Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
040611 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694 -6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. PRELUDE MUSIC: CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET APRIL 6, 2011 — 6:00 PM Earlene Bundy Commissioner Guerriero Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of March 16, 2011 1 Next in Order: Resolution: 11 -12 A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three - minute time limit for individual speakers. All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Recommend City Council Approval PUBLIC HEARING 3 Planning Application No. PA10 -0309, a two -phase Development Plan for a three - story, 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility with 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments, generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, Eric Jones RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0309, A TWO -PHASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A THREE - STORY, 97,685 SQUARE FOOT SENIOR CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY FEATURING 99 UNITS CONSISTING OF STUDIO, ONE BEDROOM, AND TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD (APN 944 - 290 -025) 4 Planning Application No. PA11 -0010, a Minor Modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit to upgrade from Type 20 (Off -sale Beer and Wine) Alcohol License to a Type 21 License (Off -sale General Liquor) for Stop Quick Mini Mart located at 29762 Rancho California Road, Cheryl Kitzerow RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA11 -0010, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE FROM AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) TYPE 20 LICENSE (OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE) TO A TYPE 21 LICENSE (OFF -SALE GENERAL LIQUOR) FOR STOP QUICK MINI MART LOCATED AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (APN 921 - 310 -022) REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS 2 ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC - The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing at City Hall's Planning Department Public Counter located at 41000 Main Street and at the Temecula Library located at 30600 Pauba Road during normal business hours. Additionally, any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commissioners regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review at the locations indicated above. The packet will be available for viewing the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting after 4:00 p.m. You may also access the packet the Friday before the meeting after 4:00 p.m. on the City's website at wwwcityoftemecula.ora. 3 PRELUDE MUSIC: CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Approve the Minutes of March 2, 2011 APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HARTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL 2 Director's Hearing Summary Report RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and File Director's Hearing Summary Report APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HARTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET MARCH 16, 2011 — 6:00 PM Earlene Bundy Commissioner Carey Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio Next in Order: Resolution: 11 -04 Any person may submit written comments to the Planning 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 hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning 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, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 3 CONTINUED FROM MARCH 2, 2011 MEETING: Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, a Multi- family Development Plan for Maravilla at Rancho Highlands for a proposed 210- 1 unit triplex project with units ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,700 square feet on approximately 24 acres located along the west side of Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Road, Cheryl Kitzerow RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 To be continued off calendar at the applicant's request APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMIMISSIONER HARTER; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL 4 CONTINUED FROM MARCH 2, 2011 MEETING: Planning Application No. PA10 -0251 a Development Plan for the Front Street Plaza, a four -story, 42,558 square foot mixed - use development consisting of 25 affordable residential units, 8,992 square feet of office, and a 6,648 square foot restaurant, located at the southwest corner of Old Town Front Street and 3rd Street, Cheryl Kitzerow APPROVED 4- 0 -0 -1, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; VOTE REFLECTED APPROVAL; HARTER ABSTAINED RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0251, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE FRONT STREET PLAZA, A FOUR - STORY, 42,558 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF RESTAURANT, OFFICE, AND RESIDENTIAL USES TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A 0.46 ACRE SITE WHICH INCLUDES A 6,648 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON THE GROUND FLOOR PLUS PARKING, 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS, AND 8,992 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SUITES ON THE THIRD AND FOURTH FLOORS (APNS 922 - 046 -010 AND 922 - 046 -011) Rosemary Smith, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. 5 Planning Application No. PA 10 -0186, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -01) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the east side of Margarita Road, approximately 200' north of De Portola Road, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HARTER; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0186, A 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM -01) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 320' NORTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF DE PORTOLA ROAD 6 Planning Application No. PA10 -0187, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -02) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the west side if Margarita Road approximately 150' north of San Fermin Place, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CAREY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HARTER; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0187, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM -02) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE WEST SIDE IF MARGARITA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 150' NORTH OF SAN FERMIN PLACE 7 Planning Application No. PA10 -0188, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -03) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the southwest side of Margarita Road approximately 850' southeast of Pauba Road, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HARTER; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL; RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0188, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM -03) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 850' SOUTHEAST OF PAUBA ROAD 3 8 Planning Application No. PA10 -0189, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -05) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the west side of Amarita Way across from Via Ricci, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CAREY, SECOND BY COMMSSIONER HARTER; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0189, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM -05) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE WEST OF AMARITA WAY ACROSS FROM VIA RICCI 9 Planning Application No. PA10 -0190, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -17) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the south side of Vail Ranch Parkway approximately 145' west of Camion Piedra Rojo, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0190, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM -17) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VAIL RANCH PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 145' WEST OF CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO 10 Planning Application No. PA10 -0191, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -39) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the south side of Temecula Parkway approximately 525' west of Butterfield Stage Road, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CAREY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HARTER; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 4 Pat Kight Chairman PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0191, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM -39) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 525' WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 11 Planning Application No. PA10 -0192, a Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a new 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -41) in the City of Temecula right -of -way on the northeast side of Redhawk Parkway approximately 135' north from the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway, Matt Peters APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HARTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0192, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW PATH /CROWN CASTLE TO INSTALL A NEW 40' HIGH CONCRETE STREET LIGHT POLE AS PART OF ITS WIRELESS DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) MASTER PLAN (NODE TM-41) IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RIGHT -OF -WAY ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF REDHAWK PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 135' NORTH FROM THE CENTERLINE OF VAIL RANCH PARKWAY REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, April 6, 2011, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 5 Patrick Richardson Director of Planning and Redevelopment BACKGROUND SUMMARY: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: April 6, 2011 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works /City Engineer PROJECT SUMMARY: City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Forward to City Council for Approval. Since incorporation, the City of Temecula has utilized the County of Riverside's Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide for assessing potential traffic and circulation impacts of proposed development projects. The County's guide identifies the format and methodology to be used in the preparation of a traffic impact analysis document. To some extent the County's analysis methodology has fulfilled the City's needs. However, on numerous occasions, additions and modifications, which are not included in the guidelines, have been required to address specific impacts. The purpose of the City's proposed Traffic Impact Guidelines is to develop a standard format and methodology, which addresses the City's specific needs but remains consistent with the County's proven methodology. The proposed format and methodology changes are as follows: • Preparation of a Focused Traffic Study may be required for less intensive developments such as Plot Plans, Public Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits and other developments. • Revisions to the Traffic Impact Analysis exemptions. • The traffic impact scenarios include an evaluation of existing conditions with the proposed project traffic and project opening year with and without the proposed project traffic. • Based on the results of a level of service analysis, mitigation measures will be required at intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) "E" or "F" that will experience a delay of 2.0 seconds or greater with project traffic. • Based on the requirements of the Old Town Specific Plan, the level of service thresholds have been revised to allow LOS "F" on Old Town Front Street. • The mitigation measures have been revised to include project "fair share" mitigation based on a percentage of traffic impact at each study intersection. Also included in the proposed guidelines is a scoping agreement for the preparation of a Focused Traffic Study and Traffic Impact Analysis, a description of the required format for the preparation of the report document, and revised input parameters for the analysis of signalized intersections. At their meeting of January 26, 2011, the Public Works Committee considered the proposed guidelines and directed staff to process the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines through the Public /Traffic Safety Commission, Planning Commission and the City Council. 1 At their meeting of February 24, 2011, the Public /Traffic Safety Commission considered the proposed guidelines and recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council adopt the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. ATTACHMENT City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines 2 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES O F TEAfe 0 '‘ r90 00 00 0 .e S �'� 1989 ,,��� ��j , NEW oy 4 April 2011 Greg Butler, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 2.0 PURPOSE 3 3.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXEMPTIONS 3 4.0 COORDINATION WITH CITY 4 5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FORMAT 4 5.1 Study Area 4 5.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios 5 5.3 Level of Service Analysis Methodology 6 5.