D. The variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties. The variance for this project will not affect surrounding properties as the proposed use of a hotel is a permitted use per the Old Town Specific Plan and the project is contained fully on the project site. No additional conditions are required as part of the project. E. The variance does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. A hotel is a permitted use of the Downtown Core Zoning District of the Old Town Specific Plan therefore the variance is not permitting a use otherwise not allowed in the zoning district. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Variance Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects); (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning designation of the Old Town Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning regulations including General Plan Land Use Policy 7.1 which encourages revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 0.98 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial development, vacant land zoned for commercial development, a major roadway, and Murrieta Creek. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The proposed project is located on a project site that is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. As part of the entitlement on this site the project went through the HANS/JPR process with the Regional Conservation Authority in which JPR 23-09-26-01 determined that the project is consistent with other plan requirements and no conservation of land was required. The JPR also determined that the project site did not contain any riparian/riverine/vernal pools on the site. The project site lacks suitable riparian habitat to support riparian birds. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A traffic analysis was not required as part of this project as the proposed use is allowed within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan, and there is nothing unique about this project that would trigger the need for a traffic analysis. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and the zoning district. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA22-0931, a Variance to allow for parking within the creek side parking facility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road, and makes a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of June, 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of June, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Matt Peters Secretary Gty of �Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street - Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 - Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com June 20, 2024 Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application Nos. PA22-0929, PA22-0930, and PA22-0931, a Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel; a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for and architectural tower element; and a Variance to allow for parking within the creekside parking facility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street due to the narrow width of the project site The project is located on the west side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road. Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the Applicant will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Cooper at (951) 506-5137 or at email scott.cooperkTemeculaCA.gov. . Sincerely, Matt Peters Acting Director of Community Development Attachments: Notice of Exemption Form, Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Notice of Exemption TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Boutique Hotel (PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931) Description of Project: Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel; a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for and architectural tower element; and a Variance to allow for parking within the creek side parking facility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street due to the narrow width of the project site. Project Location: APN: 922-100-048 Applicant/Proponent: City of Temecula, County of Riverside The Planning Commission approved the above described project on June 19, 2024 and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Exempt Status: (check one) ❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268); ❑ Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section 15269(b)(c)); ❑ Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: ) ® Categorical Exemption: (Section Number 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects) ❑ Other: Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because hotels are an allowable use within the Downtown Core zoning designation of the Old Town Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning regulations including General Plan Land Use Policy 7.1 which encourages revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 0.98 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial development, vacant land zoned for commercial development, a major roadway, and Murrieta Creek. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The proposed project is located on a project site that is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. As part of the entitlement on this site the project went through the HANSUPR process with the Regional Conservation Authority in which JPR 23-09-26-01 determined that the project is consistent with other plan requirements and no conservation of land was required. The JPR also determined that the project site did not contain any riparian/riverine/vernal pools on the site. The project site lacks suitable riparian habitat to support riparian birds. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A traffic analysis was not required as part of this project as the proposed use is allowed within the Downtown Core zoning district of the Old Town Specific Plan, and there is nothing unique about this project that would trigger the need for a traffic analysis. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and the zoning district. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. Contact Person/Title: Scott Cooper, Senior Planner Phone Number: (951) 506-5137 Signature: Matt Peters Acting Director of Community Development Date: Notice of Public Hearin THE CITY OF TEMECULA - 41000 Main Street- Temecula, CA 92590 — TemeculaCA.gov A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No.: PA22-0929, PA22-0930, PA22-0931 Applicant: Sam Mohan Project Location: West side of Old Town Front Street approximately 400' south of Santiago Road (APN: 922-100-048) Proposal: Development Plan for an approximately 60,258 square foot, four-story, 50 room hotel; a Minor Exception for a two foot increase in the height of the building for an architectural tower element; and PA22-0931, a Variance to allow for parking within the creek side parking facility setback and encroachment of the building over the build -to line along Old Town Front Street. Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects). Case Planner: Scott Cooper, (951) 506-5137 PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2024 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM .4 Project Sit- 0 200 400 Feet IN The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center, 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.2ov — and will be available for public review at the meeting. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within 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. Questions? Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. Item No. 4 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Peters, Acting Community Development Director DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2024 PREPARED BY: Scott Cooper, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA14-0087, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM SUMMARY: 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots on 42.64 acres for Planning Area 4 within the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval CEQA: No further environmental review required Public Resources Code Section 21166 Government Code Section 65457 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Woodside Homes General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential (LM) Zoning Designation: Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan (SP-4) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Vacant Land / Low Medium Density Residential (LM) North: Single Family Residential / Low Medium Density Residential (LM) South: Temecula Parkway, Commercial Center / Highway Tourist (HT), Industrial Park (IP) East: Butterfield Stage Road, Vacant Land, Commercial Buildings / Medium Density Residential (M), Community Commercial (CC) West: Single Family Residential / Low Medium Residential (LM) AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING Located in Housing Element Vacant Sites Inventory? ® Yes ❑ No Located in Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)? ❑ Yes ® No Affordability Mix Very Low Income Units (0-50% of AMI) 0 Low Income Units (51 %-80% of AMI) 0 Moderate Income Units (80%-120% of AMI) 0 Above Moderate (Market Rate) Units (120%+ of AMI) 164 Total Number of Residential Units 164 BACKGROUND SUMMARY On September 6, 1988 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which included Planning Area 4. Since the original approval of the Specific Plan and EIR, eight (8) amendments to the Specific Plan and four (4) addendums to the EIR have been approved. On April 21, 2014, the applicant submitted Planning Application PA14-0087, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots on 42.64 acres for Planning Area 4 within Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. 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 Bite Plan Per the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, this Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) is Planning Area 4 which allows for single family residential development. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will subdivide two existing parcels totaling approximately 42.64 acres into 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots with a density of 3.85 dwelling units per acre. The Specific Plan allows for 188 single family homes with a density range of 2-5 dwelling units per acre in this planning area. This project will not be a part of the existing Homeowners Association and therefore will not have access to any of the existing private amenities which include pools, spas and clubhouses. A condition of approval has been included that reads: A Development Plan application for a private recreation center shall be submitted concurrently with the Home Product Review application for the project. The recreation center shall include, but not limited to, an appropriately sized pool and spa, clubhouse, seating areas, and other active and passive amenities. This condition ensures that the proposed development will provide sufficient amenities for future residents. The applicant, at a later date, will submit for Home Product Review which will include the elevations of the homes, landscaping, and amenities. The subsequent Home Product Review and Development Plan for the private recreation center will come before the Planning Commission for review. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS The notice of the public hearing was published in the Press Enterprise on June 7, 2024, and mailed to the property owners within a 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan was formally adopted in 1988. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified on September 6, 1988 as part of this effort. Since that time, four Addenda to the EIR have been prepared for the project area with the most recent adopted on January 8, 2002. The proposed project (Project) has been determined to be consistent with the previously adopted Paloma Del Sol Addendum and no further environmental review is required (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Government Code Section 65457). Staff has reviewed the EIR, the First Addendum to the EIR adopted December 8, 1992, the Second Addendum to the EIR adopted on March 17, 1999, the Third Addendum to the EIR adopted on September 9, 1999, and the Fourth Addendum to the EIR adopted on January 8, 2002 (collectively, EIR and Addenda). In addition, staff has reviewed the Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, prepared by Psomas and dated August 26, 2020, and the Memorandum regarding Revalidation of the Consistency Evaluation for Paseo Del Sol Residential Development, also prepared by Psomas and dated September 14, 2023. Based on this substantial evidence, staff has determined that the proposed Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR as none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 exist. Specifically as it relates to Section 21166, Tentative Tract Map 36483 and associated Project improvements do not represent a substantial change from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan evaluated in the certified EIR and Addenda and is within the scope of the potential development contemplated by that Plan; there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certified EIR. The Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the EIR and Addenda, and there are no mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce significant impacts and were previously found not to be feasible, but which are now feasible. Therefore, based on this evaluation, none of the conditions in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code apply and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. In addition, the Project is exempt as it is a residential development project undertaken to implement a specific plan for which an EIR previously was prepared per Government Code Section 65457. The application for a Tentative Tract Map to construct 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots is consistent with the project that was analyzed by the EIR and Addenda. The proposed Project is required to meet all requirements and mitigation contained in EIR and Addenda. 9 FINDINGS Tentative Maps (Section 16.09.140) The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the development code, general plan, any applicable specific plan and the city of Temecula Municipal Code; Tentative Parcel Map No. 36483 has been designed in a manner that is consistent with and meets all development and design standards of the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, the Municipal Code, and the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. The property associated with Tentative Parcel Map No. 36483 is identified within the City of Temecula Housing Element Vacant Lands Inventory for residential development. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The subject parcel does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The subject property has not been designated for conservation or agricultural land, and is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The proposed Tentative Map is in accordance with what is allowed by the previously approved Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. Specifically, Planning Area 4 allows for a maximum of 188 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 5, 000 square feet and allowable density of 2.0-5.0 dwelling units per acre. The Tentative Map proposes 164 residential lots with an average lot size of 5,903 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and 3.85 dwelling units per acre. The Tentative Map also includes nine (9) non-residential lots for open space. As such, the site is suitable for this development proposed. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with Conditions of Approval, are either: 1. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, or 2. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on vacant property. An Environmental Impact Report and subsequent Addenda to the EIR have been previously prepared for the project. The project is conditioned to comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. SCH# 8707003. A Joint Projects Review #15-06-16-01 was completed for this project which determined that the project is consistent with both the criteria and other plan requirements of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and does not require for any acreage to be designated for conservation. Therefore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with Conditions of Approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the proposed development is consistent with all applicable building, development and fire codes, which include provisions to safeguard public health, and will be further reviewed and inspected by City staff for compliance with all applicable building, development and fire codes prior to issuance of any grading, building, or occupancy permits. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; The project consists of a Tentative Parcel Map on vacant property. Any future development on the project site will be in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code in effect at that time as it relates to heating and cooling. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided; All required rights -of -way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. The subdivision is consistent with the city's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby Act). The Quimby obligation for the proposed project was previously satisfied by the master developer of Paseo Del Sol. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. PC Resolution 3. Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Exhibit B — Plan Reductions 5. Exhibit C — Consistency Evaluation 6. Exhibit D — Consistency Evaluation Revalidation 7. Notice of Exemption 8. Notice of Public Hearing 959-400-0011 959-400-002 CITY OF TEMECULA Pn14-0087 Y� 1:3,800 Date Created: 4/25/2024 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country The map PA14-0087.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at https:Htemeculaca.gov/gis PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA14-0087, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 36483) FOR THE CREATION OF 164 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND NINE (9) OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 42.64 ACRES FOR PLANNING AREA 4 WITHIN THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457 (APNS: 959-400-001, 002) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On April 21, 2014, the applicant filed Planning Application No. PA14-0087, a Tentative Tract Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Project and environmental review on June 19, 2024, 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. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA14-0087, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Tentative Tract Map (Development Code Section 16.09.140): A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan and City of Temecula Municipal Code. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36483 has been designed in a manner that is consistent with and meets all development and design standards of the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, the Municipal Code, and the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. The property associated with Tentative Parcel Map No. 36483 is identified within the City of Temecula Housing Element Vacant Lands Inventory for residential development. B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The subject parcel does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The subject property has not been designated for conservation or agricultural land, and is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map. The proposed Tentative Map is in accordance with what is allowed by the previously approved Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. Specifically, Planning Area 4 allows for a maximum of 188 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and allowable density of 2.0-5.0 dwelling units per acre. The Tentative Map proposes 164 residential lots with an average lot size of 5,903 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and 3.85 dwelling units per acre. The Tentative Map also includes nine (9) non-residential lots for open space. As such, the site is suitable for this development proposed. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with Conditions of Approval are either: 1. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, or 2. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The project consists of a Tentative Tract Map on vacant property. An Environmental Impact Report and subsequent Addenda to the EIR have been previously prepared for the project. The project is conditioned to comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. SCH# 8707003. A Joint Projects Review #15-06-16-01 was completed for this project which determined that the project is consistent with both the criteria and other plan requirements of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and does not require for any acreage to be designated for conservation. Therefore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with Conditions of Approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the proposed development is consistent with all applicable building, development and fire codes, which include provisions to safeguard public health, and will be further reviewed and inspected by City staff for compliance with all applicable building, development and fire codes prior to issuance of any grading, building, or occupancy permits. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The project consists of a Tentative Parcel Map on vacant property. Any future development on the project site will be in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code in effect at that time as it relates to heating and cooling. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. All required rights -of -way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Quimby obligation , for the proposed project was previously satisfied by the master developer of Paseo Del Sol. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental Endings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Tentative Tract Map Application: A. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the substantial evidence in the record as a whole and, in its independent judgment, hereby determines that no further or subsequent environmental review is required and the Project is exempt from further environmental review (Public Resources Code Section 21166, Government Code Section 65457). The Planning Commission's determination is based on the substantial evidence in the record and the following findings, determinations, and conclusions: The Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan was formally adopted in 1988. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified on September 6, 1988 as part of this effort. Since that time, four Addenda to the EIR have been prepared for the project area with the most recent adopted on January 8, 2002. The proposed project (Project) has been determined to be consistent with the previously adopted Paloma Del Sol Addendum and no further environmental review is required (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Government Code Section 65457). Staff has reviewed the EIR, the First Addendum to the EIR adopted December 8, 1992, the Second Addendum to the EIR adopted on March 17, 1999, the Third Addendum to the EIR adopted on September 9, 1999, and the Fourth Addendum to the EIR adopted on January 8, 2002 (collectively, EIR and Addenda). In addition, staff has reviewed the Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, prepared by Psomas and dated August 26, 2020, and the Memorandum re Revalidation of the Consistency Evaluation for Paseo Del Sol Residential Development, also prepared by Psomas and dated September 14, 2023. Based on this substantial evidence, staff has determined that the proposed Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR as none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 exist. Specifically as it relates to Section 21166, Tentative Tract Map 36483 and associated Project improvements do not represent a substantial change from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan evaluated in the certified EIR and Addenda and is within the scope of the potential development contemplated by that Plan; there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certified EIR. The Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the EIR and Addenda, and there are no mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce significant impacts and were previously found not to be feasible but which are now feasible. Therefore, based on this evaluation, none of the conditions in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code apply and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. In addition, the Project is exempt as it is a residential development project undertaken to implement a specific plan for which an EIR previously was prepared per Government Code Section 65457. The application for a Tentative Tract Map to construct 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots is consistent with the project that was analyzed by the EIR and Addenda. The proposed Project is required to meet all requirements and mitigation contained in EIR and Addenda. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA14-0087, a Tentative Parcel Map (No. 38349) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots for Planning Area 4 within Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, and makes a finding of exemption under the Public Resources and Government Codes subject to the Final Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, Plan Reductions set forth in Exhibit B, Consistency Evaluation set forth in Exhibit C, and Consistency Evaluation Revalidation set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of June, 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of June, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Matt Peters Secretary EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA14-0087 Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots on 42.64 acres located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road (APNs: 959-400-001 / 959-400-002) Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-400-001 959-400-002 MSHCP Category: Less than 8.0 dwelling units DIF Category: Residential -Detached TUMF Category: Residential -Single Family Quimby Category: N/A (Exempt per Development Agreement Section 12.11) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (Project Not Located in the Uptown Specific Plan Area) Approval Date: June 19, 2024 Expiration Date: June 19, 2027 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval Page 1 of 19 Applicant Filing Notice of Exemption. APPLICANT ACTION REQUIRED: The applicant/developer is responsible for filing the Notice of Exemption as required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062 within 48 hours of the project approval. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not filed the Notice of Exemption as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of this condition. Failure to submit the Notice of Exemption will result in an extended period of time for legal challenges. FEES: Fees for the Notice of Exemption include the Fifty Dollar County ($50.00) administrative fee. The County of Riverside charges additional fees for credit card transactions. FILING: The City shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Exemption within 24 hours of approval via email. If the applicant/developer has not received the Notice of Exemption within 24 hours of approval, they shall contact the case Planner immediately. All CEQA documents must be filed online with the Riverside County Assessor — County Clerk- Recorder. A direct link to the CEQA filings page is available at TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA. COPY OF FILINGS: The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the required filings within 48 hours. General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Page 2of19 Expiration. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three (3) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. A modification made to an approved Tentative Map does not affect the original approval date of a Tentative Map. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five (5) extensions of time, one (1) year at a time. A modification made to an approved Tentative Map does not affect the original approval date of a Tentative Map. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan (SP #4). 6. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 235 (SCH# 8707003). Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 8. Burrowing Owl Study Submittal. A Burrowing Owl Study shall be submitted prior to plan check approval for the grading permit. If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be resurveyed. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 10. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 11. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on -site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 12. Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, shall be identified on the street improvement plans, and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 13. Compliance with RCA/Riverside County Transportation Commission. The applicant shall comply with the conditions set forth in the Regional Conservation Authority's Joint Project Review letter (JPR#15-06-16-01) originally dated April 25, 2016 and updated April 6, 2018, a copy of which is attached. This includes the requirement to submit a copy of the final Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to the RCA/RCTC that must include all mitigation implementation details including future activities that could potentially negate the conservation value such as vector control and weed abatement. The HMMP must include success criteria including timelines of when success is anticipated. Page 3of19 14. Private Recreation Center. A Development Plan application for a private recreation center shall be submitted concurrently with the Home Product Review application for the project. The recreation center shall include, but not limited to, an appropriately sized pool and spa, clubhouse, seating areas, and other active and passive amenities. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 15. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. 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 Community Development at their sole discretion may require the property owner 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 Community Development 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 Community Development 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 Community Development." 16. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. The agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a grading permit. To accomplish this, the applicant should contact the Pechanga Tribe no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Pechanga monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the project archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. 17. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and the qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga monitor shall investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment." 18. Archaeological Monitoring Notes. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "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." Page 4of19 19. Tribal Monitoring Notes. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A Pechanga Tribal monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the project archaeologist and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property." 20. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "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." 21. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 22. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on -site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on -site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be resurveyed. Page 5of19 23. Cultural Resources Discoveries. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Department: i) Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii) Reburial of the resources on the project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at a minimum measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, grave goods, Native American human remains and any items deemed sensitive by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians are excluded. The reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV monitoring report. The Phase IV monitoring report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City, the Developer and the consulting Tribes. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report iii) The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of tribal cultural resources, including sacred items and grave goods, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Page 6of19 24. Discovery of Archaeological Materials. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, the contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a Qualified Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (codified in 36 CFR Part 61; 48 FR 44738-44739. The Applicant shall immediately notify the City of any discoveries and implement protective measures (such as cordoning off the area). Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until authorized by the City. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Research Design and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. For discoveries of Native American cultural resources, the City shall follow the provisions of Cultural Resources Discoveries Condition of Approval and consult with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in determining treatment for the resource to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered. 25. Archaeologist Retained. The Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified/City of Temecula approved archaeological monitor to monitor all ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. The archaeologist shall provide a Phase IV monitoring report at the end of all earthmoving activities to the City of Temecula, the Pechanga Tribe and the Eastern Information Center at UC, Riverside. 26. Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the Treatment Agreement described in these conditions. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Page 7of19 27. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The Western Riverside County of Governments administers and collects the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance (paid to WRCOG). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Additional information on payment, fees, and points of contact can be found at http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/174/TUMF 28. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. 29. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved conceptual grading plans including all structural setback measurements. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 30. TCSD Service Levels. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. 31. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 32. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division. 33. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 30 miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. b. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 235 (SCH# 8707003) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Division. c. This project is within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. 34. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and all landscaped and open areas, including parkways. Applicants shall provide a deposit in the amount of $3,750 for the review of new CC&Rs. Amended CC&Rs will require a deposit of $2,000. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs incurred during the review of the CC&Rs and additional fees may be required during the course of the review. 35. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. Page 8of19 36. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 37. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. 38. CC&Rs and Management/Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the project's Water Quality Management Plan. 39. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 40. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 41. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Property. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 42. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 43. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. (insert #) require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Matt Peters Acting Community Development Director Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney Page 9of19 44. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs to read as follows: Article CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA 1. The Conditions of Approval of Tentative Tract Map Number 36483 requires the City to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. 2. Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC&Rs and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessment procedures, assessment enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. 3. In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the land use entitlements issued by the City for the Parcel or Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, and regulations and these CC&Rs, the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and Federal, State or local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding the language of the CC&Rs. 4. These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise modified without the express written consent of the Director Community Development of the City of Temecula. 45. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 46. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 47. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. Outside Agencies 48. Flood Protection. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control Districts transmittals dated July 23, 2015 and January 21, 2016, copies of which are attached. 49. Compliance with Dept. of Environmental Health. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated August 25, 2015 and January 21, 2016 copies of which are attached. 50. Compliance with EMWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated July 15, 2014, a copy of which is attached. Page 10 of 19 51. Compliance with County Geologist. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Geologist transmittal dated April 2, 2015, a copy of which is attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 52. Subdivision Map. The developer shall submit a complete Tract Map submittal for review and approval. Any omission to the representation of the site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 53. Grading Permit. A grading permit for rough and/or precise grading shall be obtained from Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within private property. Grading shall be in accordance with the approved grading plan, grading permit conditions and City codes/standards. 54. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements; and c. from Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) if encroaching within their right-of-way. 55. Private Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. 56. Landscaped Median Plans. The developer: a. shall contact the Park/Landscape Maintenance Supervisor for a pre -design meeting to discuss design parameters. The design shall be in conformance with the Temecula Community Services District's Landscape Standards. b. his successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaped parkways, medians or public parks until such time Public Works accepts that responsibility. 57. Parkway Landscaping. All parkway improvements shall be privately maintained 58. Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit improvement plans (to include public street plans, storm drain plans, signage and striping plans, etc.) as required for review and approval by Public Works. The designs shall be in compliance with Caltrans, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City codes/standards. 59. Butterfield Stage Road Storm Drain Improvements. In the event that the City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District enter into a co-op agreement, the construction of the AD 159 - Butterfield Stage Road Storm Drain - Line A Stage 2 Improvements will be constructed as a City of Temecula Public Works Capital Improvement Project. Funding shall be provided immediately prior to issuance of the first production house building permit. 60. Funding. In the event that there is a funding shortfall for the project, AD 159 — Butterfield Stage Road Storm Drain - Line A Stage 2 Improvement, the Developer shall be responsible for funding the difference between the final approved Capital Improvement Program Budget Sheet for PW23-15 and the funding allocated by Assessment District (AD) 159 and RCFC&WCD prior to the Award of Contract by City Council to commence construction of said storm drain improvements. Funding shall be in the form of cash or letter of credit, as approved by the City Attorney. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map Page 11 of 19 61. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 62. Right -of -Way Dedications. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by Public Works. 63. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall prepare and record an ECS with the Tract Map to delineate identified environmental concerns. The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS along with any underlying maps related to the property. 64. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Rancho California Water District; f. Eastern Municipal Water District; g. Cable TV Franchise; h. Verizon; i. Southern California Edison Company; j. The Gas Company; or other affected agencies 65. Right of Access. Relinquish and waive rights of access to and from the streets below on the Tract Map as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map: a. Temecula Parkway with no openings, b. Butterfield Stage Road with no openings, and c. De Portola Road with the execption of two openings. 66. Easements. Note the following: a. Private easements for cross -lot drainage shall be delineated and noted on the Tract Map. b. Easements and access rights for meandering sidewalks for public use (through private property) shall be dedicated to the City. c. Easements (when required for roadway slopes, landscape, drainage facilities, utilities, etc.) shall be shown on the Tract Map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded, as directed by Public Works. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the Tract Map. A note shall be added to the Tract Map stating: "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 67. RCFC&WCD Approval. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to issuance of any permit. Page 12 of 19 68. Public Street Improvements and Securities. The developer shall have approved improvement plans, executed subdivision improvement agreements and posted securities for the following public improvements (including parkway and median improvements) to the City's General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be approved by Public Works. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Improve Temecula Parkway, along property frontage, to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. b. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Temecula Parkway to De Portola Road (Standard No. 100 —110' R/W) to include installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. In the event that the City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District enter into a co-op agreement and the project becomes a Capital Improvement Project, all improvements shall be required, with the exception of the improvements proposed in the AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road Improvement Storm Drain Project. c. Improve De Portola Road, along property frontage (Standard No. 101 — 100' R/W) to include installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map. d. Improve Street "A" (74' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Improve Streets "B" through "J" - 60' R/W to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 69. Under -grounding Utility Systems. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV shall be provided underground (with the required easements); and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City codes and utility provider's standards. Telephone, cable TV and/or security systems shall be pre -wired in the residence. The developer shall notify the City's cable TV franchisees of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV standards at time of street improvements. 70. Acquisition of Offsite Property. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire required offsite property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall, prior to submittal of the Tract Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Subdivision Map Act, Sections 66462 and 66462.5. The agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the offsite property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer (at developer's cost). The appraiser shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 71. Assessments. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an existing Assessment District, must comply with the requirements of said section. The developer shall submit an application for reapportionment of any assessments with the appropriate regulatory agency. 72. Property Taxes. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. Page 13 of 19 73. Election Proceeding. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Public Works Department to initiate election proceedings for acceptance of street lighting into the appropriate maintenance program (Service Level B). All cost associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 74. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies. 75. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/ECM 76. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 77. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml 78. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement.. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff, the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link: www.TemeculaCA.gov/WQMP. Page 14 of 19 79. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 10 and 100-year storm event for 24 hour storm duration peak flow) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 80. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 81. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 82. American Disability Act. The developer shall ensure that all frontage areas to the proposed development within the public right of way are ADA compliant. Any sidewalk within the public right of way found to be non -compliant shall be the responsibility of the property owner to be removed and replaced with ADA compliant sidewalk per the Streets and Highway Code Section 5610. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) Page 15 of 19 83. Construction of Street Improvements. The developer shall start construction of all public street improvements, as outlined below, in accordance to the City's General Plan/Circulation Element and corresponding City standards. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Improve Temecula Parkway, along property frontage, to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. b. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Temecula Parkway to De Portola Road (Standard No. 100 —110' R/W) to include installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. In the event that the City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District enter into a co-op agreement and the project becomes a Capital Improvement Project, all improvements shall be required, with the exception of the improvements proposed in the AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road Improvement Storm Drain Project. c. Improve De Portola Road, along property frontage (Standard No. 101 — 100' R/W) to include installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map. d. Improve Street "A" (74' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. Improve Streets "B" through "J" - 60' R/W to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 84. Final Map. Tract Map Number 36483 shall be approved and recorded. 85. Street Lights. a. Street Light Plan — Street lighting shall be designed in accordance with the latest City Standards and Specifications for LS-3 street light rates, and as determined by the City Engineer. b. Onsite and Offsite Street Lights Ownership and Maintenance — All proposed public and private street lights shall be designed in accordance with City approved standards and specifications, or as determined and approved by the City Engineer. The City shall have ownership and maintenance of all proposed public street lights and associated appurtenances, and shall be provided with adequate service points for power. The design shall be incorporated in the project's street improvement plans or in a separate street light plan as determined and approved by the City Engineer. c. Streetlight Design as LS-3 Rate Lights — All new streetlights, other than traffic signal safety lights, shall be designed as LS-3 rate lights in accordance with approved City standards and specifications, and as determined by the City Engineer. d. Street Light Service Point Addressing — The developer shall coordinate with the PW Department and with Southern California Edison the assignment of addresses to required street light service points. Service points serving public streetlights shall be owned by the City and shall be located within public's right of way or within duly dedicated public easements. Page 16 of 19 86. Precise Grading Plan. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan; and shall show all lot drainage directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. The building pad shall be certified by a registered civil engineer for location and elevation; and the soils engineer shall issue a final soils report addressing compaction and site conditions. 87. Funding. In the event that there is a funding shortfall for the project, AD 159 — Butterfield Stage Road Storm Drain - Line A Stage 2 Improvement, the Developer shall be responsible for funding the difference between the final approved Capital Improvement Program Budget Sheet for PW23-15 and the funding allocated by Assessment District (AD) 159 and RCFC&WCD prior to the Award of Contract by City Council to commence construction of said storm drain improvements. Funding shall be in the form of cash or letter of credit, as approved by the City Attorney. Funding shall be provided immediately prior to issuance of the first production house building permit. 88. Undergrounding Wires. All existing and proposed electrical and telecommunication lines, except electrical lines rated 34KV or greater, shall be installed underground per Title 15, Chapter 15.04 of the Temecula Municipal Code and utility provider's standards. The developer is responsible for any associated costs, for making arrangements with each utility agency and for obtaining the necessary easements. 89. Storm Drain Easements. The Developer shall, in good faith, obtain a storm drain easement from the property owner of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 6428 (Assessor Parcel Number 965-400-001) for the AD 159 - Butterfield Stage Road Storm Drain - Line A Stage 2 Improvement project. A recorded copy of the easement shall be provided to the City. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 90. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all on site work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 91. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 92. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 93. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. 94. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) certification. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require Alternative Compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements Page 17 of 19 95. ADA Access. Applicant shall submit details and plans of all applicable disabled access provisions for common use areas, park, and open space HOA lots, based on current Building Code, at time of submittal. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 96. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 2-hour duration for single family dwellings and 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 4-hour duration for multi -family projects, commercial projects and industrial projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 97. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2 '/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all Commercial and multi -family projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, 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 for all and for single family dwellings and tract homes hydrants shall be 500 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The fire line may be required to be a looped system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 98. Fire Dept. Plan Review. 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. 99. Two Point Access. This development shall maintain two points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 100. Turning Radius (Culdesac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37-feet for single family dwelling tracts and 45 feet for multi -family dwelling tracts. (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 101. All Weather Access Roads. 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 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020) 102. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet for commercial and track home roads and 20 feet for custom homes residential driveways with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 103. Gradient of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Page 18 of 19 Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 104. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. 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. A set of sprinkler permits are required for each individual structure (home). 105. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The underground fire water lines will be a public system, per direction of Rancho California Water District. Rancho California Water District will need to comply with the fire department spacing for the fire hydrants and also the fire flow requirements for the public fire hydrants as outlined in these conditions. No separate fire permits will be required. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 106. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5) Page 19 of 19 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County Project Information Permittee: Case Information: Site Acreage: RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 itv of Temecula TTM 36483 / Paseo Del Sol / PA 14-0087 42.64 acres Portion of Site Proposed for 0 proposed, but result of CDFW Section 1602 permitting MSHCP Conservation Area: requires conservation easement over approximately 3.0 acres Criteria Consistency Review Consistency Conclusion: The project is consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan requirements. Data: Applicable Core/Linkage: Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 Area Plan: Southwest APN(s) Sub -Unit Cell Group Cell 959-400-001 SU 2 — Temecula and Independent 7273 959-400-002 Pechanga Creeks 959-400-003 Criteria and Project Information Criteria Comments: a. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, "Proposed Linkage 24 is comprised of the portion of Temecula Creek east of Redhawk Parkway and west of Pauba Road. This Linkage provides Habitat for wetland species and a connection to Core Areas in Wilson Valley. The Linkage is constrained by existing roadways and planned community Development. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided for within this Linkage include bobcat, mountain lion, Stephens' kangaroo rat, Aguanga kangaroo rat, western pond turtle, yellow warbler, southwestern willow flycatcher, arroyo chub, loggerhead shrike, tree swallow, white-tailed kite, Cooper's hawk and least Bell's vireo. In addition to maintenance of habitat quality, maintenance of existing floodplain processes along Temecula Creek is important for these species. While specific studies of movement along this Linkage have not been conducted, it likely provides for movement of common mammals such as bobcat." b. The project site is partially located within Cell 7273. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 24. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, and Riversidean alluvial 1 of 9 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Western Riverside County Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 fan sage scrub habitat along Temecula Creek and adjacent grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7274 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 5%-15% of the Cell focusing in the eastern central portion of the Cell." c. Rough Step: The proposed project is within Rough Step Unit 5. Rough Step 5 encompasses 91,734 acres within the southwestern corner of western Riverside County and includes the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Tenaja Corridor, and Murrieta Creek. It is bounded by Interstate 15 to the northeast, San Diego County to the south and the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest to the west. Within Rough Step 5, 24,326 acres are located within the Criteria Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step Unit 5 include coastal sage scrub; grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and woodlands and forests. Based on the 2013 MSHCP Annual Report, all vegetation categories are "in" rough step. Based on the MSHCP vegetation mapping, vegetation on the proposed project site includes grassland, disturbed and water. Therefore, development on the project site will not conflict with or interfere with the Rough Step Status of Unit 5. d. Project information was provided by the Permittee in the JPR application and HANS package from the Permittee which included a Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis dated April 2014 prepared by RBF Consulting. An updated package, with a revised Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis (August 2015), Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report (August 2015), and Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters (June 2014) was resubmitted in September 2015 by Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) to include information requested during the initial JPR process. Additional information was requested on several occasions, and the most recent submittal included a Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis (Analysis) revised April 2016 and a Riparian/Riverine Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) revised March 2016. The project site is located north of State Route 79 (SR-79), east of Mantova Drive, south of De Portola Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road in the City of Temecula. The project site is part of the previously approved (1998) Paseo Del Sol Specific Plan, and received permits from USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW at that time. The site was previously graded and utilized as interim stormwater management facilities for the larger specific plan area. Per the site plan provided in the application package, the site is being proposed for approximately 174 single family residential units. The project site is generally located east of Interstate 15 (I-15) in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Specifically, the project site is located north of SR-79, east of Mantova Drive, South of De Portola Road, and west of Butterfield Stage Road. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, and west, and an agricultural field to the northeast. Undeveloped lands are located to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 750 feet to the south on the other side of SR-79. The site currently has a manmade channel flowing roughly in a north to southwest direction, and is discussed below in Section 6.1.2. Non-native grassland is found throughout the majority of the project site outside of the unnamed drainage feature, and has been heavily disturbed from previous grading activities. Dominant plant species observed within this 2of9 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 plant community include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Chinese purslane (Portulaca oleracea), silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), and filaree (Erodium sp.). e. Reserve Assembly: The project site is located in the northwestern corner of Cell 7273 which is not in the area that would contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 described for conservation. The area described for conservation is focused on Temecula Creek and the adjacent grassland areas in the eastern central 5%-15% portion of the Cell. The proposed project site is constrained by development on the north, west, and south sides, separated from Temecula Creek by SR-79 and a shopping center. Furthermore, there is no connection between the project site and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland, forest or grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7274 to the east. The proposed project is not contributing to conservation constraints or fragmentation in this area, and its development will not affect the ability of this Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 to function or be assembled. Therefore, the project does not affect the Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP. Other Plan Requirements Data: Section 6.1.2 — Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. There are riparian/riverine areas on the project site. There are no vernal pools on the project site and soils are not consistent with vernal pool soil types and are not suitable for fairy shrimp habitat. Section 6.1.3 — Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). Section 6.3.2 — Was Additional Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA). The project site is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl. Section 6.1.4 — Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The property is not directly adjacent to existing or described Conservation Areas. However, flows from the site will ultimately drain to Temecula Creek, an area described for Conservation. 3of9 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Other Plan Requirement Comments: JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 a. Section 6.1.2: According to the MSHCP Analysis prepared by Michael Baker, the project site currently has a manmade channel which was constructed for temporary stormwater management of the previously approved specific plan development. An unnamed manmade drainage feature bisects the site, flowing in a north to southwest direction. This drainage enters the site roughly in the center of its northern boundary through a concrete culvert, where it then transitions to an earthen ditch, then curves to the southwest and is temporarily retained in the southwest corner of the site within a detention/sedimentation basin. The temporary detention/sedimentation basin drains via an off -site concrete [underground] culvert that runs under SR-79 and into Temecula Creek via existing commercial developments on the southwest corner of the site. Historical aerials from 1995 show an alluvial wash on the northern portion of the property running east -west. With development surrounding the site to the north, south, and west, the Analysis indicates that the primary function and value of the on -site wetland was "regulation of nuisance flows, energy dissipation, conveyance of floodwaters, and nutrient/particulate uptake from off -site upstream development." As part of the grading operations in 2001, the project site was graded for the stormwater conveyance features located on the site currently. Project development was ceased in 2006 and the stormwater management facilities have remained in place. Since the time the project was halted in 2006, the trench has continued to convey stormwater from the northern development north through the proposed project site. The Analysis explains that the wetland basin provides limited flood protection/water storage capabilities by attenuating flows but it does not eliminate flooding to Butterfield Stage Road, SR-79, the project site, or commercial centers to the south of SR-79. Further, the areas upstream of the wetland are developed, and the existing wetland does not provide a wildlife movement corridor or linkage from Temecula Creek across the project site. The Analysis concluded that a single 0.69-acre wetland (1,350 linear feet) associated with the unvegetated streambed and the 0.10-acre non -wetland detention basin (ephemeral streambed), both determined to be MSHCP riparian/riverine resources, would be impacted by the proposed project and thus require mitigation and preparation of a DBESP. All impacts would be considered permanent and no temporary impacts to riparian/riverine resources are anticipated. The riparian habitat on site is broadleaf cattail (Typha spp.) and a sparsely distributed sandbar/narrow leaf willow (Salix exigua). According to the Analysis, none of the soils appropriate to create the impermeable restrictive layer are present or have been mapped on the project site. A review of recent (1995-2014) and predevelopment aerial photographs of the site and its immediate vicinity did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool on or in the near vicinity of the project site. While prolonged ponding may occur on -site, it is the result of continuous flows from surrounding development and does not suggest suitability for fairy shrimp which require astatic conditions. The continuous flows from surrounding development would preclude the pond from developing into an astatic pond. No other ponding was observed on -site, supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regime needed for vernal pools. Based on this discussion, the Analysis concluded that there is 4of9 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 no indication of sensitive plant and wildlife species associated with vernal pools and clay soils, including fairy shrimp, and that they are presumed absent from the project site. This habitat is also reportedly not suitable for riparian birds, and therefore no focused surveys were warranted. The Analysis also concluded that the development surrounding the site to the north, west, and south limits the potential of the site to support migratory linkages of corridors for riparian species. To offset impacts to the riparian/riverine areas, the applicant proposes on -site re-establishment of both wetland and non -wetland habitat, and a vegetated stormwater conveyance riparian scrub streambed, totaling 2.94 acres. The applicant is responsible for implementing the requirements of a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plant (HMMP) that will include establishment of the on -site wetland and non -wetland features, invasive species control, trash removal, restriction of human access, fencing and signage, maintenance, success criteria, and adaptive management. The on -site basin and channel would be owned by the Homeowners' Association (HOA) and a third party approved by the regulatory agencies would be responsible for the long-term management and maintenance. [On March 13, 2018, since the time these Findings were prepared, the Rivers & Lands Conservancy agreed to accept the conveyance and implement the re-establishment requirements. The MSHCP requires that a protection mechanism, such as a conservation easement, be placed over the approximate on -site 3.0-acre mitigation area. Should the HOA need to implement maintenance or vector control, then a separate CDFW 1602 permit would be required.] The applicant also proposes off -site mitigation in the form of purchasing credits (equivalent to 0.69 acres) at the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank to meet the requirements of regulated waters permitting. The applicant understands that the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank cannot be used to replace lost functions and values of impacted MSHCP riparian/riverine resources. According to the DBESP, the proposed on -site mitigation will result in equivalent or superior functions and values relative to water quality as compared to pre -project conditions. The basin would facilitate better water quality on site and to waters delivered downstream (e.g., Temescal Creek). Nuisance and stormwater flows originating from both off -site and on -site sources would be expected to contain nutrients, oxygen - demanding organic matter, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides, trace organics, and coliform bacteria elevated from pre -construction background levels, at levels typical of other urban watersheds. However, implementation of proposed water quality control measures, including use of structural and non-structural BMPs to treat runoff, would ensure that implementation of the project would not result in degradation of receiving body water quality. Upstream habitat connectivity to the project site is non-existent due to existing residential development, and there is little to no sediment transport/sedimentation buildup issues associated with the existing wetland. With the proposed on -site mitigation, flows from upstream locations would remain unchanged. The DBESP also indicates that the on -site mitigation would incorporate greater plant biodiversity and increase the ecological functions and values as compared to the current open water and monoculture of Typha spp. The RCA needs adequate additional information to ensure that the DBESP is implemented as proposed, including a commitment that long-term management and maintenance of the on -site mitigation. 5of9 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Western Riverside County Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 The Permittee or the applicant will submit a copy of the final HMMP to RCA that must include all mitigation implementation details including future activities that could potentially negate the conservation value such as vector control and weed abatement. The HMMP must include success criteria including timelines of when success is anticipated. Based on the information provided by Michael Baker, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. b. Section 6.1.3: The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). Therefore, no focused surveys for NEPSSA were conducted. Based on the information provided by Michael Baker, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. c. Section 6.3.2: The project site is not located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), therefore no focused surveys were conducted for CASSA. The project site is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owls. Potential suitable burrows were mapped (refer to BUOW Focused Survey) and focused surveys were conducted July 7, 15, 29, and August 4, 2015 consistent with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Requirements (2006). The project site contains a large number of ground squirrel burrows and debris piles, many of which are suitable to support burrowing owls. These are primarily located on slopes along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and along the east -west centerline of the site, where the higher -elevation northern half drops into the lower -elevation southern half. During the habitat assessment, all burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Despite systematic searches of the suitable burrows found on the project site, no burrowing owls or evidence to suggest recent or historical use of the project site by burrowing owl was observed on or within 500 feet of the project site. Due to the potential suitable burrowing owl habitat on site a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owl have colonized the property site prior to the initiation of construction, the Permittee should immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies and the RCA, and coordinate on the potential need for a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. Based on the information provided by Michael Baker, the project demonstrates consistency with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. d. Section 6.1.4: There are no existing or described Conservation Areas adjacent to the project site. However, flows from the site drain under SR-79 and into Temecula Creek. To preserve the integrity of areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas, and the on -site mitigation area (under conservation easement), the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to existing and described MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be implemented by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. According to the DBESP, measures have been incorporated into the project design to ensure that all indirect project -related impacts to riparian/riverine habitat are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. At a minimum, where applicable, these measures would apply to the flows to Temecula Creek and to the on -site detention basin. Specifically, 6of9 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 the Permittee should include as project conditions the approval measures i., ii., and v. as described below: i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Any water quality or other drainage discharges must be reviewed by RCA prior to conveyance into the MSHCP Conservation Area. ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. iv. Proposed noise -generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocksiboulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. vii. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. viii.Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area, including areas proposed or described for Conservation. e. MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C: The following best management practices (BMPs), as applicable, shall be implemented for the duration of construction: i. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of 7of9 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. ii. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. iii. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. iv. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. v. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. vi. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. vii. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. viii. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFW, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. ix. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. 8of9 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside County RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) JPR #: 15-06-16-01 Date: 4/25/2016 updated 4/6/2018 x. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. xi. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. xii. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. xiii. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). xiv. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. xv. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. WW 9of9 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Eric Jones Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT July 23, 2015 Re: Tract 36483/PA 14-0087 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 FAX 951.788.9965 www.rcflood.org 171684 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comment(s) 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: This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. For further information, contact the District's encroachment permit section at 951.955.1266. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, HEN V0—L-1—V<0- Engineering Project Manager c: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Kristi Lovelady SKM:blm WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 FAX 951.788.9965 www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mr. Luke Watson Interim Community Development Director City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Watson: January 21, 2016 Re: Plan Check Service Request Tract No. 36483 Planning Application No. PA 14-0087 Paseo Del Sol 201897 The District has reviewed your letter, dated September 22, 2015, requesting that the District provide plan check services and subsequently maintenance of storm drain facilities which fall within the District's realm of maintenance. The District is willing to perform plan check services and, provided the facility is constructed in accordance with District engineering, operation and maintenance standards, accept the facility for ownership, operation and maintenance. Improvement plan check and subsequent construction inspection services will be performed on a fee for service basis. The applicant shall complete a plan check application which is located on the District's vvc.bsite Programs & Services, Development Review. An initial deposit, as designated on the plan check worksheet also located on the District's website at www.reflood.org under Programs & Services, Development Review, Deposit Based Fee Worksheet, shall accompany the initial submittal. Please keep in mind plan check turnaround time is typically 2-3 weeks following receipt of the plan submittal/resubmittal. To ensure the plan check is conducted in an appropriate and timely manner, the District will be requesting copies of the City's conditions of approval, environmental documents and any other pertinent information with could be beneficial to our plan check staff. It is imperative that the engineer of record adhere to District drafting and drawing standards as designated in the hyperlinks below to avoid any misunderstanding and eventual plan check delay. District standard drawings are available at: http://reflood.org/DesignConstruction.Division.aspx The District Drafting Manual may be found at: http://reflood.org/DesignConstructionDivision.asj2x 201897 Mr. Luke Watson Re: Plan Check Service Request Tract No. 36483 Planning Application No. PA 14-0087 Paseo Del Sol -2- January 21, 2016 Additionally, all environmental documents, including applicable CEQA and MSHCP compliance documents, and all necessary regulatory permits must explicitly address both construction and the subsequent operation and maintenance of all District maintained facilities. The developer is advised to provide the District with the opportunity to review all regulatory permit applications prior to submittal to the resource agencies. All rights of way necessary to access, operate and maintain the District facilities must be conveyed to the District in a form acceptable to the District. Prior to commencing construction, a Cooperative Agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be executed between the District, the City of Temecula, the developer and any other parties directly involved in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed District facilities. The Cooperative Agreement application form is located on the District's website at w►wv.rcflood.org under Programs & Services, Development Review, Cooperative Agreement. Please note that the improvement plans will not be signed prior to the execution of the Cooperative Agreement. If the improvement plans include smaller storm drains (i.e., 36-inch diameter or less) and catch basins/curb inlets, the District is willing to review such plans at the City's request; however, the District will not accept such facilities for operation and maintenance. All correspondence as it relates to improvement plan check comments will be addressed to the City, and check prints with a copy of the letter will be forwarded to the engineer of record. We appreciate the City's efforts to involve the District early on in the development process. Should you have any question regarding this matter, please contact Henry Olivo at 951.955.1214. Very truly yours, MARK H. WILLS Chief of Planning Division c: City of Temecula Attn: Eric Jones Mayra De La Torre ec: Mark Wills Henry Olivo HO: blm County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROGRAMS August 25, 2015 SR0031004 Eric Jones City of Temecula Community Development Department PO Box 9033 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Eric.'ones(d),cit oftemecula.or RE: City of Temecula Planning Application No. PA14-0087, Planning Area 4 - Cal Pasco Del Sol, LLC (APNs 959-400-001, 959-400-002, 959-400-003) Dear Mr. Jones, As a condition of project approval the City of Temecula requires the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Environmental Cleanup Programs (RCDEH-ECP) to provide clearance for PA14-0087. RCDEH-ECP has reviewed the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Converse Consultants, April 15, 2015) and the Limited Environmental Soil Testing (Converse Consultants, August 11, 2015). These environmental site assessment documents present the findings of the environmental assessment conducted to determine if recognized environmental conditions exist at the Site. Based on the information provided in the documents, and with the provision that the information was accurate and representative of site conditions, RCDEH-ECP concludes that no further environmental assessment is required for this project. RCDEH-ECP recommends the City of Temecula provide clearance for PA14-0087. This clearance pertains only to the environmental site assessment conducted for this project. Additional clearances may be required from other programs within the Department. As with any real property, if a previously unidentified release or threatened release of a hazardous material or the presence of a naturally occurring hazardous material is discovered during development at the site, construction activities shall cease and RCDEH-ECP shall be notified immediately. Additionally, further assessment and/or cleanup may be required. If you have any questions, please contact me at ayreyes( rivcoeha.org or (951) 955-8980. Sincerely, Reviewed by: 4 'a.V vonne Reyes, HS Sharon Boltinghous Environmental Health Specialist IV Associate Public Health Professional Geologist cc: Mike L Rust, Newland Real Estate Group, mrustt �newlandeo.conn Riverside: 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92501 • Phone: (951) 955-8980 • FAX: (951) 955-8988 Indio: 47-950 Arabia Street, Suite A, Indio, CA 92201 • Phone: (760) 863-7570 ■ FAX: (760) 863-7013 EASTERN MUNICIPAL W A T E R D I STR I CT July 15, 2014 SINCE 195 Board of Directors Eric Jones City of Temecula Planning Department President P.O. Box 9033 Philip E. Paule Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Vice President Randy A. Record Re: Villages at Paso Del Sol Map. TTM 36483. Project No. PA14-0087. APN No. 959-400-001 Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA David J. Slawson Attn: Eric Jones Ronald W. Sullivan The subject project requires sewer service from EMWD. The details of said General Manager Paul D. Jones II, P.E. service connection points will be further detailed in a separate document, known as EMWD's Plan of Service (POS), to be developed by the project proponent. Treasurer Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA To that end, EMWD requires beginning dialogue with the project proponent at an Chairman of The early stage in site design and development, via one -hour complimentary Due Metropolitan Water Diligence meeting. To set up this meeting, the project proponent should complete District of So. Calif. a Project Questionnaire (form NBD-058) and submit to EMWD. To download this Randy A. Record form or for additional information, please visit our "New Development Process" Board Secretary and web page, under the "Businesses" tab at www.emwd.org. This meeting will offer Assistant to the the following benefits: General Manager Rosemarie V. Howard 1. Describe EMWD's development work -flow process Legal Counsel 2. Identify project scope and parameters Lemieux & O'Neill 3. Preliminary, high level review of the project within the context of existing infrastructure 4. Discuss potential candidacy for recycled water service Following the Due Diligence meeting, to proceed with this project, a Plan of Service (POS) will need to be developed by the developer's engineer and reviewed/approved by EMWD prior to submitting improvement plans for Plan Check. The POS process will provide the following: 1. Technical evaluation of the project's preliminary design 2. Defined facility requirements, i.e. approved POS 3. Exception: for feasibility evaluation of a purchase acquisition, only a conceptual facilities assessment may be developed. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, F0� Maroun El-Hage, M.S., PT Senior Civil Engineer- New Business Dept.- Ext. 4468- EI-hagem(@emwd.orq Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (951) 928-3777 Fax: (951) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www.emwd.ore u L Dify of Temecula lncomin9 Fax From. 9519552767 Page. 1/2 Dale. 6/25/20153.01.53 PM IVE'RSIDE COUNTY PLANNING Steven Weiss Planning Dh eetar April 2, 2015 City of Temect la Planning Depar(snent FAX: (951) 694-6477 Attention: Bric Jones RE: Couditions of Approval GE002437 City of Temecula Case No. PA14-0087 Villages at Pasco del Sol PEPARTA�N Pages 2 (including this cover) County Geologic Report(s) GEO No.2437, submitted for this project (PA14-0087) in the City of Temecula was prepared by Converse Consultants and is entitled; "Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report for a Single Family Residential Development, Villages at Paseo del Sol, Tentative Tract No, 36483' Northwest of Temecula Pkwy and Butterfield Stage Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California", dated March 27, 2015. In addition, Converse Consultants submitted the following: "Response to Review Comments County Geologic Report No. GEQ02437 City of Temecula Case No. PA14-0087 Villages at Paseo del Sol, Tentative Tract No. 36483 Northwest of Temecula Pkwy and Butterfield Stage Road, City of Temecula dated May 20, 2015. , Riverside County, California", And "As -Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough Grading Tracts 24182 through 241.86 and 24188-1 Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community Temecula, California", dated August 20, 1997 These documents are herein incorporated in GE002437. GE002437 Concluded: 1. The project site is not located within a currently designated Riverside County or State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. 2. No major surface fault crosses through or extends towards the site. 3, The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of nearby major faults or currently unknown faults is not known with certainty but is considered low. 4. Site has a very high susceptibility to liquefaction. 5. Fill slopes less than thirty (30) feet in height are considered to have a low susceptibility to earthquake -induced failure. 6. The site is not considered to be at risk for lateral spreading. 7. Ground subsidence is expected to be negligible. 8. Tsunamis are not considered to be a risk. Riverside Office • 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, California 92502-1409 Desert es • 77588 El Duna Court D (951) 955-3200 - Fax (951) 955-1811 Palm Desert, California (760) 863-3277 •Fax (760) 863-7 863-7555 This fax was received by GFI FaxMaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com u L Dify of Temecula lncomin9 Fax From. 9519552767 Page. 2/2 Dale. 6/25/20153.01.53 PM The potential for flooding due to seiching is considered low. GEOO2437 Recommended: 1. Prior to the start of any earthwork, the site should be cleared of all vegetation and debris. 2. Existing soils are not considered suitable for the support of additional fills or structures and should be overexcavated and recompacted. It should be noted that no engineering review of this report or formal review of provided building code information are a park of this review. Formal review of engineering design and code data will be made by the City of Temecula, as appropriate, at the time of grading and/or building permit) submittal to the city. Thank you for the opportunity to review this case for the City of Temecula. Please call me at (951) 955-6863 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT St re-Nweiss, Planning Director Jdavid C-'Janes, CEG No. 2283 - Chief Engineering Geologist, TLMA-Planning cc: Converse Consultants, Fax: (909)796-7675 Applicant: Michael Rust/Cal-Paseo Del Sol, LLC, Fax: (858)622-2986 B;\Geologffemecula Reviews\GE002437_ COA PA14-0087,docx This fax was received by GFI FaxMaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AREA TABLE LOTS SQ FT ACRES 1 5,756 0.132 2 5,215 0.120 3 5,215 0.120 4 5,125 0.118 5 5,251 0.121 6 5,362 0.123 7 5,019 0.115 8 6,404 0.147 9 8,622 0.198 10 11,398 0.262 11 5,922 0.136 12 5,245 0.120 13 5,055 0.116 14 5,025 0.115 15 5,025 0.115 16 5,025 0.115 17 5,025 0.115 18 5,033 0.116 19 5,180 0.119 20 5,044 0.116 21 9,048 0.208 22 6,828 0.157 23 5,570 0.128 24 5,120 0.118 25 5,129 0.118 26 6,206 0.142 27 5,464 0.125 28 5,000 0.115 29 5,534 0.127 30 5,512 0.127 31 5,236 0.120 32 5,856 0.134 33 6,067 0.139 34 1 5,685 0.131 35 5,500 0.126 36 6,706 0.154 37 11,874 0.273 38 7,515 0.173 39 6,958 0.160 40 7,394 0.170 41 6,096 0.140 42 5,355 0.123 43 5,608 0.129 44 5,895 0.135 45 5,483 0.126 46 6,028 0.138 47 5,546 0.127 48 5,000 0.115 49 5,000 0.115 50 5,000 0.115 51 5,386 0.124 52 6,060 0.139 53 6,007 0.138 54 5,779 0.133 55 6,375 0.146 56 8,220 0.189 57 7,575 0.174 58 6,967 0.160 59 7,054 0.162 60 7,148 0.164 61 5,628 0.129 62 6,121 0.141 63 6,475 0.149 64 5,592 0.128 65 5,526 0.127 66 5,553 0.127 67 5,396 0.124 68 5,017 0.115 69 5,000 0.115 70 5,580 0.128 71 6,062 0.139 72 5,157 0.118 73 5,157 0.118 74 5,217 0.120 75 1 5,294 0.122 76 5,269 0.121 77 6,382 0.147 78 5,216 0.120 79 5,000 0.115 80 5,000 0.115 81 5,000 0.115 82 5,000 0.115 83 5,000 0.115 84 5,000 0.115 85 5,000 0.115 86 5,000 0.115 87 5,000 0.115 88 5,843 0.134 89 5,000 0.115 90 5,000 0.115 91 5,000 0.115 92 5,000 0.115 93 5,000 0.115 94 5,000 0.115 95 5,962 0.137 96 5,764 0.132 97 5,693 0.131 98 7,216 0.166 99 7,774 0.178 100 6,713 0.154 101 6,094 0.140 102 6,175 0.142 103 5,559 0.128 104 6,127 0.141 105 5,884 0.135 106 6,868 0.158 107 8,546 0.196 108 1 6,031 0.138 109 6,098 0.140 110 5,931 0.136 111 6,157 0.141 112 6,526 0.150 113 6,409 0.147 114 1 7,379 0.169 115 6,148 0.141 116 5,717 0.131 117 5,913 0.136 118 1 5,645 0.130 119 6,327 0.145 120 6,640 0.152 121 5,908 0.136 122 5,942 0.136 123 1 5,976 0.137 124 6,011 0.138 125 6,352 0.146 126 8,027 0.184 127 12,209 0.280 128 8,967 0.206 129 5,913 0.136 130 1 5,462 0.125 131 5,208 0.120 132 5,054 0.116 133 5,008 0.115 134 5,031 0.116 135 5,714 0.131 136 5,495 0.126 137 6,373 0.146 138 5,650 0.130 139 5,332 0.122 140 5,401 0.124 141 5,000 0.115 142 5,829 0.134 143 5,907 0.136 144 6,035 0.139 145 5,730 0.132 146 5,003 0.115 147 5,990 0.138 148 6,000 0.138 149 5,363 0.123 150 5,270 0.121 151 5,550 0.127 152 5,147 0.118 153 5,306 0.122 154 1 6,349 0.146 155 6,579 0.151 156 5,133 0.118 157 5,007 0.115 158 5,013 0.115 159 5,018 0.115 160 5,331 0.122 161 6,415 0.147 162 5,003 0.115 163 5,003 0.115 164 5,500 0.126 165 247,400 5.710 166 1 114,738 2.636 167 15,429 0.354 168 49,791 1.143 169 13,034 0.299 170 23,207 0.533 171 1 44,039 1.011 172 3,673 0.084 173 8,453 0.194 LOT 'A' 9,935 0.228 LOT 'B' 54,388 1.249 LOT 'C' 33,272 0.764 LOT 'D' 33,413 0.767 LOT 'E' 32,939 0.756 LOT 'F' 34,142 0.784 LOT 'G' 42,387 0.973 LOT 'H' 21,551 0.495 LOT 'I' 83,373 1.914 LOT 'J' 22,900 0.526 TOTAL 1,833,720 42.09 LINE/CURVE DATA TABLE NO BEARING/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT 1 05000'00" 300.00' 26.18' 13.10' 2 10007'42" 200.00' 35.35' 17.72' 3 10031'34" 200.00' 36.74' 18.42' 4 N89000'00"W - 125.00' - 5 19°20'00" 300.00' 101.20' 18.42' 6 N18°20'00"W - 20.60' - 7 05°00'00" 500.00' 43.60' 21.83' 8 N66040'00" - 170.90' - 9 N16036'40" - 10.00' - TRACT BOUNDARY AREA 1,857,482.35 S.F. 42.6 AC. TENTATIVE TRACT NO 0 36483 FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES INTERNATIONAL JUNE 2023 \ \ / 37 38 P' � / TERN p- TREE\ 1 1 \� 7 ,`0�� / / / - T I /\ / I ZONING - R r 1 VICINITY MAP / NOT TO SCALE ° os ° \ 40 / T DES I DEN1� I AL LOV� c� ��5 o PROPOSED EASEMENT NOTES: I 41 �,,'� 2 137 / \ 41 I F ACT NO 24185 1 `[ 0 I I \ 3r0 INDICATES STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO ?�. 8R� 7 I 42 M, B, 2 I I I �1 3 I �j� 1 i I �1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO BE DEDICATED ON FINAL I s 143 I 67 20 - 2 I 1 1 S 1� ti�S° MAP. 872�� ,? 0.00, � a. q0 0 44 I 47 I 35' 35 s 0S 000, �� 45 46 I �- 1 3),O'� INDICATES EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS N 7? ?�s �J / 00 'off OpF �_ �_ w Nw PURPOSES OVER CONSTRUCTED SIDEWALKS TO BE DEDICATED TO CITY OF rn ?.7);00, <�7 ,Q� KING o, I TEMECULA ON FINAL MAP. LOT WILL BE OWNED BY HOA AND LANDSCAPING N 1 1 3 I I WILL BE MAINTAINED BY HOA. 42 106 7� �2S° 00 . �o I °3„ 36z ' a6 03 51, 1 00°' 1 N56 32 13' 1 A INDICATES ACCESS EASEMENT TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL `� 34' D o „� 35�'4, �� _ - 3 DISTRICT TO BE DEDICATED ON FINAL MAP. °5 >>' � E Pp ° 32 03 84 1 �`�' o ;� N" RTOLA ROADB \ N56 -I INDICATED SEWER EASEMENT TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TO �Y N � 1.82 , 6 °5 50.01 n ^ - I 4 BE DEDICATED ON FINAL MAP. rn .116 0 4 , 16 OP 20' / 105o a N 2j ° 40„ R=1250 ' °° �68 �� , 5° �, g g - ACCESS OPENING °1 a, INDICATES STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO 43 " ' Q 1 °O 62 , 1 .63 ,107 46 �q �`26 °59 37 ' R=12 _ 2 34„I R=1250.00 p=07 36 1a8 4-1 4, 5° ' 0 7 �� = 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TO BE DEDICATED ON FINAL �`b, �g a= 5p 00' 588.91' 0 05°0 L=11 .02' I I 75• 36 5 rn 2 - MAP. 12� vg 28 °54 ' » 11 ° 10" R=12 49 04 13.46 `b S61 oh o 7. 58' 38 R=1275 9 co ^ p-°� 28 32 0 6 N cn� h^ 10 - A INDICATES DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO HOA TO BE DEDICATED ON FINAL MAP. - 00 ' -1 0 491 N J� 104 �n u� ^^� 52. 36 , 643.35 ' 2 �, 5 w 5 co 93 ' �� , 108 50. 45' 50. 22' N 2.70 cP - 53 I B I o rn 5.92 36 ' 35.0 '12 INDICATES ACCESS EASEMENT TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 708 18 , �'l N 50. 08' 50. 1 1 ' S0. 07' 51 . 36 s o �J w �� 12 S 6 I 7 \ n, /N �- - 0 3 4 17.87 5• ° 3 �' 9 DISTRICT TO BE DEDICATED ON FINAL MAP. � � \ 44 i, // l , J 111 rn _ " Is r I ' N I r 2 c�'o 21 34' �- Oo�� � �- Q \ d 103 0 °` 128 " 129 `° 130 , rn rn ;n N N I o � I 1 � 50 •03 -S ° (9 24.38 '11 0 N A INDICATES EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA FIRE 131 132 133 134 135 �' I ' ' 03 - R,sss ' -1 O DEPARTMENT. ti 1 0 N N of 37 ' S ' L=8 O Z 1 7 o 0 37 2.47 0• O 1 1 .57 109 ^^ �s 0 N 0 0 1 o 9 9? �. �� rn� S 0 0 0 0 0 40, 51 50� ° 57"E 22j 3' �� 105.31 -1 I z EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES 45 0< 9� �/ 107.9 CO `�S' 20.65' ' oo > 33' 53 o N59 -3-5, W r o 1 n G) EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PER DOCUMENT RECORDED \` /, 3 cry 17.82 E o 51• 40 12 3A w 1 2 o I A APRIL 14, 1971 AS INST. NO. 38303 O.R. AND RE -RECORDED JUNE 17, 1971 � 102 � ^� 126 4.38 � o_ , 7 °7, g . 06 50_00 50.00 50.00 50. 10 45. 68 53. 24 - 5 - ° 0 51. N� N 16.40 ,n AS INST. N0. 65511 O.R. (WITHIN BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD) `� \ �` 02.0 7 9 �' °° `� 110 oN ISO 3� - - - N D 157 44 - o 5� 4.023 08' - ���'� � \ ,5h 0 S ' `0 ,5�/ 0� z 0 _ 0 2g 0 71 �, _ INDICATES EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND FLOWAGE PURPOSES TO THE PUBLIC Al 18.42' o� IOp ^ cO �g 166.511' - N73°51'22"E 225.14' STREET sBs 149.34' Op' 306 7g 26 51 o 1 3 o I �, PER DOCUMENT RECORDED DUNE 16, 1989 AS INST. N0. 199267 O.R. TO BE 101 /�`'' '° ' �"' 125 0� °' �-� - - - 4 7' =123 _ 30 . 0 72 w -1 B •\ 46 ° � LOT B 93 0 �� O P o - Z O O VACATED. 41 / 70 h°` 0 7? ��1�0 ' � 21 .35 ' -1 47 ' 50 20.26 0 73 N s o 15.64 ' D I O �1 i \ ^�� 0 g - - N - - 5 0 74 �'' 100.50' I z EASEMENT FOR UNRESTRICTED ACCESS PER DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 2, 2008 3, 4 � 4 o 0 -1 / 0rO row 7 70 ^� h° `�' �� 33, 18.81 87. 18' 29.15' 55.67' 8 0 75 .0 6° 37 T. V o N AS INST. NO. 2008-0361203 O.R. ( BLANKET EASEMENT OVER PARCELS 45 AND 48 100 / 9 7 8 3 124 ^� 04� 21.08 / / _ o o °'� 51 57 0.86 _ s o 14 0 - O 46 OF P.M. NO . 23432 . s, �� �, ° 76 1° co W cb'S , �. co O 77 12.30' , °'� 154 z © Ln 136 `� 00 77 .0 �- 51 57 _ "' Lu 0 I� 0 / 0 77 / '� "� ° 9 ii 1 55 N , o o - O INDICATES EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN FACILITIES PER DOCUMENT RECORDED D9 �` 112 8s' CO p N 14.54 c0 / / 21 .59 , 55.06 � N 70 cN1 J 50' - O � D �7, N /. o' �o 0 77 0 I N I 100. I J JULY 2, 2008 AS INST. NO. 2008-0361204 O.R. TO BE VACATED. 00 5.27 hcb' ryca`b /,� 720 h 123 '�/ N� 7°`3' So `S� , coo 1 °0 00 of o 6 5 d 100.71 ' 46' 33 rn I ,> ii _ / / 54 15.10 57 100.00 0 1 5 0 W '-' E INDICATES EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN FACILITIES PER DOCUMENT RECORDED N51 45 00 W 99 �' ��' `b o 77 , / o` o. "� q o/o / ao 16 i o CD 0 0 0 20.00' '�' `� `b o 9. 7 0 25 'i�6 °` 15 ' ^ cv 137 76 ' 7 .12 8.21 ',&0 o ,� O JULY 2 , 2008 AS INST. NO . 2008-0361205 O.R. TO BE VACATED. 113 ``� o' / / 7 7 8.51 ,� „^ tl / / 13 %/ \� 111 'a3 0 69 0 0 `n 100.50' - 1,2�, co/ ! / 0 00 ,5ca 00 0 0 , 0 o N WA� I O INDICATES EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN FACILITIES PER DOCUMENT RECORDED 49 �``� / 123 122 0 0 09 ' "� IS ^ �^, 04 • ° �, N o 00 o �- JULY 2, 2008 AS INST. NO. 2008-0361206 O.R. TO BE VACATED AND h^� 0 77 ^ ek fo' h°ho' 152 moo' ry 6 / 56 58 100.00 I o 16 0 00-I REPLACED BY & �� 157 �" o � Io ao - 00 co o /o o' So' o / 7 1 `° 138 o 00- - " , r 68 �I o ' � �� 1 GENERAL NOTES p 98 a� 0 114 `� 121 ``� / ev o °0• o° OS o° / ° o _ 178 s 0) , o . M 14.41 1 1 .39 N o ,n 100.50 = 1 rJ rn co N rn o/ / o ?0 o v 9S , A o / /o ? ®^ 5 co 0) , 0 M- ^ M 1 01 . , `n N p_ 1. THE BASIS OF THIS MAP IS A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT rn 104.92' `r� 1 `1' 77 " "� h° ``� �`b `� 0 06 ' N 30 , '� I 123. 23 101 .97 N _ oo _ I PREPARED BY CH I CAGO TITLE COMPANY UNDER ORDER NO . 15' 12 ' h�'� 8S , o° 158 151 �� �� %, 166 55 N 1 J M 59 _ z o 17 0 C 12200264-U50 DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2014. NO RESPONSIBILITY N " a �� o o �/ 70 0 7 ^ 1 39 - a _ r- � I Io `r' AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SAID REPORT IS ASSUMED BY THIS 00 97 °' �0 115 19.81,120 j 2 ,tom o° ° SI , o 0o Os ss , ti / �"' O� 103 0 10 3 3 0 , � / 74 67 coI 0.00 0. 97 100.50 = m MAP. 51 o I `n "� `� 1 h��0 / 159 �' 150 " / `� 0 ' N' /� / o S�' "� " � o' �' r 107.79 ' � 18 0 's' - o 2. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS LYING WITHIN ZONE 100. 46 103 92' 1S• , o' ' 00 / "co �� /v`� ``D 4� � "� 60 o - N I "X" ON U S DEPARTMENT OF HUD FLOOD INSURANCE BOUNDARY M I 5 o_ CENON 8 WAY rn 22.73 0 00%� 700 96 4? o� 70s 7 00 ° �o 140 �° ?0 ° `" 14.61', I MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 06065C 3305 G, DATED AUGUST 0.00 0.00 7.20 ' _ �o '� - m N N _ N o �° ,�' 4 0 0 �/ D 1oS r�, ,o ?. Sg . , o r 28, 2008, , 11) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. 96 M rn 00 116 119 N 03,160 h _ �� 9S , ry o OPEN SPACE 700 n 83' 0 0 20.54 2 0 Q ZONE "X" BEING DEFINED AS "AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE � 1 149 M h ° 00' w s 1 N 6.62 1 12. 35 26.04 M =1;�, I s o " Q ,� 61 ,19 M N N FLOOD; AREAS OF 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE 101.66' �I (' I� 104.00' 102.88' '�� rn . o , Ip o ' 70 CO / Ip o EXISTING PROPERTY ^�°� ! 37 18' 57.08 61.89 19.40 18.69' � I DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS s CAI N ° �_V) l Sri o°', °' S4 ' `'o �' ��' SS ,�� 0 00 /oo 0 00 . _ L I NE TO BE REMOVED � Q ^ 717 0 9.51 ' 5. 1200 , o - ,� THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 95 CD . 1 W I- ri - �0' J 00 0 00 A? / 40A � 7• 3S' " 0 105. _ N-N I ,> � N if n / S3 " o _ ci r1 ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD o �r ' N- 1% o O 117 118 a 1 .50 _ 9 1 1 148 7 141 ( HOA ) / IL� 0 M ?7 12 63 0 64 `" 65 I 12.75'20 N z -z m 3. THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF THE LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED IS: 9 o N 161 o 00 00 o Gj -?1 ' � C° " rn � 42 64 ACRES GROSS AND 42 64 ACRES NET 87.64 ' N `96' , 90.11 ' 84. 13 ' �b CD 109 6 , ?4 00 ' o / / 70 "� 0 0 N N N 19. 1 1 ' 00 6' o" 94, 0 8 68, h z , - - - - - - - °N° 100.03' ro N d IluoN co `� / Z N83/ Z • 68 roo' ,� 94.89 -� 4. AVERAGE LOT SIZE ..... 5,903 SF STREET J z N73 23 20 E 407.80 I �rn ;� rn / o / °6 6-4, S1.79 ,� 15.58 I ° � 142' 0 162 0 CD 147 CO N fill li cn / o, 3IS 48. 08 39.97 1 .26 � 1 , 3 91 .54 v I MINIMUM LOT SIZE . ... 5,000 SF o' _j 10 / w 0 0 5 . CONTOUR INTERVAL 1 FOOT LOT J to 0 5.18' Ln a 2.14 ' S� , / ,� 8' ,��, �. 165 (HOA) 0000 100.05 - 1 4, ° „ ° 123.01 �? �' °' �* 0 _ 6. EASEMENT N0. 2 IS ALSO WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE N 100.05 _ 15. 9 7 • _ / �N/ „00� 1 •2 47 4>� R2g p 009 N68 50 0 �Ha LOT sH» ��� \/ham N � 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 40.79'� N _ - MAINTENANCE AREA AND CONTAINS 1.88 ACRES MORE OR LESS. \1,° 163 0 146 143 N :�/ , 44.?7' �=73.45' STREET 21 z 0 0 n �` o O 7. LOTS 165 THROUGH 173 ARE HOA MAINTAINED. o - I o 0 0 0 � I n I 'o ,�, _ 0 COc, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 'n I`n Ln `n �I I 100.05' ,,� /0 29 0 5.79 S1. g0 49.66' 35 � �" 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 100.05' 100.05 / /��' oo 30.60 23 28 �20 I I 8. INDICATES RESTRICTED ACCESS o 0 94 0 93 0 0 92 0 91 0 90 0 89 0 88 N M " o " 28 0� 13.09 ' _ _ _ 19. 88 ' �s , ^ �; 55' 55 - - o / - - 22 - N GENERAL DESCRIPTION o ' 164 0 145 o 144 6 ss o 27 Ln N o N o 13 33 z , 4 o z - OA O 1 EXISTING LAND USE VACANT J J - Z N Ld '-'CC) - Ld - N N O Z ~ U � o N m Cp - ° z \ \ cb a CO 00 12 U. 0 �; 26 25 N - r- N o 23 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 52.35' I O `n `n NI �O 0 3o So 0 0 0 0 �� � �� Z, 2. GENERAL PLAN: LM - LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL d'j, 85.52 84.57 �I- ��, 85_52 0� 44 4 00/, 00' 17.18' 24 19 I I Z 3. EXISTING / PROPOSED ZONING: SP-4 (PALOMA DEL SOL/PASEO DEL SOL) 100.00 ' 252.35 ' - - 8.22 ' 0, - - - - - - _ 86 . ,3 , `V°` 3 96 • - �i GD N z o _ 3 �, / 9 4 _ n I 4. PROPOSED LAND USE: COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY 00 ,> w e , �0 0 1 0 cbcO 1 ' 83.25' 51 .58' S0.01 ' 70.71 ' r 00 Ln I RES I DENT I AL N73 23 20_E 657.13 _ _ STREET_ I � 0 0=26033)30 �°' 53.60' o - - 5. PROPOSED WATER SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED BY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA 00 , 38.81 53.18 °� 0°' `L 0 - R,3 n0' 8.44 17.11 cfl CD N o I LOT "I" D, �, �p� • o L _ 1,3°-' 00 ' \ 0 0 31 ocO -I y p WATER DISTRICT ( RCWD ) of - - - - - - - - - - - o o -D 6. PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED BY: EASTERN MUNICIPAL ' ' ' ' ' ' , 32 r 37 0 I WATER DISTRICT (EMWD) 1 71 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 52.16 85.45 34.52 6 go o N o 0 1 Z rn I' I 23.2 (HOA) ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35.00 087 0 86 0 85 0 84 0 83 0 82 0 81 0 80 0 79 0 78 II III 53 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I Ali to 0- 0 I15 II � I I 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' _50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 52.16' I II I N75°45'19"E 180.24' N71°15'45E 72.65 N N73023'20"E 434.51' .50 / I 48.02' 90.42' 3 °' °`L1 c0o� N740 °° ,ten T���'�---- 17­130, I 10 ----------------------- 170 (HOA) Z�o�� -- ------------------------ Z�- - - - - - - - /_ I ► 4 N73023'20"E 276.75' 31•g ° I o I OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPERTY I I y LINE TO BE REMOVED I I N73 I � � I I �_,�- 3 165 � l I r / 0,' 7 / I I o N 3 1115'I / �� (HOA ) / = o -il I I LO N 200 15.00I'll - - N73023' 20"E 868.95' 169 (HOA ) 135.40' ZONING COMMERCIAL - HT PARCEL MAP NO 28731 PCL. 16 P.M.B. 191/78-1 SEE SHEET 2 FOR SECTIONS UNADJUSTED TOTAL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT 259,454 C.Y. FILL 278,265 C.Y. IMPORT: 18,811 C.Y. ZONING - COMM�AL - IP PCL. 1 PARCEL MAP N0. 31454 P.M.B. 2071/ 85-86 PCL. 2 9 ' 91 N 9? 33 m 34 o 35 m 36 �i 6r° N O _ 7 . ALL UTILITIES WILL BE UNDERGROUND g ? 80°o SO o co rn 1�� N d z I-o , C7 SEWER --------------------- EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 64' 103, SO ��' 24.35' 0 0 0 o C� WATER --------------------- RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 26 \, 3S 15.76 N �_ r N GAS ---------------------- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS 52 N 9s , so 9S 6S' 10. 46' 35. 00 , 38 0 - O r--------------- ° 0 z !n d ' ELECTRIC - - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 00� 97' 31 �3 0 J n TELEPHONE ---------------- VERIZON o� 51 20' 41.41' 53.15' 41.11' S o - o So a, ° - - �o � 0 - O O n CATV--------------------- VERIZON o 00' R?6 31,19„ 0. 104.02 z - J 13.82' 0 50 0o SO �,150•00, N73025'01"E 222.30' o I �,,i 8. SCHOOLS: TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 41.98 34 0° 43 39 20 _ 9. PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: 173 NUMBERED LOTS (164 BUILDABLE LOTS AND 06 06 E 44� 49 0° ? 9 OPEN SPACE LOTS) AND 10 LETTERED LOTS 3.82 ' S 9.6> � 39. 59 ' _ _ - I 0 00 , ^o0 48 00 43.23' 39. 59' 52.60' 43. 48' 3 i ti� 70 N80 So oo' 10. 41 ' 6.52' 1.68' 30 24' �� S 99 6 S 2 -1 10. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 959-400-001 & 002 0 03 � 47 � 19. 68 ' 8 I 40, - _ _ _18.3211. THIS TENTATIVE MAP IS EXCLUSIVELY UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ?>°' 00 0 46 o 45 o 44 r 43 0 42 0 40 2> s6 O - I SUBDIVIDER AND INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE 41 _ C - SUBDIVIDER. 023'20"E CWD PROPERTY 9> SS 0 N N 0 �, o N =1 oo.00 ' S`3 00 !i 0 -1 12 THOMAS BROTHER'S GUIDE - 2006 EDITION RIVERSIDE COUNTY 74 07 , 14. 91 ' N 22' z - PAGE 979 - G 1 G2 , H 1 o _ N84°15'S9" 35.72' 52.60' S0.00' 50.00' 56.03' 40 B"1E w o A . P . `rn° 00 E 1 Og . 79 ' N73 ° 31 ' 31 "E 223.54 ' N590 6°7 ' 00- N ��� 13 . THERE ARE NO SPECIAL HAZARDS ON THIS SITE. 00 165 OPEN SPACE _ � z ° ,��, I LEGAL DESCR I PT I ON: 00 z (HOA) 2 c0 h ��' PARCELS 45 AND 46 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23432, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, N73°23'20"E 703.44' z ��' `O �h„�COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN 1 68j(HOA) N73 °23'20"E 734BOOK 159, PAGES 38 THROUGH 61, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE .31' `��'�� OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 4p OWNER AND DEVELOPER Woodside 05S, LP 1250 TEMECULA PARKWAY CORONA, CORONA 92879TE COURT, STE . 500 PHONE: 951-710-1900 BENCHMARK ;C) RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCHMARK 600-6-81 INSIDE FREEWAY R/W AT THE SW CORNER OF THE INT. OF HIGHWAY 79 AND INTERSTATE 15E. 300' W OF OVERPASS BRIDGE, 87.9' SE OF BEGINNING OF 6' FREEWAY R/W FENCE, 2' N OF FREEWAY R/W FENCE 75.4' S OF LIGHT POLE. PCL. 1 7PC . 7 ZONING-- COMMERCIAL - HT PCL. 3 ELEVATION = 997.721 PARCEL MAP NO. 29864 TENTAT I VE P.M.B. 200/18-20 I BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CENTERLINE OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD BEING N22°56'23"W PER PARCEL MAP NO. 23432 FILED IN BOOK 159, PAGES 38 THROUGH 61 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA. SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY TOPO WAS COMPILED BY INLAND AERIAL SURVEY IN OCTOBER 2007. PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: JOHN R. DUQUETTE JOB # 139600 pL LANp s\ DOQGF` 9`�0 a � -A VO ri * L.S. 7566 9lF 4F C a�1E�/ 60 30 0 60 120 180 SCALE: 1"=60' TRACT NU 0 36483 FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES PLANNING AREA 4 DATE: JUNE 2, 2023 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA14-0087 SHEET 1 OF 2 40810 COUNTY CENTER DR., Michael Baker SUITE 100 TEMECULA, CA 92591 PHONE: (951) 676-8042 1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERINTL.COM N 00 N N w 0 0_ m c� 0 0 I I 0 0 z a 0 0 Q U 0 0 c0 rn i Q Q 0 0_ a 35 \ I � /� 29 \ I / �0 + I II in I- \ \ \ \ \ l 1 I "� l / \ \ / 6 I _ _ i 37 LEGEND STREET RW - - - I 3s 8 r / ,o-\ �• � I ► � Ash, �2 46 I SLOPE / \PATERNO ST �� - , F��S 2��8� �3� I / ,�� I 1 l 1 223 S = /,�, / ET / I I NZN .` N� '� 1�j2 / X .3a CML&C DW RETAINING WALL ,, ��- ,- � �- Oo�1H ° I \\\ \4 20,, O Q I �3� - I X. 24 RW 39 I , M . q / Fi 111�36 oM ZONING -RESIDENTIAL LO 41 �� �� `� �' ? \ 41 TRACT NO . 24185-1 / MH 1 CID 172 '1 _ 42 43 M.B. 267/20 - 29 1 v 1 �51 1 �,,�� X PP I I o 45 46 47 35 3 42 I �� 106s ec _ I "8 I \ \ 4a" p �'8 o,� X . SCREE OEX ' I I 1143.7 \ r - Ei� • � � GNI // .o - X .' 1 PP \� 1� /�m/� - - �- - - \ - - - I a„ MCP SS� y , gy� _ X• 0 E � o ° o I � � I � � � � � A _ D_ _ _ - 1 �5ph48 s� _ 1 - _ EX • 48 D� OEX • ce� � � 68 E POR_ TOL,q 2 \= 1 L I STREET _ 1 EX . F / HQ A� \ 9 1 20' 105 R/w _GHT 0 _ 1 EX . F NG- _ O � w ` �� � 8 , \ 1+47.93 PRC 107 �yQ - - z - - O ACCESS FE �R /// �i tt21.2 43 J 38.3 1 U „43.2 q o - - - (DEX. . STREET 18 I - - 7 1121.1 a B LIGHT ��� „2,.0 10 � � I / S � F � r� � � 6 '� 2s 1121.2 I I ,oI 1120.8 , / / �� /O,/ \� ��. P�O �►\ �or �/ I / /H 11 �5- --11 5104 12, I 09 09 4 � . 172 �N 3 �tiIII I II /�� l �� 1/ 103 �� \ �� y� T�// ° j \ 11 1T� 11 9.7 „20.0 / / s F�9 S° 91 I. O �` _r r/� T 128 129 130 131 II, p 1,1s. NS S / „2,.0� I I I Z P 1133.3 M 1125.4 1 1 35) I 37 ( -� -- O I I Z, 109 / 1 2 _ 1124.9 1125.4 1124.9 1 7 1121.8 1120 I 37 I I 9 . �� 1 I I ; \J �/ �\ / 1124.1 I Z � ���, / \� 1135.3 / -dsq� �4sh k% W SS �w FS �k'A M I I I n � 34 r ` 102 / / / / �' s5 �W _ 19'. 1 ? I r � � r 2 I 12 / X. PP 1 \ 1 <� �' // ( 1129.1 \ y - HBO I- �_ N ow� FH FS BC II' 101 II �ti ,off o \ a 110 �, STREET B 17 . T----SS 0 s 23.6 LOT HE 71 FS SS S S� SSo -- SS ---f� �- Dw / 112o.s 6 1 101 , , o�° i 125 - 21 . ' -- _ �W= _ - �� 72 O 13 86 r z o �'S 4 T 1124.9 F W 4 �, / / ,,22.0 M M a 1 . % M S�5 �1.8% D-� - c� 73 „20.7 \ �I 26+01.23 EC 1120.2 ; I Z O �� it ///I V �x 111 /� N - + - 1,20.4 ✓ /% N I 1 � � O I 1 � r \ - _ o - 74 � ,129.3 / U I �I- ( I EXISTING N � ! <c • A 0 O/ � N 1120.2 �T•••� s C% I I , �`,-- O � I STORM DRAIN �° 124 o O� m FH c l r 76 175 V 1 I I I I y r 48 100 / / O I / 1I LOT 177 HOA P/L P/L VAR. VAR. LOT 51 LOT 101 3' EXISTING PAD _ __________ PROPOSED PAD EARTHEN SWALE- \ / SECTION H-H LOT 179 HOA EX . P/L P/L VAR. VAR. LOT 107 LOT 44 3' PROPOSED PAD EXISTING PAD --------------------------- R/W SECTION I -I 100' SWALE R/W I , / /1121.2 /!� 1120.3 �� O 154 0 1 W I 1119.E v 11 I ; I FH �� 155 1122.3 15+30.39 EC 11 .3 c� I II 77 � \ 70 1 � T I I I i , 0 � I � O 19.9 I (� / \ 1119.7 W I I , I I I p LOT LOT 171 50' So' 1124.5 1119.4 / I 123 �� S'A7S FS_ I /� � F I 1 LINE 199 / ,12 PROP. D ,- o^ 57 F� � 15 Tl � � i W C 37' �,i/J / d�o / -� 1116.1 I 1119.0 II I 31' EXISTING RAISED 31' 12' -- O I I � , I-- �� � H.O.A. MAINTAINED LANDS APED ,,,8.4 F/z / 113 � , 158 153 13�, q 1115 / H X. . FH 1 LOT 111 25' 12' ME IAN 1123.1 / PROP. SS / 1121.2 1120.3 / 112 .3 / 1119.o O -� 1 I , !r _ PAD 10 2 MIN / O �4xs I / I I T N 2% I 49 I � \PROP. D FS / v / ► / PROP. SS 11 J' /----------------------------------------2% - --- 14. � o o I � / 152 ,�� 0 8 3, / 56 Fs ,� I I 18 I( 1 ;� _T-- ?% ---r 2% 1 L! 1 B I / / n 1116.1 1115.5 1 1118.7 I 1 1 V U / I- / ^ 1119.0 1118.E Cry C / /1 ,� PROPOSED 1 Q T 98 0 / 1 w I n I I �XISTING CURB & EXIST. S/W s� -1 / / O 3 N c U Q ¶I �t I I 5' -6 ' O , ,,,5. s O J "�� 121 �(v \ 6 / , 20.3 / , / T r 1118.7 un , S� ( GUTTER D E P 0 R T 0 LA ROAD 1119.1 '� � � I 0 X. PP 1 i ''� 1 MEANDERING WALK I 59 > 17' I 1 I C i SECTION A -A . I T I RET . WALL , / 1117., 1,17. ` / �) �� / / / %, IL)A 55 1115.2 Q 60 11118.4 1 X. MH 1 ; 1 I � U TYP . / / 1114.2 67 - I I 11�13.2 ' 115/ / 120 �(/ RET . WALL, / 0 111s.1 // 1� / / 111s.a 30 30 m 0 �t 11t3.a � TYP.159 150 / i ! _ / / / \ \� 20 20 �I / 6'�„ 1115.9 l / / �FH ' ' I- - 1 I T �- �, + i 30 � � � � r A - -II- � BC 111s.o � I 16 38.67 EC �- T 140 /� - C 1114 7 +52.32 I r7 30 , / �/ �,,� I- -I -I I-, - 28 �� m , s 98 i l 09.8 - I 119 �2x ��:/� �� 1, n.7 1, t2.7 - F� 111e PROP . D I I r FS _ 116� I ' 8 y� / Iy I ' 0 1„0 7 1113.1 20' 8 4 - 160 149 / 45/ / OPEN SPACE R/W R/W - 60 6 y r / �° 61 _ 28+87.68 EC ;� LOT LOT 172 II 30' 30' - - - \ 3p' o 1 �� / / �TO XISTING PROPERTY LINE \ � t1t3.a PROP. SS 1,n.7l I LINE PROPOSED EXISTING Z 32' 36' 14' 36' EP BE REMOVED4-1 �N 20 - - ,' - -Iti �� V I- - /- �r - \i -I 20 2 3 / �� / �� / o I 1 k 11 H.O.A. MAINTAINED PROPOSED MEDIRAISE r „os.s 117 11$ I- -� ' I -11- - 148 0 , 141 ) ( HOA) '' / dv 64 65 I 20 j I '� - J FH 11os.s 1 I ,,,2.5 10.5 12+13.44 BC 181 1113.4 �2x2 ,1,s.a / W 63 O m 20' 12' ,,,5.4 I I 1117 1 I 1 2 PROP SED EX I T I NG 1112.2 v 1114.9 14.8 2% FS 14+05.52 EC I I I 2% 2% �r 1 1 � � �j / � � � \ ,SS �\ � O - � � 1 �J `�A� I I � I � � 1 I 1� 4 �or49e ArP4 PROPOSED L -_ - �, CENON _ T 44 3% - _ SS STREET J o . 5%- _ ,,,4.0 14.3 I I 5'-6' �� $ - -�_ -- FS I I MEANDERING WALK BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 01 147 / 03.3 14 I 13 � � � 1�� FS 0 �� � o 0 WAY- �, o8.2 LOT J I �t3' I 161 ,,,2.4 10.5 ��v�� ;� ��+ _FS S� S�� Suv - SSW - S�� 1111.s FS 11+44.67 BC r / 1� SS �N -- sun 0 �� I _ -FS 6 - 'o / FH �ggTREE� L I �. P I Uo � p 9 I - - - - 0 3 cn 6 j � � � 1 1 .9 S S -� D W 21 �I I 163 146 143 I o / / F --- ���w-- Fs ,', II EXISTING s� I T 1116.2 I I ��� or �� I 1111.1 1111.4 I �� I I 1111.9 I r/ O �/ AA I 1 1 I I �� I STORM DRAIN 49� greo 1111.7 I 1 I / I T I I C28 n I 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 60 ,25.Il55 ,o7.9 Lo 144 27 227 „„,, -o NZ °Bs.O 1 01 326 25 24 23 1158 LOT LOT 169 LOT LOT 172 R/W SECTION B-B R/W = ET . WALL , TYP . H / I PROP . D 28 1113.7 ,114.5 t„5.1 1115.7 I n LINE LINE I PROPOSED EXISTING J I II 11 .6 1110. �/ O O O O I I i N � 20 ' / I 1 VARIES 32' 36' 14' 36' EP Q N I =_ - - _ I = _ -v = _ - `- I - - 1 PROP . SS �° l I Is;i ; I r - H.O. A. 20' 12' ROPOSED RAISE i ,.._._,� � � FH -- PROP. SD FH O 'I I T I I , ;1 I 7� 1 MAINTAINED 2 10 ME IAN S 1 Z d- N I o SS S �� S 0.8% Sc SS SS w w SS 0.5% SS ,S S / I STREET - - - a ' O I X. FH 1 i L - MAINTAINED WNW I Ali ,�� � � � - � + � � - � � � � 0•Sq �, 6 1t1o.7 I 0 \ I I, 9 0 w 12 07.8 13 14 15 / I ' I O PAD 07.8 ✓ 08.9/ D W LOB ✓ FS D W D ^✓ ; ` J SS 31 I c� z0 , 6 ' ?x y (no I FS IICD _ Fs - - - - - - - - co 1110.9 I I ', I r S 2% �;. �_T--------------------------------------------------------<. LIJ Z N I �6 II o 6 0� 32 0 l l l I ; i, I N Loo 00 171 x 1,11.2 33 34 35 36 37 I I T �, i N n DRAINAGE m I i I i W \, �8.6 �J 0 ,,,,.s ,,,,.9 1„2.2 1,13.4 ,,,a.2 I , , I I I I , ; I O r+ CHANNEL 2 5: , 5'-6' BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD ° I WQ BAS I N I Sg I ! I MEANDERING Q 1 I �\ o o I I (1 I I I I I WALK SECTION C-C �_ T I 87 Be 85 84 83 82 / 81 80 79 78 I 53 �, S M 38 ( I I I I X. PP 1 I o r Z ~ 1110.0 1110.4 1110.E 1110.7 1110.5 1110.3 1110.0 1109.8 1109.5 1109. I I 1109.5 O \ 0/ O �J 1114.2 I I j I I I n z I �� I 0 0 I „os.9 51 0 00 -- I I W I n O _ -1100 I II ,1,0.2 ^� ^� �S 09.4 II ITS II I I I �� I I N _ / I 50 \ �' '8 09.8 II RET . WALL, TYP . - - ) ,110.5 x -FS - - i I - i I I I 1 R/W w SS-0.5% SS SS J0 I X. MH 1 110 - _ _ - - - - - - - ,�,`' - 19 20 21 12.2 I , X . 2-120 RCP SD I / '' 1100 49 ,o +- D W - D W DW- D W FS-- 39 I 20 I X. 15" VCP SS 37 ROW 37, 70 �o �O ogLO 48 00 FH 111a.2 I I X. 36" CML&C DW • T Lt_ h -ii- - ��C= 1111.o n LD- - / 10 I I I X. 24" PVC RW 2' 10' 6' 16' 16' 47 II I X. 36" CML&C DW SETBACK LANDSCAPE WALK o� _ ---- ,� �� - ----- ------ - � 0.54% ,,,1.4 40 ( I I I .0' 48 i - - - - \ � N I HOA MAINT. 0 45 44 1113.8 I I � MEDIAN o P I ,,,, 4 43 42 41 O 0 ' I ; SOUND WALL / - -- L---- \ --- �� P o I ----- \�� 1111.E 1111.9 1112.2 (HEIGHT Oc - \ 1112.9 1113.4 / I VARIES o X. CURB & I �- GUTTER - - - - c� / �� 1095 - - ASS- -- -- --- 1100A1Q ---- --- -------- - ---------- -- -- - -------- -EX . 12" F P 1 _ 99 01 PROP. 84" SD _ EX. 20" PVC R - EX. 12"PV s I 1 SD Asph, ----- --= i- - - - �- .0 \ -__-q3----- `-EX. 15" VCP SS o/> X. RAISED MEDIAN - _ SEX. 36" PCC DW X. c & GU1 - - - - - R/W - - - - - ZONING - COMMERCIAL - HT PCL. 16 X. DRY UTILITY CONDUIT PARCEL MAP NO. 28731 P.M.B. 191/78 1 ��' / _ _� • *� _ - , _ -I I- \ X PP 1 X 1 X. PPO1 X. WELLOI EX . PP �1 X . PP 1 - - �X . PP O � X . PPOI- 1 I AS I N ACCESS ROAD 06,E o� 086 09 X. MH 1 ' ROP. SS X. 12" PVC RW O -TE LA PARKWAY - - o -A- oo i I I ,301 I - - -- - - 6 ----- - ----------- ----- - -� - 51 _ ° I 15VCP SS99 X. - )08096: _ - X. 36" PCC DW _ Asph. I I I I I 13s c0 ---^------- - ,- ---------�-------- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - ---- ------ -LL SETBACK - I I ' M ZONING -COMMERCIAL - IP PCL. 7 - c I ° oh U ZONING - COMMER� I AL - HT Ex . F \ c I � � PCL. 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 31454 PCL. 2 I PCL. 1 PARCEL MAP N0. 29864 I PCL. 3 I I III I P.M.B. 207 / 85-86 I P.M.B. 200/18-20 PCL. 2 I Ilh Ia R/W 142' R/W 71' 71' 48' 14' 48' 31' MEDIAN H.O.A. 2' MAINTAINED EXIS ING PRO OSED LOT 172 7' 7' 16' 15' ---- 2% 2% ~-----------f------- t--________- �i--~--------------------Z_J -� N MEANDERING S/W (CITY MAINT.) 2.5:1 TEMECULA PARKWAY SECTION G-G LOT 169 VARIES H.O.A. MAINTAINED 1 PAD 1 DRAINAGE CHANNEL CITY R/W 142' 71' 71' CITY R/W 48' 14' 48' 31' MEDIAN H.O.A. 2' MAINTAINED 7' 7' EX I ST I NG PRO OS LOT 1735 2 2%---------- 2% y f- f 1 t ------------------------------------ -------------------------------- MEANDERING S/W (CITY MAINT.) TEMECULA PARKWAY SECTION F-F LOT 169 VARIES H.O.A. MAINTAINED 1 DRAINAGE -MAINT. ROAD CHANNEL 60 30 0 60 120 180 SCALE: 1"=60' CONSTRUCTION NOTES (DPROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING NOTE: PAD THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM 10' BUFFER BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND THE CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE PERIMETER STREETS TO ALLOW FOR THE RUNOFF FROM THE SIDEWALKS TO BE TREATED. PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: JOHN R. DUQUETTE JOB # 139600 pL LANp s\ �A rri * L.S. 7566 r9lF OF C AV1.1�`�� R/W R/W 6' 10' 2' WALK LANDSCAPE SETBACK HOA MAINT. SOUND WALL (HEIGHT VARIES 6'-8') PER NOISE STUDY REQUIREMENTS PAD 2% �2% 0000= °o moo°-•o • •o . o o a CURB &GUTTER STREET 'A' SECTION D-D R/W TYPICAL SECTION STREET 'B' THRU T SECTION E-E TENTATIVE TRACT NO 0 36483 FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES PLANNING AREA 4 EXHIBIT "A" DATE: DUNE 2, 2023 PLANNING APPLICATION N0. PA14-0087 SHEET 2 OF 2 N co N N w 0 J_ m CD 0 N O I I O 0 0 rn i CD z Q / 0 0 Q U O 0 0 rn i Q Q 0 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 PALOMA DEL SOL Villages at Paseo del Sol Prepared for Woodside Homes Southern California Division 1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 500 Corona, CA 92879 Prepared by Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 August 26, 2020 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Purpose and Background.................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Background............................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2.1 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Certified Final Environmental Impact Report 235 (State Clearinghouse No. 8707003)......................................1-2 1.2.2 Specific Plan Amendments 4 through 8 and Addenda 1 through 4 to Final Environmental Impact Report 235..............................................................1-4 1.2.3 TTM 36483 for Planning Area 4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration..............................................................................................................................1-6 1.2.4 Regulatory Permits and Approvals...............................................................................1-7 1.2.5 Assessment District 159....................................................................................................1-8 2.0 Project Setting......................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting....................................................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 Project Description.............................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Project Elements.................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Tentative Tract Map 36483............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Drainage...................................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.3 Conditions of Approval...................................................................................................... 3-2 4.0 Evaluation Pursuant to Section 21166........................................................................................4-1 4.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources........................................