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 6 5.5 On -Site Circulation Analysis 6 5.6 Safety and Operational Analysis 7 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7 6.1 Project Fair Share 7 6.2 Conformance with General Plan Circulation Element 7 EXHIBIT A SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 EXHIBIT B TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FORMAT 11 EXHIBIT C SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS INPUT PARAMETERS 14 Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines is to provide a standard format and methodology for assessing potential traffic and circulation impacts of proposed development projects, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans and changes in Land Use Zoning in the City of Temecula. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report document shall be prepared, signed, and stamped by a Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer (Engineer) registered in the State of California, qualified to practice traffic engineering. 2.0 PURPOSE A Traffic Impact Analysis will be required for all General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans, and Change of Zone. At a minimum the TIA shall address the following: A. Will the ultimate circulation system planned for the area be able to provide the required General Plan Circulation Element Level of Service, even with the additional traffic impact of the proposed land use changes? B. If not, what mitigation measures will be necessary to maintain the required Level of Service? A Focused Traffic Analysis may be required for Plot Plans, Public Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits, and other development projects. At a minimum the Focused Traffic Study shall address the following: A. Will the Level of Service required by the General Plan Circulation Element be maintained at all affected intersections with the addition of traffic from the proposed project? B. If not, what mitigation measures will be necessary to provide the required Level of Service? C. If mitigation measures are necessary, are they feasible to implement? 3.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXEMPTIONS The types of development projects that are generally exempt are: A. Residential Parcel Maps. B. Multi - Family Residential Projects with less than 50 units. C. Plot Plans, Use Permits, and Other Development Projects of One (1) Acre or less. D. Preschools, Elementary Schools, Middle Schools, and High Schools. E. Community Centers, Community Parks, Lodges, Neighborhood Parks, and Religious Facilities. F. Congregate Care Facilities that contain significant special services, such as medical facilities, dining facilities, recreation facilities and support retail facilities. G. Any use which can demonstrate, based on the most recent edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a trip generation of less than 100 vehicle trips during each peak hour. The City, at its discretion, may require the preparation of a TIA or Focused Traffic Analysis for any development, if there are concerns about traffic safety, operational issues, or if the development is located near a major arterial intersection or area heavily impacted by traffic. Page 3 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 4.0 COORDINATION WITH CITY In order to streamline the TIA preparation and review process, the Engineer shall solicit input and approval from the City prior to preparing a draft TIA document. The following key points shall be addressed in a Scoping Agreement (Exhibit A) prior to initiating the TIA: • Determination of study area, intersections, and roadway links to be analyzed. • Project trip generation and directional distribution. • Identification of other proposed /approved projects for cumulative traffic, ambient (background) traffic growth assumptions, or integration with the City's model. • For projects located within an adjacent jurisdiction's Sphere of Influence, the Engineer shall solicit comments on the above from the affected jurisdiction's staff. The Engineer shall submit all comments to the City of Temecula for review and consideration. • For projects within one mile of a state highway, or any project that may create a significant impact on the state highway (see the trip generation thresholds in Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies), the Engineer shall coordinate with Caltrans. 5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FORMAT The TIA format and required elements are specified in Exhibit B, Traffic Impact Analysis Report Format. Any deviation from the format will require the City's approval prior to submitting the TIA document. At a minimum, the TIA document shall include the following major components: • Study Area • Analysis Scenarios • Level of Service Analysis • Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis • On -Site Circulation Analysis • Identification of Safety and Operational Improvements • Proposed Mitigation Measures • Project Fair Share • General Plan Conformance Review Projects that are "truck intensive" (warehouses, distribution centers, material distribution centers, surface mining permits) may be required to submit a TIA or Focused Traffic Study, which addresses the truck access routes, adequacy of the streets to be used (geometry and structural section), safety issues relating to the truck traffic, traffic signal operation and queueing, and potential impacts of truck traffic on existing residences or businesses. Application of a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0 to the project trips may be required. Traffic count data with vehicle classifications may also be required. Special event facilities that do not exhibit typical trip generation characteristics may require a unique analysis, including weekend and off -peak scenarios. Examples of such uses would be sports stadiums, racetracks, water parks, or uses that exhibit substantial traffic peaking on a periodic basis. The TIA for this type of facility shall include a traffic management plan to mitigate traffic impacts associated with the event. Adequate area wide access shall be provided to the site and all impacts shall be alleviated to the maximum extent possible. 5.1 Study Area The study area shall include any intersection of "Collector" or higher classification street, with a "Collector" or higher classification street, where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour project trips. All intersections and roadway segments within the study area shall be analyzed to identify Level of Service and roadway capacity impacts. Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 At a minimum the TIA shall evaluate the following: A. Site access driveways (existing and proposed) B. Roadways adjacent to the project site. C. Intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site. D. Any intersection of "Collector" or higher classification street, with a "Collector" or higher classification street, to which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. E. When required, roadway links between study intersections and /or project driveways. When a Focused Traffic Study is required, the study shall evaluate items A, B, and C. At the discretion of the City, an analysis of additional items may be required. 5.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios The TIA shall include an evaluation of the following scenarios: A. Existing Traffic Conditions. Existing traffic volumes will be analyzed to determine current conditions. Traffic count data shall be new or recent. In some cases, data up to one year old may be accepted, upon approval by the City. The TIA shall identify any existing Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies. B. Existing Traffic Conditions (With Project). Project generated traffic shall be added to the existing traffic count data. The TIA shall identify and analyze impacts to the existing circulation system. This analysis will be used to determine direct project impacts to the existing circulation system. C. Opening Year Traffic Conditions (Without Project). Traffic conditions will be projected to the estimated project opening by increasing the existing traffic volumes by an appropriate growth rate to be provided by City staff. The TIA shall identify any LOS deficiencies. D. Opening Year Traffic Conditions (With Project). Project generated traffic shall be added to the Opening Year data. The TIA shall identify and analyze impacts to the circulation system. This will be the basis for determining project specific impacts, mitigation, and conditions of approval. E. Cumulative Traffic Conditions. Traffic generated by other approved projects within a one mile radius of the project site that will affect the study area shall be identified and added to the Opening Year traffic identified in Scenario D. This includes projects that are proposed and are in the review process, but not yet approved. F. Project Phasing. Traffic conditions at each project phase completion shall be analyzed using the same approach as Opening Year (with and without project), if applicable. Traffic associated with each project phase shall be included in the analyses of each successive phase of the proposed project. G. General Plan Traffic Conditions. Traffic projections for General Plan Buildout conditions shall utilize the City's traffic model or other approved model. The Engineer shall use the model projections as the basis for determining turning movement volumes for the required intersection analysis. A manual assignment of project traffic added to the General Plan Buildout traffic volumes may be used to determine total future traffic. This analysis will determine if the Circulation Element of the General Plan is adequate to accommodate projected traffic at the target LOS, or if additional mitigation is necessary. When a Focused Traffic Study is required, the study shall analyze scenarios A, B, D, and E. At the discretion of the City, an analysis of additional scenarios may be required. Page 5 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 5.3 Level of Service Analysis Methodology The City of Temecula's General Plan Circulation Element has established minimum LOS standards for the City's Arterial Highway network. The TIA shall determine if the required LOS can be achieved after the construction of the proposed project. The TIA shall include all LOS calculations for affected study area intersections and roadway links. All LOS calculations shall be performed utilizing the Synchro software program. The results of the "with- project" conditions shall conform to the City's LOS thresholds shown below: • LOS "D" or better at all intersections • LOS "E" or better for all arterial highway segments (links) • LOS "F" or better will be permitted on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North All study area intersections or study area roadway links that do not achieve the required LOS, shall be reanalyzed using the proposed mitigation measures to determine if the required LOS can be achieved. If added project traffic causes an increase in delay of 2.0 seconds or more at intersections operating at LOS "E" or "F ", it shall be considered a significant impact and mitigation measures will be required to reduce the delay to pre - project or acceptable conditions. Proposed projects with heavy truck usage shall apply Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors to determine intersection delays. The PCE factors shall be approved by the City prior to the analysis. Intersection Analysis An intersection level of service analysis shall be performed using the methodology in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual 2000, or most recent release. Refer to Exhibit C for default input parameters. In accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, LOS "D" or better shall be maintained at all study area intersections. Link Analysis When required, a roadway link analysis shall be performed using the methodology Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual 2000, or most recent release. In accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, LOS "E" or better shall be maintained on all study area roadways. 5.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analysis shall be performed at un- signalized intersections within the study area, including project access points, for all TIA scenarios. The traffic signal warrant analysis shall be performed using the latest version of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrant analysis worksheets shall be included in the TIA document's appendices. 5.5 On -site Circulation Analysis The TIA shall evaluate the proposed on -site circulation for the project and address the adequacy of the proposed circulation. This includes identifying the traffic control at project driveways and /or intersections. Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 5.6 Safety and Operational Analysis The TIA shall evaluate the existing roadway conditions to determine if safety and /or operational improvements are necessary due to increase in traffic from the project or cumulative projects. The types of improvements needed may include, but are not limited to: • Additional through and /or turn lanes, including free right -turn lanes • Increased left and /or right turn lane length • Parking restrictions • Measures to reduce cut - through project traffic in adjacent residential areas • Queue lengths and impacts to adjacent intersections • Need for traffic signal coordination • Need for CCTV camera facilities to monitor traffic conditions • Bicycle Facilities When a Focused Traffic Study is required, the study may include an analysis of Items 5.3 through 5.6, at the discretion of the City. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES In accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, at intersections where the Level of Service (LOS) falls below, or is expected to fall below an acceptable threshold with the addition of project traffic, feasible measures shall be identified to mitigate the project's impacts for the following conditions: • Existing Conditions (With Project) • Opening Year Traffic Conditions (VVith Project) • Cumulative Traffic Conditions (VVith Project) • General Plan Traffic Conditions In all cases, the feasibility of the proposed improvements must be demonstrated and the availability of right -of -way must be verified. Acquisition of additional right -of -way, if necessary, shall be the responsibility of the project proponent. 6.1 Project Fair Share The Project Fair Share of mitigation costs shall be calculated based on the percentage of the proposed project's traffic contribution to each study area intersection. The Project Fair Share shall be calculated for each analyzed peak hour. 6.2 Conformance with General Plan Circulation Element The TIA shall identify if the roadway system proposed in the City's General Plan Circulation Element is adequate to accommodate project traffic, or if changes to the General Plan roadway system are necessary as part of the project approval. Page 7 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 OF T EN/te OO 00 '7; f' 1989 l ' 1°N s' mow °4° SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Project Name: Project Address: Project Description: Case No. Related Cases: SP No. EIR No. GPA No. CZ No. Name: Address: Telephone: Fax: E -Mail: Consultant Developer EXHIBIT A A. Trip Generation Source: (ITE 8 Edition or other) Current GP Proposed Land Use Land Use Current Proposed Zoning Zoning Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 Current Trip Generation In AM Trips PM Trips Out Total Internal Trip Allowance Yes No ( % Trip Discount) Pass -By Trip Allowance Yes No ( % Trip Discount) A pass -by trip discount of 25% may be allowed for appropriate land uses. The pass -by trips at adjacent study area intersections and project driveways shall be shown on a figure in the report document. B. Trip Geographic Distribution: N % S % E % W % (Attach exhibit showing detailed distribution) C. Cumulative Traffic: Project Opening Year: Annual Ambient Growth Rate: Phase Year(s): Other area projects to be analyzed: (To be provided by City and /or agencies within one mile radius of project) Model /Forecast Methodology: (Build -out or travel demand model — identify model) D. Study Area Intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision upon the discretion of the City Engineer). 1. 6. 2. 7. 3. 8. 4. 9. 5. 10. E. Study Area Roadway Segments: (NOTE: Subject to revision upon the discretion of the City Engineer). 1 6. 2. 7. 3. 8. 4. 9. 5. 10. F. Other Jurisdictional Impacts: Is this project within a one mile radius of the Sphere of Influence of another City or County of Riverside boundary? Yes _ No If so, name of Jurisdiction: G. Site Plan: (please attach reduced copy) Page 9 Proposed Trip Generation In Out Total Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 H. Specific Issues To Be Addressed: (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guideline) (To be filled out by City of Temecula) I. Existing Conditions: Traffic count data must be new or recent (less than one year old). Provide date of traffic count, if using other than new counts. Date of Counts Recommended By: Approved Scoping Agreement: Consultant's Representative Date City of Temecula Date Scoping Agreement Submitted on Revised on Page 1 0 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 OF TEM e OO 00 1/ ( 7 / /a ink Ru I 0 % � 1989 � j 'ioNS.NEWOp 4 ° � TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FORMAT The Traffic Impact Analysis Report shall consist of the following: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Site Location and Study Area B. Project Description C. Findings 2. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Traffic Impact Analysis and Objectives B. Site Location and Study Area (provide exhibit) C. Project Identification — Case Number and Related Case Numbers D. Project Description • Project Size and Description • Existing Land Use and Zoning • Proposed Land Use and Zoning • Site Plan for Proposed Project (provide exhibit) • Proposed Project Opening Year • Proposed Phasing, if any • Indicate if proposed project is within an adjacent City's Sphere of Influence or adjacent to County boundary 3. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Identify Study Area and Intersections B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics (provide exhibit) • Description of Roadway System within the Study Area C. Existing Traffic Volumes • AM /PM peak hour turning movement volumes and Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes (provide exhibit) D. Existing Level of Service and Delay at Study Intersections (provide table) E. Existing Roadway Link Level of Service and Delay (provide table) EXHIBIT 8 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 4. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Project Opening Traffic • Project Trip Generation (provide table) — The latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation shall be used. • Identify any factors used to adjust Project Trip Generation, such as pass -by trips and /or internal trips. Adjusted rates shall be included in (provide table). • Project Trip Distribution and Assignment (provide exhibit) • Project peak hour turning movement volumes and ADT (provide exhibit) • Existing Plus Project peak hour turning movement volumes (provide exhibit) • Ambient Growth Rate • Opening Year peak hour turning movement volumes without project (provide exhibit) • Total Opening Year peak hour turning movement volumes (provide exhibit) (Additional Exhibits will be required for phased projects) B. Cumulative Traffic • Ambient Growth Rate • Identify location of other approved or proposed development projects (provide exhibit) • Trip Generation from other approved projects (provide table) • Trip Distribution and Assignment of other approved development projects (provide exhibit) • Peak hour turning movement volumes without project (provide exhibit) • Total peak hour turning movement volumes with project (provide exhibit) C. General Plan Traffic (When Required) • Identify Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics (provide exhibit) • Peak hour turning movement volumes without project (provide exhibit) • Total peak hour turning movement volumes with project (provide exhibit) 5. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A. Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) Analysis — Project Opening Traffic • Intersection LOS and Delay Existing Plus Project (provide table) • Intersection LOS and Delay Opening Year without project (provide table) • Intersection LOS and Delay Opening Year with project (provide table) • Roadway Link LOS with project (provide table) • Intersection LOS and Delay with improvements, if necessary to achieve LOS D (provide table) B. Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) Analysis — Cumulative Traffic • Intersection LOS and Delay without project (provide table) • Intersection LOS and Delay with project (provide table) • Roadway Link with project (provide table) • Intersection LOS and Delay with improvements, if necessary to achieve LOS D (provide table) C. Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) Analysis — General Plan Traffic • Intersection LOS and Delay with project (provide table) • Roadway Link with project (provide table) • Intersection and Roadway Link LOS /Delay with additional improvements to achieve General Plan LOS (provide table) Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Proposed Mitigation Measures to Achieve LOS at Deficient Intersections for Existing, Opening Year, Cumulative, and General Plan traffic conditions (provide table) B. Proposed Mitigation Measures to Achieve LOS at Deficient Roadway Links for Existing, Opening Year, Cumulative, and General Plan traffic conditions (provide table) C. Traffic Signal Analysis D. Recommended Improvements • Intersection and Roadway Improvements • Traffic Control • On -Site Improvements • Parking Facility • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements E. Project Fair Share (provide table) F. Conformance with General Plan Circulation Element Page 13 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines April 2011 OF T "It e 80 oG0 14 os % � � I 1989 �j�NS�NEWOp4 � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS INPUT PARAMETERS PARAMETER Base Saturation Flow Rate Heavy Vehicle Factor Grade Exclusive Left -turn Lane Dual Left -turn Lanes Protected Left Turn Phasing Minimum Green Time Cycle Length Lost Time VALUE EXHIBIT C 1800 pc /hr /lane (per City's Circulation Element) Determine % heavy vehicle in existing traffic stream based on count data or consultation with City. Projects with truck intensive uses must convert project trips to passenger car equivalents (PCE =2). Include when indicated grade is greater than 8% Peak hour volume > 100 vph Peak hour volume > 300 vph Left turn volume > 240 vph 7 seconds for each movement 60 seconds to 120 seconds. Verify traffic signal timing and cycle lengths with City Per HCM Intersection analyses shall be performed using the latest version of the Synchro software. Closely spaced intersections shall be evaluated based on the 85 percentile queue length, to insure that turn lane storage and queue lengths do not exceed the available turn pocket length. Actual traffic signal timing and peak hour factors for intersection shall be collected in the field and utilized for the existing and near -term analyses. In cases where traffic is added from a significant number of cumulative projects, the consultant shall use their engineering judgment in the application of peak hour factors to maintain consistency with the existing conditions analyses. A peak hour factor of 1.0 shall be applied to Buildout traffic conditions. DATE OF MEETING: April 6, 2011 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Eric Jones, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA10 -0309, a two -phase Development SUMMARY: Plan Application for a three -story, 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom floor plans generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration w/ Monitoring Plan Section 15070 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Larry Markham, MDMG, Inc. on behalf of Buron Inc. General Plan Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Lot Area: Professional Office (PO) Zoning Designation: Professional Office (PO) Site: Vacant/Professional Office (PO) North: Rancho California Road, Existing Commercial /Community Commercial (CC) South: Via Las Colinas, Existing Apartments /High Density Residential East: Moraga Road, Existing Apartments /Medium Density Residential West: Vacant, Existing Office /Professional Office (PO) Existinq /Proposed Min /Max Allowable or Required 3.40 Acres 0.92 Acres Minimum Required Total Floor Area /Ratio: N/A N/A Landscape Area /Coverage: 0.44 Proposed 0.25 Minimum Parking Required /Provided: 72 Proposed 70 Required BACKGROUND SUMMARY On October 21, 2010, Larry Markham of MDMG Inc. submitted Planning Application No. PA010- 0309 on behalf of Buron Inc. The application is for a Development Plan designed to allow the construction of a 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility comprised of 99 units within an area zoned Professional Office. Congregate care facilities are permitted by right in areas zoned Professional Office. The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will total 77,161 square feet and will consist of 70 units. Twenty -four of these units will be dedicated to patients with memory loss, Dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Phase 2 will total 20,524 square feet and will have 29 units. 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 project will be constructed on a parcel totaling 3.40 acres. Rancho California Road is located on the north boundary, Moraga Road is on the east boundary, Via Las Colinas boarders the south. A vacant lot is located immediately to the west. The surrounding area consists of existing commercial uses and medium and high density residential units. Phase 1 of the project will consist of a three - story, 77,161 square foot senior congregate care facility. This structure will contain 70 units with 24 of these being reserved for residents suffering from memory related illnesses. The units will consist of studio, one bedroom (with and without den) and two bedroom (with and without den) floor plans. An outdoor courtyard and areas for recreation and gardening will also be provided. Ingress and egress for the site will occur at two points. The primary access to the facility will be placed on Moraga Road. This entrance will take patrons into the parking lot in which the applicant will provide 72 spaces. Seventy spaces are required per Table 17.24.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The site plan also shows that decorative stamped concrete will be used in the site entrances as well as the drop -off areas to the structure. Three retaining walls will be used for the project. These walls are located on the northwest and northeast corners of the property and will each total three feet in height. The wall on the southeast corner facing Via Las Colinas will total six feet. A six -foot high screen wall will be located on the west side of the project. This wall has been designed to match the main structure with regard to color and finish. Phase 2 of the structure will consist of a 20,524 square foot expansion. The expansion will be located along Rancho California Road and will consist of 29 units. Access to the facility will remain unchanged in phase 2. Facility operations will also remain the same. Architecture The project includes many design elements widely found in Southern California. For example, the applicant has chosen to incorporate mission style roof tiles and stone will be used on the support columns throughout the structure. The exterior wall of the project will consist of a cement pilaster with an acyclic sand pebble finish. The overall building form has been designed to ensure the project is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. For example, the project incorporates varied rooflines and wall planes. An arcade structure around most of the first floor as well as the window railings along the east elevation will create further visual interest for the project. These measures will ensure the three -story structure avoids having a "boxy" appearance. A screen wall will be located on the west and a portion of the north elevations. This wall will total six feet in height and will be constructed to mimic the overall structure with regard to finish. This will ensure continuity between the wall and structure. Landscaping Landscaping for the project will feature a variety of trees shrubs and ground cover plant material. These plant materials will surround the property and will thus serve as a way to soften the hardscape features such as pedestrian walkways, drive isles, and parking areas. Phase one of the project will feature a mix of myoporum and rosemary with a seating area in the area that will contain phase two. This will ensure that phase one maintains a "finished" look. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on March 11, 2011 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and based on an initial study, it has been determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. An Initial Study was prepared for the project in an effort to further evaluate if the project would generate any potentially significant impacts to the environment. This document was distributed and made available for public review on March 11, 2011. The results of the Initial Study show environmental impacts for the project are all less than significant with the mitigation proposed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program developed for the project. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F) 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. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed use as a compatible use within Professional Office zoning areas, and the project is in conformance with other Ordinances of the City and State law. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. As conditioned, the project has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the project will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. In addition, the project has also been reviewed by a variety of external government agencies as part of the Initial Study process to further ensure that the project has been designed and appropriately conditioned so that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring Plan Notice of Public Hearing 250 500 Feet SOURCE OF TOPO09APMf: LEOAL 001111Pilq) NOTE CONSTRUCTICN NOTES al.•w••PI.p ur••.•.a Wm a.w•• 2 w.MIN w rd•WPM...N•e•. ..,T•sc fest ea..•en. --- •re•Lw w Wlv S ea 1, a a w MN 4 M r NA 01 INN wren r w M or - — —v--� �t'a-r'oasW.v.a , a vWaa Wes PPM/INAPT EARTHYKLIN°UANTTTES ...n M•••MOM r wo•w LIMN a.•r • r�e. /APPLICANT - r a-r 0.01..u+a a r -r to . s r r a �i ,re D-r Mt R•Mt.\a Pm N ala Lues fsane-Muu•c.. ca.�a,.=.1ir ! ® v.a. POI ca.a.a v. - ‘- Ma.{i w"T.1 l ..".era eon e'rarer 'I.�w.u o.r r ae __ - r •� ®®O r'a Aim PANCEL N0. :.w�w.l�•s:-_ r l r r... , --•----•---11-."-- 1 .n ervi w.a.M••.11,M-1110110 _--f r�� _f� ROAD •�•'•f — �W�..,,.uNaar J.- r�� A F Nl e ` i 7 �aaw,ww .iw s'. ar.c•a+.wo r M ae.vvv �" r/� R1• Q - wl Irl COM.�e -�' /•/ /•_,/ •• __ '-- \,,,, I' �r 1~= a.rair.Mw o.aar•a r� 4/ • • ♦ '_��.`=J. ;meqL/r -- T3S Irl .M..... w.ay.e rlkI/�, •i•_a�•! . i�_//^ ._...- ;'� `�\\��`l`ll� If� I r.M�..�. r:oaa �/ • Ate' ....-••• _ .� �,�" T�r�f�f 'k �r1 0 • '/ " ti r eun..ao C, s. r - r te ••' _ 11.97 1 • MIME(=ME 11411.1 IMO / .-71.4;44: 1`R•jar O � ! 1#t Jy&,,o rf 1 0 W �+...... —o— OWN w..MAN w...r CEO rIl0.. • • '�' '11' ." _.t r. �..� Lr: J�`� ;jl�� '?T'/1 r ....en • f. , ,� :A • 44 II 'M: I ILf8f1N9 WOIOI7S IO �.•, �' bI` 1 ^ �' MOM MOM,teles mew a IMO a Y lar,Me ' O a., !`'' AIM IA IMP I a . ......1.4•=2 +r�wua�rav=NM\ -164 C.1 :144:::118..:.: y / f.;t I� , tan ..a v..rn a••1=2=11.......• r .47- Tri n,- ®+.uro •••••2.10•041101 wwla w.ma ��, 1 1 Ir 1! —ISI�e��t I. 0 ,:,LLa MA.aa �-a�ravaewro. 4,, is -00 •-�•,.: r"._ r a i t! I p 1, ma '•i , ,^„ EXISTING EASEMENTS .10,41.41r �.0 \\V// �...s,.. .1. 0 11 11.1.4 001.1.10.1.1 p 1 Zi1 .ta—ns wrm+H•''.. MN.a.KaMfry coM .Illw / / ` brn hg'�}'r ,�,.y_1 ' I` turn r r.m..y PROTECT LOCATION / ` i- ` _. . ,\ u¢...../.15 .. PROJECT STATISTICS /- P.‘11/4) Q -- l f COTTAGE(MEMORY CARE) �" _ i"� �PR�P .� " :- '1 ' , „ca....r.ns9o,..nr.: 1 MANOR(ASSISTED MING) \ NG,,Ao . 1 JIM. a IOW ,0114. - . I n .1,0111! . ,.OBi . .00. „ �l11111111, I \ , BOLDING AREAS 1010.• r + 1.1_ R. raw ` *VS. igtwilIi J'lei 1 skt..•.1. I' .00 1001. I. .0.411111° 771M Int _ 'c..'.,.1M.WM O 1- -1,1-- • •-- dan 41 „i..., !1,•-d.IMI Mi. i t - , PROJECTDATA ,0 4:7f 1i/'��`1F� }I�"Jf I •� � I]� I I ,.a•_ '�� ,f - a 1 1:-.- IY I .:e. �...a o ..r....*Ma MT.1.,....r., / .� ��Fi •t F� �f Fi y 1 a' 1 1 11.11 wnrtn wo+.w.wr _ Mow u[xM..11N v 0.on11+- MCA Nu MOP PPM MAP MMI AS U�M� C�lit 4es ''i I I I I s.a.e.,M.1.ON Mr M.Oa m.w1B0 ••••'' ��� In ;--I- I . I I J L.IL ! -- J . ill,, - I I 7 0 .14.13 PO .nrsv..M dre. _ t d n.roo.M..w .v.wNrrran.M.a1c[ , hy itiIi' '••,•r„a., _; .. I M — I 1M. Ok K.Oi�CiF4 O awill r[ -o� f -- I gal I Pail cos mr.r �.� �l �,!�t cij O,Mr., t •I nl_i. _ �n.r.uanl...0 N.NS 7 r .-- ZWIEDSLIWIL Y....,..... liTI ei II :7.1-1' 1 I W.u,n 1s� • MSM PM A II .110511.11.1,13._Alielll ' 7 1 . I , Tmw P.M. 1 I oavw.c.culwc.,ow.on ....m.[wM.t<....e.�,. •w.�. ........onw �i.1 wcurr 1 re �� ^ � w f FI►-Fillit i '�illi ^4 III..s.1.l.ne w. www s.sm.sm.[+ro ao I�` ��,,??4 t rLWIill��� �IMPS UP 1,1.1„RCP1011.0 MPS PP �� 11.11.w.c. ii I L I 1-1 11111111- 111. "iii`a DRAWING INDEX ::: 1_ si:. ��, �.,'xi 1ao.AP.o �1 R: i ". 1 :I� I„e —� I• I I Mee sip 1 y -♦ .. sent., 1,kw -L`< 1 j 1 1 ..M. pr+wcr • ENT ... 01[[01. O,,-,. M ... pimp ....cam ,. 1 ti nw...wO s.,..... A 1 , s...1111.rwcw _ �.� / 1 - -.,.1.P,.. LEGEND •r + —-- . —-- — - t I NOTES - l t _ �-- •a.,,. .,. . "1 I lio r...., m..,MIS NM.o am o Jt N..wn.:1....1.1 I I VIA-LAS-CQLlNAS- I .....rn�..e.am / I • I. !011 • ' I I , I .u.........urn �' _- =_- __-� �� _ 00.0.0..,R,111•010,1..... /I” -- --—--—-- 1 ,.. .- i” i - ,..,1....o...• ..a.0ti.n 0.isi.— - l l . 1010..•1..0..1P.',rswHn., r �" ...i..�r.v.1. Uc APu,...,n 1'.7D• Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 SITE PLAN Al �_� Auto.. Tx-TS ...[....1 ,w.„•41.11 •PLANNERS _.Y.._ &iron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia Va2K3 do >a 1177 West Hastings Street.suite 2133 604.687.2280 aw..o_� FPM%PPM rr 0 0 - 4.1 r• sr, I. I R-------II-------1, i. \Alia '' II"_- I Will MI II a°I lkI i up pr + ■ . i • ■ rnr .�. of �::1 Io'i0 Iill• IO irtAao , 1 lill9 MI 411 41 (411! 11 Il Ill 1 IL,� I •Pa v r. S" '. II a Ii II MII ,pO7aya I a■ ■••■ il as=I a• Ia:ol IN MI 1::1 Ia I� el �� ies ,,,,.a I1 4 H .. I . , , .•r ,- 111 • t,, ca.m II W I( ii iH1, H "� pai - 01 Is m. 10'01 �g g� 10 1 I11"1 I €ag ■1.1 Lbsan., LM'.1.1 1.1. •r•` 1 =1l& %il ■ • • ■■ • • I I • • ■ -� '"' - 4 4M I 'I MI I„. li II MI Irl I I MI ]la "I - 0 d •_• d Er i .. "1111 uu •=• •■�! Iir�i■0 .=iIlllt -- ttin 7 0 _ Tx. , I 51151,..0 en lin 1 IP .�. -, glit: If 1 .. ':fit ME:' •- 1 -II 1°a •1111 .°I II'- •IDI MI Ira I��I •' • a a • 11 -1 Ictal 1::• IEMI ,:I:' 1o,a1 4':1 Io �'�" o .. o ! .. :er I . 11 11'11 16 p I p.� . 9_.... . I" o a • =mill% ili MEMORY CARE AI :i 11 all 1 1 11101 IIIP i AN munt ■!"`� ._ yr , V "� of ..ol I..I lo;■. 'E.:. . id, -A.-, . • . . .. ..D rwe OW ,.. lila II IIM II'II MIAMI III IION �� • •' r ngxea •ear . .... ..:.. ■a. ■■ .4 oar .A.N•IF Ill••{'4• 'i" __�•_. Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 FIRST FLOOR PLAN /;R AEcr.lrECTI .•-=....=- v� Boron.Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 *'I"".". NM. 1010• •hANNERS 0..,nw,ruwrza,,•r..n1r WI 1014. COMM.4. 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 ,,,,,,I.0 ,,,,,,,,W.twl,,mow • gill 11 MI I0 II .11'11. II O ;! 11, II ❑ 111 •.• I. ::■ I Ill • u pi ■i1t ppppi i .i11 i .i '.,'�p' , f. ��� 1■ I I Il MI■U 11 = Mer 11 iiiii 1.1 ,�M mLn' • _i i. ' i N M. 7 y ■ 'tta'a�"' ■■ i_ _ u.--.2. • ]ii �o � o� IIt'di Ile I�q �_ . fn..1 . coq ,1r a - .,_._ i .L-1 1■n�S[_, :r_,S_tl■1 '�1.7: '• , yry ,'il. . ■ .■ ■�E� q q 3>MO.O J4 ` I� ` 1ND.Od. �' 1■� I • rte❑■I1 ■ 01 10,01 10 $ i 0 II .ILII' III = .11 III'11 II I O II II .p , '716i;tl _ _ — ■ ■, all In ■ _ it d'h ■ ■ MI i• ■__■ I mmip■1 �ilirPllliM —� I ulluuun 7 .,,x,.0 : jl I —7' m I , i 3 - ;%.•.,..,:,,...1 7 I 1. ..> 1 . .... n .., .... = az • — — -- .,... air ���� ■: e. .. ■.� °1 W 117 i.,- ■ til�Ir� ■ - Y ill In �■■ ` v a■, iii■ ; O 11 .11;11. 1111 ❑ ;III �II'll. Ui; ❑ ,,ii .II 1i. 11 p :i1 w- ❑ ;', Di 1 I- '--- III ti,==z 4' : =g;i= LI • x=x 11 /1 '"'"' - rp 4 ,„,. __ am 1,ami t■nail-1 o-t iz p_t 1 [1 u' .!!. I o+wr lb a smr. �m I �_ Il .- 1 ill Eu, I .. a 11 ._ , , .- IPI] i i -_ tl. O = -�ur I o 20 I �11 I 1 o -, �u Nur p om o II =a., J X00/■EOA'—� , �. ol iii Ili 111 D t 2E11 itiii w�. , E.�, . .'.�. „ ..• • ■■ • klim—seilliiill_■ dizi _ ze:x,,,,,,,, • ❑ II II °- i1 ;I ❑ i i ❑ II II 11 II ❑ ❑ I: II II ;I ❑ Iti11� /4\ t/■•.1.-0. ii'. ..7.1-._-..:-..-:........ Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A3 A^c«:,Ecn Buron Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 ' ' iANNE.S ...-_-..__ pq 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 01"O"`MP.I'`O•1/.1,,""",,�"ry 1„'0•,i; C0�""" ❑ I I ai'll.II ❑ ;,'ll1 II ❑ :i 'as ■. – ' • cn ,..on • a ,Kn _ .. I ° M. ...r • r'■ ❑ I .II ' iiioil w ' a l: '6 ,rn. . ❑ ■t __ i i .. _ a. •*MOON ImitrAill •ii i '1 1" .. .. . • ii ■ Ea iiiii - II hal. ■I a _,:. .1 t1:1/ li ? • ] -. .fib ill ti vim Ng VIE: OAT! 11 --- MN i,� qiiq � 11a1, film,it - -- . . .p iiii lim Li 0 : Flair ,... — in. ... .., .., � li ti MEI "*--ii i1e,00i a,n.�, I�����•.■ II !• I _ .o.on„—II ■ ) ■■ ril ■ :il — — — I ■ ii ■ ...I It, I'• ■■ : ■ u •' .nl ass. i' :ii ACM. fl it= ow rfr -7' 1 ., ..... " ll 1 K I I_ I 7 0' 1 1 . viiii I 1 4 _ •... ., ,:,,,., . • "R" III li ; l q.�; , . •.o. ,.❑ • , I / — — 11— — 4 le • . , ____,4.,:--- eq ,, r . .. 11.4011 A =mi., a .,..z.,, Ai,. ... -- Ai Li eup di 1 NIIIIA ra 1010 Allithit-4=M1101 ''In "3111111111 RI qiil - - Ic.o mu. 1 �..on...orss. ti I) -' '- �I I I IP o a RI I I,P let RI I �e '.�---s l e • ■ as ■ ■ el ��• a■. o.■ ❑ 11 11 I ❑ : : ❑ II II II II ❑ : : ❑ I. I1 11 l ❑ ; — — — — — — — — — — ■!■ II .,1IMI 1. ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ .d li. ■ 00 ■ • e_ ■ .,1 Iii ■ ■p ■ •i WI1/8..1.4* IA i, M w— Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10.0309 THIRD FLOOR PLAN A4 ARCHITECTS •►,Awtes _ Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 w.,+,. r.w •. n 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 ormamon AFPucAnolo smarm lam a h» <o.o w. ..nn-aco.rrm 1.11.1.1301.1 111.10 II. 110i _ _ I - i-VAN 1 �1Nihi, ' � „K,.,., ❑ NIL\ lir El iIIIIL VII� ��1 I NP:- _ j'�� MO .�..,d.. .,...o. _-_..1.11.1.1111111.1111*e_ems ilr A E- -V713i. I 4/ = 1 gam' �ii - - �iO - - moi .i..--.-.-:,-_-7 n Illr, 1 - 1 _ ).- ID 1A110s41 I IL ffr E- _ \ OVIL0 V..00.03 . : _ 400.11.11..�. „wn..00rrnais,Au.MOM 161:0110 r\. - .1110' 111 /7.- 1 \ A, l. Iirr 101100..C...1W.~ ------_-_-= Cilf.E.....3. \ I i aZ I ,, _ 14 IAB Aoipp _i IN I Iii IS 4.,, ir - - ';..','I WI''.4. I .r u.Val '�I!II I I.I . . -: , Ir,00..,ran...•MO*ae4..w r I i I = L4 - ! i , ,- - I 1 1111.114„... S. l _ - - �. 1 — -F to — iii' - _ Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 `).A10 `� ROOF PLAN A5 •*.A,v; f..:--...:— Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 __ ", YNl u..3. I,Y ro pqi 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.22800000.00.»"uo..R..�..WTI�.< o..a�,� e 0 • 'LI/1- if-1? r o APr--1 . .. ---,01?k----,_ PI u "ulqullpl I 1151.1.,2;---------...... 1 uIIIIIIU^ I •"IIIIIIIgI�I IS'I u I,,,pin ,„,„„VIII III IIIIIIIh111 ( vllllllllll LL • ,till!�iIIII IIIc_.,,IIII IIImu�I IM u�II 1 I II�II�II UIIIIIII�,,,, ,Im„IIHIIII�I�II►IIIIIIIIIIkIu►__.II II I�i�i.illplllnl„uiluillH l�►II I�i�II�oo�I,►1Ill�i�li,,u11111 IIIuaI „„„ nIIIII�III�. _ � •,� - Iru,nl I • L „M -� .M n,"t n. fn, �r�.l ` – ..1 'I--I • // .,�r: I U I!J ���.':_� a l.l '.1././.moi►_' I_ I I' • . m. nIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIu • _. r„IIIULK�.nnumwunwnniontilIiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIII = a�� .->tuhJuIll�lln �� pie* III li' I ■ ■ ril ; L , � r� - ��. 0 EXTERIOR FINISHES OCfw.NO .KTW'..MIIIft tO•moo,.K.nLLWtMM.IM.eR...TC...W0M r EAST ELEVATION - MORAGA ROAD ®•00'nr .MYSIO.N^'Ir COMMITS V TlL..O.A OF n w.an CLW ®MNOO*nM45.1041."1 COM Mas...aomo-N.1%. ®...,ns.Mmm swu rO Wald,.00w..5s ®'Mutt.SSUMK.5JO Own..Avr MM...rMm WOK t MOww ill 1.6.11 ,.1 -0 A6 ug„ Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA Development Plan Case No PA10-0309 EAST ELEVATION Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 0.14.01.11,..n�Ao ...s`�`"` '» " K 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 RAW.000M•resNMI.Wrz�';,a ,ow 0 ft, maiiir- ;111111 � 40 -1. fr----11 . . ry. . 01,11"- ilF 70111., 417 " III JP . ii 1111 � 1 I 1 I . .awl Z• - >r t .� - 4- i �•,ar♦ t ail ,i+l� *i!` idol,., isi is `,iii � I J<,111 I 'f1 I��y 'i. .1 yc. ��..' .� �' � �aiil II! - i1�1i1 - � . i. wry . . • ...- 'Ail. milli ' 1; L : , ., nib ?� — ' D EXTERIOR FINISHES O cl.rtNg1;sw, 1.LOGgr�.oncl..alar[MK Malaga..Incl. ..alsgulw•n.r NORTH ELEVATION -RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ®..,....i. MSC*Mi 001101{11'5'RL ltllal/i TFZNaMaAr 0...ccw MM,Qg1A4•411l.a PI IIS•p W®.CUM GUM ®,tom.a,a.,,l,c..Ma.a,..06,-,d. ®..a..%•••011,011.11016•10.10.1X1•11•1•10 0 un M••••n.1001•41a16,11• 11111-N.1llaltl.bp.g Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10.0309 NORTH ELEVATION A7 AACNn.C.Z .►�ANNFRS ....--_te Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 """'^0,11 ^""ND '"n* 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 0f T1 .C....M.aR Wg'„ ""�"'>o,. r "ii le, . _ 4111.... ,.;trial._ „An._ � p .�tlllpuAwl», �;♦ "��,'•,,ri. ' r'.rr'� 11 "i1111'I�IIII IIII �II'p' 'tllhl h �piUur� 11j1P. - . .,., I q,ttt 1 1 .. I-J I ill' 1 '' H ._ 11 I I 1 1 , - ' till; ISI .•;, :I For ' IIII 11 1p illl�l ��� ���4�Illill111111��1111�II� �� l�lld�" IIIUUI- -t II q I "�t... • :�., �_'.�111n�1r-c.,I�a��Illl .,IIII111M���Ii1 lll�llllllllllllllillli11111;i.. _,11�I��t!!�Ili,„,..l! •�IIIIIIIIIIII_IIIIIidlf_-...,11ll _ iI,11,.�Illl�l,.,,_ �- ��i . 'I ISI!Iu� _,11+1111I11111111111111111III���,��_Sa, �i WnL__ r N�: _u1A dllllllllllll'_W —1 � _ _�r�_ —.?:::•• ® EXTERIOR FINISHES © ®•uaw s n. . oa sins ewnn r. .•s• ._.oe O w e.o n.nrawr WEST ELEVATION o....,.»MN.MOW...a......,IDO.•n.a.• ®...,,S moans vies TO W1O,..m.,.10..., pmum oaf. ,.,..K.., ....O.. MI r6.11' ve -rn A8 Wa a Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA Development Plan Case No PA10-0309 WEST ELEVATION . _ Buron.Inc.,Vancouver,Brmuh Columbia V6E2K3 or...WMOw.c.a,•s,.yn.0, _ ,Aro 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 ............c..........,11.151.41.1f 1.100 0 o i1 0 1? .1111.., 1 .iiiillNgw_ r—i _ � pp 111.111111111111 � sdilllu�l t ��l�������� 111 11 � Iw►iuud�l Illy. I p ii!l II11.I1I �« LI�uIII111111/11111101111"1111111111I111I 'Illhlll I �IIIA 'nlll 11 11 ! Flo i nl IC ' 1 iu l n u dl���llliiii��;��„_ p^V. 1 _ „�mlluli;,:. --,,iii�l�iilt. 1U11Ulll��lll. MI ., �UIIII:IIIIII�um�.,. .II ! I, i I i .' ' 1—i I--i ` I 11 u14.4-4-•••• i_; 7 — 'n -- ...• •, • . 1 .2.. , Mum' ' 10,...1.21. e ic..-._, • 1111111(Illlillilr .: .,I �� �E_ _„�i�,,_ I 11.,11 1 11.._.- . ... or f - _ munnu.uui /_�. • i2 I • mo ea --I I \_I �� Lll�i�-� I�',,1 L— I — i�l i .!'`'I ! � , � EMIIPIII I V SOUTH ELEVATION VIA LAS COLINAS-ASSISTED LIVING SOUTH ELEVATION - PASSENGER DROP-OFF C !1 I di ...illlllls!IIII EXTERIOR FINISHES `�/ \ -,� ` 0:+:inw.,°m•nse..ww�cwoMORIMP r.da..rroo.c lir n /. , (�•nry I-.IryIW SMC[a..JC'.'4'ni..RfhR..tR n2 V.r�.a R.r ©.MEP'/t.ufl..uaNlY bar A1tl.Xaplm afYY 1a \..I.Q. ds i �� r. . �► .. 14 141111' , �-A .rlllr.- . --- I11.111 Illig .lIIIIIIIIullllliilllllll1. �- o..�..�.�� �.....a., �U 'I' r[; .9 I Q •Iue v..+.n.clan s.vwruv.+w...rneoalM wow. rl--I I II A �II'I1 I1_,N,-- 1 m 1 SOUTH ELEVATION VIA LAS COLINAS - MEMORY CARE A9 ims III r_7_7-.:,:::_ •M Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 SOUTH ELEVATION •acyl ec*s Buron.Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 ANNE RS �- x4.arw[rrt NMC.Rlwnawr.and ron a .1.115 1 177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604,687.2280 RYON.ro..I..as.I no.a,n ua.w • ti Y r-,' • 1,. 7\j -1- 1= 0 ' n v ' -11. 11 471—_--1 1 n AP i ..... u.usmwa . (' c.r a•ryp . t II.C11171.61.7111h.MAD SITE CROSS SECTION - LOOKING EAST i " me-y.0- ,= ` Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 SITE CROSS SECTION A10 M :Iiii Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 "I»'-''.0' '.'b Wei 1177 West HastingsStreet,suite 2133 604.687.2280 �'"` °"` "" r MO .400.11.00.001..020.6an ua.n I I I 1 I 1 I j I I I 1 II _ kL • 111 C.. ,., II •1 ❑ I i -- fir ' 1.OI 1 -- - oi i i I, !Ca] �• � I I Cal e. .. . .. I STUDK7 I I 2 BEDROOM I I 2 BEDROOM I .1-384 S.F. W/DEN +/-910 S.F. +/-1070 S.F. I i i I I I I I I I I 1 I ---- -I■- , -_ •I -.�J ■' ----4 -- •I J •. --_ FH ����i ►� ii 1r i❑ lia ❑ 111 i i❑ 1 ❑ 11�i ❑ 1 011 d,„ [II ❑ Il Mill 'Li ❑ M Mli1 iii ❑ II M II �, ■ 'I n ■ I ion .m.,.,r�� I I I .rte„ 1 111 :, ll ,HL-s-, �.. i I M I INA■ I 1 ,.... I ■]t ;I o ■� . o .i i .■®C_] � i n . a I 1 � 1 i ” �- •• i I � i I 1 BEDROOM I I 1 BEDROOM I I 1 BEDROOM I I 1 BEDROOM I W/DEN W/DEN ALTERNATE .1-600 S.F. +/-696 S F .1-696 S.F. 1"11 l'imimi 114•'7'. Al l iii _ Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 UNIT PLANS Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 .uu,...r ,ww r+ v,irr,r e.n.nr cvew rr 1177 West Hastings Street.wife 2133 604.687 2280 ACCESSIBILITY �.I � i ill CDC EXIT ANALYSIS PLANS CBC COMPLIANCE SUhNWLY }'`Yi JI=►"� 1 MIOIECt OAtA • ; •......, --__ �. �IIHRIrf'�.' r1 �i� w��y.—ems._ _�.•. ALL lir .11•01•444 4•1100041•.1C e ms_ ' =_ �:c�AM= E. 4 .,440 n �-_ r1=2:=44.....'_, ■MSN S �a a=— THIRD FLOOR , .........--=-...,............. amr �E�.M l-.II�R, ■ I w .�........--_...4 4•114.01•444440 ...4...w M•111.1=01411.14MM. hr.NI IN .▪_. ,=•t••.=,4.•41•4•==:.741..;7.4.••.•.• _ _=z"'rI'O'C IOW . -f]• ... + ,_.... : -. '�—�N� it ii' - 16- .....• 4414=447411=t=47: . 14 _ ... II re w wilizialks III PENMAN �� IN�i -IP r.i.. 'Ai -�' I s«cg sus "071 .. _ _ SECOND FLOOR —=— , ziii • 0C •-ANCESATDOORS s-u 7 t 7: ��: ,� 1 COMMON AREAS ...no- a''' •�_ ^_ALL 401114.0•4[44 viii e� LEGEND WM TIC H 4 11€11S /M�I 11.114Y[.f/.U1..II1N1 S 4 .00CU•AMa 4. NEI Zsi 1.1 Z'i 11 °c' m iG �.� xi 0"=,..... _... _ -._ ___ ...tea a '! ea i11 191, t• V. - .m 1 •� 1 t 1- zt 111..101.1111- l.a Ml MlN.J i"--'i Nr1I1. 0 CLEARANCES AT DOORS .� B m . -'6Apo 11 _ _ :w vu ./1...1,0. _ -- � tU.PIGUNITS "c"'""5 FIRST FLOOR lfi J'am. �__v...:..,._ Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No PA10-0309 BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS 'x`12 AI FI CTS Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 • uNNE95 7,.�..-_- KALI.•rx wco..on AA 1177 West HastingsStreet,suite 2133 604.687.2280 °`"`O"r"'""`""e'�'"" °"` "° .,.........-.............1,,,r1,aa.. ,�.a• .„. `� DaSTNG EASEINI'N1S .o..rAnr...c.t �� .......� A w...r..,.. ... n®•noar�e.ee.a. ,a,ar.+.cn 20.2•adtb.02177.11M11•111w uu+.�.n.aun e �� •.,,,..._....,x...,nm .a.ea tc co..r..nco.Rs.o.0 1 y . ...r ....e.reoc.�o ver co...�. �' ! / „Ilk J,�'`'✓° srrt : ...n...a,.....,wJ..rn.s.�..r.. :r /,- .., PAAIECS �•.• • �m+ r �! anacen Park �' . I" ' l , 1 I 1W6 I.mM 1 PROJECT LOCATION / 1 tea% • • _ -1..,..----"--..........„,I. ~`l l' r. 1 .I 1 ~NN PROJECT STATISTICS - -- Q�IO �i'1 --� t `I � '. 1 it COTTAGE(MPJMOIIY CARE) '' `/ ::s '' N��`R ��� —• �,q ' ", I '1 oil MANOR(ASSISTED MING) ' -� N�1r10 ��Ili b ' I.`I ' E $_'._I` snao 1.04. .nR+ TOO, i.0..1 W,V 1\ �,.- I J 0 dik MO 4004 . ♦ . 1 I N ....-A''. if, '/r ---- •\ . 71 1-, l 11. TI ,0,ra YAM Or IMS P.M TOMO FMK I..70 1' a ��� --iv,. ' �Y - , PHASE t WRONG AREAS PHASE 2 ADDITION AREAS v, , _ _ ,.,PIMP 22.04 ,:,no. a.a,. 71 , I' t o `i�Il ti II ..4,,004 nav ,.o,..c. ..,.s. j/� -K L`� IF{rte Irk{rI •' vel. } l n _ l__ SFR 4001 20.7 No NI. ave.. • ie- pc, a � ' I' ' H >`••'I I { I1,_I w I: 1 PROJECT DATA III >r I I IR I�_I I, .,..o 1....Rarh•..ati..o r.,00a w0•NTNIO.r 0,NI row �� PHASE ' N I 1 I 1 4444.. nR.,.olr� w,ay...a. /'"/" , �����w� .l ! iiii I 1 I1 I L OF C▪04.3,2 ,tax ueurw.a Marv. *Welt NO as wcr.r,..nw NS -- i v. In,.a.ra.w�r.mr.naa 1 '1 I .i.a•Ucu.MrcNCO.OFI w,fu • R :� I I I I -. 1 ' mr c0152.0w .o.norscowry m orrr... ��: i!4 ,IT, . \�\ IJII � L \ \Iet15 ��"�(: T1i ,'} c�:Ir , / , 4IMEM i �� E llrain DEA V.TM SP P w.ww USN SF an I N,.IIIIIMMIIMIss7, / I I kil. I 21 I 42 PIS lti k IF ear. 3.201.Lsal.2.41 Fa GJON.V..0N3, lillitlit'" ie .I i1Fi��L'111 IF1rJII:I T , I I I I I 1KCtS9.2F.13 . H ..KW.HCI.o....r.Ro n .00..22.wa... �� ��� r F F>I 11 'ti, l M 1 l , I I M1OO.Y.I Y,.-NOr ave.Sa..,..1....G..Op6,vr.C.01.,m. 70.0.)..p96...a WC4«tyre.C.AS.WGx..Cc .1 e I iv.,.o r.rs 4.wr.p a. �awcrrt I _ M"' 1 I rv..vcan.uc.oa u,w..smna*o.rnoac ...wr��..... 1illW--i4rr�� __TqM�_• .. �� nw,a..w - III � I l I r I1 .wr..o4 , 11:-r, 1 l _ •..-.§W i/A'i naa�i�` j�t;�.1r►s�sa E; ,n. MT I I •© 3 I I 1� F .. ,......._. WI�, I .•WI ,. ... ri:F0712.4.13 II �`L#4i.3:Y�'J�4� J.i I I III l DRAWING INDEX 1\-. _ -_ �r 1 -r. p� _ 1� ' r I� I I • nw.• Am ,.ww.,w...�w. 1y 1 1 . r -- . «-E3116 W- I . - - - ''' l 1 MI•W •-euv.mn 4444.. i L 1'.C',1 i -u. I .12222 `' r J ' 7.—.a: ..Rf�S�rwa Oh.NOM PP..1 WRIDED ''1 ; tywn.Min inryo. �� ��� �� ��. II, li LEGEND ' _ R 15 I I l'.. 11111/111-11M61111 •a N�s-r .o..or..w ,y' ,f. 1 I ]w.0.I 7v.w.,.o.o.w i4`V * _ .o.m.o.a.w..n."..rn - 1 I I •IL Li NOTES O.. .tan y..-� 71.00 1 A 1 A C CO 11.1 A C77r•00 _._ 1 p7 . S.c 7.1 Cu".,.w.C.I .Alen FIN HIPu., i j.w.WU. H . 'Oi'• e0��' a �frFiJl.i♦Y.\M'MNIMd'-1—--�--�— —- -—T r ..,p we wc.mwc.,aA„wS.wean 'ji •f �- I +.0,w.n..cer.P......, ......ass...om <,..«,,,..a..e...o., .,o..1...... '� = A _"r-- ..¢n .-071401.-071401P1r�� "MN - ,re.....--- r . ,r..n 14�.o.ao,.n..svw,.w Met..r..swv Oil Ha.rw,s I•-20• gmII �..,. � . _ Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PAID-0309 PHASE 1 -SITE PLAN AP1 1$ .Rc S .PIANNf Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 ..a"-n nee..No 1"0' PLANNERS •� _ M.O..,.rn,C.,.Yr.11MM. O•rt.,AM cm we 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 ,ur...G0..O.n NHS..OM',W V '. '.-":" _ "111.41--.---7 ..:1r, J J . Aik . :: 1 wruK4° I MI 1i I 1 PHASE Z A 7_, ❑ it E „ -L:: r, N _ ,.„,..., /,/, / • _,.. . 1 __.1 1 .45.4011 M. 1 NM �,11 �.II — I 777, 1 011>A .7---- 1 I ---$"–'1 I I \ ibmt eo'».rn'ror �- r" ..""0.110111 WV — ts= /ROOF Mu1 \-----• NI111. 1, 1,„ ' ,„ l 1%'ll it l;: = ... - _ _ "` - — �"..110o0',WOO.....r mewl Mho,. a I)/I 1 _ed N _ _ L _ ____. .___,_ . I i /-=, ,_ 1 A.. . N. i ir Highgate Senior Living -Temecula,CA Development Plan Case No.PA10-0309 "'° "'~� PHASE 1 - ROOF PLAN AP2 Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 /101.P.V MN 40. w'e 1177 West HastingsStreet,suite 2133 604.687.2280 °`��P�rM"J'"."m. un.116 la .amsR MO h.wr'a cwa'm w.w1wn,spa -114 -.� s. 7 iiiiii ult_ ^� _,,,laulli i . �uiu J• IIIIIIIIIVII\Illu`� llllIllIllu" "R1lillllip� '1q �i,pn�l�.iii II i�l I a . . "5,4 :.,�rio!! iiuIIIIIINIIIIIIINII�IUI11111 11111.- a�llhiw._ dli ,.,01.. iilliIiill�ll ._Ililllliimh,,HjII:.i _ _.,ru,all'IIII lill►ij1„��Ilil i��I�I1I�;!I!�J 1';ii llll�iunm�i;0 _ _ Fl .. IIIIIIII, �.,� 14 , ll 4. ...... „ , • ...„,,„,,.. „,.. ,_ r.,,,„,,,...._, ,._ _ �� lik,„:„.7. 1l'_ it, IIiIllll ll!'� /U 7 — •rs . ■w■ j` n i., 1� ,'�&AHi iiiiilli—'1 lial, ..:...;,,L., t•Iiie . Mil 0 Okil — .rata t:�=JUI. lar-- .... I`ag'�:r: • \ ;h. am 1'�sio allot.'— i mn EXTERIOR FINISHES cnew A1.-KMr rAc wow NORTHELEVATION ®POCIF n. konirrirrnsocw.rnns•~e oca..kie.1LE.1.1..on.r WEST ELEVATION ©4.1.11 MAINS a10..rr..ae.eccrmne..a.m p.,,.. .,o wo1�o. .a.n....moe•h or ©..Mans Pr...1Thflm11o.1.ionsiwooroves O...UR 4EMef..CO&.UAW.tAW Looe.NNrtDMRK..C.M g —:17tR.-,.,,. II _��” _ Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA Development Plan Case No.PA10 0304 PHASE 1 - ELEVATION AP3 'scwreersBuron,Inc.,Vancouver,British Columbia V6E2K3 ter.�-•� ,... .ruNNE•S Tom_—'_ a.s.aron wnc.w.are.w OM..a. cvwr.,ma 1177 West Hastings Street,suite 2133 604.687.2280 •....ana..e.n..P.wn vww �'3Mmtom. '�. ILAR''a :� .....� MOMweoaarmal alb =-swwe=l anwmr. }11 Y 2—L,..—^......7N Yl1o]Y 1j MN ' sial mplr,a O 1� JNr117J11N�W ]tlY,XONYI `111 • / VIIII NMI rMD j b iIOIA v'IJI3r nv '—lir— Own of 31$31.11 M .0 i 1 f X b t— ai — -- il dii r CI i ! • I Ili 1 .._. bIJ i' "N t-14 -,, _ ItOi 1 �i�, r� 4111% la ealrlt �_ a Oh I I �C1a r, � �t �__ 1 • ,t 1 Sit I 1 r°:1� ;io 07 r7 1 I i Iij ' �tl°r°" i IE' �r1� ryft . I I I uo��r 1 -9 ' I jI 1 Qp�p�pQ� I lorcrt + Ilii I . IGC r', _ t *IP I laa•i41 boas 114 its . . ilt. 1/ I f �Z v. Ok'rI I l a r.,''',.,, I� i I 1 r %r 1 I I I i ; I ;77i J rl!llll lid ii I I /111111 4 1 I I I i 1H I I! I I - , }2y i�i1 ... !y ■ j 5 1 mull} ;'iii'iuIhj I I ,����e���— - `�� 1 _d iiiiiii giggiliiigg I , j I r, I O aaa:ee.. E!!f011I 1 . I 1 Igoe. - 11 iiiliii rrrrrlairrrr g r I 1 1, 0 I 1 raiikik +. ` inns,- s i _ j I - — .riIrI ! ! III @ h ► I iIi1Uli1h1IiiIi iI j I 1 i d ! igI 11 i'i ftthUI1iIIi1 !II i lri.'. -- 1......i.,„„„„i,,,, h.,,. - , r 1 ��i � I N rnr ?r �:rrr r:1:: y-I ' ,- - '-- .. 0000 ® 0 . • . . Irl rl �I i ! jl ; i @00 o teee • Ili ii IIA ilk lb 1 ARCHITECTS •PLANNERS Highgate Senior Living - Temecula, CA Buron, Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E2K3 1177 West Hastings Street. suite 2133 604.687.2280 EAST ELEVATION - MORAGA ROAD EXTERIOR FINISHES Op11M1.t1 u Teo. cau. w.t lvyy tN,tn RttYt 4177 t. 'O1Y11MtS•Alla041 1 -ZI NWOCt MR44.Y7- f1I St(W .11 { Wlt f1 ...70.111:U • 1:�1M' SILK N\tt." Itt ,•,.•'' t Ul116Y.. w'1K-1SAMI WAN IMMV. p TIT.0.< NM If8 � V-Cr EAST ELEVATION 6 stoat LY.1'O Two .0 U%SS cAstvanAmAerveArmaarAmA 04116 Olt » Ca, ., UN ARCHITECTS PLANNERS �.�......» Highgate Senior Living - Temecula, CA Buron, Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E2K3 1177 West Hastings Street, suite 2133 604.687.2280 — 0 NORTH ELEVATION - RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD NORTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES wce UMW., Mgt - 1• riar 0 sIOM.fl mnaolNAt.ra...NNum. •.•.nn- c ) MMAIMMEM .cuaww ww am, NWnOMINMIMO. J SCAU II.'. WMNO 16 KS 0EVnn.MM V.,ICA,O4 A10N1rr&. LAM 10.1110 CC...MG 0 2010 li Pl ARCHITECTS TM *PLANNERS �..... -.-- Highgate Senior Living - Temecula, CA Buron, Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia V6F?K3 1177 West Hastings Street, suite 2133 604.687.2280 WEST ELEVATION (tl EXTERIOR FINISHES i9 OWED MSrtT ECIDEE rla ETA o.uulrows7wwmuw - an 0 *tot,. TMrtl.YUraN• ors POra[Ard M- .6414.1 0) 11OIM- ILOOVLOSICM - WOMEN an'. MEOW •■) TEEMS/ET/KO ACIAINtA,M MEW'PaO • rMrttoo, WN �Lrm 1/8' -1' -0' WEST ELEVATION SLATE IA•.1•4• OEVROMEET.7 MOGIIM DAMTLN DATE *WED • ME NO 1042 CIDOIT AIO ,p <wMVM44� ARCHITECTS y • PLANNERS ,�Id' ,P l!t I iii' I ip' rlil I 1 q 11 ji ,1 1 , F i ,t i i ti` : i I �(,11 ,��,, !!u Highgate Senior Living - Temecula, CA Buron, Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E2K3 1177 West Hastings Street, suite 2133 604.687.2280 SOUTH ELEVATION VIA LAS COLINAS - ASSISTED LIVING � ; ► "'!!III1II ;i!;�n 3i .: ■�� _ �tFii f•tttttttta .: ■ ! _____ -- 0 SOUTH ELEVATION VIA LAS COLINAS - MEMORY CARE u + _ . EXTERIOR FINISHES apENl NAM • PORIX WITHS111e RRpaW11M4IVIAI E•NA ANYVe 4177 .� ITIOCNI MUMS WAWA INIJIM E AIWYIO•CHAINAAU (R1 SICN C- ROd4UOSIOM.YOW.lAPIUSX•E JCON• •` R&JC1 . PANTO FFF. • WILN MCP. raINES TRt6109E0$ .Q.a SAWN WAY rM6..1ANTHINAKMIAYN Ira - r -o SOUTH ELEVATION 'CALL TAP•re' CCIUQS&Ni NSSKA;ONSWTIK DAR 101110 A9 PREPARED �/y INC. BORON III. 1177 WEER HABR(OB BT:ET B 11E 2139 VANCOUNER, BC VB<*0 MOND (104) so -22A0 FAX (EW) Bp -2710 CONTACT CANE MOM .,0.110.10 IDlW r 14441 f .K'D.1C Sfl•E ALHAMBRA GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE RECREATION mama P 4*o*14CNC I...r u �01/ 11I IA[ ME-040 HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN Anoawm. us.. _ ).a4.. ••• 1 sae was 14...M Isms use ,a, 101 It .opa pPa•4 M.a• 114a 01 00141 4.0 /Mea l-1.. 1.0444 r.r w •• u} 31. 7 ... 14 000004 a0141. 11..a. /• 14 • . w44 r -r w ■ OM M• 01.0.13. Mnww au.. 2r a. a / v 1 0u4 vx ht. ,r . r.•.o ,-J 111 wr. a .1... ••••.e 0.3 to r•0Q. 34 00.0 1... M01 1.11. woo r -r w si as I '. • 4.f+P10a.. 1.14. , 1011 , 1011:11t . M.0 .1 •01•1 M a� • 00.E 1.M• )MWI 111-.1 . VIM 4 -3 W in *V. A. 'IC MMN.D .14.01 400a00S 10440• n1• Sl .1`00. M 0x.1 3 /1000 11- 43 . x1044 • -e w • 0.•. 44 a0*M A0.0a1• OQ00 04 O. W 00 3 00.. 1.M3 /1m. 40 -43 . 0.00 14-r w 4 1 I • ;.;; 9 , MY 11M 0 n. 1.. . I.. 111 Nu•0 . -¢0 • Raft w. 1 0044 a. X . 0I1EM* 11 saws somata. 00.1 cams 104 1a 1q x1.1 • r •C • M. 1 • 11m• .en w .. • 0t 10 ma • •.1 t .0t A. * 3 W 00. ...I 1001 11 K • 0 1ya ua. • 1 004 (...• M.nw. INC. M • a.. 340 1u• • 4e1. 1p1 1 1J' •1. N11 1ewa..0 Ii. Myr M x01210...a ma.. . at 1 4 tw 004.0 .. • Y •4 1.1.•1•30 WO O 1•a • • G • • MM • Y' M M.0. U.. W 0u . 1gMM •.. 04010 004 M1 • MIM I. LLLL 11• N1 Munn. 4#• MCP 0 0a w 041 • e.11 • 0• . 7.• ••0 Y.C.P p•.1 *130* ' MI OIW 1 •004 3 K 11.E • f101. a 04 ' .O.. . .0.1.1.31 1. .04.01! @004 f OM 0tl 3.46 ME • SI.. a MA e\ ..0401.0.•• Yi0P1 1.. Ma•1 • Y 30 .Md 10 MI • 11101 ■ MO was I•ew nos ales 11.•mn..144u. 1 r ►u (aawn 1 rav -..o 1.m m.•wau PREPARED �/y INC. BORON III. 1177 WEER HABR(OB BT:ET B 11E 2139 VANCOUNER, BC VB<*0 MOND (104) so -22A0 FAX (EW) Bp -2710 CONTACT CANE MOM .,0.110.10 IDlW r 14441 f .K'D.1C Sfl•E ALHAMBRA GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE RECREATION mama P 4*o*14CNC I...r u �01/ 11I IA[ ME-040 HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN 0 ,0•0 , r . . 040 . J .ne..un, poume. .... 1.0.4. RR I .n 1NAM K1ra R.6! K0 • R. MK .v 146 / N. n s n ORM fl /••• lv . 1r<n r.0. ! a w O..!• 4..• VW 031..0 011•• 1/ N. 12 M. t4.. /.'lo• ,.r . 1.10 r..' M <0.0* R.. R.O. H ! T 00.1 V. /.0•117.. ORO 0...' 3 0.0. ! *K.nR VIVAR .1.3... H an 31 00.. 6.[ MOO 1. W OK/0 r.. A • uo I 't .71.3. /.0 • 1.0.0.0. 041 RR .Ml 3I b 00.1 O.4 S0*•• M•. %. 10..1.• .N M 8 YO' N•4. I[OKp. 100104/. b.00. NMI Rt H•! b 00.1 I. /.40. MK • 1712* T.. • 0.4 Ib. 0.4101700 OONI O4 O. 4!'! 1 M.. sea /woe 1•..1 . 10101..• 3 2 •.Y M MI.*. 70W . 117.1 .0.00 . N n. • .O4 . KO • T *. ! 6 • w co W Os.. 1.3.00 ... b.... RM O 1 N is • .0.313131.4 r 0L OQ V/Int MIN. M f N Nu • 1170*. IR .w M.N. m Sot ;� • 1 .n • V. p,_ n. • t ∎00 ,* G V. 4.' M....Ot KILL' nerr HM`9P PPP W. 10.0•• 1 ot In .. w. 1.v. .....•.M 0.00 • r.. i .1 W. ••••10 .0 7.0 2000* . 1 11. .N .011 OO• . • I. • t • 10311.01 W YW.V O. a N 748. • ...n W 1418 MASONS m• 11. N >. nu •u... /< Ka '• *0 2 .41 V.01 CAR 3313 3120...7 Ka 1 la 3 w n• N.C. u • .O. 0 T.: 0.1043 On.. 1•13K..1.113 2* M01.0t 0.1 10 . N ! w • MOOR . .K. 11. 1 .pppeW /..006 x.3011. •N . N. rov • 1404124812 I era 204• rm. 11014010 .444 .484• 1 Y 0* 1 r ma I r etowarm 3* 440 HI./4• 7LAMM LEEBo PREPARED FoR BORON INC. 4477 MGT HABTNON BRAT SITE 2139 VAHOOUNBK BC WE7K0 MOO (804.1 1217 -9280 FAX. (804) 4W -4790 CONTACT CLONE Ol101Bt 408 4110.10 10lW10 sIw 0/e riWM.E SGLE .0..2017. IaHO RECNE8T204 FACNMS RJ1217.4C 0...7... N o= { e W 111 MOd it iu•iI HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING PHASE 1 PREUMINARY PLANTING PLAN PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0309, A TWO -PHASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A THREE - STORY, 97,685 SQUARE FOOT SENIOR CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY FEATURING 99 UNITS CONSISTING OF STUDIO, ONE BEDROOM, AND TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD (APN 944 - 290 -025) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 21, 2010, Larry Markham with MDMG Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0309, a Development Plan Application, on behalf of Buron Inc., in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application 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 Application and environmental review on April 6, 2011, 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. PA10 -0309 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Plan (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; As conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan, The General Plan has listed the proposed use as a compatible use within Professional Office zoning areas, and the project is in conformance with other Ordinances of the City and State law. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; As conditioned, the project has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the project will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. In addition, the project has also been reviewed by a variety of external government agencies as part of the Initial Study process to further ensure that the project has been designed and appropriately conditioned so that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general 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 two -phase Development Plan Application for a three -story, 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom floor plans generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan Application, as described in the Initial Study ( "the Project "). Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. The public comment period commenced on March 11, 2011, and expired on March 31, 2011. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. C. written comment(s) was /were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to and at the April 6, 2011 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. E. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA PA10 -0309, a two -phase Development Plan Application for a three -story, 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2011. ATTEST: Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA )ss Pat Kight, Chairman I, Patrick Richardson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of April 2011, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Patrick Richardson, Secretary Planning Application No.: PA10 -0309 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval Date: April 6, 2011 Expiration Date: April 6, 2013 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL -1. A two -phase Development Plan Application for a three -story, 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road 944 - 290 -026 Commercial Service Commercial Service Commercial (Per TUMF Worksheets A.2.1 & A.2.3) The applicant /developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Two Thousand One Hundred and Eight Dollars ($2,108.00) which includes the Two Thousand Forty -Four Dollar ($2,044.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty -Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said 48 -hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements PL -2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentalitythereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. PL -3. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL -4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. PL -5. The Planning Director may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one -year extensions of time, one year at a time. PL -6. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. PL -7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. PL -8. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. PL -9. 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. Spills and leaks must be cleaned up immediately. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. PL -10. The applicant shall paint a three -foot by three -foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. PL -11. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. PL -12. 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 staff's 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 Exterior Walls (Cement Plaster) Acrylic Sand Pebble Finish — Match Kelly Moore "Haverstraw" 4177 Roof Tile (Mission Style Concrete S) Monier Life Tile "Salerno Clay" Window Frames (Aluminum) Dark Bronze Anodized — Clear Glass Stone (Strucutre) El Dorado Stone — Mountain Ledge "Yukon" Railings (Steel) Painted to Match Window Frames Trellis Members (Rough Sawn Heavy Dark Brown Timber) Stone (Paving) Ashler Stone — Scofield Systems PL -13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. PL -14. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Planning Director. PL -15. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations submitted February 23, 2011, on file with the Planning Department, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. PL -16. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. PL -17. The applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. PL -18. 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. PL -19. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing streetlights shall be paid for by the developer. PL -20. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PL -21. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. PL -22. Double detector check valves shall be installed internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right -of -way, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. PL -23. 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 Planning Director at his /her 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 Planning Director 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 Planning Director shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development maytake place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Planning Director." PL -24. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. PL -25. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. PL -26. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authorityto 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. PL -27. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. PL -28. 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. PL -29. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. PL -30. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to scheduling the pre - grading meeting with Public Works. PL -31. 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 Department 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." PL -32. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PL -33. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. PL -34. All downspouts shall be internalized. PL -35. Four copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, 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. PL -36. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall provide a minimum five -foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. PL -37. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating that "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi fora minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure, which will require inspection of irrigation installation of open trenches. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head -to -head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify proper landscape maintenance for release of the one year landscape maintenance bond." The applicantlowner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL -38. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." PL -39. 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. PL -40. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long -term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. PL -41. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate that "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection 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, which will require inspection of irrigation installation of open trenches. The second inspection will verifythat all irrigation systems have head -to -head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify proper landscape maintenance for release of the one year landscape maintenance bond." The applicantlowner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL -42. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. PL -43. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. PL -44. Roof - mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision; however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. PL -45. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three -foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after - thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. PL -46. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape (choose or add to as appropriate) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. PL -47. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PL -48. 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. PL -49. The developer shall provide the Planning Department verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. PL -50. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional streetlights, whichever occurs first, the developer shall complete the Temecula Community Services District application, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan, and pay the advanced energy fees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit PL -51. An applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Planning Director 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. If a certificate of use and occupancy is not required for the project, such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. PL -52. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right -of -ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right -of -way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. PL -53. 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 Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. PL -54. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Director, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Director, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. PL -55. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off - street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696- 3000." PL -56. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. PL -57. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed. PL -58. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. OUTSIDE AGENCIES PL -59. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 9, 2010, a copy of which is attached. PL -60. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated November 15, 2010, a copy of which is attached. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT General Conditions /Information B -1. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings. B -2. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2010 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2010 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. B -3. Provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans. B -4. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. B -5. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. B -6. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. B -7. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. B -8. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. B -9. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. B -10. Commercial and industrial project trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. B -11. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one - quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. B -12. The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees 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. 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. B -13. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. B -14. Commercial projects shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal B -15. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. B -16. Provide a Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2007 edition of the California Building Code. B -17. Provide number and type of restroom fixtures, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Plumbing Code. B -18. Provide precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. B -19. Provide truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. B -20. Provide side view plan with minimum clearance 114" for the required covered roof at passenger loading zone Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) B -21. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction B -22. A pre- construction meeting is required with the building inspector priorto the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements F -1. 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. F -2. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 -hour duration on a looped system (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). F -3. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. A combination of on -site and offsite 6" x 4" x 2 -2 1 /" outlets on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). F -4. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on -site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on -site fire hydrants are required (CFC Chapter 5, Section 508.5). F -5. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) F -6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 1410.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F -7. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F -8. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2.7. and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F -9. This development shall maintain two points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.1.2). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) F -10. The developer shall furnish one copy 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 14, Section 1412 and Chapter 5, Section 501.3). F -11. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. F -12. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F -13. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) per City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E. F -14. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial, multi - family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum of 12 -inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6 -inch high letters and /or numbers on both the front and rear doors (CFC Chapter 5, Section 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F -15. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). F -16. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and /or signs (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.3). POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements PD -1. 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. PD -2. 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. PD -3. Berms shall not exceed three feet in height. PD -4. 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. PD -5. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with Riverside County Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, low pressure sodium lighting preferred. PD -6. 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. PD -7. All lighting affixed to the exterior of buildings shall be wall mount light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness. PD -8. This project must meet the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. PD -9. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. PD -10. 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. PD -11. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PD -12. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings shall be placed in a well - lit, highly visible area, and installed with a "call -out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings. PD -13. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. PD -14. 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. PD -15. 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 Alcohol Beverage Control. PD -16. Applicant will comply with Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.010, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited. PD -17. 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 Alcohol Beverage Control. 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. PD -18. Applicant will 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 setup 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. PD -19. 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. PD -20. As noted above, only a valid government issued identification card issued bya 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 PD -21. 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 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. PW -1. 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 award 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. PD -22. Businesses desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department. PD -23. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 695 -2773. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. PW -2. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on -site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City- maintained street right -of -way. PW -3. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right -of -way. PW -4. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. PW -5. The project shall include construction -phase pollution prevention controls into the design of the project to prevent non - permitted runoff from discharging off site or entering any storm drain system or receiving water during all field - related activities. PW -6. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be conceptually accepted bythe City prior to the initial grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered civil engineer and include Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices, (BMPs), source controls, and treatment devices. PW -7. All onsite drainage and water quality features shall be privately maintained. PW -8. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 35481 as approved on October 3, 2007. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PW -9. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must receive final acceptance by the City prior to issuance of any grading permit. PW -10. PW -11. PW -12. PW -13. PW -14. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the commencement of grading. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect the site (public and private) and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works in accordance with Grading Ordinance Section 18.24.120. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soil conditions of the site, and provide recommendations forthe construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. The developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the developer. Construction -phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. PW -15. PW -16. PW -17. The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. PW -18. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. PW -19. PW -20. PW -21. PW -22. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearances from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Planning Department, or other affected agencies. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. The developer shall obtain letters of approval for any off site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters shall be in format as directed by the Department of Public Works. The developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Improvement plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum overA.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Number 207A. c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number 800. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number. 400. e. All street and driveway center line intersections shall be at 90 degrees. PW -23. PW -24. PW -25. PW -26. PW -27. PW -29. PW -30. PW -32. PW -33. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut -off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. The developer shall construct all public improvements outlined in these conditions to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Improve Rancho California Road (Principal Arterial (6 lanes divided) Highway Standard No. 100 -110' R/W) to include installation of half -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. Improve Moraga Road (Residential Collector (2 lanes undivided) Road Standard No. 103A -66' R /W) to include installation of half -width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Via Las Colinas (General Local Street Standard No. 104 -60' R/W) to include installation of half -width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing, striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). The developer shall construct all public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works including street improvements, which may include, but not limited to, pavement, curb and gutter, median, sidewalk, drive approaches; streetlights, signing, striping, other traffic control devices as appropriate; sewer and domestic water systems; under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines; and storm drain facilities. PW -28. The developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Moraga Road and Via Las Colinas pursuant to the new location of the driveway. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered civil engineer, and the soil engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PW -31. The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. The developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. The developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy PW -34. PW -35. PW -38. The project shall demonstrate the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works the developer shall receive written clearance from Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, or other affected agencies. PW -36. Corner property line cut off shall be required per City of Temecula Standard No. 603A. PW -37. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PW -39. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. November 9, 2010 City of Temecula Planning Department Attention: Eric Jones P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 RE: Development Plan(DP) No. PA10 -0309 (No Related Pre -App cases) Dear Eric Jones: Sincerely, FM 101024 C JNTY OF RIVERSIDE • HEA. .-1 SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the development plan for a two phase DP for a three story 98,970 square foot senior congregate care facility generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, featuring 72 unit studios, one and two bedroom apartments as well as an open space area in the center of the property (APN 944 - 290 -026). The site plan does indicate water but sewer services exist at station 17 +00 (Via Los Colinas), we assume that these services will be available but RCWD should indicate with mylar drawings to the City Public Works engineer how these connections will be made available. 1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: a) "Will- serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewer district. b) Contact DEH Food Plan check at 951.461.0284 for compliance for the restaurant style dining kitchen. c) Contact DEH Hazardous Materials at 951.766.6524 regarding the storage of chemicals for laundry purposes. d) Contact DEH Swimming pool /spa plan check at 951.461.0284 for the SPA shown in the floor plans. Gregor Dellenbach, REHS (951) 955-8980 NOTE: My current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Loral Enforcement Agency • P0. Box 1280. Riverside. CA 92502 -1280 • (909) 955 -8982 • FAX 19091 781 -9653 • 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor. Riverside. CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering • PO. Box 1206. Riverside. CA 92502 -1206 • (909) 955 -8980 • FAX (909) 955 -8903 • 4080 Lemon Street. 2nd Floor. Riverside. C9 92501 0 Rancho Water Board of Directors Lisa D. Herman President Lawrence M. Libeu Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake John E. Hoagland William E. Plummer Officers Matthew G. Stone General Manager Jeffrey D. Armstrong Chief Financial OffrcerfFreasurer N. Craig Elitharp, P.E. Director of Operations & Maintenance Perry R. Louck Director of Planning Andrew L. Webster, P.B. Chief Engineer Kelli E. Garcia District Secretary C. Michael Cowett Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel November 15, 2010 Eric Jones, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY HIGH GATE DEV. PLAN PARCEL NO. 2 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL NO. 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 35481 APNS 944 -290 -026 AND 944- 290 -025 [MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MGMT. GROUP] Dear Eric: R ECLEATEL NOV162010 j Please be advised that the above - referenced project /property is located within the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The subject project/property fronts an existing 8 -inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Via Las Colinas, and an existing 24 -inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Rancho California Road. Water service, therefore, would be available upon the extension of water pipeline facilities within Moraga Road, between Ranch California Road and Via Las Colinas. Water service to the subject project /property does not exist. Additions or modifications to water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Regulations (governing) Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) destroying all on- site wells and signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition, water availability is contingent upon the timing of the subject project /property development relative to water supply shortage contingency measures (pursuant to RCWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances). As soon as feasible, the project proponent should contact RCWD 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 RCWD for an assessment of project - specific fees and requirements. Please note that separate water meters will be required for all landscape irrigation. Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road • Post Office Box 9017 • Temecula, California 92689.9017 • (951) 296.6900 • FAX (951) 296 www,ranchowater.com Letter to Eric Jones/City of'l .ecula November 15, 2010 Page Two Sewer service to the subject project/property, if available, would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office at (951) 296 -6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Peter Muserelli Engineering Project Coordinator cc: Corey Wallace, Engineering Manager Warren Back, Engineering Planning Manager Ken Cope, Construction Contracts Manager Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager 101PM:Im0241FEG Runelur Culirornin Wntur District 42136 Wnrciastor Rnnd • Port ORco Uos 9417 • '1'ornecuhr, Colirornin 92589•9417 • (951 r 296.6)0)0 • FAX (951.) 296 860 www.ranchounter corn City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Highgate Senior Living, Development Plan Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Eric Jones, Assistant Planner (951) 506 -5115 Project Location Generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address Larry R. Markham MDMG, Inc. 41635 Enterprise Circle North Temecula, CA 92590 General Plan Designation Professional Office (PO) Zoning Professional Office (PO) Description of Project The proposed project consists of the construction of a two- phase, three -story, 99 -unit senior congregate care facility totaling 97,685 square feet with associated parking on 3.40 acres. Phase one of the project will total 77,161 square feet and phase two will total 20,524 square feet. A lot line adjustment designed to increase the project area by 0.78 acres will be analyzed by a separate application. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The site is currently a vacant lot that has been previously rough graded. To the east and south of the project are existing multi - family apartment complexes. To the west are existing office buildings. To the north, across Rancho California Road, is an existing commercial development including a gas station, car wash and retail /restaurant uses. Other public agencies whose approval is required None G: \PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture and Forestry Resources Noise Air Quality Biological Resources Population and Housing Public Services Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation Cultural Resources Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Eric Jones Printed Name 3 -�s -II Date City of Temecula For G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Comments: 1.a. No Impact: The proposed project is on vacant land. No scenic vistas have been identified per the City's General Plan or will be adversely impacted from developing the proposed project. No impacts are expected. 1.b. No Impact: No major rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the project site. The project site is not located on a scenic highway. No impacts are expected. 1.c. Less Than Significant Impact: Apartment residents living across Moraga Road (to the east of the project) and across Via Las Colinas (to the south of the project) will be most affected by the proposed development. However, this project will not degrade the existing character of the area. The project fits within its current Professional Office zoning and General Plan designation and is a vacant parcel entirely surrounded by existing commercial uses and apartment complexes. The City's Development Code and Design Guidelines establish design and landscaping standards which will ensure that the project site is developed in a manner consistent with the City's standards. Based on fulfilling the City's code and design standards, project aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 1.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare. However, this project will be constructed in accordance with zoning development standards including maximum height, landscape buffers, and the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. G: \PLANNING\2010\PA10 -0309 High Gate DP\Planning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c 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 )? X X d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use 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? X Comments: 2.a. No Impact: According to Open Space /Conservation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, pages OS -18 and OS -19, Table OS -5 "Significant Farmland" and Figure OS -3 "Agricultural Resources" depict that the project is not located in an area of farmland of statewide or local importance. The subject site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes, and the City's General Plan Land Use Element has designated the site for Professional Office uses. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts as a result from the project. 2.b.e. No Impact: The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated from this proposed project. 2.c.d. No Impact: The project location is not suitable for forest and /or timberland uses as defined by the Public Resources and Government Codes. Forest land is defined as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx recreation and other public benefits. The proposed project site is zoned Professional Office (PO) and not as a Timberland Production Zone as defined by Section 51104(g) of the Govemment Code. As such, the parcel is not available to grow trees commercially as required by the timberland definition contained in Section 4526 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, forest land does not exist on the parcel or in the immediate area. No impact is expected. G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X a Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? b c Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Comments: 3.a. No Impact: According to an Air Quality Impact Study prepared by PCR Services Corporation and dated March 2011, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated from the project site upon completion of this project. The study states that the RTP projects that population in the City of Temecula (local area) will grow by about 4,000 persons between 2011 and 2014. The proposed project, which contains 99 beds, is projected to result in a net population increase of approximately 100 persons, which is 2.5 percent of the total population growth projected for the local area, although it is conservative to assume that all future residents currently reside outside the local area. The RTP estimates that employment in the local area will grow by about 4,295 jobs between 2011 and 2014. The proposed project is projected to result in a net increase of 85 full -time equivalent jobs, or approximately two percent of the total job growth for the area. Such levels of population and employment growth are consistent with the population and employment forecasts for the local area as adopted by SCAG. Because the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections in the AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would be consistent with the projections in the AQMP. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact related to the implementation of the applicable air quality plans, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.b. Less Than Significant Impact: Construction The SCAQMD has established daily significance thresholds that address pollution sources associated with general construction activities, such as the operation of on -site construction equipment, fugitive dust from site grading activities, and travel by construction workers. Project construction emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model, originally developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The analysis assumed that construction activities would comply with applicable portions of SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the control of fugitive dust. Construction emissions are presented in Table 1, Regional Unmitigated Construction Emissions, under conservative assumptions, which imply a default equipment mix and a worst -case construction schedule. As G: \PLANNING120101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx indicated therein, the incremental increase in emissions from project construction activities would fall below SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional emissions. Operation Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. Table 1 Regional Unmitigated Construction Emissions ' (Pounds per Day) VOC NO CO SO2 PM PM; 5b Phase One- Maximum Regional Emissions (On -site + Off -site) Mass Site Grading` 4 33 19 <1 7 3 Fine Site Grading 3 22 14 <1 7 3 Building Construction d 13 39 25 <1 3 2 Phase Two - Maximum Regional Emissions (On -site + Off -site) Building