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................................4-10 4.4 Biological Resources.........................................................................................................................4-20 4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................4-31 4.6 Energy.....................................................................................................................................................4-34 4.7 Geology and Soils...............................................................................................................................4-36 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................4-42 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................4-46 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................4-52 4.11 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................4-61 4.12 Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................................4-65 4.13 Noise........................................................................................................................................................4-66 4.14 Population and Housing..................................................................................................................4-70 PALOMA DEL SOL i Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 4.15 Public Services....................................................................................................................................4-72 4.16 Recreation.............................................................................................................................................4-78 4.17 Transportation....................................................................................................................................4-79 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................4-84 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................4-86 4.20 Wildfire..................................................................................................................................................4-92 5.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 References.............................................................................................................................................6-1 TABLES Table Page Comparison of Original Specific Plan Approvals and Amendment No. 8 Approvals ...............1-6 StudentGeneration...........................................................................................................................................4-75 Major Roadway Capacity, Volume, and Growth....................................................................................4-81 FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Location/Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................1-3 2 Trends of South Coast Air Basin Maximum 3-Year Design Values for Ozone (2015 8-Hour, 2008 8-Hour, and 1979 1-Hour NAAQS) and PM2.5 (24-Hour and Annual), 1995-2015 (As Percentages of Current Federal Standards)........................................4-16 3 Final Air Quality Management Plan: Percent Change in Air Quality Along with Demographic Data for the 4-County Region(1990-2015)...............................................................4-17 4 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment 8 Drainage Plan.............................................................4-58 ATTACHMENT Attachment A Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Included in the Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, PA-4/TTM 36483, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ii PALOMA DEL SOL 1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE Section 65457 of the Government Code provides an exemption from the requirements of Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 21000—Legislative Update or the California Environmental Quality Act) (CEQA) for a residential development project "... that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980." However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA.' The proposed Project is implementing a residential development provided for in an approved Specific Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. Therefore, the purpose of this evaluation is to assess, in light of the requirements of Section 21166, the consistency of the residential development proposed by Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 36483 (proposed Project or Project) for Planning Area-4 (PA-4) of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Villages at Paseo del Sol with the previous environmental documentation prepared in compliance with CEQA.2 PA-4 is the last undeveloped portion of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area, located in the City of Temecula. The proposed TTM for the 42.64-acre PA-4 consists of 168 single-family residential lots, a community park, open space/trails, and drainage and water quality improvements. The Project site has been addressed in previous environmental documents, including the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report 235 (Certified FEIR 235), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 36483, approved by the County of Riverside on September 6,1988 and Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235, which included changes to the development in PA-4 and was approved by the City of Temecula on January 8, 2002. It should be noted that the proposed Project was additionally analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which was distributed for public review in July 2019 but was not finalized or approved by the City of Temecula. This evaluation assesses whether the existing documents adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project; if substantial changes are proposed in the Project that would require major revisions of the original EIR; if substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that would require major revisions of the original EIR; or if new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time, becomes available. 1.2 BACKGROUND As indicated above and discussed in the following sections, there have been a number of CEQA environmental documents that include discussion and analysis pertaining to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan site. This evaluation incorporates information from the said documents to demonstrate that none of the events specified in Section 21166 for determining if subsequent environmental 1 Section 65457 of the Government Code and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code are further discussed in Section 2.1, Regulatory Setting. 2 The full name of Specific Plan 219 is Paloma Del Sol, Villages at Paseo del Sol. For brevity, this evaluation refers to the name as the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. There are past documents that use the name Paseo del Sol. Additionally, at the time FEIR 235 was certified, it was also called The Meadows at Rancho California. PALOMA DEL SOL 1-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 documentation is required have occurred. The following information provides context to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan approval process, which has spanned multiple years. 1.2.1 PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 235 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.8707003) The approximate 1,391.5-acre Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Specific Plan 219) area is located in the City of Temecula, to the south of Pauba Road, north of Temecula Parkway (Highway 79), west of Butterfield Stage Road, and east of Margarita Road, as identified on Figure 1. The Specific Plan offers a mix of uses and residential densities to accommodate the diverse needs of the community. The Specific Plan, as initially approved, includes 38 planning areas supporting a total of 5,611 residential units. The residential densities range from Medium to Very High Density. Commercial uses are provided in the Specific Plan, predominately in the southwestern portion of the community, along Temecula Parkway. This includes both Community/Neighborhood Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial uses (Table 1, provided below in Section 1.2.2 shows the distribution of the development by category). Supportive infrastructure includes schools, recreation areas/parks, greenbelt paseos, roadways, and utility improvements as part of the Specific Plan, which were evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235. Through the amendment process, discussed below, there have been minor adjustments in the total number of units and development densities. As an EIR prepared for a large-scale development project, FEIR 235 was intended to be used as the basis for subsequent approvals associated with implementation of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. CEQA encourages the use of more comprehensive documents that evaluate one large project with several phases that require a series of implementing actions. This allows a more comprehensive evaluation of impacts and the context of land uses, rather than evaluating smaller projects. As each of the subsequent activities have been submitted for implementation, the City of Temecula has evaluated the proposed development in light of the Certified FEIR 235 to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. At the time the Specific Plan was approved, the site was in the unincorporated portion of the County of Riverside. Therefore, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors, as the decision -makers for the lead agency, was the entity that approved the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and certified the FEIR 235 on September 6, 1988. Additionally, the County of Riverside approved three amendments to the Specific Plan. Records are not available that clearly define what these three amendments to the Specific Plan entailed. In 1989, subsequent to the approval of the Specific Plan and certification of the associated FEIR, the City of Temecula was incorporated; thereby making the City the lead agency on local land use approvals. Since incorporation, the City has processed an additional five Specific Plan Amendments, and four Addenda to Certified FEIR 235 have been prepared. These amendments are briefly discussed below to provide context of the build -out of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area. 1-2 PALOMA DEL SOL PSOMAS Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 1.2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS 4 THROUGH 8 AND ADDENDA 1 THROUGH 4 TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 235 As noted above, the City of Temecula has processed five amendments to the Specific Plan and prepared four Addenda to Certified FEIR 235. The following provides a brief overview of the previous approvals and associated CEQA documentation (T&B Planning, 2002a). Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan added 6.5 acres of Very High density residential to Planning Area 6 (PA-6). It also added 1.5 acres of park to Planning Area 37 (PA-37), reduced community/neighborhood commercial area in Planning Area 1 (PA-1) by 4.9 acres and reduced major roads by 3.1 acres. Addendum No. 1 to the Certified FEIR 235 was prepared in conjunction with Amendment No. 4 and was approved by the Temecula City Council in 1994. In addition to the changes to the Specific Plan, Addendum No. 1 added a Development Agreement, which did not change the physical impacts identified in the Certified FEIR 235 since it only dealt with collection of fees, improvements to parks and dedication of parks to the City for maintenance. Amendment No. 5 to the Specific Plan was approved in January of 1997. It resulted in a change in the allocation of units between the density levels. There was an increase in the Medium density category and reduction in Medium -High and Multi -Family designations. This resulted in an overall reduction of 20 units in the Specific Plan. Other changes included an increase in community/neighborhood commercial acreage, the designation of a park/recreation site, and reduction in roadside landscape requirements. The City Council determined Amendment No. 5 was consistent with the project evaluated in Certified FEIR 235. Therefore, no further environmental analysis was required for this amendment. Amendment No. 6 to the Specific Plan was approved by the City of Temecula in January of 1998. This amendment resulted in several minor changes to the Specific Plan, including minor changes in acreage of the several planning areas. Other changes would be characterized as "clean up" measures, such as updating roadway cross -sections and standards to conform to the City's General Plan and reflecting minor access points changes to conform to the approved Tentative Tract Maps. Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 did not result in any total acreage or dwelling unit changes. The City Council determined Amendment No. 6 was consistent with the project evaluated in Certified FEIR 235. Therefore, no further environmental analysis was required for this amendment. Addendum No. 2 to the Certified FEIR 235 was adopted on March 17, 1999 by the City of Temecula. Planning Area 8 (PA-8), designated in Amendment No. 6 as Medium Density Residential, was revised to allow a Medium Density Senior Community. The size and number of dwelling units remained the same. Addendum No. 2 evaluated institutions such as facilities for the aged, congregate care residential facilities, information center and nursery schools. Amendment No. 7 to the Specific Plan encompassed minor land use changes and alterations to roadway standards. In conjunction with Amendment No. 7, a Development Plan and a Development Agreement for a portion of PA-1 was processed to permit the construction of a community commercial center of focused retail villages. Although the Specific Plan Amendment did make minor revisions to the allowed development provided in the Paloma del Sol Specific plan, Addendum No. 3 to the Certified FEIR 235 was prepared in conjunction with the processing of Amendment No. 7 and documented that, (1) the proposed changes would not result in substantial revisions to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances occurred that would require major revisions to Certified FEIR 235; 1-4 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and (3) no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of FEIR 235. Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan was the last Specific Plan Amendment processed; and therefore, represents the currently approved Specific Plan and would serve as a baseline for the consistency evaluation provided for in Section 4 of this evaluation. Addendum No. 4 to Certified FEIR 235 evaluated each environmental factor originally analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and previous three EIR Addenda and determined that none of the environmental impacts increased beyond what had already been documented. Amendment No. 8 resulted in the relocation of a number of uses within the Specific Plan area and a reduction of the total number of residential dwelling units within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (T&B 2002b). The allowed number of units was reduced from 5,246 dwelling units to no more than 5,137 units and as few as 5,072 units.3 Additionally, the elementary school proposed for Planning Area 29B (PA-2913) was removed since the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) indicated that the site was no longer needed. Amendment No. 8 identified 188 units in PA-4. Amendment No. 8, and the associated Addendum No. 4, were approved by the City of Temecula in 2002. Table 1 provides a comparison of the land uses approved in 1988 as part of the original Specific Plan and the uses currently approved based on Amendment No. 8. 3 The 5,072 dwelling units was based on without a senior community option and 5,137 units if the senior community option is implemented. Addendum 4 assumed a worst -case scenario and evaluated the impacts associated with a 5,137-unit project. PA-8 was constructed with single-family units. PALOMA DEL SOL 1-5 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVALS AND AMENDMENT NO.8 APPROVALS Specific Plan No. 219 (Original) Specific Plan No. 219 Amendment No. 8 Land Use Acres D.Us Land Use Acres DUs Medium 536.0 2,366 Medium 610.7 2,551 Medium (Senior) 89.0 335 (400)* Medium High 437.5 2,406 Medium High 303.8 1,678 High 22.3 268 Very High 56 840 Very High 12.0 240 Community/ Neighborhood Commercial 39.0 Community/ Neighborhood Commercial 43.0 Neighborhood Commercial 15.0 Neighborhood Commercial 2.5 Day Care 2.0 Day Care 2.0 Junior High School 20.0 Junior High School 20.0 Elementary School 41.0 Elementary School 31.0 Parks or Recreation Areas 15.4 Parks or Recreation Areas 30.6 Greenbelt Paseos 28.0 Greenbelt Paseos 31.9 Roadway Paseos 87.6 Roadway Paseos 81.5 Open Space 9.0 Major Streets 114.0 Major Streets 102.2 Project Total 1,391.5 5,611 Project Total 1,391.5 5,072 (5,137)* * Implementation of the adult retirement option for PA-8 increases the total dwelling unit allocation for PA-8 to 400 du, raises the total medium density dwelling unit allocation to 2,951 du, and would raise the total dwelling units allowed in the Specific Plan to 5,137. Source: Paloma del Sol Specific Pan, Villages at Paseo del Sol, Environmental Impact Report No. 235, Addendum #4 to Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8 (Specific Plan No. SP-4), 2002. 1.2.3 TTM 36483 FOR PLANNING AREA 4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In 2019, the City of Temecula, as the lead agency, circulated a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Project (TTM 36483). The MND for the Project was titled "Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, PA-4/TTM 36483, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration." The Initial Study (IS)/MND was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the 42.64-acre residential development in PA-4. The IS/MND tiered off of the 1988 Certified FEIR 235 and the four subsequent addenda. The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review in July 2019 and received public comments pertaining to environmental topics of air quality, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, and transportation. As previously noted, the City did not take action to adopt the MND. 1-6 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The IS/ MND included provisions labeled as Project Design Features (PDFs)4 and Mitigation Measures in the areas of Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, based on a review these measures do not constitute true PDFs and mitigation measures, but are citing regulatory requirements or City requirements that would be applicable to the Project outside of the CEQA process. Furthermore, as discussed below in Section 2.1, Regulatory Setting, the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, which provides guidance on the assessment of when a Subsequent EIR or MND is required, specifically addresses mitigation measures. Section 15162 (a) (3) (C) and (D) state: (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 proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. A discussion of the suitability of presenting these provisions as new mitigation is provided as part of this consistency evaluation under each of the applicable topical areas in Section 4. A complete listing of the PDFs and mitigation measures included in the IS/MND are provided in Attachment A. 1.2.4 REGULATORY PERMITS AND APPROVALS Regulatory agency permits/agreements for the proposed Project already have been approved by other responsible agencies for development on the Project site. These permits/agreements which were included as Appendices 131 through B8 of the Draft IS/MND for the Project, were prepared between 2015 and 2018. There have been minor modifications to the Project since the issuance of the permits(i.e., a minor reduction in the number of units); the assumption that the entirety of the site would be disturbance is consistent., Therefore, it would not be anticipated that amendments to the permits would be necessary prior to construction. The need for approvals by the regulatory agencies was identified in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. A Section 404 Permit was issued for the Project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on July 17, 2017. The permit authorizes a total discharge of clean soil of 0.71-acre, of which 0.10 acre (1,350 linear feet) is non -wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.61 acre is wetland waters of the U.S. The permit conditions pertain to the general project, pre -construction, construction, cultural resources, and post- construction. The permit notes that the proposed Project had previously been entitled and received approvals from both the city of Temecula and the regulatory agencies during 1996-1998 for a residential and commercial mixed -use project. The time limit for the completion of the authorized activities is June 30, 2022; however, the permit does state the USACE will normally give favorable consideration to a request for a time extension. A Streambed Alteration Agreement has been prepared for the Project by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Agreement was initially prepared in 2015. CDFW has prepared a revision to the Agreement based on minor modifications to the Project since the original Agreement was prepared. The Agreement involves two parts, (1) replacing 4 Project Design Features (PDFs) are specific design elements proposed by the applicant that have been incorporated into the project to prevent the occurrence of, or reduce the significance of, potential environmental effects. Because PDFs have been incorporated into the project, they do not constitute mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. However, PDFs are often tracked similar to mitigation measures to ensure they are fully implemented. PALOMA DEL SOL 1-7 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 the current stormwater channel and detention basin, and (2) creation of a channel and associated habitat. The Agreement provides for onsite and offsite habitat restoration. The offsite restoration would be rehabilitation of 0.69 acre at the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank. Onsite improvements would be constructed along the outer edges on either side of the low - flow channel and would contain 2.97 acres of wetland/riparian scrub. The Agreement includes other avoidance and minimization measures. The Agreement expires October 1, 2022. • A Letter of Intent (LOI) for a Conservation Easement Agreement was issued for the Project by the Rivers & Lands Conservancy (RLC) on March 15, 2018. The LOI states the Project site will be evaluated by the RLC by way of a baseline survey and baseline report to accept the Project site as a conservation easement. The conservation easement would comprise approximately 3.3 acres in the southern portion of the Project site. The LOI includes details and funding pertaining to preparation of the baseline survey and baseline report as well as ongoing maintenance of the property. • A Section 401 Water Quality Certification was issued for the project by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board on June 15, 2016. The 401 certification includes various requirements to be implemented on site, including conditions, best management practices (BMPs), compensatory mitigation, and monitoring and reporting requirements. • A Joint Project Review (JPR) was issued for the Project by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) on April 25, 2016 and updated on April 6, 2018. The JPR determined consistency of the project with the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The RCA also included a plan requirements section that detailed requirements to be implemented on the Project site in addition to what was already proposed. 1.2.5 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 In June 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a petition by a number of area developers to form the Assessment District 159 (AD 159). The purpose of AD 159 was "to fund through property assessments major infrastructure projects in the Highway 79 corridor near Rancho California." The County of Riverside prepared drainage studies for the Temecula Valley backbone drainage system for the AD 159, which was created to mitigate potential flooding impacts to Temecula Creek and downstream land uses. The evaluation for AD 159 was prepared for a larger study area and was done independent of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, but the studies for AD 159 were prepared concurrently with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan drainage report. Implementation of AD 159 improvements included construction of Temecula Creek Channel, Temecula Parkway, and Butterfield Stage Road in addition to backbone drainage facilities. The original drainage report indicated that the westerly drainage basins north of De Portola Road, which drained toward Butterfield Stage Road, would be captured and the off -site flow would be conveyed through Paseo del Sol in storm drains. Per the original Paseo del Sol Tract 24185 Drainage Plan, drainage flows into PA-4 at the 78-inch reinforced concrete pipe stubbed into the site south of De Portola. In 1991, a Supplemental District was formed to fund cost overruns on the original improvements and to fund additional improvements. Among additional proposed facilities was "[t]he construction of flood control facilities at three points along and northerly of Highway 79 all to facilitate the drainage of the northern portion of the District to Temecula Creek." The Engineer's Report for AD 159- Supplemental stated that the projects proposed to be completed by the supplemental assessment district included "[t]he construction of Butterfield Stage Road between Rancho California Road and State Highway 79." AD 159-Supplemental also proposed construction of a floodwater interceptor facility, the Butterfield East Interceptor. "The Butterfield East Interceptor was intended to be an open channel located at the eastern Assessment District boundary to intercept the tributary drainage flows 1-8 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties." Corona Family Limited Partnership v. City of Temecula (Feb. 8, 2005) 2005 WL 290209. The City concluded in previous Specific Plan amendments that the Certified FEIR 235 did not address the drainage flows east of Butterfield Stage Road because it was addressed and mitigated within the AD 159 EIR. AD 159 mitigated this by building Butterfield Stage Road with two 120-inch pipes under the roadway to handle the stormflows and stubbed a 72- inch pipe into the property (APN 965-540- 001) east of Butterfield Stage Road to pick up a small portion of the larger east west drainage. The County and City required Paloma del Sol to construct an interim detention stormwater collection and basin on PA-4 until the County approves and constructs an up stream drainage facility. The Project in PA-4 proposes construction of permanent improvements that will replace the existing on -site temporary drainage facilities with an improved stormwater conveyance and surface water quality system. PALOMA DEL SOL 1-9 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 This page intentionally left blank 1-10 PALOMA DEL SOL 2.0 PROJECT SETTING 2.1 REGULATORY SETTING Section 65457 of the Government Code provides an exemption from CEQA for a residential development project "that is undertake to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980." The applicable portion of the code states: (a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan. (Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 643, Sec. 18. Effective January 1, 2007.) As discussed above, the Certified FEIR 235 for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Specific Plan 219) was certified after January 1, 1980 (September 6, 1988) by the County of Riverside. Therefore, the proposed 168-unit residential development would be exempt from requirements of CEQA provided none of the provisions of Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred. Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code states: "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs": 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. 3. New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. If any of these three conditions apply, then subsequent environmental documentation would be required. The State CEQA Guidelines, specifically, Section 15162, provides more detail on how to assess the applicability of these standards. These parameters, summarized as follows, have been applied in the consistency evaluation provided in Section 4 of this evaluation. PALOMA DEL SOL 2-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR. The following four conditions must be found to exist for a finding that the first part of the test applies: • The change in the project is substantial; • The change involves new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts; • The change will require major revisions to the previous EIR based on the new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and • The new or more severe impacts were not considered in the previous EIR (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR. Four conditions must be found to exist for a finding that the second part of the test applies: • The change in circumstances is substantial; • The change involves new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts; • The change will require major revisions to the previous EIR based on the new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and • The new or more severe impacts were not considered in the previous EIR (c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified, becomes available. New information must show one of the following for the third part of the test to apply: • The project will have significant effects not evaluated in the prior EIR; • Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior EIR; • Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible are in fact feasible and would substantially reduce significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or • Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 2-2 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 1,391.5-acre Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area is located in the City of Temecula, to the south of Pauba Road, north of Temecula Parkway (Highway 79), west of Butterfield Stage Road, and east of Margarita Road. PA-4 is located at the corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road. The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north and west (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan), retail (Big Horse Feed and Mercantile) to the east across Butterfield Stage Road, and commercial/retail/restaurant uses to the south across Temecula Parkway. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan is divided into 38 planning areas, with a total of 5,137 residential units. The proposed Project (TTM 36483) consists of the 42.64-acre PA-4, which is the last undeveloped portion of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The Specific Plan designates PA-4 as Medium Density Residential (2 to 5 dwelling units per gross acre [du/ac]) with a target unit count of 188. The Zoning designation is Specific Plan, and the General Plan designation is LM-Low Medium Residential, which will not change with implementation of the proposed Project. The site is located within the Temecula Creek watershed, near the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. The site generally drains in an east to west direction and is tributary to Temecula Creek through a number of existing culvert crossings of Temecula Parkway. The Project site has been graded and includes a number of temporary drainage facilities (i.e., earthen channels, basins and erosion control features) to convey stormwater through the site, with only major storm flows leaving the site. It was intended that the temporary facilities would remain until construction of permanent facilities occur. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, there is minimal vegetation. The site primarily supports non-native grassland and disturbed area. The only sensitive vegetation is emergent freshwater marsh, located along the drainage channel that traverses the site. There is a pond in the southwest portion of the Project site where the channel enters an outlet pipe and is carried underground to Temecula Creek. This is further discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. PALOMA DEL SOL 2-3 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 This page intentionally left blank 2-4 PALOMA DEL SOL 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT ELEMENTS The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Specific Plan 219) was originally prepared and approved as a master planned community within the unincorporated County of Riverside, and subsequent phases have been processed through the City of Temecula, within the framework of a detailed and comprehensive multi -disciplinary planning program. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan divides the development into 38 planning areas. As previously noted, the Project is TTM 36483 and associated improvements in PA-4. 3.1.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36483 TTM 36483 proposes 168 residential lots, public streets, a community park, open space/trails and drainage/water quality improvements on the 42.64-acre PA-4 site.5 The proposed gross density of approximately 3.9 du/ac is consistent with the medium density residential identified in the Specific Plan density range for PA-4 (2 du/ac-5 du/ac). It is slightly less than the target density of 4.4 du/ac evaluated in Addendum No. 4 (prepared for Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan), which would allow for the development of up to 188 dwelling units.6 However, because it is within the established density range, the Project would be consistent with the Specific Plan. Minimum residential lot size is 5,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 5,800 square feet. Additionally, the Project proposes approximately 2.1 acres of community park located central to the Project, and 5.7 acres of open space along the southern edge of the Project site. The Project would be consistent with the existing Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and General Plan land use designations. The stormwater/water quality improvements are designed to convey stormwater through the Project site and replace the existing temporary on -site drainage facilities. In addition, the Project proposes to create habitat on site within the proposed drainage and water quality facilities, in accordance with resource agency permit requirements. The drainage improvements are discussed in more detail below. 3.1.2 DRAINAGE The Project site is located within the Temecula Creek watershed, near the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. The site generally drains in an east to west direction and is eventually tributary to Temecula Creek through a number of existing culvert crossings of Temecula Parkway. The total off -site tributary area is approximately 192 acres from Butterfield Stage Road to the east and north of the site. The Project site currently has been graded to control and detain storm water on site within earthen drainage facilities, with only major storm flows leaving the site. The proposed TTM 36483 identifies 174 numbered lots and 10 lettered lots. Lots 1 through 168 are for single-family residential development. Lots 169 and 171 through 174 would be developed with Drainage Channel/Habitat Restoration/Open Space. Lot 170 is a community park. The lettered lots are for roadways and not considered buildable lots. The reduction of 20 units compared to the target density identified in the Specific Plan represents a slightly less than 11 percent density reduction of allocation for PA-4 and a 0.4 percent density reduction for the overall Specific Plan. As noted in Section 1.2.2 (See Table 1), through the Specific Plan Amendment process the City of Temecula has reduced the overall density of the Paloma Specific Plan from 5,611 units to 5,072 units, a reduction of slightly more than 10 percent. PALOMA DEL SOL 3-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Project will replace the existing on -site temporary drainage facilities with an improved stormwater conveyance and surface water quality system. To address current surface water quality treatment requirements, the Project proposes a multi- functional drainage and water quality system, including a major channel and two water quality basins along the southern portion of the PA-4 site adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Drainage and water quality improvements are divided into two separate systems: (1) off -site stormwater conveyance through the Project site to downstream facilities and (2) on -site stormwater collection and conveyance through the Project site to on -site and downstream drainage and water quality facilities. Improvements consist of a major drainage channel to convey regional storm water through the Project site; two water quality basins to treat on -site -generated storm water, an 84-inch diameter storm drain (Line S) and a 96-inch-diameter storm drain parallel to the existing Line S storm drain; an extension of the existing 78-inch Line S-1 storm drain from De Portola through the site to the Channel; and in -tract local drainage system improvements. The proposed channel has been designed to convey storm water from areas east and north of the Project site through a soft bottom channel and water quality basins to the existing culvert under Temecula Parkway in the south west corner of the Project site. These improvements effectively protect the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and downstream areas from flooding from the off -site watershed, and at the same time maintain the existing level of flood protection to the existing developments and property near the Project site. Channel and water quality basin areas are proposed to be fenced and have all weather access for maintenance purposes. In addition, the primary drainage channel is proposed to be restored utilizing native wetland plant materials. 3.1.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL By utilizing the CEQA exemption provided for in Section 65457 of the Government Code, the mitigation measures outlined in Certified FEIR 235 would apply to the Project. In addition, the following conditions of approval would apply to the Project: • All conditions associated with regulatory permits and agreements (e.g., USACE Section 404 permit, CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 401 Certification by the RWQCB) • Requirements outlined in the Joint Project Review by the Regional Conservancy Authority • Rivers and Lands Conservancy obligations • Terms and conditions approved by the Temecula City Council Associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 (approved January 16, 2002) • Conditions of approval associated with Planning Application No. 01-0117 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment 4 approved by the Temecula City Council on January 16, 2002 • Conditions of approval required by the City of Temecula, which would include standard conditions of approval. • Compliance with current codes and regulations (e.g., Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings [California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6] and the California Green Building Standards [CALGreen Code, 24 CCR 11]. 3-2 PALOMA DEL SOL 4.0 EVALUATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 21166 The discussion and analysis in this consistency document evaluates if the proposed Project would result in any of the conditions identified in the three-part test in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code (see Section 2.1 of this evaluation for the discussion of this section). To ensure this analysis is comprehensive, the topical areas identified in the most recent updates to the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Checklist) are used as guidance for this evaluation. This comparative analysis provides the City of Temecula with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since FEIR 235 was certified, rise to the level that would require substantial revisions to the Certified FEIR 235. The analysis in this document will include a brief discussion of the environmental topics provided in the 1988 EIR and subsequent Addenda and how and if major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 are required in light of modifications to the Project description, changed circumstances, and availability of information that was not known before. In addition to this discussion, the proposed Project will be evaluated in light of the criteria outlined in Section 21166 of Public Resources Code. Findings will be made as to the significance of changes to the Project and if those changes would require significant revisions of the Certified FEIR 235; if there have been significant changes in circumstance under which the Project is implemented that would require major revisions in the Certified FEIR 235; and if there is new information that was not known before that would become available. 4.1 AESTHETICS Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The previous analyses determined that while the Project site is not directly bordered by any designated scenic highways, Highway 79 is eligible for designation as a County scenic highway. Additionally, Highway 79 is on the Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation list, although it is not currently designated a State Scenic Highway. The Certified FEIR and Addendum No. 4 identified that to further enhance the Project's visual quality and buffer the site from traffic, the Landscape Guidelines and Community Elements of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan provided for a special setback and landscaping concept to be incorporated upon Specific Plan buildout. Consistency Evaluation a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The City of Temecula highly values the City's scenic vistas and viewsheds, and as such the southern, eastern, and western rolling hills surrounding the City, in addition to Murrieta and Temecula Creeks are designated as significant natural features in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. To protect public views of these features, the City requires review of all development projects to make sure public views of scenic resources are not blocked, and if they are, the City may require redesign or enforce height limitations. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The Project proposes development of 168 single-family residential units, a community park, open space/trails, streets, and drainage and water quality improvements on the 42.64-acre PA-4 site, which is the last undeveloped portion of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. PA-4 is surrounded by residential uses to the north and west (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan), retail (Big Horse Feed and Mercantile) to the east across Butterfield Stage Road, and commercial/retail/ restaurant uses to the south across Temecula Parkway (Highway 79). Even though the site is currently undeveloped, the Project, as proposed, would be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding uses. Additionally, the Project provides for an approximately 5.7-acre open space corridor along the southern boundary of the site, allowing for existing distant views of the rolling hills unobstructed for motorists driving east- bound on Highway 79. Therefore, the Project's potential impact on scenic vistas would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed since analysis in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. The Project reduces the number of residential units from 188 to 168, which would reduce the density and intensity throughout the site. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts on a scenic vista requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred and progressed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to scenic vistas. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project results in a reduction of 20 residential units, which is a change from the total units of 188 identified in Addendum No. 4. This change and resultant reduction in density and intensity has the potential to reduce some impacts and not create new impacts that would adversely affect scenic vistas. No new information that was not known before is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe, as no significant impacts were identified. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As discussed above, Highway 79 is on the Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation list, although it is not currently designated a State Scenic Highway. The proposed Project includes an approximately 5.7-acre open space area along the southern boundary 4-2 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 of the site abutting Highway 79. This area would meet the intent of the policies and the Certified FEIR 235 mitigation of creating a setback buffer along the highway to enhance the scenic and visual quality for the motorists driving on Highway 79. Additionally, no scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings occur along the portion of the Highway 79 abutting the Project site, and therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a scenic highway would result with implementation of the Project, and no new mitigation measures are required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 resulting in new or more severe impacts pertaining to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. The Project includes an open space area along the southern boundary of that site that creates a buffer along Highway 79. No new or more severe impacts would occur beyond what was analyzed in the previous CEQA documentation that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no new mitigation measures are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated in the discussion above, the proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within the Specific Plan, in accordance with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. No changes in the Project context or circumstances have been anticipated or identified resulting in new or worsened impacts on scenic resources within a State scenic highway, beyond what was analyzed in the previous CEQA analyses. In the absence of impacts, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project results in a reduction of residential units from 188 to 168 units. This reduction in units and density would create more open space and unobstructed views. Additionally, the proposed open space along the southern portion of the site creates a buffer reducing potential visual impacts for motorists driving on Highway 79. No other new information that was not known before, other than reduction in number of units, has become available that would result in new or worsened impacts requiring mitigation. c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site has been graded and is currently undeveloped with the exception of the existing temporary drainage basin. Although the parcel to the east has a rural visual character (i.e., farm), the site is located in a suburban visual context. Project implementation would result in the development of 168 residential units, a community park, open space/trails, streets, and permanent drainage and water quality improvements. This level of development is consistent with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, which provides the zoning regulations applicable to the Project site. The proposed development would change the visual character of the currently undeveloped site. However, in light of PALOMA DEL SOL 4-3 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 compatibility with the surrounding uses and the fact that the change in aesthetic character of the site was anticipated and discussed in the previous CEQA analyses, no new impacts pertaining to visual character and degradation of the quality of the site would occur. As discussed above, the Project has incorporated an open space buffer along the southern and a portion of the eastern site boundary. This would soften the views from the public roadways adjacent to the Project site. The visual character from the roadways would be consistent with the visual quality and character of the surrounding development. Other than roadways, the closest public vantage point to the site is the Paseo Del Sol Park 0.35 mile northwest of the site; however, due to substantial intervening development, there are no direct views of the Project site. Thus, no new impact is anticipated, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed since analysis in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. The Project reduces the number of residential units from 188 to 168 and development would be in conformance with the provisions of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan requirements. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 that would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the views are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts on the visual quality of the site, requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred and progressed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining degradation of the visual quality of the site. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information pertaining to the visual character of the area that was not known before is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe, as no significant impacts were identified. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is currently undeveloped with no sources of lighting. The proposed Project's 168 residential units, the community park, and other outdoor facilities would introduce new light sources, including exterior security lighting, pedestrian -scaled fixtures, lower -scale pedestrian fixtures, accent and decorative lighting, interior lighting, parking lot lighting, and headlights from 4-4 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 vehicles coming to and from the Project site that would increase ambient lighting levels on the Project site. While the Project site currently has no source of lighting, the existing residential and non-residential uses around the site include multiple sources of interior and exterior lighting. Proposed lighting would be compatible with the type and intensity of lighting in the adjacent developed areas. Proposed exterior lighting would be implemented consistent with the design guidelines of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Amendment No. 8), City of Temecula Development Code, Community Design Element of the General Plan, and Temecula's City -Wide Design Guidelines. Proposed lighting would be indirect, shielded, and low voltage to avoid glare and spilling over onto adjacent properties and would conform to applicable Mt. Palomar Observatory lighting regulations. The Project's exterior lighting would also conform with all City codes and ordinances and California Title 24 requirements. No new lighting impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. The Project may also result in glare in the area in light of the undeveloped condition of the site. Glare is caused by light reflections from vehicles and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. Glare also results from lighting during the nighttime hours. However, besides the windows, the proposed Project would not have any reflective surfaces, such as glass or metal that would produce excessive glare. Similar to other residential units in the adjacent areas, it is anticipated that proposed windows would have the potential to generate some glare; however, not to an intensity that would significantly impact the surrounding uses. Additionally, during nighttime, the proposed lighting would not be more intense than the surrounding uses and would not cause substantial nighttime glare. Even though the community park would include a volleyball court and basketball courts, they would not be lit, and no other lit ballfields are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, no significant impacts from glare during the daytime or nighttime would occur, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed development in PA-4 would introduce new sources of light and glare that would increase lighting levels on the Project site. However, the light and glare from the proposed development was anticipated and analyzed in the previous CEQA documentation. The Project does not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was analyzed previously that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred and progressed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to light and glare. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information that was not known before is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe, as no significant impacts were PALOMA DEL SOL 4-5 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 identified. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 or new mitigation. 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Certified Final EIR 235 and Subseauent Addenda As discussed in the Certified FEIR 235, the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was previously used for dryland farming and grazing by sheep and cattle. Some of the soils on site, in isolated pockets and primarily along drainage washes, fall into the Class I and Class II categories, which are considered "Prime" agricultural soils being suitable for all crops. However, the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan did not designate the site as prime, statewide important, unique of locally important farmland. Therefore, the discontinuation of farming on the site was not considered significant due to lack of prime, statewide important, or unique of locally important farmland designation and minimal Class I and Class II soils. No mitigation was required. Consistency Evaluation a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The proposed Project site is not designated as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance in the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. While the Project would convert the undeveloped land to non-agricultural use, no farming activities currently occur on the site and dryland farming has been discontinued, as indicated above. Therefore, no new impacts pertaining to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use would occur with implementation of the proposed Project, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168 units. No substantial changes beyond what was analyzed pertaining to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use have occurred that would result in significant impact requiring mitigation. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred and progressed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. 4-6 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project results in a reduction of residential units from 188 units to 168 units. No new information has become available that was not known before that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts pertaining to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use more severe. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site, being the last undeveloped planning area within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract. The site is designated as "Other Land" under the Department of Conservation classification. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the Project would not result in a new impact, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168 units. As indicated above, the site is not zoned for agricultural use, and no substantial changes beyond what was analyzed pertaining to existing zoning of the site have occurred that would result in significant impact requiring mitigation. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred and progressed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to existing zoning of the site. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not known before that would change the findings of the previous analyses or result in more severe impacts pertaining to existing zoning of the site. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-7 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR At the time Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared, the CEQA checklist did not include questions pertaining to forest land or timberland, the Project would not result in any impacts to forest land or timberland. The Project site was previously used for dryland farming and grazing activities; however, it has never been used as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 4526) nor is it adjacent to such lands. The site has been graded and is currently undeveloped with the exception of a temporary drainage basin and is devoid of trees. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Implementation of the Project would not result in a new impact, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168 units. As discussed above, the site is not zoned for forest land or timberland, and no substantial changes beyond what was analyzed pertaining to zoning of the site have occurred that would result in significant impact or more severe impact requiring mitigation. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. As indicated above, the site is not zoned for forest land or timberland, no circumstances around which have changed such that would result in new or more severe impacts. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As noted above, the evaluation of forest land and timberland was not required at the time Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared. However, there are no such lands on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the site. No new information has become available that was not known before that would change the findings of the previous analyses or result in more severe impacts pertaining to conflict with the existing zoning or result in rezoning of forest land or timberland. Therefore, no new information that was not known before has become available that would result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. 4-8 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As discussed above, the Project site has been graded and undeveloped with the exception of a temporary drainage basin and is devoid of trees. The site is not considered forest land, and it would not convert forest land to non -forest use. Implementation of the Project would not result in a new impact, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168 units. As indicated above, the site is not zoned for forest land, and no substantial changes would occur that would result in significant impact or more severe impact requiring mitigation. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. As indicated above, the site is not zoned for forest land, and no changes to the context and circumstances of the Project have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not known before that would result in more severe impacts pertaining to conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, no new information that was not known before has become available that would result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As identified in the above discussions, the Project site is designated as "Other Land" and not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the site is devoid of trees and is not designated as forest land. The Project is development of a 168-unit residential community and no changes have occurred that would convert farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non -forest land. Implementation of the Project would not result in a new impact, and no mitigation is required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-9 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated in all the above discussion, the Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed. No substantial changes beyond what was analyzed have occurred that would result in a significant impact or more severe impact regarding changes to farmland and forest land. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. As indicated above, the site is not zoned for farmland or forest land, and no changes to the context and circumstances of the Project have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not known before that would change the findings of the previous analyses or result in more severe impacts pertaining to conversion of farmland or forest land. Therefore, no new information that was not known before has become available that would result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. 4.3 AIR QUALITY Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). The South Coast AQMD maintains monitoring stations throughout the air basin. At the time the FEIR 235 was certified in 1988, the monitoring station that was nearest to the Project site with published data available was the Perris Air Quality Monitoring Station. During this time, only quantities of ozone were measured at the monitoring station. The Certified FEIR 235 found that ozone was the most serious issue in the Specific Plan area. Ozone is formed by a multi -step photochemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOJ and reactive hydrocarbons (reactive organic gases [ROGs] or volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). Extended periods of intense sunlight, which are characteristic of the Specific Plan area, contributed to the high ozone levels. Total suspended particulates also continued to be a major problem in the SoCAB. The Certified FEIR 235 stated that heavy-duty trucks, earth movers, air compressors and generators would be used during site preparation and construction of the development allowed under Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Various pollutants, including exhaust emissions, dust and particulates, would be emitted on a short-term and temporary basis during construction of the project. The amount of pollutants emitted during site preparation and construction could not be determined, due to a lack of specific information, including the location, extent, and techniques of grading and construction. The Certified FEIR 235 recognized that approximately 100 pounds of fugitive dust per acre per day of construction activity could be generated by project development. However, the Certified FEIR 235 4-10 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 determined that, through mitigation, fugitive dust could be controlled by revegetation of graded surfaces and watering of graded surfaces. The Certified FEIR 235 also found that with full buildout of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, air quality in the project area would be: (1) directly affected by mobile emissions from project traffic and (2) indirectly influenced by pollutants emitted by power generation plants, which serve the project in the SoCAB. As described in the Certified FEIR 235, the greatest project -related air quality impact would result from the daily vehicle trips the project would generate at full build -out of the Specific Plan. The amount of mobile emissions associated with the project was calculated based upon the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at various phases of development. As described in Addendum No. 4, the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was evaluated for potential environmental impacts to air quality resulting from development in the Specific Plan area, which included the proposed Project site (PA-4). Air quality impacts associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan included short-term impacts from project construction grading and long-term operational impacts from buildout of the project. Short-term air quality impacts would result from construction equipment emissions and the dust generated during site grading and preparation. In Addendum No. 4, the short-term construction impacts were deemed less than significant as the air pollutant emissions were below the significance thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD. According to the South Coast AQMD, construction -related significance thresholds are based on exceeding any of the following maximum daily amounts of criteria pollutants: 550 pounds per day (lbs/day) of CO, 75 lbs/day of VOCs,100 lbs/day of NO, 150 lbs/day of oxides of SOX, and 150 lbs/day of particulate matter (PM). Long-term operational emissions included the proposed energy use and consumption of natural gas from the operation of the development, and project -generated mobile trip emissions. Long-term air quality impacts were deemed significant and unavoidable with respect to CO, NO, PM, and VOC emissions. Because most of the project -related air pollution emissions are produced by vehicles, there is a very limited potential for any effective mitigation on the part of any single developer. However, where feasible, the Certified FEIR 235 determined that the project will integrate the following features into the project design: • Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters, and turnouts; • Energy efficient buildings; • Solar access orientation of structures; • Solar heated and cooled structures and swimming pools Mitigation measures to reduce impacts from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan were provided in the Certified FEIR 235. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-11 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Consistency Evaluation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The South Coast AQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. It is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources and has prepared an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project should not (1) exceed the SCAQMD CEQA air quality significance thresholds or (2) conflict with or exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. As noted above, the Certified FEIR 235 stated that short-term air quality impacts would result from construction equipment emissions and the dust generated during site grading and preparation, but that the impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. In Addendum No. 4, the short-term construction impacts are also deemed less than significant as they are below the significance thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD. The South Coast AQMD construction -related significance thresholds have not changed since Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared (the quantitative value for each pollutant is provided above). As previously noted, TTM 36483 would result in a slight reduction (20 units) in the overall number of units to be constructed in PA-4 compared to what was identified in the current Specific Plan. The reduction in dwelling units would potentially result in an incremental decrease in construction emissions. However, the reduction attributable to the decrease in units would be relatively minor because the same site area would be developed. As noted above, the majority of short-term air quality impacts results from construction equipment emissions and the dust generated during site grading and preparation. Other factors that would further reduce the emissions compared to the previous analysis is the Project would use cleaner and newer off -road equipment than what was commercially available during preparation of the Certified EIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. Therefore, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts for construction air quality emissions and would not conflict with the provisions of the AQMP. The growth associated with the Project is also consistent with the assumptions of the AQMP. The proposed Project is designed to comply with applicable zoning requirements that are in place to implement the Specific Plan and General Plan. The Zoning designation for the Project site is Specific Plan, and the General Plan designation is LM-Low Medium Residential, which would not change with implementation of the proposed Project. Because the General Plans of the local jurisdictions within the SoCAB are used to determine the regional emissions of the SoCAB, emissions related to the development of the Project site are therefore consistent with the growth projections for the region. TTM 36483 would result in a slight reduction (20 units) in the overall number of units to be constructed in PA-4 compared to what was identified in the current Specific Plan. As such, the Project would not exceed the anticipated growth accounted for within the Specific Plan and General Plan, which forms the basis of the AQMP. 4-12 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The long-term operational emissions associated with the Project would also be comparable or less than what was previously evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4; and therefore, would not conflict with the assumptions of the AQMP. As previously noted, TTM 36483 would result in a slight reduction (20 units) in the overall number of units to be constructed in PA-4 compared to what was identified in the current Specific Plan. This would result in a 16 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips (Psomas 2020). As stated in Certified FEIR 235, the primary source of long-term impacts to air quality would be from vehicle emissions from full buildout of the Specific Plan. The reduction in trips due to the reduced number of units in PA-4 would also result in a reduction of mobile emissions associated with the Project. Consequently, a 16 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips would ultimately reduce the primary source of long-term impacts and would therefore not cause new or more severe operational air quality impacts than what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. Furthermore, for the entirety of the Specific Plan, through project changes (as described in Addenda No. 1 through No. 4) there has been a reduction of 474 dwelling units (with senior community option) not including the reduction of 20 units under the proposed Project, which has resulted in less daily trips than was originally assumed in the Certified FEIR 235. Additionally, since certification of the FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda, new programs have been adopted to reduce mobile emissions throughout the SoCAB and the State. This is further discussed below under CEQA Checklist Question 4.3b. Consequently, the Project would result in less air pollutants than was previously disclosed in the Certified FEIR 235 and associated Addenda. Overall, air quality in the SoCAB has improved as a result of local, State, and federal regulations, and cleaner on -road and off -road vehicles commercially available in the present day when compared to what was available at the time the previous environmental documents were prepared. As such, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda and would not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. No major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed since analysis in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. The Project reduces the number of residential units from 188 to 168, which would reduce the density and intensity throughout the site; this would also reduce the air pollutant emissions for construction and operation of the Project. The reduction in dwelling units would also be within the anticipated growth accounted for in the Specific Plan and General Plan projections, which forms the basis of the AQMP. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts pertaining to obstruction of AQMP implementation. Thus, major revisions of the Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations, have reduced air pollutant emissions from short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Project would emit less criteria pollutants than previously assumed. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to implementation of the applicable AQMP. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-13 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified, that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe. Improvements in the off -road equipment fleet over time and technological advances to clean vehicle emissions have reduced the overall emissions associated with development compared to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Project would not cause new or more severe impacts pertaining to obstruction of AQMP implementation. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR A project may have a significant impact where project -related emissions would exceed federal, State, or regional standards or thresholds, or where project -related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Riverside County portion of the SoCAB is currently a nonattainment area for 03, PM10, and PM2.5. It should be noted that, at the time of preparation of the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had not adopted a State standard for PM2.5. CARB first designated areas for PM2.5 in 2003 for the State standards. The SoCAB was designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 in 2003 and has retained its nonattainment status through the present day for the State standards (CARB 2019a). PM10 and 03 have been designated as nonattainment from 1989 through the present day for the State standards (CARB 2019b, 2019c). However, as discussed below, air quality has greatly improved within the SoCAB since certification of the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. The Project would generate emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and 03 precursors (NO,, and VOC) during short-term construction and long-term operations. As stated in response to CEQA Checklist Question 4.3a above, the proposed Project's reduction in dwelling units would result in an incremental reduction of short-term air pollutant emissions from what was previously analyzed in Addendum No. 4. For the entirety of the Specific Plan, there has been a total reduction in 474 dwelling units (with senior community option) not including the reduction of 20 units under the proposed Project, from 5,611 dwelling units as approved in the Certified FEIR 235, to 5,137 dwelling units from implementation of Addendum No. 1 through No. 4. Additionally, since certification of the Certified FEIR 235 and approval of the subsequent Addenda, new regulations have been enforced to reduce emissions from construction equipment (i.e., off -road equipment). For example, CARB adopted standards for off -road diesel engines of 130 kilowatts and greater in 1992. These standards, implemented beginning in 1996, targeted a reduction in NOx emissions. In 2007, CARB developed in - use fleet regulations for compression -ignited engines powering on -road and off -road vehicles and portable and mobile equipment that reduce DPM and NOx emissions. These off -road, in -use fleet regulations require existing fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines. This included off -road construction vehicles. In addition to the off -road fleet regulations, regulations targeting at -berth emissions from marine vessels, truck and off -road and marine low -sulfur fuel, and off -road vehicle idling were also adopted. These have all led to improvements in the off -road equipment fleet over time. The proposed Project would use cleaner and newer off -road equipment than what was commercially available during preparation of the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. The Project would not cause new or more severe impacts to cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant from construction activities that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235. 4-14 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 As identified in Addendum No. 4, the primary source of long-term impacts to air quality was from vehicle emissions. The reduction in dwelling units would result in 16 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips, as compared to the trips Addendum No. 4. Due to the reduction in dwelling units and trips, and therefore, overall development, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants from what was previously analyzed or have new or more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed for cumulative impacts. In addition, the proposed Project would result in less air pollutants than was previously disclosed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda due to substantial improvements in emission rates for construction equipment (as discussed above), roadway vehicles, and building energy efficiency standards. Regarding roadway vehicle emission -rate improvements, CARB has introduced programs that have aimed to reduce mobile emissions for light and medium duty vehicles through vehicle emissions controls and cleaner fuel. In addition to CARB's Advanced Clean Cars Program since 1996, light -duty vehicles sold in California are equipped with California's second -generation On -Board Diagnostic (OBD-II) system because about half of total car emissions stem from emissions control device malfunctions. CARB's phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG-2) regulation, adopted in 1996, also led to a reduction of mobile source emissions. Through such regulations, benzene levels declined 88 percent from 1990 to 2012 and 1,3-Butadiene concentrations have declined 85 percent from 1990 to 2012 as a result of the motor vehicle regulations (Propper et al. 2015). In 2000, CARB's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP) recommended the replacement and retrofit of diesel -fueled engines and the use of ultra -low -sulfur (<15ppm) diesel fuel. As a result of these measures, DPM concentrations have declined by 68 percent even though the State's population increased by 31 percent, and the amount of diesel vehicles miles traveled increased by 81 percent. With the implementation of these diesel - related control regulations, CARB expects a DPM decline of 71 percent during 2000 to 2020 timeframe (CARB 2020c). More recently, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars Program, a new emissions -control program for model year 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog (i.e., criteria pollutants), soot and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero - emission vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog -forming emissions. This program has reduced smog -forming pollution by 75 percent (as compared to 2014). As stated by CARB, the State's vehicle rules have directly resulted in the development of major technological advances to clean vehicle emissions. As a result, in terms of smog -forming pollution the average new car sold in California, and nationwide, is more than 99 percent cleaner than a car from the 1970s (CARB 2020b). This has led to substantial regional air quality improvements throughout the SoCAB. Improvements in building energy efficiency standards are primarily due to increasingly stringent air pollutant controls for new buildings. An example of this is California's 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, which requires single-family homes built with the 2019 standards to incorporate rooftop solar electricity generation and highly efficient air filters to trap hazardous particulates from both indoor and outdoor air (CEC 2018). Since the certification of the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda (from a period between 1988 and 2002), air quality has improved in the SoCAB. Generally, because of air quality control programs at the local, State, and federal levels, as described above, concentrations of ambient PM2.5 and ozone in the SoCAB have improved dramatically over the previous decades. Figure 27 shows the trend of the SoCAB's with maximum 3-year design value concentrations for ozone (1-hour and 7 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, (South Coast AQMD). 2017 (March). Final Air Quality Management Plan— Trends of South Coast Air Basin Maximum 3-Year Design Values for Ozone (2015 8-Hour, 2008 8- Hour, And 1979 1-Hour NAAQS) And PM2.5 (24-Hour and Annual), 1995-2015 (As Percentages of Current Federal Standards). Diamond Bar, CA: South Coast AQMD. https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/2 016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2 016-aqmp/final2 016agmp.p df?sfvrsn=15. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-15 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 8-hour) and PM2.5 (24-hour and annual) since 1995, as percentages of the corresponding current federal standards. It should be noted that PM2.5 monitoring began in 1999, so the first 3-year design value was in 2001. Although there is some year-to-year variability, these pollutants show significant improvement over the years, with PM2.5 showing the most dramatic decreases (South Coast AQMD 2017). FIGURE 2 TRENDS OF SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN MAXIMUM 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUES FOR OZONE (2015 8-HOUR, 2008 8-HOUR, AND 1979 1-HOUR NAAQS) AND PM2.5 (24-HOUR AND ANNUAL), 1995-2015 (AS PERCENTAGES OF CURRENT FEDERAL STANDARDS) 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% a% 11 ♦ Federal Standard �~ ~ 199S 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201S —03 (8-Hour, 2015) —03 (8-Hour, 2009) - - -03 (1-Hour,1979) — - 24-Hour PM2.5 —PM2.5 (Annual) Additionally, as shown in Figure 3,8 compared to the increases in regional gross domestic product (GDP), total employment, and population, the region has experienced overall air quality improvements in the SoCAB from 1990 to 2015 due to technological advances in pollution controls, pollution prevention, clean fuels, alternative energy, and combustion processes implemented in recent years (South Coast AQMD 2017). Annual PM2.5, 8-hour ozone, and 1-hour ozone have decreased significantly since 1990. $ Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, (South Coast AQMD). 2017 (March). Final Air Quality Management Plan —Figure 1-4: Percent Change in Air Quality Along with Demographic Data for the 4-County Region (1990-2015). Diamond Bar, CA: South CoastAQMD. https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-agmp/final2016agmp.pdf?sfvrsn=1 S. 4-16 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 FIGURE 3 FINAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN: PERCENT CHANGE IN AIR QUALITY ALONG WITH DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR THE 4-COUNTY REGION (1990-2015) 7U% j W% 7 i d 5@% O � J+]SYF 0^ 0• 7^ 394ri 1, 26% 107i ■�1 a M% # 4/ gioya 'i % # ~ 1 SJ msi ► #� SIN *ter 4%ilk rSIN 40M I [WZ [994 1"6 1" loan "02 200A 2016 2DDs 2D14 2012 1034 2015 --PM2.5 {Annualy -- 03 18-Hour.2DDS) -- Q3 (I -Hour. 1979) —Gras, Doirc tic Product —Total Finployment —Population As shown in Figures 2 and 3, regional air quality in the SoCAB has approved overall in the past few decades, and regional mobile emissions have been reduced since adoption of the Certified FEIR 235. Consequently, the Project would result in less air pollutants than was previously disclosed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. Overall, air quality in the SoCAB has improved as a result of local, State, and federal regulations, and cleaner on -road and off -road vehicles are commercially available in the present day, especially when compared to what was available at the time the previously environmental documents were prepared. As such, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts pertaining to cumulatively considerable impacts than what was analyzed that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the E!R? The proposed Project has not substantially changed from what was evaluated in Addendum No 4, with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168, which would reduce the density and intensity throughout the site, resulting in comparable or less emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project. There would be no new areas of grading proposed as part of the Project. As stated above, air quality has greatly improved within the SoCAB. Programs and standards adopted by the State have reduced on -road and off -road vehicle emissions through enforcement and regulation. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts on cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-17 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. Overall, the advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations, have reduced air pollutant emissions from short-term and long-term activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Project would emit less criteria pollutants than previously projected in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As discussed above, stricter regulations have been adopted that have resulted in improvements to both short-term and long-term operational emissions since FEIR 235 was certified. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were found infeasible at the time FEIR 235 was certified that now feasible and would substantially reduce the significant operation impacts associated with the Project. Therefore, no new information that was not known before is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe. Therefore, there are no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to new or more severe impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations than what was assumed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. In Addendum No. 4, the short-term construction impacts are deemed less than significant as they are below the significance thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD. The proposed Project would result in a reduction of dwelling units in PA-4. To adjust for a reduction in dwelling units, there would either be a reduction in duration of construction activities, or a reduction in intensity of construction activities per day from what was previously analyzed. The reduction in construction duration or intensity of construction activities would result in comparable or less construction air pollutant emissions from the proposed Project. As such, the construction air pollutant emissions would be comparable to or less than what was previously analyzed for PA-4, and the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts for construction air quality emissions than what was previously analyzed. Additionally, the construction footprint for the Project would remain the same or would be reduced compared to what was previously proposed due to less overall development as part of PA-4. Construction activities for the proposed Project would therefore not be located any closer to sensitive receptors than was originally assumed. The sensitive receptors nearest the Project site are from the previously planned and constructed Specific Plan development (i.e., single family residences located adjacent to the Project's western and northern boundaries). As identified in the Certified FEIR 235, the project would not place sensitive land uses adjacent to sources of heavy air pollution, such as major roadways or heavy industrial land uses. Thus, the proposed Project is consistent with the sensitive land use approach of the Certified FEIR 235. 4-18 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The uses directly south and east of the Project site are commercial uses, which are not sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, schools, parks, hospitals, high -density residential areas, and convalescent homes. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the mitigation measures outline in the Certified FEIR 235The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to sensitive receptors than what was previously analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. In addition, the Project would result in less air pollutants than was previously disclosed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda due to substantial improvements in emission rates for construction equipment, roadway vehicles, and building energy efficiency standards, as discussed in responses to CEQA Checklist Question (b). Thus, major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 are not required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed, with the exception of a reduction in the number of residential units from 188 to 168, which would reduce the density and intensity throughout the site. There would be no new areas of grading proposed as part of the Project. As stated in responses to CEQA Checklist Questions 4.3a and 4.3b, air quality has substantially improved within the SoCAB over the past several decades. Programs and standards adopted by the State have reduced on -road and off -road vehicle emissions through enforcement and regulation. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts on sensitive receptors requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. Overall, the advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations, have reduced air pollutant emissions from construction and operational activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Project would emit less criteria pollutants than previously projected. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to sensitive receptors. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information that was not known before pertaining to sensitive receptors is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to Certified FEIR and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR There is nothing about single-family residential units that would create odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Since the land uses of the proposed Project have not changed from the uses analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda, there would not be new or more PALOMA DEL SOL 4-19 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 severe impacts regarding potential odors. Furthermore, according to the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (South Coast AQMD 1993). The Project does not include any uses identified by the South Coast AQMD as being associated with odors and, therefore, would not produce objectionable odors. The Project uses are also regulated from nuisance odors or other objectionable emissions by SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohibits any the discharge from any source of air contaminants or other material which would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to people or the public. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed with the exception of a reduction in the number of residential units from 188 to 168. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts that would result in other emissions leading to odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Generation of odors affecting a substantial number of people is not identified as an impact associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. However, a change in circumstances pertaining to air emissions that contribute to the regional air quality, is the overall, the advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations. Enforcement of these stricter regulations has reduced air pollutant emissions from short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Project would emit less criteria pollutants than previously assumed. No other changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts that would result in odor causing emissions affecting a substantial number of people. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information that was not known before is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The Certified FEIR 235 determined that the Project site consisted of grassland, coastal sage scrub, and recharge ponds. The Certified FEIR 235 stated that the Project site did not contain habitat for rare and Endangered species. However, the site was determined to have potential habitat to support Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi, SKR). 4-20 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Addendum No. 4 determined that no native habitat existed on the Project site as a result of past disking and grading activities. The Addendum concluded that mitigation included in the Certified FEIR 235 pertaining to Stephens' kangaroo rat was sufficient to comply with the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Addendum also stated that the site provided habitat for several "Blue -line" [riparian] avian species and was considered an important raptor wintering area. Addendum No. 4 identified four blueline streams as depicted on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area. Measures, in compliance with applicable permit would be required for disturbance of these resources. The Addendum identified 7.1 acres of the project as within the jurisdiction of the USACE, of which 1.32 acres was determined to be jurisdictional wetland. The Addendum concluded that the proposed preservation of this 7.1 acres of open space would avoid impacts to 2.18 acres of drainage area (including 0.84 acre of wetlands) under the USACE jurisdiction. No mitigation was proposed in Addendum No. 4 to reduce impacts on biological resources. Subsequent Approvals and Permits An updated Habitat Assessment, Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), and a Jurisdictional Delineation were performed by MBI (MBI 2016, MBI 2017, RBF 2014) in compliance with the MSHCP and to support the regulatory permitting efforts (this is discussed in Section 1.2.4, of this Consistency Evaluation). Consistent with Addendum No. 4, the analysis found that the Project site was heavily disturbed and composed of non-native grassland. These assessments identified the habitat in the man-made channel as emergent freshwater marsh dominated by broad -leaf cattail (Typha latifolia) and patches of sandbar willow (Salix exigua). The Habitat Assessment, DBESP, and Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Joint Project Review (JPR) concluded that the wetland pond was a flow -through system that was always wet due to nuisance flows. The documents stated that there was no evidence of astatic ponding (i.e., a pond that changes in extent or dries seasonally), in which case there would be no potential for fairy shrimp. The Project would impact 0.79 acre of riparian habitat, consisting of 0.69 acre of wetland and 0.10 acre of surface waters. Avoidance of the riparian habitat was not considered feasible so the project proposed to establish 3.3 acres of biologically superior habitat along the southern portion of the Project site. The analysis found that no special status plant species have potential to occur. However, it was determined that SKR could potentially occur; no surveys were necessary because the Project site is in a Fee Area under the SKR HCP and the mitigation fee could be paid to compensate for impacts. Focused surveys for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) were conducted in 2015; no burrowing owls were observed. As required by the MSHCP, pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl are required regardless of the outcome of focused surveys. Other special status wildlife species, which also have coverage under the MSHCP, were also determined to have potential to occur, including Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). This analysis determined that there were no wildlife corridors on the Project site, but that the project could indirectly affect Proposed Constrained Linkage 24 (Temecula Creek) through sedimentation or an altered drainage regime. The analysis found that the project would be consistent with MSHCP and that Urban-Wildlands Interface Guidelines would be followed. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-21 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Consistency Evaluation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As noted above, consistent with the findings presented in Addendum No. 4, the majority of the site consists of disturbed areas and non-native grasslands; however, the Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Determination (MBI 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the "Habitat Assessment") identified emergent freshwater marsh habitat in the man-made channel. Based on aerial photography, the drainage was created the year Addendum No. 4 was approved and subsequently developed riparian habitat. However, as discussed below the impacts do not rise to the level of requiring preparation of an EIR because all impacts would be less than significant. The Project is consistent with the Western Riverside MSHCP, which provides coverage for species with potential to occur on the Project site. Although willow scrub habitat is more mature than when the Habitat Assessment was conducted, the habitat is not extensive enough to provide habitat for least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Consistent with the analysis in the Habitat Assessment, no focused surveys would be required. The Project contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl; none were observed during the site visit (Psomas, February 2020). Consistent with the MSHCP, the Habitat Assessment requires a pre -construction survey for burrowing owl and protective measures if a burrowing owl is observed. Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The refinements to the Project (slight decrease in number of units and reduced density) would not require major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. As evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda, the Project would impact the entire site. All existing biological resources would be impacted. Through compliance with the MSHCP protective measures and permit conditions no new significant or substantially more severe impact would occur that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since the certification of FEIR 235 and approval of Addendum No. 4, the MSHCP was approved and emergent freshwater marsh habitat has grown in the man-made channel located onsite. The RCA, in conjunction with the cities and the County of Riverside have developed a process for determining consistency with the MSHCP. As described above, the Habitat Assessment was prepared and the Project was reviewed by the RCA JPR, which found the Project to be consistent with the MSHCP, with the implementation of the standard MSHCP protective measures and implementation of the DBESP. The Western Riverside MSHCP will provide coverage for species with potential to occur on the Project site. Therefore, although there has been a change in circumstances (i.e., adoption of the MSHCP), the change would not result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact. Therefore, based on the three-part test for determining when an update to the Certified EIR and subsequent Addenda is required (see Section 2.1), no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda are required. 4-22 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the E!R was certified) available? In April 2018, the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) was listed as State Threatened. The tricolored blackbird has potential to occur on the Project site in the emergent freshwater marsh habitat and could be impacted by the Project. The MSHCP provides coverage for take of this species (Section 6.1.2, Riparian/ Riverine). Therefore, no further surveys or mitigation would be required as the Project is consistent with the MSHCP and is implementing the DBESP. Pre -construction nesting bird surveys are required and would ensure that if the species is nesting onsite, it would be protected with a sufficient buffer. In July 2019, Crotch bumblebee (Bombus crotchii) was proposed as a State Endangered species; the State has 12 months to consider whether it will list the species. The Crotch bumblebee is a ground nester and often makes its nest in abandoned mammal burrows and can be found in most native habitat types. The Crotch bumblebee prefers plant genera of Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Escholzia, and Erioganum (Koch et a. 2012). Very little native habitat is present and none of the preferred plant genera were observed during the site visit (Psomas 2020). Additionally, the Project site is surrounded by development and not by native scrub habitats. Therefore, the Crotch bumblebee is not expected to occur on the Project site. No new significant or substantially more severe impacts would result requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. As noted above, the Habitat Assessment, DBESP, and RCA JPR (prepared in 2016 and updated in 2018) concluded that the wetland pond was a flow -through system that was always wet due to nuisance flows. The documents stated that there was no evidence of astatic ponding (i.e., a pond that changes in extent or dries seasonally), in which case there would be no potential for fairy shrimp. The Draft IS/MND prepared by the City of Temecula for the Project (see Section 1.2.3), concluded impacts to biological resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required (page 31). However, regardless of this determination, the Draft IS/MND included five mitigation measures under Environmental Checklist Question 4.4(a). The measures identified for to reduce potential construction impacts. The identification of the mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND is not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor do they constitute new information. Three of the mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND, cite compliance with an existing regulation. Therefore, these are not project specific mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts associated with the Project, rather they are reiteration of the need to comply with existing regulations. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 addresses compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code to protect nesting avian species. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 cites compliance with the 2006 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Burrowing Owl Survey Requirements and the requirement of the CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement (Notification #11600-2015-0174-R6). BIO-5 requires the applicant pay the required fee pursuant to the Riverside County Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) (County Ordinance No. 663.10). These measures would applicable to the Project as a result of other regulation requirements outside of the CEQA process. The other two mitigation measures require pre -construction surveys for the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (BIO-3) and the western pond -turtle (BIO-4). The San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit is present on site. The habitat assessment concluded the there was a low potential for the western pond turtle to be onsite given the extensive urbanization surrounding the site. Both of these species have coverage under the MSHCP; therefore, the impact of the Project is less than significant and no PALOMA DEL SOL 4-23 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 mitigation is required. These measures are not required by the MSHCP and were not identified as necessary for by the RCA as part of the JPR when identifying the DBESP.9 These measures do not constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Impacts to biological resources are less than significant and all the regulatory requirements would be complied with. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As noted above, riparian habitat has grown in the man-made channel on site. This was identified in the Habitat Assessment conducted for the RCA JPR. While the riparian habitat along the drainage is more mature than it was at the time of preparation of the Habitat Assessment, it is the same types that were mapped/described in the previous analysis. One small area along the drainage (0.25 acre) of sandbar willow could now be mapped as southern willow scrub. However, it is within the jurisdictional area previously mapped (the drainage in this location is somewhat incised and the willows are within the channel); therefore, it would not change the extent of Riparian/Riverine or the jurisdictional area mapped in the Habitat Assessment and the Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters hereinafter referred to as "Jurisdictional Delineation" (MBI 2014). The Habitat Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation also mentioned that the drainage included sandbar willow. The willow scrub does not provide habitat for least Bell's vireo because of its small size and isolation from larger areas of habitat. No focused surveys for riparian birds would be needed per Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, and the impacts would be less than significant. Since there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact, based on the three-part test for determining when an update to the Certified EIR is required (see Section 2.1), this change in circumstances related to riparian habitat would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? As assumed in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, the Project would impact all habitat on the Project site. As noted above, the changes in the Project are minimal (i.e., limited to a reduction of 20 units) compared to the density evaluated in Addendum No. 4. The change to the Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe impacts; therefore, no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda would be required. BIO-3 would require pre -construction surveys for the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and trapping and relocation to habitat suitable. As noted above, in determining the DBESP, the JPR conducted by the RCA did not identify the need for the surveys and trapping. It should be noted, once animals are moved off their territory into a MSHCP Reserve, they have to establish a new territory in an unfamiliar area and have to compete with the jackrabbits that are already there. Moving them is stressful and may or may not be successful. Jackrabbits are fairly mobile and there is open space to the east, so once the construction starts, they will likely move out of the site on their own. By flushing them to the adjacent site, they may have a better chance at finding a new territory because they are likely to be somewhat familiar with the area. 4-24 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As described above, the Habitat Assessment prepared for the RCA JPR process identified riparian habitat in the man-made channel located in PA-4. This is a change in circumstances since the certification of FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda. However, the Project has been designed to incorporate onsite replacement habitat in compliance with applicable permit conditions. Furthermore, compliance with the MSHCP protective measures described in the DBESP would ensure impacts would be less than significant. As previously noted, since there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact, based on the three-part test for determining when an update to the Certified EIR is required (see Section 2.1), this change in circumstances would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Although the development of the riparian habitat in the man-made drainage channel was not identified in Certified FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda, the need to comply with USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB requirements are regulatory requirements and are identified in the City of Temecula Conditions of Approval (Condition 40). Through the compliance with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB permit conditions, all impacts would be less than significant. The Project's impacts on Riparian/Riverine have been evaluated under the Western Riverside MSHCP requirements through the Habitat Assessment/DBESP process. No new significant or substantially more severe impacts were identified; therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. The Draft IS/MND identified seven PDFs, which "are based on MSHCP provisions that would avoid or minimize indirect project -related impacts to newly created riparian/riverine habitat on site and adjacent riparian habitat located south of the project site. The PDFs would reduce potential impacts to riparian/riverine habitat from toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, grading, and land development." The PDFs reflect applicable MSHCP provisions from the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP and as noted, have been included as part of the Project. Generally, a PDF is a design element that goes beyond what is required under existing regulatory requirements to reduce or avoid an impact. These PDFs, which pertain to a wide range of issues,lo are taken directly from the MSHCP and compliance is a regulatory requirement, not something unique to this Project. The applicant is aware of these requirements and as noted in the Draft IS/MND, these requirements are reflected in the Project design. Furthermore, the RCA through the JPR process found the Project to be consistent with MSHCP. A review of the documentation of the JRP process, states that sufficient information was provided as it pertains to Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines) and the property is not directly adjacent to existing or described Conservation Areas. However, flows from the site will ultimately drain to Temecula Creek, an area described for Conservation. io The PDFs, which are included in Attachment A, address post construction human disturbance (PDF BIO-1); drainage (PDF BIO-2); toxics (PDF BIO-3); lighting (PDF BIO-4); noise (PDF BI0-5); ;invasive plant species (PDF BIO-6); and fuels management (PDF BIO-7). PALOMA DEL SOL 4-25 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 In addition, the Draft IS/MND identified two mitigation measures under Environmental Checklist Question 4.4(b).11 Mitigation Measure 13I0-6 pertains to the requirements for the offset of impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. As noted above, Certified FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda, identified the need to comply with USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB requirements are regulatory requirements and are identified in the City of Temecula Conditions of Approval (Condition 40). 13I0- 6 provides details associated with the permits, such as the need to develop and implement a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for the mitigated habitat that is consistent with the USACE standards. The Project would fully comply with all provisions of the permits and the RCA JRP conditions when identifying the DBESP. Similarly, 13I0-7 states the Project "shall implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Applicable MSHCP provisions include best management practices (BMPs) from MSHCP Volume I Appendix C and Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines from MSHCP Section 6.1.4." The measure reiterates these provisions. Similar to the PDFs and 13I0-1, 13I0-2, 13I0-5, and 13I0-6, these are regulatory requirements and must be complied with. The PDFs and 13I0-6 and 1310-7 do not constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. These provisions have been included in the Project design, as documented by the JPR process. By complying with the regulatory requirements, the impacts to biological resources are less than significant. The IS/MND concluded impacts to biological resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As previously indicated, riparian habitat has grown along the man-made channel. Although this habitat will be disturbed with the development of the site, implementation of the permit conditions, and the DBESP would ensure the impacts are not significant. The Project is consistent with the DBESP, JPR, and Project permits. Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project would result in impacts to riparian habitat that were not included in the analysis in Certified FEIR 235 and the approved Addenda. However, this is not a result of a change in the Project. The Project has consistently identified the site would be completely disturbed with Project implementation. Therefore, there are no changes to the Project that require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. ii As previously noted, these measures were added even though the Draft IS/MND concluded impacts to biological resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required (page 31). 4-26 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Riparian habitat has grown along the man-made drainage since the certification of FEIR 235 and the subsequently approved Addenda. This represents a change in circumstances. However, as previously noted, under Environmental Checklist Questions 4.4(a) and 4.4(b), the Project has been designed to incorporate onsite replacement habitat in compliance with applicable permit conditions. Furthermore, compliance with the MSHCP protective measures described in the DBESP would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Since there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact, based on the three-part test for determining when an update to the Certified EIR is required (see Section 2.1), this change in circumstances would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? In September 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army signed a final rule to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 Rule) and re -codify the regulatory text defining "waters of the United States" that existed prior to the 2015 Rule. One of the proposed changes is that ephemeral features that contain water only during or in response to rainfall would no longer be considered "waters of the United States" under the jurisdiction of the USACE. In August 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to "waters of the State". The procedures will go into effect in May 2020. Under these new regulations, the State Water Resources Control Board and its nine RWQCBs will assert jurisdiction over all existing "waters of the United States", and all waters that would have been considered "waters of the United States" under the 2015 Rule. Thus, the "waters of the United States" that would no longer be under USACE jurisdiction would be under RWQCB jurisdiction. The man-made drainage was not identified as jurisdictional in Certified FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda. However, the drainage was delineated in the 2014 Jurisdictional Delineation prepared to support the permits and RCA JPR. As previously noted, the Project has been designed to incorporate onsite replacement habitat in compliance with applicable permit conditions. Furthermore, compliance with the MSHCP protective measures would ensure impacts would be less than significant. As previously noted, since there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact, based on the three-part test for determining when an update to the Certified EIR is required (see Section 2.1), this new information would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Draft IS/MND referenced PDFs BIO-1 through BIO-7 and Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO 7 as being applicable to the analysis of state or federally protected wetlands. As discussed above, under Environmental Checklist Question 4.4(b), the provisions in PDFs BIO-1 through BIO-7 and Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO 7 do not constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. These provisions have been included in the Project design, as documented by the JPR process. By complying with the regulatory requirements, the impacts to biological resources are less than significant. The IS/MND concluded impacts to biological resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-27 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project does not provide for wildlife movement, consistent with the conditions at the time Addendum No. 4 was approved. The area surrounding the site was being developed with suburban uses, consistent with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The Project would not interfere with the movement of any native residents or migratory species, as no wildlife corridors exist on the Project site. Additionally, the MSHCP does not identify any migratory corridors or linkages on the Project site. The Habitat Assessment and DBESP addressed Urban-Wildlands Interface issues related to indirect effects on Proposed Constrained Linkage 24 (Temecula Creek). Habitat on the Project site is not needed to contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 24. No impacts would occur and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? As previously noted, there are no substantial changes to the Project. There would be a slight reduction (20 units) in the density, compared to what was approved as part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 and Addendum No. 4. The Certified FEIR 235 and Addenda assumed that the entire site would be impacted and would not provide for wildlife movement. Additionally, as the Project does not provide for wildlife movement, there would be no effect on wildlife movement. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The area surrounding the Project site is generally consistent with the conditions described in Addendum No. 4. In 2002, substantial tracts of the surrounding area had been developed with suburban development. Additional suburban uses, not only in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan but surrounding areas has been developed since Addendum No. 4 was approved. No changed to the Project context and circumstances have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to a wildlife movement corridor. The finding is also consistent with the MSHCP, which did not identify the site as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information is available that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. The Draft IS/MND referenced PDF BIO-2 and Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO 7 as being applicable to the analysis of wildlife movement. As discussed above, under Environmental Checklist Question 4.4(b), the provisions in PDF 13I0-2 and Mitigation Measures 13I0-6 and BIO 7 do not constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. These provisions have been included in the Project design, as documented by the JPR process. By complying with the regulatory requirements, the impacts to biological resources are less than significant. The IS/MND concluded impacts to biological resources 4-28 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDF and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As discussed in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, since the approval of Addendum No. 4, the City of Temecula General Plan and the MSHCP have been approved. These two documents include policies for protecting biological resources. The Project's impacts on biological resources were evaluated for consistency with the MSHCP and the City of Temecula General Plan. The Project is consistent with these local policies, and no new impact would occur. Therefore, there the Project would not result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same with the exception of a reduction in number of units from 188 to 168 units. No substantial changes are introduced that would result in a new or more severe impact pertaining to conflict with local policies. The Project would follow the requirements of the MSHCP. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? While the riparian habitat along the drainage has developed since the Certified FEIR 235 was certified and Addendum No. 4 was certified, implementation of the Project would not result in a new significant impact or conflict with plans and policies adopted for the protection of biological resources Implementation of the protective measures outlined in the MSHCP and compliance with permit conditions, would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, there is no change in the Project context and circumstances such that would impact Project's consistency with the local policies, resulting in new impact. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As previously identified, the General Plan and MSHCP have been adopted since the approval of Addendum No. 4. However, a review of the applicable policies identified that the Project would not create a new or a more severe impact pertaining to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-29 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Addendum No. 4 identified that the Project site is located within a potential habitat area for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat and that it is also within the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. The Addendum further states the Paloma del Sol project has complied with all applicable requirement of this program. Therefore, no further mitigation is required. The City of Temecula Conditions of Approval (No 11), requires the payment of the required conservation fees as set forth in the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). Additionally, as discussed above, the Project has been reviewed as part of the RCA JPR process and has been determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. Therefore, the impacts related to conflict with provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other plans would be less than significant with implementation of the DBESP. No new significant impacts would occur and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? Although the Project's consistency with the MSHCP was not evaluated as part of Certified FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda, the incremental change in the number of units (reduction of 20 units) would not influence the consistency with the MSHCP. No substantial changes are introduced that would result in a new significant or substantially more severe impacts pertaining to HCP, NCCP, and other plans. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The adoption of the MSHCP is a change in circumstance since the certification of FEIR 235 and the previously approved Addenda. As discussed above, this analysis includes the development of riparian habitat along the drainage, which was discussed in the Habitat Assessment/Jurisdictional Delineation/DBESP. As part of the RCA JRP review, the Project was found to be consistent with the MSHCP. The Riparian/Riverine habitat was identified as not providing habitat for least Bell's vireo because of its small size and isolation from larger areas of habitat. No focused surveys for riparian birds would be needed per Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The Project would comply with the MSHCP protective measures and other permit conditions. Therefore, there are no changes in the circumstances of the Project that would result in a new or more severe impact related to conflict with HCP, NCCP, or other plans. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As discussed above, the adoption of the MSHCP is new information that was not previously known at the time FEIR 235 was certified or the Addenda were approved. However, based on the RCA JPR findings and supported by the Habitat Assessment, the Project would not result in a new significant or more substantially severe impact pertaining to conflict with HCP, NCCP, or other plans. as indicated above. Based on the three-part test for determining when an update to the Certified EIR and subsequent Addenda is required (see Section 2.1), no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. 4-30 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The Draft IS/MND referenced PDFs BIO-1 through BIO-7 and Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7 as being applicable an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As discussed above, under Environmental Checklist Questions 4.4 (a) and 4.4(b), the provisions in PDFs BIO-1 through BIO-7 and Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO 7 do not constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. By complying with the regulatory requirements, the impacts to biological resources are less than significant. The IS/MND concluded impacts to biological resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda In 1979, a cultural resources survey of the site was conducted and a report prepared. One prehistoric and one historic resource were identified on site during the survey. In 1988 when the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was prepared the historic site no longer existed. The prehistoric site, was located within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Area, but not within PA-4. Studies conducted that evaluate the site, include Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of Vail Meadows Specific Land Use Plan prepared by Consulting Archaeology (Drover 1988); Cultural Resource Management Investigations of Paloma del Sol Development, Temecula, California prepared by Consulting Archaeology (Drover 1996); Cultural Resource Management Investigations of Paloma del Sol Development, Temecula, California: Archaeological Grading Monitoring prepared by Consulting Archaeology (Drover 1997); and Paseo del Sol PA-4 Development Site and Off -Site Storm Drain Section 106 Assessment completed by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Smith 2015) (ESA 2019). Consistency Evaluation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Based on numerous cultural resource studies conducted for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area, no known historic resources are located within PA-4. These studies include analyses prepared at the time Certified FEIR 235 was prepared and subsequent studies for development of the Specific Plan and surrounding infrastructure improvements. The site is disturbed and no impacts to historic resources would occur. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? TTM 36483 proposes construction of residential development in PA-4. The area of disturbance would be consistent with the area evaluated for development in Certified FEIR 235 There are no changes in the Project that would involves new or more severe environmental impacts; therefore, no major revisions to the previous EIR are required to address potentially new or more severe impacts that were not evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-31 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project site was disturbed when Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared. The site condition has not changed. No historic resources are located on site; therefore, there are no substantial changes that involve new or more severe environmental impacts, which would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Even with the subsequent cultural resource studies that have been conducted since the certification of Certified FEIR 235 and the approval of Addendum No. 4, there is no known new information that indicates the effects on historic resources will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Standard conditions routinely applied by the City of Temecula outside of the CEQA process, require grading observation. This would provide protection to any presently unknown resources discovered during grading. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As noted above, the Project site has been subject to multiple cultural resources evaluations and the site is heavily disturbed. Addendum No. 4, citing the Cultural Resource Management Investigations of the Paloma del Sol Development Temecula, California, identified that none of the cultural resource sites within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area that would be impacted are likely to yield any further significant information. This report recommended monitoring in the vicinity of the cultural deposits. However, as noted in Addendum No. 4, since preparation of the cited report, mass grading of the Project site has occurred. Native American representatives from the Pechanga Band of the Luiseno tribe were present during all test excavations, and a qualified monitor has been present during project grading operations for archaeological monitoring purposes. No additional mitigation measures are needed. However, it should be noted, City of Temecula standard conditions of approval pertaining to cultural resources would apply to TTM 36483. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The ground disturbance activities associated with TTM 36483 have not changed from the impact area evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and Addenda. There are no changes in the Project that would change the potential for impacts on archaeological resources, potentially resulting in new or more severe environmental impacts. Therefore, no major revisions to the previous EIR are required to address new or more severe impacts that were not evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project site conditions (heavily disturbed) have not changed from when Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared. The subsequent cultural resource studies, which included site 4-32 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 testing, have not identified any changes in circumstances from when Certified FEIR 235 was prepared. Therefore, there no substantial changes that involves new or more severe environmental impacts, which would require major revisions to the Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Even with the subsequent cultural resource studies that have been conducted since the certification of FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, there is no known new information that indicates the effects on archaeological resources will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Draft IS/MND concluded impacts to cultural resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required (page 42). However, the Draft IS/MND identified two mitigation measures (CUL-1 and CUL-2) associated with potential subsurface cultural deposits encountered during grading and possible impacts to the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. These measures address the need for an archaeological monitor and the appropriate handling of artifacts should any be discovered. The identification of the mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND is not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor do they constitute new information. As previously noted, standard conditions routinely applied by the City of Temecula outside of the CEQA process, provides for grading observation by a qualified archaeologist (Condition PL-4) and Native American monitor (Condition PL-5). These are usually applied as General Notes on the grading plan. As noted in Addendum No. 4, prior to the previous mass grading of the site, subsurfacing testing was completed and cultural monitoring was provided. This would provide protection to any presently unknown resources discovered during grading. The need for the monitoring and appropriate disposition of resources, if any, is not new information. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR There is no indication that the Project site would have human remains interred on site. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? TTM 36483 has not changed from the ground disturbance limits evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and Addenda. There are no changes in the Project that would increase the likelihood of discovering interred remains on site resulting in new or more severe environmental impacts. Therefore, no major revisions to the previous EIR are required to address new or more severe impacts that were not evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-33 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project site conditions (heavily disturbed) have not changed from when Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared. The subsequent cultural resource studies, which included site testing, have not identified any increased potential for interred human remains on site. Therefore, there no substantial changes that involves new or more severe environmental impacts, which would require major revisions to the Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no known new information to indicate an increased potential for interred human remains onsite. Additionally, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code outlines procedures if human remains are encountered during ground -disturbing activities. The County Coroner will make a determination of origin and disposition of the materials pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. As a regulatory requirement, this would apply in the unlikely event human remains are discovered. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impact requiring a major revision to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary. 4.6 ENERGY Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda Although energy resources were not included in the CEQA checklist at the time FEIR 235 was prepared, an assessment of energy consumption was included as part of the utilities evaluation. The energy consumption analysis in Certified FEIR 235 utilized the usage standards for Southern California Edison contained in the 1987 South Coast AQMD's "Air Quality Handbook". At that time, it was estimated that residential units utilized an estimated 6,081 kilowatt-hour (kwh)/year/unit. When combined with the usage for the Neighborhood and Community Commercial uses, the Certified FEIR 235 estimated a total annual electrical usage of 42,975,030 kwh/year for the Specific Plan uses. Consistency Evaluation a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The comprehensive energy usage of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235. The overall development assumptions have been incorporated into long-term planning programs for the utility providers. However, since the approval of the Specific Plan, energy standards have become more stringent. The Project will be required to implement the current more stringent requirements pertaining to energy efficiency. As a result, the assumed energy usage would be less than the estimate developed for the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The requirements of the energy efficiency standards 4-34 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 result in the reduction of natural gas and electricity consumption. The standards are updated approximately every three years. The current standards require substantially greater energy efficiency than the Code in place when the Specific Plan was approved. For example, the 2016 Code was estimated by the California Energy Commission (CEC) as being at least 28 percent more efficient for Title 24 electric and gas applications than the 2013 Code (CEC 2015). The efficiency standards were further increased with the 2019 code. Analysis by the CEC concludes that the 2019 Code would be 53 percent more efficient for residential Title 24 electric and gas applications than the 2016 Code. Nonresidential buildings would be 30 percent more energy efficient due primarily to lighting upgrades (CEC 2018). The Project would be required to comply with applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR 11). Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project proposes residential development, consistent with the Specific Plan and all long-range planning assumptions for the site. Therefore, there is not a substantial change in the Project from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR. As noted above, the Project would be required to comply with the current energy efficiency standards (Title 24); therefore, the impacts on energy resources associated with implementing the Project would be no more severe than what was previously addressed in the FEIR. Revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Although there has been a change in some of the regulatory requirements associated with residential development, these changes would serve to reduce the impact on energy resources. As noted above, the Project would be required to comply with applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards and CALGreen Code. As a result, there is a factual basis for determining that there would not be new or substantially more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As discussed above, the Certified FEIR 235 evaluated the energy demands associated with the Specific Plan development as part of the utilities evaluation. Therefore, the overall energy demands were revealed and would not constitute new information. The overall energy usage associated with residential development has become substantially more energy efficient since the preparation of FEIR 235. With implementation of current codes, there are no new mitigation measures required to provide for greater energy efficiency. Therefore, there is no new information that would result in more severe impacts that was not known at the time the Certified FEIR 235 was prepared. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project will be required to implement the current more stringent energy efficiency standards provided for in Title 24 and the CalGreen Code. This will require the new residences to be equipped PALOMA DEL SOL 4-35 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 with solar panels and energy efficient appliances. Therefore, the Project would comply, not obstruct, the implementation of plans associated with renewable energy and energy efficiency. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, the Project would comply with energy efficiency standards. The type and overall density of development is consistent with the Specific Plan. None of the elements of the Project would conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there is not a substantial change in the Project from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no revisions are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, there has been a change in some of the regulatory requirements associated with residential development. However, these changes would serve to reduce the impact on energy resources. Since the Project would be required to comply with applicable energy efficiency standards, there would be no conflict with state or local plans and major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? State and local programs to require or encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency have evolved since FEIR 235 was certified. However, the Project would be required to comply with current standards. With implementation of current codes, there are no new mitigation measures required to provide for greater energy efficiency. Therefore, there is no new information that would result in more severe impacts that was not known at the time the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda were prepared. 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Certified Final EIR 235 and Subseuuent Addenda Multiple geotechnical investigations have been conducted for the project, including: Geotechnical Report for Environmental Impact Purposes (May 1987), Fault Study, 1,400-acre The Meadows at Rancho California Project (August 1987), and Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Vail Meadows (September 1987), which concluded that the site does not have any active faults within its boundaries. It is anticipated that the Project site will experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The dominant seismic feature, the Elsinore Fault Zone, is located approximately 7,000 feet northwest of the Project site. The southwestern portion of the Project site (flat historic flood plain of Temecula Creek) is subject to liquefaction. The previous analysis also concluded that with a reduction of 474 units (since adoption of the original Specific Plan) and associated residential population, fewer residents would be exposed to hazards pertaining to seismicity. Additionally, in the absence of increased developable area, impacts related to existing seismic conditions would be the same and less than significant. A cultural resources survey in 1979 identified one pre -historic resource onsite. The pre -historic site comprised of two unifacial manos and a 40m X 20m area of sporadic occupation. To mitigate the potential impact, the previous analyses recommended removal of vegetation and trash to provide 4-36 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 visibility and mapping and collecting all artifacts and features. It was additionally recommended to conduct subsurface testing consisting minimally of two 1m X 1m excavation units. The discussion in the Addendum No. 4 identified the result of a Cultural Resources Management Investigation of the Paloma del Sol Development, Temecula, California, conducted in 1996 that indicated that none of the cultural resources sites is likely to yield significant information and that grading activities could proceed but should be monitored. Since preparation of the report, the site has been mass -graded. Consistency Evaluation a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong Seismic groundshaking? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As indicated in the Public Safety Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, the Elsinore fault traverses the City, and the Elsinore fault zone, which is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, is one of largest zones in Southern California. The Project site is not located within a currently designated Riverside County or State of California Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active surface fault zone traverses or projects toward the site (Converse 2015). The Wildomar fault, which is in the Elsinore Fault Zone, is the nearest mapped fault, located approximately 2 miles west of the site. However, the Project site, being in Southern California, is located within a seismically active region. Seismic hazards, including moderate or strong ground shaking, would likely be experienced during life of the Project. As indicated above, as the site is not located within a fault zone, the potential for surface rupture, which occurs when movement on a fault breaks through the surface, is considered low. To protect structures from risk of damage, the State of California Building Code (CBC) requires all structures in California be designed in compliance with the latest seismic design standards of CBC. The CBC requirements have been adopted and are enforced by the City of Temecula. The CBC includes requirements pertaining to structural design, soils and foundations, geotechnical investigations. In the absence of any active faults on the site and with compliance with CBC and City of Temecula requirements, potential impacts pertaining to the effects of seismicity, ground shaking, and fault rupture would be less than significant. Overall, the extent of Project impacts upon existing seismic conditions would be the same since no increase in the developable area is proposed. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation and no new mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of reduction in units. Based on the discussion in the Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Converse Consultants, the Project would not result in impacts related to seismicity, ground shaking PALOMA DEL SOL 4-37 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and fault rupture above and beyond what was analyzed in the previous environmental documents. Therefore, in light of less than significant impact conclusion and no Project changes, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda and no new mitigation would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated in above discussions, the Project substantially remain the same with the exception of reducing the residential units from 188 to 168. The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed such that Project activities would result in a significant impact pertaining to seismicity, ground shaking, and fault rupture, requiring new mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units. No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to seismicity, ground shaking, and fault rupture not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no new mitigation is required. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Liquefaction occurs when the pore pressures generated within a soil mass approach the effective overburden pressure. Liquefaction of soils may be caused by cyclic loading such as that imposed by ground shaking during earthquakes. The increase in pore pressure results in a loss of strength, and the soil then can undergo both horizontal and vertical movements, depending on the site conditions. Other phenomena associated with soil liquefaction include sand boils, ground oscillation, and loss of foundation bearing capacity. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in loose, saturated, relatively clean, fine-grained cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Factors to consider in the evaluation of soil liquefaction potential include groundwater conditions, soil type, grain size distribution, relative density, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground motion. According to the Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Converse, while the northern portion of the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction, the southern portion of the site has a high susceptibility to liquefaction. According to the mitigation proposed in the Certified Final EIR, the liquefaction potential within the southern portion of the site would be mitigated with Project 4-38 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 development, which would lower artificially high ground water levels through the removal of recharge ponds, as well as increased overburden as a result of site grading. Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common phenomena during or subsequent an earthquake. As indicated in the 2016 California Geological Survey, the Project site is not located within a designated landslide zone. Additionally, according to the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, even though no recent landslides have occurred in the City, landslide potential exists in hillside areas in southwest Temecula where existing slopes are greater than 15 percent. The previous analyses determined that project impacts pertaining to landslides and slope failures would be less than significant with mitigation. Overall, the extent of Project impacts upon existing seismically -induced conditions would be the same since no increase in the developable area is proposed. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation and no new mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The extent of project impacts upon existing seismically -induced conditions, such as liquefaction and landslides, will be the same since no increase in the overall developable area is proposed. No changes are proposed to the Project, with the exception of a reduction in residential units, that would result in new impacts above and beyond what was analyzed in the previous environmental documents. Therefore, no new mitigation and substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated in above discussions, the Project substantially remain the same with the exception of reducing the residential units from 188 to 168. The context and circumstances for the Project have remained the same and not changed such that Project activities would result in a significant impact pertaining to liquefaction and landslides, requiring new mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units. No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to liquefaction and landslides not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no new mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is currently undeveloped and is not at significant risk of erosion under the existing conditions. During construction activities, temporary soil erosion may occur due to soil disturbance. In addition, soil erosion due to rainfall and wind may occur if unprotected soils are exposed during construction. Construction -related erosion could result in the loss of topsoil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters. However, as the Project site has over one acre of land PALOMA DEL SOL 4-39 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 area, it would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. With incorporation of erosion control mitigation and best management practices (BMPs), the potential impacts pertaining to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The Project does not propose changes that would result in new impacts or increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts pertaining to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The potential impacts were anticipated and mitigation measures proposed. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require no new mitigation measures or substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated in above discussions, the Project substantially remains the same with the exception of reducing the residential units from 188 to 168. The context and circumstances for the Project have remained the same and not changed such that Project activities would result in a significant new impact or more severe impacts pertaining to soil erosion and loss of topsoil, requiring new mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units. No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in a new impact related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no new mitigation are required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Implementation of the proposed residential development would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems for the disposal of waste water, as sewers are available. No impacts would result and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? No new or more severe impacts would result that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4-40 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? No changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information that was not known is available that would result in new impacts or more severe impacts that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is located within the Pauba Valley and is primarily underlain by Holocene alluvial deposits (Qa). The northwest corner of the Project site includes Pleistocene Pauba Formation (Qp), which also underlies the Holocene alluvium. While Holocene alluvium (Qa) has a low paleontological sensitivity and is generally too young to have preserved fossils, the Pauba Formation (Qp) has a high paleontological sensitivity. Project -related excavation activities are anticipated to occur in fill soil; however, cuts and fills may extend up to 15 to 20 feet and could encounter Pauba Formation, with the potential to unearth fossils. However, this would not be a change in conditions that would result in new impacts. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project remains substantially the same with the exception of a reduction in number of units from 188 to 168 units. The area of disturbance from the Project would be consistent with the area evaluated for development in Certified FEIR 235. The Project does not propose changes that would result in new impacts or increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts pertaining to paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The context and circumstances for the Project have remained the same and not changed such that Project activities would result in a significant new impact or more severe impacts pertaining to paleontological resources, requiring new mitigation. The site condition has not changed, and no increase in the developable area is proposed. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units. No new information has become available that was not previously known PALOMA DEL SOL 4-41 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 resulting in a new impact related to paleontological resources not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Draft IS/MND concluded impacts to paleontological resources were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required (page 49). However, the Draft IS/MND did include a mitigation measure (GEO-1) that requires a qualified paleontological monitor during grading and the appropriate handling of artifacts should any be discovered during grading. The identification of the mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND is not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor does it constitute new information. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Although the potential for discovery of paleontological resources has not changed since the certification of FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, the applicant would accept this measure as a condition of approval on TTM 36483. 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Certified Final EIR 235 and Subseauent Addenda In 1988, when FEIR 235 was certified and the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was approved, a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions analysis was not part of the required CEQA analysis. Effective March 18, 2010, the State of California adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The State CEQA Guidelines regarding GHG emissions do not themselves specifically address situations involving subsequent implementing actions for a project with a previously certified FEIR. As discussed below, applicable case law provides that a Supplemental EIR is not required on the issue of GHG emissions and climate change where an earlier certified EIR did not address climate change (based on Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515). However, it should be noted, Certified FEIR 235 and the Addenda do include energy efficiency and conservation mitigation measures to reduce air quality impact, which would also serve to reduce GHG emissions. Consistencv Evaluation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR PA-4 is currently designated as Medium Density Residential (2 du/ac to 5 du/ac), with a target 188 residential unit count in the Specific Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site as Low Medium Residential (3 du/ac to 6 du/ac). The environmental documentation prepared for the Specific Plan reflects this level of development for the Project site. As previously noted, TTM 36483 would result in a slight reduction in the overall number of units to be constructed in PA-4 compared to what was identified in the current Specific Plan. In addition to 4-42 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 the residential development, the Project would provide approximately 2.1 acres of community parkland and 5.7 acres of open space. This decrease (20 units), which represents approximately 0.4 percent of the overall development provided for in the Specific Plan, is not sufficient to change the character of the Specific Plan development where travel patterns or other characteristics that would generate GHG emissions would be substantially different from the development concept evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and the associated Addenda. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, the proposed Project has not substantially changed from the proposal addressed in Certified FEIR 235 and subsequently refined as part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 and Addendum No. 4. The Project would develop 168 residential units within the Medium Density Residential range identified in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (i.e., 2 du/ac to 5 du/ac) and the Low Medium land use designation in the General Plan. The Project would provide associated amenities and supporting infrastructure. There are no elements of the Project that would result in the generation of substantially greater GHG emissions compared to the emissions generated by the development evaluated in Certified FEIR 235. With the incremental decrease in the number of units there would be a commensurate reduction in the emissions generated by the Project. The reduction in overall air emissions, of which GHG emissions are a component compared to the impact assessment in 1988 is discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality of this evaluation. In addition to the incremental decrease in units, the changes in the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) established to reduce California's energy consumption (this is also discussed in Section 4.6, Energy) would have beneficial effects on GHG emissions. As such, since there are no major changes to the Project, there are no major revisions required to the Certified F235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The context in which the Project would be implemented is not substantially different than what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda. The City of Temecula has long been assumed as a suburban area. These land use patterns are reflected in the local (General Plan) and regional (RTP/SCS and AQMP) planning documents. The regional plans developed by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations are also used for evaluation of consistency with State planning programs (discussed further below as part of Question 4.8b). As such, the regulations and land development patterns would not constitute a change in circumstances that would require major revisions to the Certified F235 and previously approved Addenda. The Project would not allow for any new development or uses beyond that previously authorized. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The courts have found that GHG emissions and global climate change are not "new information" since these effects have been generally known for quite some time. For example, in a 2011 case, Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego,12 the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City of San Diego's adoption of an addendum to a previously certified EIR rather than the preparation of a Supplemental EIR for a development project. In one of many issues, the court found that "information on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate was known long before the City approved the 1994 FEIR". The court discussed several federal court decisions that demonstrated information about the nexus between GHG emissions and climate change was known well before the 12 Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal. App.4th 515. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-43 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 FEIR was certified. As such, the courts determined the effect of GHG emissions on climate change could have been raised when the City certified the FEIR. Because the plaintiff in the cited case provided no competent evidence of new information of a significant impact, it did not meet its burden under Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code to demonstrate that a Supplemental EIR was required. Therefore, this case demonstrates that a Supplemental EIR is not required based on the general issue of GHG emissions and climate change, where an earlier certified EIR for the project did not address climate change. A similar finding was made in the 2014 decision by the Sixth District Court of Appeals in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose.13 The decision states that, "information about the potential environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions was known or could have been known at the time the 1997 EIR and the 2003 SEIR for the Airport Master Plan were certified. We reiterate, ... an agency may not require an SEIR unless '[n]ew information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the [EIR] was certified as complete, becomes available." Since the potential environmental impact of GHG emissions does not constitute new information as defined in the CEQA statutes, Section 21166, subdivision (c), the City did not violate Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines by failing to analyze greenhouse gas emissions in the eighth addendum. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Executive Order S-3-05, AB 32, and SB 32 are the primary State policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Statewide regulations adopted in furtherance of those State policies, including GHG emissions standards for vehicles, are being implemented at the statewide level. The Lead Agencies identified for these actions are almost exclusively State agencies, including CARB, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, Caltrans, and regional transportation agencies. AB 32 is codified as Sections 38500-38599 of the California Health and Safety Code. Thus, the principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions has been AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Statewide plans and regulations, including but not limited to light duty vehicle GHG emissions standards, Advanced Clean Car standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standards, Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, and California Green Building Standards, are being implemented. AB 32 also implemented the policy statement of EO S-3-05 that called for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. At a regional level, SCAG has addressed GHG reduction through the RTP/SCS. Locally, the City of Temecula General Plan has included goals and policies in the Air Quality Element of the City's General Plan that would also result in the reduction of GHG emissions. As a component of the City General Plan, this level of development for the site is reflected in the RTP/SCS for the SCAG region. The Project must comply with all those applicable regulatory measures adopted to implement AB 32. Since the Project would be required to comply with building standards that are much more rigorous than what was in place in 1988, the Project's GHG emissions would be less than what would have 13 Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788. 4-44 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 resulted from a project implemented before the more rigorous standards were adopted (see discussion above, in Section 4.6, Energy). Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, the proposed Project has not substantially changed from the proposal addressed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequently refined as part of Addendum No. 4. The Project would develop residential units within the Medium Density Residential range identified in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (i.e., 2 du/ac to 5 du/ac) and Low Medium land use designation in the General Plan. There are no elements of the Project that would result in the generation of GHG emissions that would be substantially greater than the emissions generated by the development evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235. Updated regulations implemented to reduce GHG emissions, which would apply to the Project, would reduce the overall emissions of GHG compared to a Project implemented using the emissions factors when FEIR 235 was certified. As such, since there are no major changes to the Project, there are no major revisions required to the Certified F235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The new policies and regulations associated with GHG emissions would not represent a substantial change in circumstances that would result in a new or more severe environmental impact. Regulations, such as those associated with installation of solar panels and energy efficiency, would apply to the Project and are designed to reduce environmental impacts. Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than what would have been associated with Project development when the FEIR 235 was certified. As noted above, the physical context in which the Project would be implemented is not substantially different from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda. The City of Temecula land use patterns have been assumed in the local (General Plan) and regional (RTP/SCS and AQMP) planning documents and would not result in more severe environmental impacts or represent a change that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As noted above, the courts have found that GHG emissions and global climate change are not "new information" since these effects have been generally known for quite some time. As such, the courts determined the effect of GHG emissions on climate change could have been raised when the City certified the FEIR and did not constitute evidence of new information of a significant impact; and therefore, did not meet its burden under Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code to demonstrate that a Supplemental EIR was required. The Project would be required to comply with the changes in regulations, which have been adopted with the goal of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or greater GHG emissions than would have been associated with development at the time the FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda were certified. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-45 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda It was determined that the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan residential, recreational, and neighborhood commercial uses would not generate toxic substances. The Certified FEIR 235 or subsequent Addenda did not include this topic in addition to hazards from wildland fire, as it was not identified as an area of concern in the Notice of Preparation. Consistency Evaluation a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would require the transport and use of standard construction equipment and materials, some of which may involve a hazardous component such as transport and storage of fuels. These would be associated with construction activities and would, therefore, be temporary in nature. However, these activities would be conducted and the hazardous substances (e.g., paint, adhesives, finishing materials, cleaning agents, and fuels) would be handled in accordance with existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, all construction activities would comply with the federal and state standards of safety and local regulations. Long-term, operational hazards to the environment or the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are typically associated with the operation of non-residential uses, such as industrial and some commercial uses. The Project contemplates residential units, a community park, open space/trails, and drainage and water quality improvements. Hazardous materials are not expected to be associated with the Project in substantial quantities once it is implemented. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to normal household chemicals such as painting supplies, pesticides for landscaping, cleansers, and solvents and would be limited in household quantities. Any application of materials, such as fertilizers or pesticides, to the park would be done by a trained professional to minimize risk of overspray or introducing such materials into run-off. These substances would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instruction and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. The proposed Project would not utilize, store, or generate hazardous materials or wastes in quantities that may pose a significant hazard to the public. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was focused out of Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, as it was not considered an area of concern. The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed. Based on the discussion above, due to the type of project and temporary nature of construction activities, the Project would not result in an impact that was not anticipated before. 4-46 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no mitigation would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since it was determined that hazardous and hazardous materials was not an area of concern and was not analyzed in the previous CEQA documents, the context and circumstances for the Project have not changed such that construction and operation activities would result in a significant impact requiring mitigation. Thus, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168 units. No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The nearest school to the Project site is Abby Reinke Elementary School located at 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive, approximately 0.24 miles to the northwest of the Project site. Additionally, Vail Ranch Middle School located at 33340 Camp Piedra Rojo and Rancho Vista High School located at 32225 Pio Pico Road are approximately 0.25 miles south and 1.05 miles the west of the Project site, respectively. Temporary construction activities may require the use of materials listed as hazardous; however, these materials would be routine construction materials and would not be required in large quantities. Additionally, the contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures, which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release or spill of such substances into the environment. Residential activities associated with occupancy of the proposed units would be similar to other residential uses surrounding the site and would not generate hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in quantities that may impact students at schools within 0.25 mile of the site. Therefore, the potential impacts associated with use of hazardous materials during construction and operation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated above, the topic of hazards and hazardous materials was focused out of Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, as it was not considered an area of concern. The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed, except for reduction in residential units. Although schools have been constructed in proximity to the Project site since Certified FEIR 235 was prepared, the Specific Plan identified the siting of schools within the Specific Plan limits. Based on the discussion above, due PALOMA DEL SOL 4-47 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 to the type of project and temporary nature of construction activities, the Project would not result in an impact pertaining to emissions of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school that would not have been anticipated before. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no mitigation are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since it was determined that hazardous and hazardous materials was not an area of concern and was focused out in the previous CEQA documents, the context and circumstances for the Project have not changed such that construction and operation activities would result in a significant impact pertaining to emissions of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school requiring mitigation. Thus, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Regulations pertaining to hazardous materials have been updated since Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared14; however, the nature of the materials associated with the residential and parkland uses have not substantially changed. Existing regulations, such as the California Code of Regulations Title 22 establishes requirements pertaining to the storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. To meet the requirements, construction contractors are required to implement control measures for handling and storing various types and quantities of regulated hazardous materials used. Any transport of hazardous materials facilities is also regulated at the federal (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and State (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations) regulations. Consistent with the findings of the previous CEQA reviews, through the compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to hazardous materials the risk associated with the transport, use, and storage of the materials, is minimal. Therefore, no new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to emissions of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Based on a current review of available data, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Specifically, the Project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC's) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List); the list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites; the list of sites identified with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside 14 Proposition 65 was passed by California voters in 1986. Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals can be in the products that Californians purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. As of November 2018, the Proposition 65 List, which is maintained by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), includes over 900 naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. 4-48 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 the waste management unit; the list of Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the State water boards; and the list of hazardous waste facilities where the DTSC has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment. As such, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated above, the potential for significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials was focused out of Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, because it was not considered an area of concern. The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed, except for reduction in residential units. As such no changes are proposed that would result in new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The context and circumstances under which the Project is being implemented have not changed. As noted above, the site is not on or adjacent to a site on the Cortese List. As such there are no new circumstances that would result in a significant impact pertaining to being on a list of hazardous materials site. Thus, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to being on a list of hazardous materials sites not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport is the French Valley Airport located in the City of Murrieta, approximately 6.0 miles north of the Project site. The airport has a compatibility plan; however, the Project site is located outside of the compatibility plan. Additionally, the closest private airstrip is the Billy Joe Airport located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Project site. The airport, established in July 1981, has a short dirt runway (2,200 feet by 40 feet) and can only accommodate small general aviation aircraft. There is no control tower or other attendance on site. Permission to use the facility must be granted by the Airport prior to landing. Given the limited use of the facility, the nature of the aircraft using the airport, and the distance of the Project site from the airport, development of the project would not result in a safety PALOMA DEL SOL 4-49 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 hazard for the people residing or working in the area. Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact the airport facilities or their operation, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated above, the topic of hazards and hazardous materials was focused out of Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, as it was not considered an area of concern. The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed, except for reduction in residential units. Based on the discussion above, due to absence of a public airport within two miles of the site, the Project would not result in an impact pertaining to safety hazard or excessive noise that was not anticipated before. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no mitigation are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since it was determined that hazardous and hazardous materials was not an area of concern and was focused out in the previous CEQA documents, the context and circumstances for the Project have not changed (e.g., construction of an airport in the area) such that Project implementation would result in a significant impact pertaining to safety hazard or excessive noise, requiring mitigation. Thus, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to safety hazard or excessive noise, not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require mitigation or major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The City of Temecula is updating the City's 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) (to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi -jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan). The purpose of the LHMP is to identify local hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences, and set goals to mitigate potential risks (to reduce or eliminate long-term risk) to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. While the proposed Project would minimally impact traffic flow during the temporary construction period, it would not conflict with or interfere with emergency evacuation in the area. The 2019 City of Temecula Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) outlines the City's planned deployment, mobilization, and tactical operations in response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City. According to the Public Safety Element of the General Plan, appropriate evacuation routes cannot be predetermined due to unpredictable nature of the impact of a disaster on streets and highways. Generally, traffic will be directed to the nearby freeways, state highways, and other arterials. The Project would add a minimal number of additional trips to Temecula Highway, State Route 79, and the surrounding roadways, consistent with the assumptions of the previous CEQA documents. In 4-50 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 the emergency situations, the identified roadways would continue to function as emergency access routes. The Project does not include any components or activities that would conflict, impair, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated above, the topic of hazards and hazardous materials was focused out of Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, as it was not considered an area of concern. The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed, except for reduction in residential units. Based on the discussion above, the Project does not propose changes that would adversely affect the City's emergency response or evacuation plan that was not anticipated before. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no mitigation would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed since it was determined that hazardous and hazardous materials was not an area of concern and was focused out in the previous CEQA documents. In light of the discussion above, the Project would not result in potential impacts to emergency and evacuation routes in case of natural or man-made disasters that would require mitigation. As such no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to emergency response or evacuation plan, not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require mitigation or major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR According to Public Safety Element of the General Plan, the potential for natural wildland fires exists in Temecula, as the City is surrounded by rolling foothills and mountains. A number of factors such as fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents), and topography (degree of slope) are directly correlated to the risk of wildfire. Vegetation, specifically grass are highly flammable as they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. According to the Fire and Resource Assessment Program Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE map for the City of Temecula, the western edge of the City has been designated a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which is within the very high fire hazard severity zone. However, the Project site is not included within this area. In light of this, because the Project site is not located within a designated wildland fire hazard area, implementation of the proposed Project PALOMA DEL SOL 4-51 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 would not expose people or structures directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss or death associated with wildland fires. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As indicated above, the issue of wildland fires was focused out of Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, as it was not considered an area of concern. The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed, except for reduction in residential units. Based on the discussion above, the Project does not propose changes that would expose people or structures to the risk of wildland fires that was not anticipated before. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no mitigation would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed since it was determined that wildland fires was not an area of concern and was focused out in the previous CEQA documents. In light of the discussion above, the Project would not result in potential impacts pertaining to exposing people or structures to the risk of wildland fires that would require mitigation. As such no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not previously known resulting in an impact pertaining to exposing people or structures to the risk of wildland fires, not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require mitigation or major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Certified Final EIR 235 and Subseauent Addenda The Certified FEIR 235 discussed impacts to water quality that could result from project grading and construction activities and project operation. It was indicated that the runoff, which is typical of urban use, would contribute to the degradation of water quality downstream in the Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. The Certified FEIR 235 required implementation of erosion control devices during grading to mitigate the potential water quality impacts during grading, in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District. The Certified FEIR 235 recommended use of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants" program to reduce urban runoff impacts. According to the Certified FEIR 235, Rancho California Water District (RCWD) would provide water supply to the project. No mitigation was required for potential impacts to groundwater quality, supply or recharge. The Certified FEIR 235 concluded that the Specific Plan would alter the existing on -site drainage patterns of the area and result in increased runoff due to impervious surfaces. The Certified FEIR 235 recommended realigning the storm drain to discharge directly into Temecula Creek in order to mitigate the increase in runoff at Margarita Road outlet. It also recommended the use of erosion 4-52 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 control devices in hillside development areas to mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of discharge. Devices suggested including temporary berms, culverts, sandbagging or desilting basins. The Certified FEIR 235 did not address the drainage flows east of Butterfield Stage Road, which were evaluated in AD 159 (see discussion of AD 159 in Section 1.2.5 of this Consistency Evaluation). The original drainage report prepared by RBF Associates for AD 159, stated that the westerly drainage basins north of De Portola, which drained toward Butterfield Stage Road, would be picked up and the off -site flow would be conveyed through Paloma del Sol in storm drains. The County and City required Paloma del Sol to construct an interim detention basin or an equivalent facility on PA-4 until the County approves and constructs an up stream drainage facility. The Paseo del Sol Original Drainage Map for the Tract 24185, the drainage system flows into PA-4 at the 78-inch reinforced concrete pipe stubbed into the site south of De Portola. However, the County was unable to receive approvals from upstream property owners and was unable to construct any drainage facilities. The Certified FEIR 235 concluded that the site is subject to inundation from Vail Dam. As mitigation, it was concluded that all improvements would be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Subsequent Addenda concluded there would be no change to the Certified FEIR 235 conclusions regarding project impacts to water quality, erosion, and flooding. Consistencv Evaluation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and is required to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Region (Basin Plan), which sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater within the region. The Project would involve implementation of various onsite structural and non- structural measures during construction and operation to reduce impacts to water quality. Construction of the proposed Project may potentially violate water quality standards within Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. Grading and other earth -disturbance activities have the potential to expose soils to mobilization by rainfall, runoff, and wind. Non -sediment -related pollutants such as waste construction materials and chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products may also be of concern. However, compliance with Construction General Permit would minimize the potential construction impacts, as the permit requires implementation of a SWPPP (required by the NPDES Construction General Permit), which must include erosion- and sediment - control BMPs that meet measures required by the NPDES and BMPs that control construction -related pollutants. The SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges and include BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other non -sediment pollutants in storm water and non -storm water discharges. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the preparation of a SWPPP would reduce any potential impacts to downstream waters to less than significant. Erosion -control and treatment -control BMPs would be implemented per NPDES requirements. Section 18.18.020 of the PALOMA DEL SOL 4-53 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 City of Temecula Municipal Code also requires erosion and sediment control measures during construction and grading activities. Construction activities through groundwater dewatering activities may also impact surface and groundwater quality. However, all dewatering activities would be required to comply with SDRWQCB General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region (Order 119-2015-0013). Therefore, potential impacts to surface water and groundwater quality would be reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with the Construction General Permit, City Municipal Code, and WDRs. During operation, the Project could potentially impact existing water quality standards. The City of Temecula requires preparation of a project -specific WQMP to ensure compliance with City requirements (City of Temecula 2018). The Project's site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs would help reduce potential impacts to surface water and groundwater quality. Site specific BMPs would reduce and disperse impervious areas while maintaining existing and creating new pervious surfaces on the Project site. Source control BMPs prevent stormwater quality contact with various potential sources of water quality degradation on -site. Implementation of treatment control BMPs include biofiltration and partial retention of surface flows on -site through the use of a biofiltration basin and two Filterra units. Upon finalization of a site design and its approval by the City, a final WQMP would be prepared. The proposed Project overlies the Temecula Valley groundwater basin, which is not considered a high or medium priority groundwater basin. As such, a sustainable groundwater management plan is not required by the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for this basin (DWR 2019). Thus, there would be no impact pertaining to compliance with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project does not include substantial changes, with the exception of a reduction in number of residential units from 188 to 168 units, that would adversely affect water quality, resulting in a new or more severe impacts. With the water quality system in place, including two water quality basins and proposed BMPs, no new impacts would result. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? No changes in Project context and circumstances have occurred such that a new or more severe water quality impact beyond what was analyzed, would result. Same requirements and standards discussed in previous analyses would still apply to the Project. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information, which was not known before, has become available that would cause the Project to create an adverse hydrologic condition. The hydrology and WQMP studies are sufficient to determine that the proposed Project would address water quality and would not result in new impacts that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4-54 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The Draft IS/MND concluded impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than those identified in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required (page 63). However, the Draft IS/MND identified four PDFs and three mitigation measures under Environmental Checklist Questions 4.10(a) and (e). These PDFs and mitigation measures are not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor do they constitute new information. A review of the PDFs and the mitigation measures reflect existing regulations that the Project would be required to comply with to be consistent with the Basin Plan.ls These measures would be applicable to the Project as a result of other regulatory requirements outside of the CEQA process. These measures do not constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Impacts to biological resources are less than significant and all the regulatory requirements would be complied with. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Project construction may require dewatering due to shallow groundwater conditions on parts of the Project site. In order to ensure no net loss of groundwater, any groundwater encountered during construction would be recharged on the Project site itself. Additionally, the Project may indirectly result in reduction of groundwater supplies through dependence on the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) for water supplies, which obtains its water partially from the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin. However, the RCWD anticipates it will be able to meet 100 percent of its projected water demands, including water for the proposed Project (RCWD 2016). Implementation of the Project would introduce impervious surfaces and reduce the area on -site capable of groundwater recharge. However, the Project would include measures to decrease and disperse impervious areas; maintain existing pervious areas; and create new pervious surfaces on the site. Therefore, impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Additionally, as indicated above, the proposed Project overlies the Temecula Valley groundwater basin, which is not considered a high or medium priority groundwater basin. As such, a sustainable groundwater management plan is not required by the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for this basin (DWR 2019). Thus, there would be no impact pertaining to compliance with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project does not include any changes that would adversely affect groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a new or more severe impacts. is PDF HYDRO-1 states the BMPs from the WQMP that have been integrated into the Project. PDF HYDRO-2 and PDF HYDRO-3 identify the source control and treatment control BMPs identified in the WQMP. PDF HYDRO-4 identifies the construction BMPs from the WQMP. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 requires the preparation of the Final WQMP and updating of the PDFs as necessary. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 requires compliance with the SDRWQCB Order R9- 2015-0013 and Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3 requires design to in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 458, which details design requirements for projects located in special flood hazard areas. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-55 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Also, the reduction of 20 residential units and addition of the open space channel and basins would reduce the Project's impervious footprint allowing groundwater recharge. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? There have not been any changes in Project context or circumstances such that a new or more severe impacts pertaining to reduction in groundwater supplies would occur. The same requirements and standards discussed in previous analyses would still apply to the Project. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information that was not known has become available that would cause the Project to reduce groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would result such that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Draft IS/MND identified PDF HYDRO-1 and Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 as being applicable to Environmental Checklist Question 4.1O(b). As stated above, under Environmental Checklist Questions 4.1O(a) and (e), the PDFs and mitigation measures are not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor do they constitute new information. They reflect regulation requirements that would applicable to the Project. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: a. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As noted above, the County and City required Paloma del Sol to construct an interim detention basin or an equivalent facility on PA-4 until the County approves and constructs an up stream drainage facility. The interim facilities have been implemented; however, the County was unable to receive approvals from upstream property owners and was unable to construct any drainage facilities. Therefore, the Project proposes to construct a multi -functional Paseo del Sol Interceptor Channel 4-56 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 along the southern portion of the PA-4 site adjacent to Temecula Parkway. This drainage feature is consistent with the Specific Plan, which states (Specific Plan Amendment 8, page III-20): Development of the Specific Plan will alter the natural on -site drainage courses. After development, new drainage courses will consist of streets, channels and swales, underground storm drains and/or a combination of the above. A significant amount of off -site as well as on -site flows will be piped under the greenbelt/paseo system (Figure 7). The majority of water will exit the site to the west and south in pipes varying in size up to 120 inches in diameter. The actual size and location of the drainage system will be determined at the tract map stage of development. Specific Plan, Figure 7 (included in this Consistency Evaluation as Figure 4) provides a very conceptual location for the drainage improvements serving PA-4. This location is consistent with location shown for the Paseo del Sol Interceptor Channel. Rather than including detailed design plans for the drainage facilities, the Specific Plan identifies the development standards that are applicable and to be implemented at the tract map stage of development. The drainage plan standards included in the Specific Plan requires (Specific Plan Amendment 8, page III-20) the drainage and flood control facilities and improvements be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements, which the Project does. Further, in the discussion of PA-4, the Specific Plan states any revisions to the detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities shall be approved by the City (Specific Plan Amendment 8, page III- 60). As part of the current tract map review, the Paseo del Sol Interceptor Channel would be found in substantial compliance with the drainage facilities required by the Specific Plan for PA-4 and be a functional equivalent to the existing facilities. The proposed interceptor channel is designed to convey stormwater from areas east and north of the Project site through a soft bottom channel and water quality basins to the existing culvert under Temecula Parkway in the south west corner of the Project site. These improvements effectively protect the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and downstream area from flooding from the off -site watershed and at the same time maintain the existing level of flood protection to the existing developments and property near the Project site. As noted in Addendum No. 4, all standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District will be met, and erosion control devices will be installed in development areas to mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of discharge. As detailed above, a SWPPP would be prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit that would include erosion- and sediment -control BMPs designed to prevent erosion and siltation from construction activities. The proposed Project would include two water quality basins (one for on -site and one for off -site drainage), and the large drainage channel (open space) along the southern and western areas of the 42.64-acre development. The Project also includes landscaping within a park, street buffers and residential lots, which would reduce the impervious area from the Project. In addition to the two water quality basins, storm water best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented include a modular wetlands biofiltration unit (with an upstream subsurface storage basin), minimizing imperviousness, impervious area dispersion, drought -tolerant landscaping, protecting trash storage from rainfall, construction (erosion control), and other BMPs. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-57 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 DRAIINAGE PLAN LEGEND INLET! OUTLET TO STORM DRAIN STORM DRAIN LINE TO 8E CONSTRUCTED BY PROJECT DEVELOPER STORM DRAIN LINE TO 13E d n d CONSTRUCTED 6Y ASSESSMENT ❑ISTRICT 159 r .4 e *,A, 0i"; mr,,- %� Kea A L Q M .¢A D E L S 0 L AMENDMENT #8 111-21 Paloma del Sal Specific Plan, Amendment 8 Drainage Plan Paloma del Sol FiGuiT. 7 e Q T&B Planning Consultants ��rcrwua�rsurc� � swu.wticu�resvwwv+r Seun"a 7 & 3 Plann ing Consul Ian W Figure 4 ■iiiifliA (070NM4 RMB) R:IProjectsWr0WV00W7010"rraphicckc_OralnagrWanodT 4-58 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The larger water quality biofiltration basin BMP, Basin-1 or Basin "A", is proposed to receive drainage from the on -site private storm drain system and used for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification (i.e., stormwater quantity mitigation). This stormwater pollutant control BMP is designed according to the 2018 City of Temecula BMP Design Manual to absorb the typical pollutants from vehicles, pesticides and fertilizers, and human and pet activities by filtering runoff through the vegetation and soil media within the basin. According to the Hydromodification Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) Modeling Analysis (i.e., basin routing), prepared by REC Consultants in 2018 and attached to the WQMP, the on -site post -development peak runoff is reduced by over 40 percent from the existing undeveloped condition. Basin 1 utilizes soil media and gravel layers with a subdrain system, a riser inlet with orifices for low flows, and a weir spillway at the top. The basin discharges southerly through a 36-inch RCP storm drain before connecting into Line "S". The basin would have some incidental infiltration below the gravel layer, but this would be limited due to the low rate of infiltration of the underlying soil. With the system in place, construction and operation of the Project would not result in erosion, siltation or flooding. The Project site is within the Vail Lake Dam inundation area, and as such has the potential to impede or redirect flood flows related to dam failure (City of Temecula 2005). Per the Certified FEIR 235, Project improvements should comply with the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) the standards. With compliance with the requirements, impacts would be less than significant. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project does not include any changes that would adversely affect downstream (or upstream) drainage improvements or properties. The proposed drainage would follow the existing drainage patterns, and runoff from the site would be reduced (detained) from the pre -developed condition through the implementation of the storm water biofiltration basin (Basin 1). Also, the reduction of 20 residential units and addition of the open space channel and basins would reduce the Project's impervious footprint and runoff. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The hydrology and hydraulic analysis is based on the same guidelines provided in the 1978 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual, including the Rational and Unit Hydrograph Methods for determining peak flows and hydrographs for basin routing. Hydromodification will be addressed, according to the relatively recent requirements from the SDRWQCB for the Santa Margarita River watershed (i.e., City of Temecula jurisdictional Runoff Management Program Santa Margarita Region Order No. 119-2010-0016), which would benefit Temecula Creek and other downstream soft bottom channels. Thus, no changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in significant adverse impacts, requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information that was not known has become available that would cause the Project to create an adverse hydrologic condition. The preliminary storm drain plans, hydrology and WQMP reports are sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed development would address drainage quality and quantity and would not result in new impacts that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-59 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 The Draft IS/MND identified PDF HYDRO-1, PDF HYDRO-3, and PDF HYDRO-4, as well as Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3 would be applicable to Environmental Checklist Question 4.10(c). As noted above, under Environmental Checklist Questions 4.10(a) and (e), the PDFs and mitigation measures are not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor do they constitute new information. The reflect regulation requirements that would applicable to the Project. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is located within the Vail Lake Dam inundation area, which has the potential to result in the release of pollutants if inundated in the event of dam failure. However, the Project would be designed in compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County for projects located in special flood hazard areas. This would reduce the potential for pollutant release in the event of dam inundation. Additionally, the Project would retain pervious surfaces on site, which would help absorb some flood flows from dam inundation that could contain pollutants. The use of source control and treatment control BMPs would also reduce the pollutants on site that could mix with flood flows during project operation. Additionally, implementation of minimum construction BMPs that would minimize pollutants on site and prevent introduction of pollutants to flood flows during construction. With implementation of requirements, the impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, no impacts pertaining to tsunami is anticipated as the site is not in proximity to the ocean. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project does not include any substantial changes that would adversely affect downstream (or upstream) drainage improvements or properties. The proposed drainage would follow the existing drainage patterns, and runoff from the site would be reduced (detained) from the pre -developed condition through the implementation of the storm water biofiltration basin. Also, the reduction of 20 residential units and addition of the open space channel and basins would reduce the Project's impervious footprint and runoff. Thus, no new or more severe impacts would result that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The hydrology and hydraulic analysis is based on the same guidelines provided in the 1978 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual, including the Rational and Unit Hydrograph Methods for determining peak flows and hydrographs for basin routing. Hydromodification will be addressed, according to the relatively recent requirements from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Margarita River watershed (i.e., City of Temecula jurisdictional Runoff Management Program Santa Margarita Region Order No. R9-2010- 0016), which will benefit Temecula Creek and other downstream soft bottom channels. Thus, no changes in Project context and circumstances have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts, requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4-60 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information that was not previous known that would cause the Project to create an adverse hydrologic condition. The preliminary storm drain plans, hydrology and WQMP reports are sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed development would address drainage quality and quantity and would not result in new impacts that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The Draft IS/MND identified PDF HYDRO-1, through PDF HYDRO-4, as well as Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3 would be applicable to Environmental Checklist Question 4.10(d). As noted above, under Environmental Checklist Questions 4.10(a) and (e), the PDFs and mitigation measures are not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor do they constitute new information. The reflect regulation requirements that would applicable to the Project. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The analysis in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 identified the Project site as undeveloped. The assessment evaluated the potential impacts associated with the proposed land use changes, as well as consistency with applicable plans and policies. The Certified FEIR 235 determined that the proposed Project was consistent with the County General Plan policies. The Certified EIR 235 evaluated consistency with policies from local planning documents and did not identify any significant impacts associated with, but not limited to open space or conservation policies, grading standards, protection of scenic resources, drainage, inundation, and hazards. Much of the information on natural constraints (i.e., liquefaction, floodplains, etc.) were incorporated into the City General Plan. The Certified FEIR 235 identified, "Public facilities and utilities exist in the vicinity, the proposal blends with adjacent land uses, and the physical attributes of the site lend themselves to development of mixed residential, commercial and open space uses reflecting Heavy Urban and Urban designations." The policy analysis in Certified FEIR 235 provided an analysis of the Specific Plan consistency with the AQMP and the SCAG regional growth forecasts (i.e., SCAG'82 Modified Forecasts). Based on the forecasts, population growth in this portion of Riverside County (Regional Statistical Area [RSA] 49, Murrieta) and Rancho California was projected at a rate of approximately 4.7 percent annually for the next 20-25 years. However, the Certified FEIR 235 stated, "From discussion with SCAG planning personnel, it appears that SCAG 1982 Modified Forecast numbers are conservative estimates. It is anticipated that forecast figures for total population, housing, and employment may be significantly higher than previously considered. In any case, it is expected that The Meadows at Rancho California16 project will be one relatively minor component of overall regional growth. Project development will be compatible with surrounding development and infrastructure networks which will serve the site." 16 The Project was called "The Meadows at Rancho California" at the time FEIR 235 was prepared. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-61 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Consistency Evaluation a) Physically divide an established community? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is currently underdeveloped and the only functional use onsite is an interim drainage basin. The Project would not result in any impacts off site that would displace or divide an existing community. These conditions have not changed and there would be no new or more severe impacts that would require modifications to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project would not divide an established community. TTM 36483 would be an infill project since it is the last undeveloped planning area in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. There are no substantial change in the Project that would result in new or more severe impacts that would require revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The area surrounding the Project site has developed with urban and suburban land uses since the certification of FEIR 235. However, the development has been planned and approved by the City of Temecula and has not required displacement of an established community. The development of the area reflects the implementation of planned development. The introduction of development associated with the Project would not be a substantial change in circumstances as it pertains to dividing an established community and no revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As previously stated, the site is undeveloped and has been planned for residential uses for over 30 years. The Project would not divide an existing community and no new information is available that would require revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Many of the adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect have been updated since FEIR 235 was certified. However, because the Project is identified in the City of Temecula General Plan (by way of the adoption of the land use designations associated with the Specific Plan) the plans have incorporated the development into the baseline data of other planning programs, thereby minimizing the potential conflicts with adopted policies and regulations. The need for revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 is discussed below. 4-62 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Specific Plan and Certified FEIR 235 addressed the Project site as being developed with Medium Density Residential uses, which is consistent with the Project proposal. TTM 36483 does propose a minor reduction in overall number of units than what is shown in the Specific Plan. However, Specific Plans are intended to contain development standards, distribution of land uses, and infrastructure requirements for the development of a specific geographic area. Although a Specific Plan may identify target or maximum number of units allowed in a specific location, they do not provide detailed plan layouts. This lack of detail is reflected in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8 (page III-2,) when it indicates "the acreage shown for each planning area presents gross acreage, which is subject to minor fluctuations when detailed engineering and roadway alignment studies are completed." The proposed reduction of 20 units compared to the target density identified in the Specific Plan represents a slightly less than 11 percent density reduction of allocation for PA-4 and a 0.4 percent density reduction for the overall Specific Plan. There is nothing associated with this incremental decrease in the number of units that would require substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235. This is consistent with past actions by the City of Temecula in reducing the overall number of units in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. For example, Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 made minor changes to residential dwelling unit and acreage for PAs-3, -4, -9, -13, -14, and -26 to reflect the development plans that had already been approved and constructed within the Specific Plan where the number of units was not reflective of the target units. Through the Specific Plan Amendment process the City of Temecula has reduced the overall density of the Paloma Specific Plan from 5,611 units originally approved by the County of Riverside to 5,072 units, a reduction of slightly more than 10 percent.; and has not deemed these changes to be substantial changes to the Project. In none of these instances were any issues associated with the reduction in the number of units identified as requiring major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and associated amendments were approved, much of the area surrounding the Project site has developed and various planning documents have been updated. However, as discussed below, none of the changes constitutes a substantial change that would require major revisions to the Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda because they would not result in a new or more severe environmental impacts. Two planning programs with policies or regulations designed to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect have been adopted since the original FEIR 235 was certified. These are the City of Temecula General Plan and the Western Riverside MSHCP. This would constitute a changed circumstance; however, as discussed below, there would be no significant new impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would require major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. The City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan in 1993. As noted above, much of the data pertaining to physical constraints, such as floodplains, drainage and liquefaction, were addressed in the Certified FEIR 235 because these issues were addressed by the Riverside County General Plan. Additionally, these topics are also addressed in other sections of the EIR, such as Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality (see Sections 4.7 and 4.10, respectively).There are other regulatory programs that address these issues (building codes, grading codes), which the Project would be required to comply with that would reduce potential environmental impacts. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-63 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 As noted in Section 1.2.2, Amendment No. 6 made revisions to the Specific Plan to reflect design standards outlined in General Plan, such as updating roadway cross -sections and standards to conform to the City's General Plan. The planned land use for the site has been included in the initial baseline of the General Plan because the City of Temecula recognized the County land use designation given to the site. Consistency with key elements of the General Plan, such as public safety provisions (e.g., police and safety personal ratios), were addressed in Addendum No. 4. The City, in taking action on previous amendments and project reviews, has found the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan to be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would not conflict with policies and regulations designed for protection of the environment. Therefore, although the adoption of the General Plan represents a change in circumstance since the certification of FEIR 235, the modifications made through the various amendments to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan eliminate any conflicts. No major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. The Western Riverside MSHCP was developed to provide long-term, large-scale protection of natural vegetation communities and wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land uses and appropriate development and growth. The plan, adopted in 2003 and approved by the federal government a year later, aims to conserve nearly 240 square miles of land and includes other measures to protect biological diversity. Although approved after the FEIR 235 was certified, the Project is required to comply with the provisions of the plan. As noted in Section 1.2.4, Regulatory Permits and Approvals, the Project has had a consistency evaluation by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and a Joint Project Review (JPR) was issued for the Project on April 25, 2016 and updated on April 6, 2018. The Project will be required to incorporate the applicable MSHCP provisions from the MSCHP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP). The JPR determined consistency of the Project with the MSHCP. Based on the finding of consistency by the agency with jurisdiction over these resources, the Project would not result in new or substantially more impacts that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Also related to biological resources, regulations have been updated for other programs that provide protection of natural resources, such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Consistency with these programs is addressed through an extensive permitting process. As noted in Section 1.2.4, Regulatory Permits and Approvals, regulatory permits have been issued for the Project, which demonstrates compliance with the regulations. The AQMP and RTP/SCS, which provide a regional blueprint for development, are updated every four years. As noted above, at the time the EIR was prepared, SCAG projected high levels of growth for the region. The regional planning documents reflect the growth assumption in the local General Plans; therefore, the Project's growth assumptions have been incorporated into the applicable planning programs, and no conflict would result that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235. Based on the review of applicable documents, the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts due to a conflict with any policies and regulations that serve to reduce environmental impacts. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As discussed above, new programs have been adopted and other planning programs updated since the FEIR 235 was certified; however, the Project would be required to comply with the programs. None of these updates provide new information relevant to potential impacts or mitigation measures that were not known at the time FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda were certified. 4-64 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Constraints associated with the site identified by the City of Temecula General Plan (such as liquefaction and dam inundation), were also identified in the County of Riverside General Plan and evaluated in the FEIR 235. Therefore, this does not represent new information. The Certified FEIR 235 identified compliance with applicable flood control design requirements and payment of drainage improvement fees as appropriate mitigation for the Project. 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The State Division of Mines and Geology has classified areas into Mineral Resources Zones (MRZ) and Scientific Resource Zones (SZ). The zones in this classification identify the statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of the deposits and accessibility. As identified in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, the State has applied a zoning classification of MRZ-3 to the City and its Sphere of Influence. "The MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate; however, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significance economic value based on the available data". Therefore, the project's potential impacts to mineral resources would be less than significance, and no mitigation is required. Consistencv Evaluation a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Based on the City's Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan, the zoning classification of MRZ-3a applies within the Temecula Planning Area. This zoning classification consists of sedimentary deposits with potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, MRZ-3a areas do not contain deposits of significant economic value. No other mineral resources zoning classifications have been identified. Additionally, the site has been graded and is currently undeveloped, and there are no mineral extraction activities or oil and gas extraction wells within the site. Implementation of the Project would not result in a new impact, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project is substantially the same as was previously proposed, except for reduction in residential units. Based on the discussion above, the Project does not propose changes thatwould result in a new or more severe impacts related to loss of known or locally -important mineral resources that was not anticipated before. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda, and no mitigation would be required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-65 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed since it was analyzed in the previous environmental documents, and it was determined that less than significant impacts would result with project implementation. In light of the discussion above, the Project would not result in potential impacts pertaining to mineral resources that would require mitigation. As such no substantial changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not previously known related to mineral resources that would result in a significant impact, not previously anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not require mitigation or major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.13 NOISE Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda As disclosed within Certified FEIR 235, noise -related impacts would be generated from both short- term and long-term sources. The short-term noise sources are from construction -related activities during the development of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The long-term sources of noise are from vehicular traffic produced by the project. Vibration impacts would also occur during the construction phase of the project. Addendum No. 4 cited minor existing noise associated with traffic on Highway 79, which is mitigated by expanded setbacks that reduce traffic noise levels to below a level of significance. The overall reduction in residential units and commercial acreage identified in Amendment No. 8 (Addendum No. 4) helped reduce the noise impacts, so no additional or revised mitigation measures were considered necessary. Consistency Evaluation a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The proposed Project (TTM 36483) would result in a slight reduction (20 units) in the number of units within PA-4 compared to what was identified in Addendum No. 4. The reduction in dwelling units would potentially result in an incremental decrease in construction duration. However, the reduction in units is relatively minor because the development footprint would remain the same. The Project would consequently result in the same or slightly less construction noise. Therefore, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts for noise generated during the construction phase of the Project. The long-term operational noise levels associated with the Project would also be comparable or less than what was previously evaluated. As stated in Certified FEIR 235, the primary source of long-term impacts to ambient noise levels would be from vehicle noise along local roadways from full buildout of the Specific Plan. As discussed in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, PA-4 Site Traffic Evaluation, the 4-66 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 reduction in residential units would result in a 16 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips (Psomas 2020). The reduction in trips would also result in a reduction of traffic noise associated with the Project. Consequently, a 16 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips would ultimately reduce the primary source of long-term impacts and would therefore not cause new or more severe operational noise impacts than was previously analyzed. Consequently, the Project would result in less traffic noise than was previously disclosed in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. As such, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts pertaining to temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of City or other agency standards, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not substantially changed. The Project reduces the number of residential units from 188 to 168, which would reduce the density and intensity throughout the site; this would also minimally reduce the noise levels for construction and operation of the Project. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts pertaining to temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project. Thus, major revisions of the Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed reduction in dwelling units as part of the Project would not substantially affect the noise levels generated by the Project since this would likely not affect the number of construction equipment required for the proposed activities, which is the primary source of noise. The small reduction in the development of residential units may result in a minor reduction in overall noise intensity and would not exceed what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235. Because there would not be an increase in construction activities, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts for construction noise. The long-term operational noise levels associated with the Project would also be less than what was previously evaluated in Certified FEIR 235. As discussed previously, the reduction in the proposed residential units would result in a 16 percent reduction in traffic volumes generated by the Project. This would result in a slight reduction of traffic noise levels attributable to the Project. There are no changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was previously anticipated and analyzed that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR 235 was certified. The Project would not cause new or more severe impacts pertaining to temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the Noise Element of the General Plan, or the City's noise ordinances. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. The Draft IS/MND concluded noise impacts were unchanged from Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 and no additional mitigation measures are required (page 73). However, the Draft IS/MND PALOMA DEL SOL 4-67 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 identified a mitigation measure (NOI-1) that requires construction of sound walls in accordance with the recommendations of the updated 2016 letter report to the 2015 Acoustical Assessment. The identification of the mitigation measure in the Draft IS/MND is not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor does it constitute new information. This measure is an update of Condition of Approval 15 placed on Planning Application No. 01-0117 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, which requires compliance with the applicable acoustical study as updated by subsequent reports to ensure ambient interior noise levels are reduced to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels to 65 Ldn. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? As previously noted, the proposed Project would result in a slight reduction (20 units) in the overall number of units in PA-4 compared to what was identified in the current Specific Plan. The reduction in dwelling units would not substantially change the vibration levels generated by the Project since this would likely not affect the number of construction equipment, which are the primary sources of vibration. Because there would not be a substantive change in construction activities related to vibration, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts for construction vibration. Project -related activities during the operations phase would not generate appreciable levels of vibration. The operations phase of the Project would involve the use of light duty automobiles with air -filled rubber tires that do not impart perceptible levels of vibration. As such, the Project would not cause new or more severe impacts related to vibration during the operations phase of the Project. Consequently, neither the construction nor the operations phase of the Project would result in significant impacts, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not substantially changed from what was evaluated in Addendum No 4, with the exception of a reduction in residential units from 188 to 168. The Project would result in comparable or less vibration from construction compared to what was previously analyzed. There would be no new areas of grading proposed as part of the Project that would bring vibration generating construction activities closer offsite uses. As stated above, construction and operations phase vibration would be the same or less than what was disclosed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. The Project would result in less residential unit compared to what was analyzed in Addendum No. 4. This would result in the same or less Project -related noise and vibration levels than was previously disclosed in those documents. There are no other changes in circumstances that substantively affect noise and vibration levels attributable to the Project. As such, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions of Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4-68 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR 235 was certified, that would change the findings of impact for the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe as it relates to Project noise or vibration levels. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda and no new mitigation are required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The nearest airstrip (French Valley) is located approximately 6.0 miles north of the Project site. The Project site is also not located within the French Valley airport influence area or the influence area of any other airport or air strip. As such, the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than was disclosed in Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. No impacts would result, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As discussed above, the proposed Project has not significantly changed relative to aircraft noise exposure. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts on people residing or working in the Project area requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As discussed above, the proposed Project has not significantly changed relative to relative aircraft noise exposure. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to Project site noise exposure from aircraft. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR 235 was certified, that would change the findings of impact for the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to Project site noise exposure from aircraft that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-69 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda As discussed in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Certified FEIR 235 identified the expected population growth and associated housing associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan in the context of the SCAG regional growth forecasts (i.e., SCAG '82 Modified Forecasts). Additionally, Certified FEIR 235, indicated that SCAG planning personnel anticipated that forecast figures for total population, housing, and employment in the Riverside County Southwest Territory may be significantly higher than previously considered. Consistency Evaluation a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The City of Temecula General Plan reflects the development of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan; therefore, at a local level the increased population associated with the development of 168 additional homes is planned growth. Additionally, this growth is also reflected in the regional growth projections and associated regional planning documents because the SCAG projections utilize the anticipated growth depicted in local General Plans. Therefore, this growth would not constitute unplanned growth. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? There have been no substantial changes to the Project that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and approved Addendum No. 4. The Project would not contribute to unplanned growth in the City of Temecula because the development of the site with medium density residential is assumed in the local and regional growth baseline. Based on the population generation factor of 3.184 per household provided in the General Plan, at build -out the Project would increase the population of Temecula by approximately 535 people. The U.S. Census estimates that the City population in 2018 is 114, 742 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The population projections used in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS projects the population of Temecula to be 137,400 by 2040 (SCAG 2020). Therefore, the Project would contribute approximately 2.36 percent of the planned population growth for the City of Temecula between 2018 and 2040. The Project would reduce the overall density in PA-4 by 20 units compared to the target density identified in the current Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. This is a reduction of approximately 64 people or 0.28 percent of the planned growth by 2040. This reduction would not be a substantial reduction in the context of the City of Temecula and Riverside County to result in unplanned growth in the region. To provide context, using the SCAG data the reduction of 20 units is an estimated 0.30 percent of the projected increase in the number of housing units in the City between 2020 and 2040. It represents approximately 0.008 percent of the projected increase in the number of housing units in the County of Riverside between 2020 and 2040. The Project would not result in a new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major modifications to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4-70 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As previously discussed, the growth projections for the region have been updated as part of the SCAG update cycles for the RTP. This process allows the long-range planning process to accurately reflect approved development and local planning. However, this does not constitute new information as it pertains to the Project because the update cycles have reflected the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan as an approved project and therefore, planned growth. As a result, the Project would not result in a new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major modifications to the Certified FEIR 235 or and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Although the current projected population numbers may not have been known, based on communication with SCAG staff cited in the Certified FEIR 235, the rapid growth of the southwestern portion of Riverside County was known at the time Certified FEIR 235 was prepared. As previously stated, the Project does not constitute unplanned development. This planned development would not result in any new significant or more severe impact associated with population and housing; therefore, there are no new mitigation measures to consider and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project site is currently undeveloped and would not require the displacement of people or housing. This condition has not changed from when Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda were prepared. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? There are no substantial changes in the Project that would result in impacts on existing people or housing. The Project footprint generally remains unchanged. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impacts that would necessitate major revisions to the Certified Final EIR and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? There are no substantial changes in circumstances since FEIR 235 was certified and Addendum No. 4 was approved. The site is undeveloped and development of the Project would not result in the displacement of any people or housing. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impacts that would necessitate major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information pertaining to the displacement of people or housing since the FEIR 235 was certified and Addendum No. 4 was approved. There would be no impacts and mitigation PALOMA DEL SOL 4-71 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 measures would not be required. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would result that would necessitate major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Certified Final EIR 235 and Subseauent Addenda The County of Riverside Fire Department and Sheriff s Department provide fire and police protection services to the Paloma del Sol Project site, respectively. The County Fire Department works in cooperation and under contract to the City of Temecula. The Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda identified that the closest fire station to the site would not be adequate to serve the site, and therefore, the Specific Plan would be required to pay Development Impact Fees to offset the cost of a new fire station within a five-minute response time to the site, thereby mitigating fire related impacts. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan is within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for grades K-12. Elementary schools, including Abby Reinke Elementary School (K-5) at 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive (PA-11 of Paloma del Sol); Paloma Elementary School (K-5) at 42940 Via Rami (off - site); and Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School (K-5) at 32225 Pio Pico Road (PA-7 of Paloma del Sol) provide service to the Project. However, it should be noted that the Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School closed in 2010. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposed for an additional elementary school within the Specific Plan area; however, the TVUSD determined that given that majority of the Specific Plan was built, and that student generation was not at the level originally anticipated, an additional school (junior high school in PA-30) was no longer necessary. As indicated in the Addendum No. 4, the middle school students attend the Temecula Middle School (6-8) at 42075 Meadows Parkway (PA-30 of Paloma del Sol), and the high school students attend the Temecula Valley High School (9-12), located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road (off -site). The Certified FEIR 235 anticipated that at build -out, the Specific Plan would result in a total of 3,086 K-8 students and 1,178 high school students. As Addendum No. 4 reduced residential units by 539 units, the associated student generation also dropped by 296 K-8 students and 113 high school students, compared to what was anticipated in the Certified FEIR 235. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposed a number of recreation facilities to meet the community demand for parks and recreation. The open space and recreation program in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan includes a total of 242.3 acres designated for recreation open space, parkway and paseo uses (16.6 acres per 1,000 residents). Although the subsequent addenda decreased the amount of open space and recreation to 142.5 acres (9.53 acres per 1,000 residents), the reduced acreage would still adequately mitigate the demand for recreation generated by the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The previous analysis identified the library located near the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road in Rancho California as the library facility that served the development. The increase in population of Paloma del Sol Specific Plan required payment of mitigation fees to enlarge the facility size and increase book collection and staff. However, subsequent reduction in units and associated population would result in reduced demand for library facilities and books, reducing impacts. No further mitigation was required. 4-72 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Consistencv Evaluation a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The County of Riverside Fire Department works in cooperation and under contract to the City of Temecula and would provide fire protection services to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Fire Station 84, at 30650 Pauba Road is the closest fire stations to the site and would provide fire protection services to the Project site. This station is located sufficiently close to the site to meet adequate response times. The Project will be subject to participation in the fire protection impact mitigation program as approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors. This program includes a fee of $400 per single family residential dwelling unit. The fees cover the cost of acquisition of land, buildings, furnishings and apparatus necessary to mitigate fire risks. The Project in PA-4, proposes a reduction in land use density to 4.08 du/ac resulting in a total of 168 residential units. This modification would not substantially change the response time from the fire station to the Project site, therefore, there would be no need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the physical impacts associated with providing fire services would remain unchanged and no new mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project would not result in a substantial change from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, with the exception of reduction in number of units. The reduction in units and associated population may result in reduced demand for fire services; however, it would not change the response time. Therefore, no new changes are proposed by the Project that would result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously addressed. Major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? No changes have occurred in the context or circumstances to the Project that would result in new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was analyzed for fire protection services in the Certified FEIR 235 or Addendum No. 4. Therefore, in light of no changes to the circumstances, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? No new information has become available that was not previously known related to fire protection services that would result in a new or more severe impacts not previously anticipated. Therefore, no major changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-73 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 ii) Police protection? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Certified FEIR 235 proposed a total of 5,611 dwelling units, which would generate an approximate population of 17,865 persons, based on a population generation factor of 3.184 persons per residential unit per the City of Temecula General Plan (the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 used a population generation factor of 2.85). Addendum No. 4 resulted in a reduction of 474 dwelling and associated population (i.e.,16,356 residents). Assuming the Sheriff Department's current ratio of one deputy per 1,000 persons, the Specific Plan would need a total of 16.4 deputies. Using this service formula, the Project would require 0.535 deputy to meet the desired service ratio. The previous analysis required coordination with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department to ensure that adequate protection facilities and personnel would be available. Safety measures would be incorporated in the design of the Project's circulation components (for pedestrians, vehicles, and police), street lighting, residential door and window visibility from street and buildings, and fencing. Based on Riverside County Sheriffs Department website (http://www.riversidesheriff.org /stations/southwest.asp), the City of Temecula as a contract City is served by the Southwest Sheriff's Station, located at 30755-A Auld Road, Murrieta. The patrol units are dispersed throughout the region to facilitate timely response to emergency calls. As part of the long-range planning for the area, the County Sheriff s Department has considered the build -out of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area. Applying the generation factor in Addendum No. 4, the proposed Project in PA-4 would need 0.535 deputy in light of a residential population of 535. Therefore, the current facilities would be sufficient to accommodate the personnel required to service the Project site. There would be no need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the physical impacts associated with providing police services would remain unchanged and no new mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project would not result in a substantial change from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, with the exception of reduction in number of units. The reduction in units and associated population would result in reduced demand for sheriffs deputies comparted to what was analyzed in the previous environmental documents. There would be no new facilities required to provide the necessary services. Therefore, the impacts pertaining to police protection services associated with implementing the Project would not result in a new impact or more severe impact than what was previously addressed. Major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? At the time the previous analyses were prepared for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the Lake Elsinore Sheriffs station was identified as the facility providing police protection services to the site. Since certification of previous documents, as discussed above, police protection services have moved to the Southwest Sheriffs Station. However, the services out of the current location would still meet the demand and response times of the proposed Project. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. 4-74 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? In light of reduction in units and associated population, the demand for Sheriff's deputies is also slightly reduced. The existing Sheriff's Department facilities are able to accommodate this planned population growth. No new information that was not previously known is available that would result in a new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation and major changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. iii) Schools? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As was discussed in the previous environmental documents, the Project site will be served by Abby Reinke Elementary School (K-5) at 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive (PA-11 of Paloma del Sol); Paloma Elementary School (K-5) at 42940 Via Rami (off -site); Temecula Middle School (6-8) at 42075 Meadows Parkway (PA-30 of Paloma del Sol); and Temecula Valley High School (9-12) at 31555 Rancho Vista Road (off -site). The Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School (K-5) closed in 2010. The Project proposes a total of 168 residential units at a land use density of 4.08 du/ac, which is a reduction from Addendum No. 4 with 188 units at land use density of 4.4 du/ac. It should be noted that the TVUSD currently uses different student generation factors than were used in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No.4, which are identified below in Table 2. Based on information from the TVUSD, as of February 2020 the schools have enough capacity to serve the future students of the proposed Project. Therefore, in light of further reduction in student generation, the Project's potential impacts to schools would be reduced, and no mitigation is required. TABLE 2 STUDENT GENERATION Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 K-8 9-12 1988 Student Generation Factor' 0.55 0.12 Certified FEIR 235 (1988) 3,086 1,178 Addendum No. 3 (2002) 2,790 1,065 Proposed Project (TTM 36483) K-5 6-8 9-12 2019 Student Generation Factor 0.409 0.204 0.231 PA-4 (2020) 69 34 39 The Certified FEIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda included K-8 and 9-12 grade ranges only Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District, Fall2019 Projections Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project would not result in a substantial change from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4, with the exception of reduction in number of units, which would further reduce the demand for schools. Therefore, the impacts pertaining to schools associated with implementing the Project would not result in a new impact or more severe impact than what was previously addressed. Major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-75 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since preparation of the Addendum No. 4 (2002), one elementary school that previously served the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan development, closed in 2010. However, the closure of the school would not affect ability to meet the Project's demand for schools, as there is enough capacity within the existing elementary schools to serve future students of the proposed Project. The generation factors previously used in calculating K-8 and high school students have subsequently been updated by the TVUSD (identifying three generation factors for K-5, 6-8, and 9-12), as identified in the above discussion. Therefore, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As identified in the discussion and the response above, the Project has not substantially changed, with the exception of a reduction in residential units and association population, that would create a new or more severe impact. No new information that was not previously known is available that would result in a new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation and major changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. i) Parks? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The proposed Project in PA-4 includes a total of 168 residential units, approximately 5.7 acres of open space/trails, and approximately 2.1 acres of park and recreation, and drainage improvements. With the reduction in residential units by 20 units and associated population under the proposed Project, the demand for parks and recreation uses would be reduced, and the parkland dedication as proposed would meet and exceed the requirement. Based on City's Municipal Code (Title 16 Subdivisions, 16.33 Park Requirements), the parkland dedication requirement is 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population, which would result in a total requirement of 2.7 acres. In light of the proposed park and recreation program, the Project would generate parks and recreation in excess of the requirement for provision of parkland. This is within the Open Space and Recreation Program, and no change in the level of impacts pertaining to parks and recreation would occur, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project proposes residential development, a community park, open space/trails, and drainage and water quality improvements, consistent with the Specific Plan. With the exception of reduction in number of units, which would reduce the demand for parks and recreation, there is not a substantial change in the Project from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Therefore, the impacts pertaining to park and recreation associated with implementing the Project would not result in a new impact or more severe impact than what was previously addressed. Revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. 4-76 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? No changes have occurred in the context or circumstances to the Project that would result in new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 or Addendum No. 4. Per the City's Municipal Code (Title 16 Subdivisions, 16.33 Park Requirements), the parkland dedication requirement is still 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. As discussed above, the park and recreation facilities proposed are within the Open Space and Recreation Program of the Specific Plan. Therefore, in light of no changes to the circumstances, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As identified in the discussion and the response above, the Project proposes a 2.1 acre community park and 5.7 acres of open space, which is within the Open Space and Recreation Program of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Additionally, the parkland dedication requirement remains the same. No new information that was not previously analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 is available that would result in a new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation and major changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. vi) Other public facilities? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The closest library to the Project site is the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library at 30600 Pauba Road, which is 2.35 miles to the northwest of the site. The Project, as proposed, reduces the residential units by 20 units from 188 to 168. Given the populations generation factor of 3.184 persons per dwelling unit, the Project would generate a total population of approximately 535 residents, which is less than what was analyzed in the previous analyses. It should be noted that while the Certified FEIR 235 indicated that in light of the population increase of Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the Project was required to pay impact fees to enlarge the library facilities, due to a substantial reduction in population in subsequent phases, Addendum No. 4 concluded that demand for library facilities and associated impacts would be reduced and no further mitigation was required. In light of further reduction in units and associated population under the proposed Project, less demand for books, library space, and library facilities would result. Therefore, potential impacts to library services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project has not significantly changed since analysis in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. The Project reduces the number of residential units from 188 to 168, which would further reduce demand for library facilities and services compared to the previous analyses. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 are proposed that would result in significant new or more severe impacts on library facilities and services requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-77 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The proposed Project in PA-4 is the development of the last undeveloped planning area within Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Development of Paloma del Sol has occurred and progressed in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to library facilities and services. Thus, no major revisions of the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project results in a reduction of 20 residential units, which is a change from the total units of 188 in Addendum No. 4. This change and resultant reduction in population has the potential to further reduce impacts pertaining to library facilities and services and would not create new impacts beyond what was previously analyzed. No new information that was not known before is available that would change the findings of the previous analyses or render the significant impacts more severe. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda or new mitigation are required. 4.16 RECREATION Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda indicated that the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. To meet the anticipated demand the project planned for a system of open space and recreation program. Addendum No. 4 identified an overall reduction in number of residential units and associated population but a slight increase in parks and recreation acreage. The discussion also indicated that based on the approved Development Agreement, greenbelts and roadways paseos would also count towards park credit. In light of reduction in residential units and increase in total park and open space acreage, no impacts were identified. Consistency Evaluation a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project proposes a reduction of 20 residential units from 188 to 168 units. Based on the City of Temecula parkland requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents (Municipal Code, Title 16 Subdivisions, 16.33 Park Requirements) and considering the residential population of 535 , the Project is required to provide a total of 2.75 acres of parkland or pay an in -lieu fee. The proposed 4-78 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Project includes approximately 2.1 acres of park and recreation and 5.7 acres of open space. As indicated above, based on the Development Agreement, greenbelts and roadway paseos count towards park credit, and therefore, the Project as proposed would meet and exceed the parkland requirements. Thus, the future residents' demand for such facilities would be met onsite, and no increased use of existing parks or other recreational facilities would occur resulting in physical deterioration of those facilities. No impacts would result, and no mitigation is required. Additionally, it should be noted that as indicated above, the Project proposes more than the required demand for parkland and recreation facilities such that construction of new or expansion of existing facilities would not be required. Further, the proposed park, recreation uses, and open space are consistent with the uses in the Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. Therefore, no impacts would result, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project proposes residential development, a community park, open space/trails, and drainage and water quality improvements, consistent with the Specific Plan. With the exception of reduction in number of units, which would reduce the demand for parks and recreation, there is not a substantial change in the Project from what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235. Therefore, the impacts pertaining to park and recreation associated with implementing the Project would not result in a new impact or more severe impact than what was previously addressed. Revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? No changes have occurred in the context or circumstances to the Project that would result in new or more severe significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 or Addendum No. 4. Per the City's Municipal Code (Title 16 Subdivisions, 16.33 Park Requirements), the parkland dedication requirement is still 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The park and recreation facilities proposed are within the Open Space and Recreation Program of the Specific Plan. Therefore, in light of no changes to the circumstances, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As identified in the discussion and the response above, the Project proposes a 2.1 acre community park and 5.7 acres of open space, which is within the Open Space and Recreation Program of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Additionally, the parkland dedication requirement remains the same. No new information that was not previously analyzed in the Certified FEIR 235 is available that would result in a new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation and major changes to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.17 TRANSPORTATION Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda Based on the land use mix proposed in the original that the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Certified FEIR 235 identifies at build -out the Specific Plan development would generate 42,055 vehicle trips per day. Changes approved as part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 will result in a total PALOMA DEL SOL 4-79 Consistencv Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 reduction of 7,963 daily vehicle trips from the number of daily vehicle trips associated with Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235, identifies the PA-4 site was assumed to include 188 single family residential units. The traffic analysis assumed a daily trip generation rate of 10 average daily trips (ADT) for each unit in the Medium Density designation (see Table 4 in Addendum No.4). Using this traffic generation rate, the development in PA-4 would result in generation of 1,880 ADT.17 Since this is the level of development approved for the Project, this would be generally consistent with the local and regional trip assumptions. Consistency Evaluation a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR To determine if the Project would conflict with applicable policies or programs addressing the circulation network, an assessment of the Project's trip generation and capacity of the adjacent roadways was conducted. The first level of review was to determine if there have been substantial changes to the number of trips compared to what is currently approved by the City of Temecula. The trip generation rate for the proposed Project is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2018), which identifies the Medium Density Residential development as generating 9.44 trips per unit. This is expected to result in 1,586 ADT generated by the Project (i.e.,168 times 9.44) compared to the 1,880 daily trips assumed in the analysis conducted for Addendum No. 4. Therefore, the Project would generate approximately 16 percent fewer trips than was assumed in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Amendment No. 8) and Addendum No. 4 to Certified FEIR 235. This reduction would be in addition to the reduction of 7,963 daily trips associated with the changes to land uses that were realized with Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan. The next step in the traffic analysis was to understand if and how the roadway network conditions in the area around the Project may have changed since the approval of Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Addendum No. 4. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan has taken longer to build out than originally proposed, so other developments in the area may have generated more traffic and may have created additional stress on the network (i.e., contributed to cumulative background traffic volumes). Table 3 shows the estimated capacity for the major roadways surrounding the Project as well as the daily traffic volumes on those roadways for 2017, 2018, and 2019, available from the City's website (https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/209/Traffic-Count-Summary- PDF?bidId=). 17 Wilbur Smith Associates prepared the initial traffic analysis for the Paloma del Sol project in November 1987. An update was done in September 1999, Wilbur Smith Associates focused on Planning Areas l(a) and l(b), which border the north side of Highway 79 South. Wilbur Smith Associates prepared a partial traffic update in February 2 00 1, which evaluated the traffic generation impacts associated with the land use changes proposed in Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. 4-80 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 TABLE 3 MAJOR ROADWAY CAPACITY, VOLUME, AND GROWTH Approx. Capacity 2017-2019 Road Limits (veh/day) 2017 2018 2019 Growth Butterfield Temecula Pkwy to 34,000 20,090 19,820 19,400 -3% Stage Road De Portola Rd De Portola Meadows Pkwy to 34,000 6,030 5,840 5,810 -4% Road Butterfield Stage Rd Temecula Meadows Pkwy to 57,000 31,720 32,030 31,200 -2% Pkwy Butterfield Stage Rd As seen in the table, volumes on the major roadways in the project area have decreased in recent years. In addition, each of the roadways has a substantial amount of available capacity, including more than enough to serve the proposed Project efficiently. Based on the reduction in the number of trips and the current capacity available on the adjacent roadways, no further traffic analysis was deemed to be necessary. As previously noted, as part of Amendment No. 6 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the roadway cross -sections and standards were updated to conform to the City's General Plan. There are no elements of the Project that have been found to conflict with the City's program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, there have not been substantial changes to the Project. There has been an incremental reduction in the number of units and the build -out is later than what was originally anticipated, but based on the evaluation provided above, the Project would result in approximately 16 percent fewer trips than what was assumed by the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Additionally, the roadway network has sufficient capacity to serve the demand generated by the Project. Therefore, there would not be any new or substantially more severe impacts, and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Although the build -out year is later than what was previously evaluated, this change has not resulted in any new or substantially more severe impacts necessitating major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? As noted above, the newest ITE Trip Generation Manual shows a slight reduction in the trip generation rate for Medium Density Residential compared to what was previously used for the analysis of the Specific Plan. However, this, combined with the minor reduction in the number of units proposed, would result in an estimated 16 percent reduction in the total number of trips generated by the Project. Therefore, there would not be any new or substantially more severe impacts, and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-81 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) pertains to using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the appropriate metric for assessing transportation impacts. Incorporation of VMT as the metric for analyzing transportation impacts is mandated by Senate Bill (SB) 743.18 The intent of SB 743 is to have "more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." The bill states, when implemented, "traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" within CEQA transportation analysis. SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers (i.e., delay and congestion), to measuring the impact of driving. Agencies have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled. The City Council approved the CEQA VMT Analysis Guidelines (VMT Guidelines) at their May 26, 2020 meeting. The VMT Guidelines includes a screening criteria for when a VMT analysis is required. Land use projects that meets at least one of the seven screening criteria are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact due to project characteristics and/or location; therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The proposed Project meets Criteria 3, Projects Located in a VMT Efficient Area, as shown on the map in Appendix B (VMT Screening Maps) of the VMT Guidelines. A VMT efficient area is any area with an average VMT per service population 15 percent below the baseline average for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) region. The guidance states, "Land use projects may qualify for the use of VMT efficient area screening if the project can be reasonably expected to generate VMT per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the VMT efficient area. Projects located within a VMT efficient area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary." Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? There have not been substantial changes to the Project that would result in new or substantially more severe transportation impacts than what was analyzed in FEIR 235 and the Addenda. There have not been substantial changes to the Project that would result in new or substantially more severe transportation impacts than what was analyzed in FEIR 235 and the Addenda. In 1988, the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, comprising approximately 1,352 acres, was approved. It permitted up to 5,612 residential units of varying densities and 323 acres of non-residential uses. Certified FEIR 235 evaluated the potential traffic impacts of the original plan. In 2002, Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 proposed modifications that reduced the total number of residential units to 5,137 and the non- residential acreage. The site of the Project (PA-4) represented approximately 43 acres of the entire Specific Plan area and only 188 (all single-family residential) of the Specific Plan's 5,137 residential units. Specific Plan Amendment No, 8 was evaluated by Addendum No. 4 to Certified FEIR 235. Today, as the final tract of the Specific Plan to be developed, the only change to Specific Plan Amendment No 8 proposed by the Project, which could impact traffic is a reduction from 188 to 168 in the number of single-family homes to be built on the Project site. That will decrease, rather than increase, the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project. As noted earlier, effective July 1, 2020, CEQA's methodology for evaluating traffic impacts has shifted from an LOS analysis to a VMT analysis. While this does not constitute a change in the Project, it 18 Vehicle miles traveled refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. 4-82 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 should be noted that, while neither Certified FEIR 235 nor the Addendum No. 4 evaluated traffic impacts using VMT methodology, the air quality analysis in FEIR 235 did calculate the VMT associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (see page 328). That analysis provides, for information purposes here, insight into the VMT generated by the Project. The Certified FEIR 235 analysis identified 47,600 daily trips for the entire original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area and calculated a VMT factor of 11.6 miles per trip. This produced a projected VMT of approximately 553,000 for the full Specific Plan development. As a result of Amendments 1 through 8 to the Specific Plan, the estimated daily trips have been reduced to approximately 34,100 daily trips.19 As noted above, the number of units proposed by the Project is 20 (or 10.75 percent) fewer than permitted by the Specific Plan and evaluated most recently by Addendum No. 4. This reduces the number of trips and, therefore, the VMT for PA-4 by approximately 10.75 percent from that evaluated by Addendum No. 4 to Certified FEIR 235. While this VMT information is provided for information purposes, it is most important to note that, under the City's recently adopted procedures to implement SB 743's VMT requirements, the proposed Project is identified as being within a VMT Efficiency Area having an average VMT per service population 15% below the baseline average for the WRCOG region. For that reason, under the City's adopted regulations, the proposed project is presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT. Therefore, not only are there no changes to the project which would increase VMT, the Project's VMT impacts are presumed to be less than significant. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? There have not been substantial changes in circumstances since the approval of the current Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The City of Temecula is suburban in nature. There have been no changes, such as the rerouting or deletion of a high quality transit corridor that would change the traffic impact analysis. The overall number of trips, and consequently the VMT, associated with the Project would be less than what was previously evaluated in Certified FEIR 235; therefore, impacts associated with the Project would be less than what was previously addressed, and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Although the passage of SB 743 was not known at the time FEIR 235 was certified and the Addenda approved, the level of traffic and estimated VMT generated by the Project was known and the circulation network has been sized accordingly. Therefore, the trips and VMT associated with the Project would not be new information. The Project would reduce the number of trips and associated VMT compared to the existing Specific Plan density, which has approved 20 additional units (188 units compared to the proposed 168 units). Additionally, the analysis conducted by the City of Temecula in developing their VMT Analysis Guidelines, which also utilized analysis done by the WRCOG, the Project site is in a VMT Efficiency Area. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? 19 Addendum No. 4 identifies Amendment 8 would reduce the total number of trips by 7,963 daily trips compared to the 42,055 generated by the Specific Plan, reflecting the land use changes through Amendment 7. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-83 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Project would be constructed in compliance with the most current California Building Code (CBC) and City of Temecula Design Guidelines. The Project would not incorporate any geometric design elements that would result in dangerous conditions or incompatibility with existing or proposed uses and emergency access would meet the City's design requirements. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, there are no substantial changes to the Project. The Project would comply with all the applicable design requirements of the CBC, the City Standards, and the requirements of the Specific Plan. Therefore, it would not impede emergency access to the site or result in any roadway hazards. The Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts, and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Additional development has occurred in the vicinity of the Project since Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan and Addendum No. 4 were approved by the City; however, there have not been substantial changes in circumstances around the Project that would change the findings of the Project's design or impact on emergency access routes. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? The Project would not result in any impacts associated with hazardous design or emergency access. There is no new information that would change this finding. As discussed above, the number of trips generated by the Project would be less than previously identified and current design standards would be applicable. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda Tribal Cultural Resources was not on the CEQA Checklist questions at the time FEIR 235 was certified and Addendum No. 4 was approved. This issue was added to the checklist in September 2016 and reflects the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requiring consultation with tribal governments on projects that were initiated on or after July 1, 2015. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was approved, and FEIR 235 certified, prior to the AB 52 being effective. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, multiple cultural resources evaluations have been conducted on the site, which is highly disturbed. 4-84 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Consistency Evaluation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1 . Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As discussed above in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the results of the record searches that included the Project site indicate that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project site. The potential for tribal cultural resources to be present on the Project site is very low because of the disturbed nature of the site. Therefore, although this CEQA checklist question was not included in the previous documents, the issue is not new and was evaluated as part of the Certified FEIR 235. In addition, the City of Temecula has multiple standard conditions for archaeological and cultural resources, which allow Native American monitoring of grading activities. Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The area of disturbance from the Project would be consistent with the area evaluated for development in Certified FEIR 235. There are no changes in the Project that would involve new or more severe environmental impacts; therefore, no major revisions to Certified EIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required to address potentially new or more severe impacts that were not evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As previously noted, the Project site was disturbed when Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 were prepared. The site condition has not changed. Although AB 52 has been implemented since the FEIR 235 was certified and Addendum No. 4 was approved, the potential for new or substantially greater impacts to cultural resources, which would be inclusive of tribal cultural resources, have been identified. Therefore, there are no substantial changes that involves new or more severe environmental impacts, which would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Even with the subsequent cultural resource studies that have been conducted since the certification of FEIR 235 and the approval of Addendum No. 4, there is no known new information that indicate PALOMA DEL SOL 4-85 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 the effects on tribal cultural resources will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. There are no resources on the Project site that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources. The City of Temecula has not identified any locally significant resource on site. The Draft IS/MND identified two mitigation measures applicable to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR- 1 and TCR-2). These measures require the applicant to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (TCR-1) and protocol for the appropriate treatment of artifacts should there be any inadvertent discoveries. TCR-1 is consistent with the condition on the USACE permit for the Project. Additionally, City standard conditions PL-2 and PL-5 are routinely applied by the City of Temecula outside of the CEQA process, which require Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe and Native American grading observation, respectively. The identification of these mitigation measures in the Draft IS/MND is not in response to a new significant or substantially greater impact, nor does it constitute new information about the possible presence of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda The demand on utilities and service systems was evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and subsequent Addenda. Addendum No. 4, which evaluated the currently approved Paloma del Sol Specific Plan identified that the overall demand had been reduced due to the reduction in the amount of development proposed by the Specific Plan. Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235 estimated the demand for water resources to be 3.765 million gallons per day (mgd) based on demand factors of 600 gallons per day (gpd) per residence and 3,000 gpd per acre for commercial, which were factors used by Rancho California Water District (RCWD), the water purveyor. For the evaluation of wastewater, Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235 utilized a factor of 300 gpd per residence or exactly half of the water use factor. These values are less than what was originally proposed due to the reduction in the amount of development proposed by the Specific Plan. Addendum No. 4 found the impacts associated with utilities and service systems to be less than significant with mitigation. The amount of solid waste generated by development of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was incrementally less with Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 due to the reduced number of units proposed. The impact was found to be less than significant. Consistency Evaluation a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications 4-86 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR As an approved development that is reflected in the General Plan and adopted growth projections, the service providers' planning programs would have factored the increased demand into the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and their long-range facilities plans. Certified FEIR 235 identified that with existing and the then -planned facilities, there would be adequate capacity to meet the long-term demand and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would decrease the overall demand because there would be incrementally fewer units in PA-4 and due to updated regulations, the overall demand per unit has reduced. As noted above, Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235 used a demand factors of 600 gpd per residence. The 2015 UWMP approved by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) reports water usage for single family residential as 25,308 acre-feet per year (afy), which based on the reported population of 148,105, equals water use 166 gpd per person. Using an average of 3.25 people per residence would equate to about 539 gpd per residence. Even at the lower (actual 2015 usage) factor of 539 gpd per dwelling unit, the proposed reduction of 20 dwelling units (from 188 to 168 dwelling units) for the Project would reduce the average water demand on RCWD's system by 10,780 gpd. Therefore, no new facilities for water service other than distribution lines would be required to service the Project. Similar reduction would also be applicable for wastewater. As noted above, in the evaluation of wastewater, Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235 utilized a factor of 300 gpd per residence or exactly half of the water use factor. Fifty percent of the residential water use is a conservative representation of sewer generation as typical residential development in southern California tend to use 50 to 60 percent of their water outside the home. Compared to the actual water use calculated above of 539 gpd per dwelling unit, a demand factor of 300 gpd per dwelling unit would mean that 56 percent of the water use was indoor use and 44 percent was outdoor use. Based on the reduction in the number of units, the sewer flow from the proposed Project would be reduced by approximately 5,390 gpd.20 This would be a reduction in flow to downstream sewer lines as well as a reduction in the flow through the wastewater reclamation plant owned and operated by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), the sewer service provider for the proposed Project. Due to a reduction compared to what has been previously identified, no new facilities would be required to serve the Project. Addendum No. 4 to Certified FEIR 235 also provided an update on electric power and natural gas, which are provided by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company, respectively. The analysis identified these utilities would be able to provide services to the site and impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.6, Energy, the Title 24 regulations have gotten stricter since 2002, when the Addendum No. 4 was prepared. As a result, developments are more energy efficient and demand would be reduced compared to previous energy demand estimates. Additionally, the Project is proposing a reduction in the number of units, which would also reduce the overall demand. Impacts on telecommunications facilities are also not anticipated because the growth associated with the Project has been incorporated into the planned growth for the region and service providers have anticipated the incremental increase in development. The Project proposes the installation of storm drain improvements, consistent with the applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval. These permanent improvements will replace existing temporary drainage ditches currently on site. The area of disturbance, and therefore, the 20 This is derived by taking 50 percent of the water usage per unit times 20 (539 gpd/du x 0.50 x 20 du). PALOMA DEL SOL 4-87 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 impacts associated with the construction of the improvements, is within the PA-4 development area. No additional offsite improvements are necessary to accommodate the Project flows. Other improvements beyond the limits of the Project are anticipated in conjunction with AD 159. As previously noted, AD 159, as well as the AD 159 supplemental projects, were approved by the County of Riverside and are independent of this Project. However, as a condition of approval the Project is required to pay County drainage fees. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The only change in the Project is a slight reduction in the overall number of units. This reduction would decrease the overall demand for utility services. There would be no need for the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. As noted, the Project would provide storm drain improvements consistent with the requirement that the Project not increase flood -related hazards to adjacent or downstream properties. The improvements would provide sufficient capacity and would be consistent with the capacity requirements to function with the AD 159 improvements. There would be no changes that would result in new or more severe impacts necessitating major revisions to the Certified FEIR and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? Since the certification of the Certified FEIR 235 and approval of the Addenda, the Title 24 energy efficiency standards have become increasingly more stringent. An example the 2019 standards requires single-family homes to incorporate rooftop solar electricity generation. As a result, the demand for electricity from utility providers would be less than what was assumed in 1988 or even in 2002 when Addendum No. 4 was prepared. These more stringent requirements would reduce the likelihood of the need to construct new facilities. As a result, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? Impacts on utility systems were found to be less than significant with mitigation. There is no new information that would change this finding. As discussed above, the demand would be less than previously identified because of the reduction in the number of units and more stringent regulations. As a result, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years? No New or More Severe Impactsl No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code, Sections 10610- 10656) requires urban water suppliers to develop UWMP that assesses the reliability of its water sources over a 20-year planning horizon. In preparing their 20-year UWMPs, water suppliers must directly address the subject of future population growth. The suppliers must also identify sources of supply to meet demand during normal, dry, and multiple -dry years. The RCWD's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, which addresses these issues was adopted in June 2016. Based on the analysis 4-88 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 done for the 2015 UWMP, sufficient supplies are available to meet the 20-year planning horizon. No new or substantially more severe impacts are anticipated and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? There have not been any substantial changes to the Project that would require major modifications to the Certified FEIR 235. The Project proposes an incremental reduction in the number of units; however, this change would reduce the future demand on utilities and service systems and would not result in new or more severe impacts than were previously evaluated in Certified FEIR 235. As noted above, neither the Certified FEIR 235, Addendum No. 4, nor the 2015 UWMP have identified the development associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan resulting in an impact on meeting the long-term demand for water; therefore, a reduction in development and associated water usage would not change this conclusion. The minor change to the development level would not result in a new or more severe impact necessitating major revisions in the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? The UWMP serves as the document that would address if the water supplier would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projected demand during normal, dry and multiple years. The UWMP has been updated since FEIR 235 was certified; however, the RCWD has always been able to document sufficient water supplies to meet current and projected demand, which includes the build - out of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Therefore, there are no changes in circumstances that would result in new or more severe impacts, and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no information that indicates the Project would have a new or substantially more severe impact than what was identified in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. As previously noted, the RCWD 2015 UWMP has demonstrated there is sufficient water supplies to meet the current and projected long-term water demand. Regulations have required that more water efficient fixtures be used in the construction of residential development. Impacts to water supplies were identified as less than significant, and no new mitigation measures or evaluation of new alternatives are required. Major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are not required. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Based on the EMWD's 2015 UWMP, the district maintains four Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facilities (RWRFs). The Project flows would be treated at the Temecula Valley facility. However, EMWD has constructed inter -connections between the local collections systems serving each treatment plant to allow for operational flexibility, improved reliability, and expanded deliveries of recycled water. The four RWRFs have a combined capacity of 81,800 afy. In 2015, the total volume of wastewater collected was 48,665 of (EMWD 2016). PALOMA DEL SOL 4-89 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 EMWD maintains a 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that contains all of the water treatment and delivery, wastewater collection and treatment, and recycled water distribution system capital improvements that are needed to support the buildout of existing jurisdictional General Plans within their service area. CIP projects are financed by developer fees, grants, and municipal bonds. (EMWD 2020). The demand associated with the Project has been incorporated into the long-range facilities planning by the EMWD, which based on the volumes in the 2015 UWMP has sufficient capacity for this planned growth. As noted above under Checklist Question 4.19a, the Project would result in an incremental reduction in the amount of wastewater generated because of the reduction in the number of units. Additionally, the wastewater generation assumptions in Addendum No. 4 to Certified FEIR 235 were conservative, likely overstating the amount of wastewater generated by the Project. Based on the reduction in the number of units, the sewer flow from the proposed Project would be reduced by approximately 5,390 gpd. This would be a reduction in flow to downstream sewer lines as well as a reduction in the flow through the wastewater reclamation plant, owned and operated by EMWD. Since there would be a reduction compared to what has been previously identified, no new or more severe impacts would be anticipated. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project would result in an incremental reduction in the number of units and an associated reduction in the amount of wastewater generated by the Project. Long-range growth projections, which are used for facilities planning, have incorporated the development of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. This incremental change (i.e., a reduction of 20 units) would not substantially alter the planning parameters for the EMWD or result in new or more severe impacts than were addressed in Certified FEIR 235. Thus, no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? There have not been substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that would require major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. As discussed above, the majority of the development associated with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan has been constructed and other development in the region has occurred. However, this has been planned growth, and EMWD incorporated the increased demand into their long-range facilities planning. Independent of this Project, facilities have been constructed to accommodate the long-range demand. Therefore, there are no changes in circumstances that would result in new or more severe impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity. No major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information associated with wastewater treatment capacity that would necessitate major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Although the generation factors used in Certified FEIR 235 were conservative, the existing facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Additionally, there would be an incremental decrease in the anticipated flows because the Project would reduce the number of units constructed. No major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. 4-90 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Certified FEIR 235 identified the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan development would generate approximately 57.5 tons of waste a day assuming that 7.9 pounds of waste is generated per person per day. Although this additional amount of solid waste was identified as incrementally shortening the life span of the El Sobrante Landfill, the impact was found to be less than significant because the County had approved a major multi -year expansion that has extended the life expectancy of the landfill to 2051 (CalRecycle 2018). Addendum No. 4 also identified that Assembly Bill (AB) 939, known as California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required cities and counties in the State of California to divert 50 percent of its waste stream from landfills by 2000. AB 341, approved in 2011, updates the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 by increasing the policy goal of the State to require that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. Other updated regulations include Senate Bill (SB) 1383 and AB 1826, both approved in 2016 regarding the reduction of organic materials that are disposed of in landfills. Riverside County estimates that the average person throws out about 5.3 pounds of trash per day. This amount is less than the 7.9 pounds per person per day used in the previous analysis. Additionally, the Project would result in an incremental decrease in the amount of solid waste generated than what was previously evaluated because there would be fewer units. Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 identified the impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant. There are no changes that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts necessitating major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The reduction of 20 units would result in less trash being generated from what was previously evaluated. Using the updated, County of Riverside trash generation factor per resident and the City of Temecula number of residents per unit, the Project would generate approximately 62 tons less trash per year.21 This would decrease the potential impacts on landfills. The waste disposal service (currently CR&R) would be required to abide by the applicable waste reduction and recycling programs required under existing regulations (i.e., AB 939, AB 341, SB 1383, and AB 1826). There are no elements of the Project that would conflict with the existing solid waste regulations or exceed the existing infrastructure capacity. The reduction of 20 units would not be a substantial change in the Project. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts that would require major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, new regulations have been adopted since FEIR 235 was certified and Addendum No. 4 was approved. However, these regulations have strengthened the requirements associated 21 Using the generation factors in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4 (7.9 pounds per day per person and 2.85 residents per unit), the Project would result in an annual reduction of approximately 82 tons. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-91 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 with diversion of materials from landfills. These requirements are implemented by the waste disposal service, which for the City of Temecula is CR&R. CR&R has implemented a number of measures to ensure these provisions are implemented. These include recycling, composting, and the construction of an Anaerobic Digester facility that uses organic waste materials collected from their residential and commercial/business customers to produce Renewable Natural Gas (CR&R 2020). None of these changes would result in new or more severe impacts than what was identified in Certified FEIR 235 and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda would be required. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? There is no new information where the Project would have a significant effect not evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235. As identified above, the new regulations would reduce the potential impacts on solid waste infrastructure. The solid waste generation factors are less than what was used in the prior environmental analyses; therefore, there would be less demand on the infrastructure than previously identified. Solid waste impacts were identified as less than significant and there is no new information that would change this conclusion. No new or more severe impacts would result, no new mitigation measures are required, and no major revisions to Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. 4.20 WILDFIRE Certified Final EIR 235 and Subsequent Addenda Although wildfire was not a separate topic in the CEQA checklist at the time Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda were prepared, the CEQA checklist did include an evaluation of wildfire as part of the discussion of hazards and hazardous materials. As noted above in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, based on the Notice of Preparation prepared for the Certified FEIR 235, potential impacts associated with wildland fires was deemed to be less than significant and was focused out of the EIR. The issue of wildfires is also discussed in this evaluation under Checklist Question 4.9g. Consistency Evaluation If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 4-92 PALOMA DEL SOL Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Checklist Questions 4.20a through 4.20d apply only to those projects that are "located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones." No impacts related to these thresholds would occur, as the Project is not within the state responsibility area designated as VHFHSZ, and no mitigation is required. CalFire identifies areas based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail there. These areas, or "zones," are based on factors such as fuel (material that can burn), slope and fire weather. There are three zones, based on increasing fire hazard —medium, high, and very high. The designation of these zones is based on a model, which CalFire has developed and field tested. The model evaluates property using characteristics that affect the probability of the area burning and potential fire behavior in the area. Many factors are considered such as fire history, existing and potential fuel, flame length, blowing embers, terrain, weather and the likelihood of buildings igniting. (CalFire, 2007) As such, this designation factors the site conditions identified in the CEQA Checklist Questions 4.20a through 4.20d. The western edge of the City of Temecula has been designated by the California Department of Forestry as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), which is within the very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). However, based on the Map of CalFire's Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Temecula, the proposed Project is not within a designated VHFHSZ. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss or death associated with wildland fires. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the City of Temecula has plans and guidelines in place to foresee and mitigate future emergency occurrences in cases of natural and man- made hazards. The Project would add a minimal number of additional trips to Temecula Highway 79, and the surrounding roadways. In the emergency situations, the identified roadways would continue to function as emergency access routes. The Project would not impact an adopted emergency and evacuation plan, and no changes to the plan would be required. The Project does not include any components or activities that would conflict, impair, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As noted above, the topic of wildfire was included in the CEQA Checklist under Hazards and Hazardous Materials at the time Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4were prepared. Based on the site characteristics (e.g., limited fuel and gentle topography), impacts were identified as less than significant and the issue was focused out of the Certified FEIR 235. There have not been substantial modifications in the Project that would change that conclusion. The Project would be constructed to comply with current codes and requirements pertaining to fire safety. In light of the above analysis, the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, and no mitigation is required. As such, the impacts would remain unchanged and no major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda are required. PALOMA DEL SOL 4-93 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR? There have been no substantial changes in circumstance since the certification of FEIR 235 and approval of Addendum No. 4. The site remains undeveloped with limited vegetation and the topography is gently sloping. Project construction would implement the provisions of the Specific Plan that are designed to minimize fire risk. Therefore, there are no substantial changes that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts necessitating major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available? CalFire has updated the fire hazard zone model and zone mapping since the certification of FEIR 235; however, the Project site remains outside of any VHFHSZ. Therefore, any changes in the modeling has not resulted in any new information that would create new or more severe impacts resulting in major revisions to the Certified FEIR 235 and previously approved Addenda. No additional mitigation is required. 4-94 PALOMA DEL SOL 5.0 CONCLUSIONS A review of the available documentation confirms there is substantial evidence, that (1) TTM 36483 and associated Project improvements do not represent a substantial change from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and associated Addenda; (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time Certified FEIR 235 was certified as complete. The Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda. There are no new mitigation measures that were not adopted at the time the FEIR 235 was certified that would further reduce Project impacts. Therefore, based this evaluation, none of the conditions in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code apply and no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report should be required. PALOMA DEL SOL 5-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 This page intentionally left blank 5-2 PALOMA DEL SOL 6.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a (March 2, last accessed). Advanced Clean Cars Program. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced- clean- cars -program. 2020b (March 2, last accessed). Pollution standards authorized by the California waiver: A crucial tool for fighting air pollution now and in the future. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/pollution-standards-authorized-california- waiver-crucial-tool-fighting-air. 2020c (March 2, last accessed). Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. ---. 2019a (July, effective as of). Chronology of State PM2.5 designations. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/changes/pm2S.pdf. ---. 2019b (July, effective as of). Chronology of State PM10 designations. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/changes/pmlO.pdf. 2019c (July, effective as of). Chronology of State Ozone designations. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/changes/ozone.pdf. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018 (March). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018-Title-24-2019-Buildi ng-Standards-FAQ.pdf. Converse Consultants (Converse). 2015 (March 27). Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report for a Single -Family Residential Development, Redlands, CA: Converse. CR&R Incorporated Environmental Services (CR&R). 2020 (March). Anaerobic Digestion. Stanton, CA: CR&R. http://crrwasteservices.com/sustainability/anaerobic-digestion/ ESA. 2019 (July). Draft Paseo Del Sol Specific Plan, PA-4/TTM 36483 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Los Angeles, CA: ESA. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). 2020 (March). EMWD Construction Updates. Perris, CA: EMWD. https://www.emwd.org/emwd-construction-updates. 2016 (June). Eastern Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban water Management Plan. Perris, CA: EMWD. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan-O.pdf?1537303453 JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (JLC). 2019a (May 17, revised June 6). City of Temecula Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Murrieta, CA: JLC. JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (JLC). 2019b (May 17, 2016, revised June 6, 2019). Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for the Villages at Paseo Del Sol, TTM 36483 - Planning Area 4. Murrieta, CA: JLC. PALOMA DEL SOL 6-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 Propper, R., Wong, P., Bui, S., Austin, J., Vance, W., Alvarado, A., Croes, B., and Luo, D. 2015. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology. RBF Consulting, a Michael Baker International Company (RBF). 2015 (May 5). Acoustic Assessment for the Paseo Del Sol Tentative Tract No. 36483. Irvine, CA: RBF. Riverside, County Sheriff's Department. 2020 (February 27, access date). Southwest Sheriff's Station. (http://www.riversidesheriff.org/stations/southwest.asp) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2017 (March). Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: South Coast AQMD. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-agmp/final2016agmp.pdf?sfvrsn=1S. ---. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020 (March, access date). 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2016_204ORTPSCS_FinalGrowthForecastbyjurisdictio n.pdf. T&B Planning Consultants, Inc. 2002a (January 8). Paloma Del Sol Villages at Paseo del Sol, Environmental Impact Report No. 235, Addendum #4 to Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8 (Specific Plan No. SP-4). Santa Ana, CA: T&B. ---. 2002b (January 8). Paloma Del Sol Villages at Paseo del Sol, Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8 (Specific Plan No. SP-4). Santa Ana, CA: T&B. Temecula, City of. 2020 (April). CEQA Transportation VMT Analysis Guidelines. Temecula, CA: Temecula. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020 (March, access date). American FactFinder: Community Facts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml 6-2 PALOMA DEL SOL Attachment A Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Included in the Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, PA-4/TTM 36483, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Included in the Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, PA-4/TTM 36483, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The following is a listing of the Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures from the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by the City of Temecula for the proposed Project (TTM 36483). As discussed in the Consistency Evaluation, these measures do constitute new information or mitigation measures or alternatives that previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of Section 21166, the Draft IS/MND, including the identified PDFs and mitigation measures, does not provide any new information necessitating substantial revisions to Certified FEIR 235. Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Project Design Features PDF BI0-1 Post -Construction Human Disturbances. The project shall incorporate special edge treatments designed to minimize edge effects by providing a safe transition between developed areas and created riparian/riverine habitat, and which would be compatible with project operation and the protection and sustainability of habitat restoration areas. Special edge treatments shall include native landscaping on manufactured slopes within the conserved areas and fencing/signage near the top of slope adjacent to conserved areas to prevent unauthorized public access, vandalism, illegal dumping, and other adverse human disturbances. PDF BIO-2 Drainage. The project's stormwater shall be directed to a stormwater and water quality system on the project site, pursuant to the proposed drainage and water quality plan. The channel and basins shall be designed in accordance with all federal, state, regional, and local standards and regulations concerning water quality. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. These measures will ensure that the project stormwater discharges are no greater in volume and velocity than current undeveloped conditions and that the water leaving the site complies with all applicable water quality standards. PDF BIO-3 Toxics. Land uses proposed in proximity to the habitat restoration area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the habitat restoration Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. PDF BIO-4 Lighting. Light sources shall be designed with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground and the developed areas and have a zero side angle cut off to the horizon. Night lighting shall be directed away from the habitat restoration area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the habitat restoration area is not increased. PDF BIO-5 Noise. Proposed noise -generating land uses affecting the Habitat restoration area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on sensitive Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. PALOMA DEL SOL A-1 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description PDF BIO-6 Invasive Plant Species. Plant species acceptable for the project's landscaping and restoration must not be considered an invasive species pursuant to Table 6.2 of the MSHCP. To ensure this, the final landscape plans must be reviewed and verified by the city and Regional Conservation Authority for consistency with the plant species list in Table 6.2 of the MSHCP. PDF BIO-7 Fuels Management. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities shall not be permitted in the habitat creation area. Any areas planted with fire-resistant, non- invasive plants shall not encroach into the habitat restoration area. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Construction Impacts to Nesting Avian Species Including Cooper's Hawk: Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, future construction activities and/or the removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season, to the extent feasible. The nesting season generally extends from February 1 through August 31, beginning as early as January 1 for raptor species, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. (a) If construction or vegetation clearing activities occur during the avian nesting season, a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey will be required within 7 days prior to the start of construction. The nest survey shall cover all reasonably potential nesting locations on and within 300 feet of the proposed areas where construction activities will occur. If grading or other construction activity begins in the non -breeding season and proceeds continuously into the breeding season, no surveys shall be required. However, if there is a break of 7 days or more in grading or construction activities during the breeding season, a new nesting bird survey shall be conducted before these activities begin again. (b) If an active nest is detected, an appropriate avoidance buffer will be established as follows: a 300-foot minimum avoidance buffer for special -status species (e.g., Cooper's hawk); a 500-foot minimum avoidance buffer for all raptor species; and 300- foot minimum avoidance buffer (or other buffer as determined appropriate by the Project Biologist) for other passerine birds. Buffer distances for other species will be determined by the Project Biologist based on the species and its breeding or nesting requirements. The nest site area shall not be disturbed until the nest becomes inactive or the young have fledged. (c) Noise monitoring may be required to verify that noise levels from construction would not disturb nesting birds. If noise levels are above acceptable thresholds (60 dBA Leq), then noise attenuation measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to below the acceptable threshold. BIO-2 Construction Impacts to Burrowing Owl. A 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground -disturbing activities per the March 29, 2006, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Burrowing Owl Survey Requirements. The surveys should specifically focus on the presence/absence of burrowing owl. If burrowing owls have colonized the property site prior to the initiation of construction, the Permittee should immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and coordinate on the potential need for a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. A-2 PALOMA DEL SOL Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description BIO-3 Construction Impacts to San Diego Black -Tailed Jackrabbit. A qualified biologist shall survey the project site for the presence of San Diego black-tailedjackrabbit no earlier than 3 days prior to any grading activity. Specifically, the survey shall include an examination of the nonnative grassland on the site that will be affected during project implementation. If individuals are identified, traps shall be deployed for relocation and allowed to stay open for 7 days, but checked on a daily basis. Trapped jackrabbits shall be relocated to nearby suitable habitat within dedicated open space approved by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. • If no San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit are observed during the pre -construction survey, then construction activities may begin. If construction is delayed orhalted for more than 30 days, another pre -construction survey for San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit shall be conducted. Within 7 days of the pre -construction survey, a report of findings from the survey shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with a Copy to the City of Temecula. BIO-4 Construction Impacts to Western Pond Turtle. Within 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre -construction surveys for Western pond turtle within all areas that fall within 100 feet of any suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat for this species. If Western pond turtles are observed during the pre- construction survey, fencing that is impervious to reptile movement (partially buried silt fencing) shall be erected around the survey area to prevent turtles from entering the construction area. Additionally, the Lead Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted; any and all construction activities will be delayed within the turtle survey area until an appropriate course of action is established and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. • If no Western pond turtles are observed during the pre -construction survey, then construction activities may begin. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 30 days, another pre -construction survey for Western pond turtle shall be conducted. Within 7 days of the pre -construction survey, a report of findings from the survey shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with a copy to the City of Temecula. BIO-5 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Impacts. Given the project site's location within the Fee Area for Stephens' kangaroo rat identified in the Riverside County Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) (County Ordinance No. 663.10), the project applicant shall pay the SKR HCP mitigation fee prior to project construction. The Mitigation Fee for the proposed project is estimated to be $21,600 ($500.00 per gross acre of the parcels proposed for development with 42.6 acres proposed for development). BIO-6 Riparian Habitat Creation. To offset impacts to 0.79 acres of riparian/riverine habitat on site that is both federally- and state -protected, the proposed project shall establish riparian/riverine wetland habitat in accordance with the approval of all pertinent regulatory agencies. The on -site wetland habitat shall be relocated along the southerly portion of the project site. The on -site mitigation area shall be owned by the HOA and but maintained by a third party approved by the regulatory agencies. • The Applicant shall be responsible for developing and implementing a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) plan for the mitigated habitat that is consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) standards. The HMMP shall describe the methods used for invasive species and trash removal, fencing and signage replacement, will identify success criteria and reporting requirements, and will define the responsibilities, adaptive management, and PALOMA DEL SOL A-3 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description expected maintenance. The long-term management and maintenance costs, identified in the HMMP, would transfer to a third party as approved by the regulatory agencies. The wetland shall be off limits to the public and residents. Furthermore, signage and homeowner education materials would be provided to residents regarding these restrictions. The HMMP shall require that: • All plant species installed within the mitigation areas include only local California native container plants and cuttings, and shall be typical of the existing native plant species present in the existing riparian areas within and adjacent to the project site; • Plant material is installed between October 1 and April 30 to maximize the benefits of the winter rainy season; and • The planted area has a conservation easement placed over it and shall be maintained by a third party approved by the regulatory agencies that would provide for the long-term management and maintenance in perpetuity. • The HMMP shall include success criteria including timelines of when success is anticipated for various components of the mitigation site, including but not limited to native cover and nonnative cover standards. These specific success criteria would be decided upon by restoration ecologist using best professional judgment. The applicant shall submit a copy of the final HMMP to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority that must include all mitigation implementation details including success criteria as well as future activities that could potentially negate conservation value such as vector control and weed abatement. A long-term manager for the mitigation site should be identified prior to construction and detailed in the HMMP. The HMMP shall be approved by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, USACE, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to project construction. BIO-7 Impact Avoidance to Riparian Habitat during Construction. The proposed project shall implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Applicable MSHCP provisions include best management practices (BMPs) from MSHCP Volume I Appendix C and Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines from MSHCP Section 6.1.4. 1) MSHCP BMP Implementation. The BMPs, as applicable, shall be implemented for the duration of construction. a) A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for construction personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the MSHCP, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. b) Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. A-4 PALOMA DEL SOL Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description c) The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. d) The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of work. e) The placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern should be avoided. f) Stream flow diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. g) Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Project -related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to the applicable jurisdictional city, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. h) Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. 2) Habitat Disturbance Avoidance. A qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside of the project footprint. These measures are listed below. a) The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. b) Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern shall be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. c) To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). d) Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits shall be fenced with orange PALOMA DEL SOL A-5 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. e) The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs. 3) Fugitive Dust. During soil excavation, grading, or other subsurface disturbance within 100 feet of conserved riparian/riverine habitat on site, the construction superintendent shall supervise provision and maintenance of all standard dust control BMPs to reduce fugitive dust emissions, including but not limited to the following actions: a) Water any exposed soil areas a minimum of twice per day, or as allowed under any imposed drought restrictions. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional water shall be applied at a frequency to be determined by the on -site construction superintendent. b) Pave, periodically water, or apply chemical stabilizer to construction access/ egress points. c) Minimize the amount of area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations at all times. d) Operate all vehicles on graded areas at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. e) Cover all stockpiles that will not be utilized within 3 days with plastic or equivalent material, to be determined by the on -site construction superintendent, or spray them with a non -toxic chemical stabilizer. 4) Noise. The on -site construction superintendent shall implement the following measures to minimize short-term noise levels caused by construction activities. Measures to reduce construction noise shall be included in contractor specifications and include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Properly outfit and maintain construction equipment with manufacturer - recommended noise -reduction devices to minimize construction -generated noise. b) Operate all diesel equipment with closed engine doors and equip with factory recommended mufflers. c) Use electrical power, when feasible, to operate air compressors and similar power tools. d) Employ additional noise attenuation techniques, as needed, to reduce excessive noise levels within conserved riparian/riverine habitat on site, such as placement of temporary sound barriers or sound blankets at the top of slope adjacent to these areas. e) Locate construction staging areas at least 100 feet from Drainage A. 5) Lighting. To avoid light spillover into the adjacent conserved riparian/riverine habitat on site, any proposed lighting fixtures within 100 feet of these areas shall incorporate internal baffles to direct the light towards the ground and shall have a zero side -angle cut-off to the horizon. All lighting and fencing for infrastructure adjacent to jurisdictional areas shall be designed or reviewed by a qualified biologist A-6 PALOMA DEL SOL Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description to allow wildlife to move without hindrance. 6) Runoff-Toxics. To address potential short-term impacts to water quality within the on -site drainages from construction runoff that may carry storm water pollutants, a storm water pollution prevention program (SWPPP) shall be implemented by the construction contractor as required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs related to the control of toxic substances, including construction fuels, oils, and other liquids. These BMPs shall be implemented by the Applicant's contractor prior to the start of any ground clearing activity, shall be subject to periodic inspections by the County and the project's hydrological consultant, shall be maintained throughout the construction period and remain in place until all landscape and permanent BMPs are in place. BMPs shall be monitored and repaired if necessary to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. In addition, the permittee shall: a) Prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono -filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within and adjacent to CDFW jurisdictional areas; b) Utilize fiber rolls, straw wattles, and/or hay bales free of non-native plant materials; c) Ensure compliance with all litter and pollution laws by all contractors, subcontractors, and employees; d) Not allow water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading, aggregate washing, or other activities to enter a lake, streambed, or flowing stream or be placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows. In addition, the measures listed below apply to project construction. e) Spoil sites shall not be located within a lake, streambed, or flowing stream or locations that may be subjected to high storm flows, where spoil shall be washed back into a lake, streambed, or flowing stream where it will impact streambed habitat and aquatic or riparian vegetation. f) Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint, or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to fish and wildlife resources resulting from project related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the state. These materials, placed within or where they may enter a lake, streambed, or flowing stream by Permittee or any party working under contract or with the permission of Permittee, shall be removed immediately. g) No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near any lake, streambed, or flowing stream where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas under any flow. h) No broken concrete, cement, debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products, or other organic or earthen material from any construction or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into waters of the state. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the high-water mark of any lake, PALOMA DEL SOL A-% Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description streambed, or flowing stream. i) Construction operations shall be staged far away from the MSHCP Conservation Area as possible. 7) Additional Encroachments During Construction. The following measures shall also be incorporated into the construction documents and specifications, and implemented by the contractor, to avoid potential construction -related impacts to conserved riparian/riverine habitat outside of the approved disturbance limits. a) Construction worker training shall be provided by a qualified biologist at the first preconstruction meeting. b) Exclusionary fencing and signs shall be erected near the top of slope adjacent to conserved riparian/riverine habitat to prevent accidental/unauthorized intrusions during construction. c) No equipment shall be operated in areas of flowing water. d) Construction access and staging areas for storage of materials and heavy equipment, and for fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of construction vehicles or equipment, shall be prohibited within 20 feet from the top of slope adjacent to conserved riparian/riverine habitat. e) A qualified biologist shall be on site during initial clearing/grubbing, grading, and/or construction activities within the riparian/riverine habitat within Drainage B to be impacted, or within 100 feet of the habitat to be avoided, and shall periodically monitor these activities to ensure they do not exceed the fenced construction limits. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measures CUL-1 The Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified/City of Temecula approved archaeological monitor to monitor all ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. The archaeologist shall provide a Phase IV monitoring report at the end of all earthmoving activities to the City of Temecula, the Pechanga Tribe and the Eastern Information Center at UC, Riverside. CUL-2 In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, the contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a Qualified Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (codified in 36 CFR Part 61; 48 FR 44738-44739. The Applicant shall immediately notify the City of any discoveries and implement protective measures (such as cordoning off the area). Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until authorized by the City. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the A-8 PALOMA DEL SOL Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Research Design and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. For discoveries of Native American cultural resources, the City shall follow the provisions of Mitigation Measure TCR-2 and consult with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in determining treatment for the resource to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1 If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, work shall cease in a 100-foot radius of the discovery until a Qualified Paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards (SVP 2010) has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. The Applicant shall immediately notify the City of any discoveries and implement protective measures (such as cordoning off the area). Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until authorized by the City. If the find is deemed significant, it shall be salvaged following the standards of the SVP (2010) and curated with a certified repository. Following a discovery, the Qualified Paleontologist shall also provide the City with recommendations regarding future paleontological monitoring, if deemed warranted. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Project Design Features PDF HYDRO-1 Site Design Best Management Practices. The following design concepts were recommended by the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan and have been integrated into project design. To minimize potential water quality degradation, the project has been designed to: • Maintain natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features; • Minimize impervious areas; • Minimize soil compaction; • Disperse impervious areas throughout the project site; • Collect runoff; and • Landscape with native and/or drought tolerant species. PALOMA DEL SOL A-9 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description PDF HYDRO-2 Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs). The following source control BMPs were recommended by the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan and will be implemented during project construction and/or operation. To avoid impacts to water quality, the project will: • Prevent illicit discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer system; • Include storm drain stenciling or signage; and • Protect trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal. In addition, the project will implement BMPs during project operation to prevent water quality impacts from the following potential sources: storm drain inlets; indoor and structural pest control; landscape/outdoor pesticide use; pools, spas, ponds, fountains, and other water features; refuse areas; and plazas sidewalks, and parking lots. A qualified stormwater pollution prevention plan developer shall be consulted for specific source control BMP implementation details. PDF HYDRO-3 Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Biofiltration with partial retention of surface flow on site was recommended by the project- specific Water Quality Management Plan during project operation. The project site will thus incorporate three treatment control BMPs, including one biofiltration basin and two Filterra units (or equivalent), for treating stormwater runoff generated on the project site. Flows from certain portions of the project site will be conveyed to two Filterra units for treatment. The remainder of the project site will be collected via subsurface storm drain and treated within the biofiltration basin. The biofiltration basin and Filterra units will be maintained by periodic visits to check for appropriate functioning. The biofiltration basin and Filterra units will be constructed before other structures on site to accommodate for excess flows caused by construction activities. PDF HYDRO-4 Minimum Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). The following BMPs were recommended by the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan for implementation during project construction. A qualified stormwater pollution prevention plan developer shall be consulted for specific construction BMP implementation details. • Erosion Control. Slopes disturbed during construction shall be stabilized via hydraulic stabilization (e.g., hydroseeding) in the summer. • Sediment Control. Sediment control BMPs that will be implemented on the project site include a silt fence, fiber rolls, gravel/sand bags, storm drain inlet protection, and an engineered desilting basin. • Off -Site Sediment Tracking Control. Off -site sediment tracking control BMPs that will be implemented on the project site include a stabilized construction entrance, construction road stabilization, an entrance/exit tire wash, and street sweeping and vacuuming. • Materials and Waste Management. Materials and waste management BMPs that will be implemented on site include spill prevention and control as well as waste management and concrete management. A-10 PALOMA DEL SOL Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A Final WQMP shall be prepared during the final project design period that Project Design Features HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-4 shall be updated as necessary to be consistent with the Final WQMP. HYDRO-2 Any groundwater encountered on site during construction that requires dewatering shall be collected and stored until it can be recharged on site. Dewatered groundwater shall be recharged in a manner appropriate with San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board General Waste Discharge Requirements for Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region (Order 119-2015-0013). HYDRO-3 The proposed project shall be designed in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 458, which details design requirements for projects located in special flood hazard areas. Site plans shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review and approval to ensure appropriate measures have been taken to avoid impacts to humans and structure in the event of inundation resulting from Vail Lake Dam failure. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1 The project Applicant shall develop sound walls in accordance with the recommendations of the updated 2016 letter report to the Acoustical Assessment of 2015, Exhibit 7. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the City Building Engineer shall confirm that all recommended sounds walls are installed per the recommendations or the study. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure TCR-1 The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a grading permit. To accomplish this, the applicant should contact the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on site. The Pechanga Tribal monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the project's Qualified Archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. PALOMA DEL SOL A-11 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design Features/ Mitigation Measures Description TCR-2 In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Department: i) Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii) Reburial of the resources on the project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at a minimum measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, grave goods, Native American human remains and any items deemed sensitive by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians are excluded. The reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV monitoring report. The Phase IV monitoring report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City, the Developer and the consulting Tribes. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report iii) The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of tribal cultural resources, including sacred items and grave goods, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. A-12 PALOMA DEL SOL MEMORANDUM September 14, 2023 To: From: Tim Paone Kathleen Brady Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Principal Emeritus Subject: Revalidation of the Consistency Evaluation for Pasco Del Sol Residential Development PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 (2020 Consistency Evaluation), prepared by Psomas in August 2020, for the pending approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 36483 for Planning Area 4 (PA-4) of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan' (the Specific Plan) by the City of Temecula (the City). PA-4 is the last of the 38 planning areas in the Specific Plan to be developed. Section 65457 of the Government Code provides an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a residential development project "... that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980." This section of the Government Code does state that if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA. The "events" described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 (the 21166 Events) are: "(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." THE 2020 CONSISTENCY EVALUATION The 2020 Consistency Evaluation was prepared to evaluate whether any of the 21166 Events had occurred since the adoption of the Specific Plan. The evaluation concluded that, based upon substantial evidence, as of the date of the 2020 Consistency Evaluation: (1) TTM 36483 and associated Project improvements do not represent a substantial change from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and associated Addenda; ' The full name of Specific Plan 219 is Paloma Del Sol, Villages at Paseo del Sol. For brevity, the 2020 Consistency Evaluation refers to the name as the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. There are past documents that use the name Paseo del Sol. Additionally at the time FEIR 235 was certified, it was also called The Meadows at Rancho California. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, CA 92707 • T: 714.751.7373 • F: 714.545.8883 Tim Paone September 14, 2023 Page 2 (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time Certified FEIR 235 was certified as complete. The Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda. There are no new mitigation measures that were not adopted at the time the FEIR 235 was certified that would further reduce Project impacts. Therefore, the 2020 Consistency Evaluation concluded that with respect to the application for TTM 36483, none of the 21166 Events had occurred and, as a result, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report was required. THE PROJECT PA-4 is located in the southeastern corner of the Specific Plan boundary, at the corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road. Woodside Homes is the applicant for the TTM 36483, which proposes 168 single-family residential lots, a community park, and open space/trails, and drainage and water quality improvements (the Project). The 2020 Consistency Evaluation addressed regional infrastructure improvements that were planned in the same general timeframe as the planning for Paseo del Sol. The infrastructure improvements were developed as part of a separate planning process known as Assessment District 159 (AD 159) (see Background, below). One of the regional improvements is the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor (BSRI). This flood control improvement is located offsite adjacent to the Project mostly in the Butterfield Stage Road right-of-way and is designed to manage drainage from properties upstream of the Project. There is no substantial evidence that the Project either creates the need for the BSRI or is dependent upon the BSRI. Although acknowledged in the 2020 Consistency Evaluation, the engineering design effort for the BSRI has progressed since the completion of the 2020 document. The City of Temecula will be responsible for the construction of the BSRI. Construction of the BSRI improvement may or may not overlap with construction of the Project. The following reviews the determination of the 2020 Consistency Evaluation to ensure it is still applicable with consideration of the BSRI. BACKGROUND Environmental Documentation The Project site has been addressed in previous environmental documents, including the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 235, State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 8707003, approved by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988, and Addendum No. 4 to the Certified FEIR 235, which included changes to the development in PA-4. Addendum No. 4 was approved by the City of Temecula on January 8, 2002. As noted earlier, the 2020 Consistency Evaluation was prepared to address whether any of the 21166 Events had occurred in order to allow the City to determine if the Government Code Section 65457 exemption for a residential project "undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for Psomas Tim Paone September 14, 2023 Page 3 which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980" applies to the Project. The 2020 Consistency Evaluation and this update will be considered by the City in the course of its review of TTM 36483. Assessment District 159 As discussed in the 2020 Consistency Evaluation, in 1987, the County of Riverside formed AD 159 "to fund through property assessments major infrastructure projects in the Highway 79 corridor near Rancho California." Studies were conducted for a drainage system that would mitigate potential flooding impacts to Temecula Creek and downstream land uses. Implementation of AD 159 improvements included construction of Temecula Creek Channel, Temecula Parkway, and Butterfield Stage Road in addition to backbone drainage facilities. The original drainage report indicated that the westerly drainage basins north of De Portola Road, which drained toward Butterfield Stage Road, would be captured and the off -site flow would be conveyed through Paseo del Sol in storm drains. The evaluation for AD 159 was prepared for a larger study area and was done independent of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, but the studies for AD 159 were prepared concurrently with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan drainage report. The improvements were assumed to occur in a similar timeframe; however, Paloma del Sol was not conditioned on the AD 159 improvements. As part of a Supplemental District, formed in 1991, additional facilities were proposed, including "[t]he construction of flood control facilities at three points along and northerly of Highway 79 all to facilitate the drainage of the northern portion of the District to Temecula Creek." The Engineer's Report for AD 159-Supplemental stated that the projects proposed to be completed by the supplemental assessment district included "[t]he construction of Butterfield Stage Road between Rancho California Road and State Highway 79." AD 159-Supplemental also proposed construction of a floodwater interceptor facility, the Butterfield East Interceptor. "The Butterfield East Interceptor was intended to be an open channel located at the eastern AD boundary to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties." Corona Family Limited Partnership v. City of Temecula (Feb. 8, 2005) 2005 WL 290209. As noted in the 2020 Consistency Evaluation, the County of Riverside and City of Temecula required Paloma del Sol to construct an interim detention stormwater collection and basin on PA-4 until the County approves and constructs an up -stream drainage facility. The Project proposes construction of permanent improvements in PA-4 to replace the existing on -site temporary drainage facilities with an improved stormwater conveyance and surface water quality system. To accommodate the regional flows, the plans by the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control District reflect the proposed drainage improvements in PA-4, as well as enhanced improvements in Butterfield Stage Road. Currently, there are two 10-foot storm pipes in the Butterfield Stage Road right-of-way, that empty into Temecula Creek. As part of the proposed regional improvements, an additional 10-foot storm pipe will be added in the road right-of-way and empty in Temecula Creek. This improvement is known as the BSRI. The City of Temecula, who will be responsible for constructing the improvements, has approved the plans and forwarded the final plans to the Riverside County Flood Control for their approval. Additionally, all regulatory permits have been received. This refined design (the improvements in PA-4 and the BSRI) is based on detailed engineering and is not a change to the purpose of the improvements associated with AD 159 and AD 159 Supplemental. Even though the Project has agreed to cover any shortfall in BSRI construction costs should AD 159 and other available public funds prove insufficient to complete the BSRI, the BSRI is a public project not necessary Psomas Tim Paone September 14, 2023 Page 4 to handle drainage from the Project, but rather serving to manage flows from upstream properties, as discussed above. The Project's shortfall agreement is strictly an accommodation to upstream property owners. Exhibit 1 shows the location of PA-4 in relationship to the BSRI. Regulatory Permitting The 2020 Consistency Evaluation provided an overview of the approval process through the regulatory agencies, including, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Additionally, it summarized the Joint Project Review (JPR) issued for the Project by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) on April 25, 2016, and updated on April 6, 2018. The JPR determined consistency of the project with the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Although, the Paseo del Sol project does not rely on the BSRI flood control improvements and the improvements will be constructed by the City, it was decided to include the flood control improvements in the regulatory permits for the Project. Michael Baker International (MBI) coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine if the BSRI would require amendments to the permits issued for the Project. MBI provided the Corps and RWQCB the BSRI information for the permit file and verified with agency representatives that no formal permit amendments are required. An amendment request to the CDFW was not required since the Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) was still in draft form and the outlet location was adequately included in the draft project description. CDFW issued the permit and filed a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) on May 24, 2021, which covered the jurisdictional impacts on the Project and the BSRI. REVALIDATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE 2020 CONSISTENCY EVALUATION As noted earlier, this update evaluates whether any of the 21166 Events (see Page 1 of this update) has occurred since the completion of the 2020 Consistency Evaluation. To ensure the analysis was comprehensive, the 2020 Consistency Evaluation provided a discussion for each of the questions on the still current CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Checklist). This analysis provides the City of Temecula with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since FEIR 235 was certified, rise to the level that would require substantial revisions to the Certified FEIR 235. There have not been any substantial modifications to the Project or the circumstances in which it is being implemented that would change these findings; however, given the passage of time a streamline assessment of each parameter of the three -prong test identified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has been done to document the consistency with these findings. No Substantial Changes to the Project Requiring Major Revisions of the EIR The development proposed in PA-4 is substantially the same as what was evaluated in Certified FEIR 235 and Addendum No. 4. The 2020 Consistency Evaluation found that there were no major changes that would result in new significant or substantially more impacts necessitate the preparation of supplemental environmental documentation. Similarly, the refinement to the design of the BSRI would not be considered a substantial change to the identified flood control improvements associated with either the Specific Plan or the Assessment District. AD 159 identified the need to construct a floodwater interceptor facility to provide protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79, and downstream properties. The conveyance of offsite flows Psomas Tim Paone September 14, 2023 Page 5 through PA-4 was identified as an interim condition until such time the Flood Control District approves and constructs an up -stream drainage facility. To provide enhanced improvement, the Project incorporated a conveyance channel as a permanent improvement; however, the BSRI serves as the ultimate improvement associated with the Assessment District. As noted above, none of the agencies with jurisdiction of natural resources (Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB) identified the potential for new or more severe impacts as a result of the BSRI. The location of the pipeline and outlet was determined based on the degraded nature of natural resources in that location and presence of rip -rap and a drop structure in the Creek. The analysis in the 2020 Consistency Evaluation is still applicable and there would be no need for supplemental CEQA documentation based on the first prong of the three part test outlined in Section 21166. No Substantial Changes to the Circumstances Requiring Preparation of an EIR There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project is being implemented. PA- 4 represents the last planning area in the Specific Plan to be developed. The development has been assumed in all the local and regional planning assumptions. The site is still heavily disturbed. Similarly, the BSRI has been an identified improvement as part of the regional infrastructure improvements. The improvements in AD 159 were known at the time of preparation of Certified FEIR 235 and the technical studies considered the AD 159 improvements. There are no new circumstances associated with Project implementation, which were not addressed in the 2020 Consistency Evaluation. Therefore, the Project development even with consideration of the approved design of the BSRI does not result in any new significant or substantially more severe impacts and there are no resources that would be impacted by the improvements that were not known at the time the Specific Plan and AD 159 were prepared. No New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring Preparation of an EIR As noted, the Specific Plan and AD 159 were prepared in generally the same timeframe. Subsequent to the certification of FEIR 235, the Western Riverside Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was approved. Although a new program for the regulatory coverage of species, the species covered by the MSHCP were known to be located in the larger Western Riverside area at the time Certified FEIR 235 was prepared. Additionally, as mentioned above and addressed in the 2020 Consistency Evaluation, the RCA determined the Project was consistent with the MSHCP, with the implementation of the standard MSHCP protective measures and implementation of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The need for offsite regional improvements had been identified and the studies for AD 159 were prepared concurrently with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan drainage report. Therefore, the need and function of the BSRI is not new information. The design is a refinement of the interceptor identified as a needed regional infrastructure project, which was conceptually addressed in the FEIR for AD 159. The more detailed engineering plans do not constitute new information and when considered in conjunction with the Project, no new significant or more severe impacts would occur; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required and preparation of an EIR is not required. Psomas Tim Paone September 14, 2023 Page 6 CONCLUSION Consistent with the 2020 Consistency Evaluation, a review of the available documentation confirms there is substantial evidence, that, (1) the Project and the BSRI as a cumulative project does not represent a substantial change from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and associated CEQA documentation, including Certified FEIR 235 and Addenda; (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time FEIR 235 was certified as complete and the 2020 Consistency Evaluation was prepared. The Project, together with the BSRI, would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR 235 and the subsequent Addenda. There are no new mitigation measures that were not adopted at the time the FEIR 235 was certified that would further reduce Project impacts. Therefore, based this evaluation, none of the conditions in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code apply, and no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report should be required. Attachment: Exhibit 1, Location of Planning Area 4 to the BSRI RAProjects\W00\3W00070101\2023 Memorandum\PSOMAS Draft Environmental Memorandum-091423.docx Psomas 2 a_ 0 + Existing Storm Drain Lines [• . . * Wit. { j d;�: Approved BSRI Line Planning Area 4 - Proposed Project �/ L 3 _ 5. 4•� 'ilk 1 ` � � t •"1 >i 1� 7f I. V •r -r � sr 77 � '� a L "�7f(4d IY• 4f4" i • T. ¢ j Planning Area 4 •Sr -. �� �'4 .• 1] �� �,.. �3is-`'" f.-` 7il � ~- - ��•p „r'! �C .�' tNIIAV .. y I .:'►S'- e; l r Y i ti r Ctrs'" 1?' t ALIN: �r �e#fYLiLLllld`• Source: Woodside, 2023 Location of PA-4 and the BSRI Exhibit 1 Revalidation of the 2020 Consistency Evaluation (09/11/2023 SAK) R:\Projects\WOO\3WO0070101\Graphics\EX_PA4&BSRI.pdf Gty of �Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com June 20, 2024 Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA14-0087, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots for Planning Area 4 within Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the Applicant will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Cooper at (951) 506-5137 or at email scott.cooper(a,TemeculaCA.gov. . Sincerely, Matt Peters Acting Director of Community Development Attachments: Notice of Exemption Form, Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Notice of Exemption TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 36483 (PA14-0087) Description of Project: Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and 9 open space lots on 42.64 acres Project Location: APNs: 959-400-001, 949-400-002 Applicant/Proponent: City of Temecula, County of Riverside The Planning Commission approved the above described project on June 19, 2024 and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Exempt Status: (check one) ❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268); ❑ Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section 15269(b)(c)); ❑ Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: ) ❑ Categorical Exemption: (Section Number) ❑ Other: Public Resources Code Section 21166, Government Code Section 65457 Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt: The Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan was formally adopted in 1988. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified on September 6, 1988 as part of this effort. Since that time, four Addenda to the EIR have been prepared for the project area with the most recent adopted on January 8, 2002. The proposed project (Project) has been determined to be consistent with the previously adopted Paloma Del Sol Addendum and no further environmental review is required (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Government Code Section 65457). Staff has reviewed the EIR, the First Addendum to the EIR adopted December 8, 1992, the Second Addendum to the EIR adopted on March 17, 1999, the Third Addendum to the EIR adopted on September 9, 1999, and the Fourth Addendum to the EIR adopted on January 8, 2002 (collectively, EIR and Addenda). In addition, staff has reviewed the Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, prepared by Psomas and dated August 26, 2020, and the Memorandum re Revalidation of the Consistency Evaluation for Paseo Del Sol Residential Development, also prepared by Psomas and dated September 14, 2023. Based on this substantial evidence, staff has determined that the proposed Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR as none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 exist. Specifically as it relates to Section 21166, Tentative Tract Map 36483 and associated 1 Project improvements do not represent a substantial change from the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan evaluated in the certified EIR and Addenda and is within the scope of the potential development contemplated by that Plan; there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certified EIR. The Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the EIR and Addenda, and there are no mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce significant impacts and were previously found not to be feasible but which are now feasible. Therefore, based on this evaluation, none of the conditions in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code apply and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. In addition, the Project is exempt as it is a residential development project undertaken to implement a specific plan for which an EIR previously was prepared per Government Code Section 65457. The application for a Tentative Tract Map to construct 164 single family residential lots and nine (9) open space lots is consistent with the project that was analyzed by the EIR and Addenda. The proposed Project is required to meet all requirements and mitigation contained in EIR and Addenda. Contact Person/Title: Scott Cooper, Senior Planner Phone Number: (951) 506-5137 Signature: Matt Peters Acting Director of Community Development Date: Notice of Public Hearin THE CITY OF TEMECULA - 41000 Main Street- Temecula, CA 92590 — TemeculaCA.gov A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No.: PA14-0087 Applicant: Woodside Homes Project Location: Northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road (APNs: 959-400-001, 959-400-002) Proposal: Tentative Tract Map (TTM 36483) for the creation of 164 single family residential lots and 9 open space lots on 42.64 acres, in furtherance of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Environmental Action: In accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21166 the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as none of the conditions in Section 21166 apply and no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. This project is also exempt pursuant to Government Code Section 65457 because it is a residential development project undertaken to implement a specific plan for which an EIR previously was prepared. Case Planner: Scott Cooper, (951) 506-5137 PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2024 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM $ONirg Mesfo;l \yo��S� '� G� D�POR� RNO ST 7 OLA RD �7 AIT Ec�PY rr ^czP�R CASTANP �+ Project Site j 0 200400 Feet �0���p S ■ 1 The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the meeting. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within 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. Questions? Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS AND ELECTRONIC SUMBITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Commission Meeting 6/19/2024 From: Pam Nelson To: Planning Commission Cc: Pam Nelson Subject: Item 4, Development at De Portola and Temecula Valley Parkway Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 4:27:30 PM Agenda Item #4 Public Comment Received CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, I'm not able to attend the public hearing tonight about Item 4 about the proposed development on De Portola and Temecula Valley Parkway, but I wish to submit the following comments. Residential development of this site seems to be logical and has been expected for sometime. I am not opposed to it and feel like it could be a good addition to the City. My comments are: 1) The design seems old-fashioned: --Affordable housing is difficult to find. These should be modest single-family homes and townhomes such that our local residents can afford them. --I recently visited KB homes in Menifee that are energy -efficient and generate their own electricity on -site and uses innovative appliances and systems (heat -pumps, home batteries, sufficient solar panels, etc.). They will have their own micro -grid as back-up. New homes need to reflect new technology that makes them self-sufficient. --the open -space doesn't seem like it has an eco-friendly design. Everyone now knows that native plants and habitats are being fragmented and destroyed. The open -space should reflect this and be connected. The drainage area has been established and flourished over the last decade and it could be the home to important species. A new biological study must be done to see if there are new ecological communities. There could be new inhabitants such as the spade -foot toad or tri- colored blackbird or? --Native plants should be used for landscaping. -- A whole area drainage plan including the upper drainage from the northeast (across Butterfield) is needed so that future development in the northeast won't cause unexpected impacts on the drainage in this new development. --Pesticides and rodenticides must not be part of the open -space or the development management plans. We now know the dangers of these chemicals. 2) Mitigation Credits are going to be sent to the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank. Why can't the mitigation credits stay in the Santa Margarita Watershed or at least in the MSHCP region? 3) Ex. A, RCA report, p.5, refers to Temescal Creek, shouldn't this be Temecula Creek? 4) Traffic impacts must be addressed since Temecula Parkway is already at capacity. Will De Portola take some of the traffic? But what happens at the intersection of Margarita and west? A current transportation study must be done to evaluate the impacts. Thanks for accepting my comments. Please keep me on the interest list for any notifications pertaining to this item. Pam Nelson Public Comment REQUEST TO SPEAK PLANNING COMMISSION Date: Non -Agenda Item: 0 Agenda Item: Y� Item Description or Item No. Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the Secretary prior to the Commission commencing the Public Comment period. For all Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. i Name: Phone Number: `� Address: 1 CA (4 2- S Email address: if -ou are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Sl P - L 1 LJ Please note that all information presented at a Commission meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Public Comment: Non -Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No. REQUEST TO SPEAK PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item: 0 Date: �/ q— Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the Secretary prior to the Commission commencing the Public Comment period. For all Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: . eyy Lt c, _ Phone Number: ct eLA, address: S; ,ou are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a Commission meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional.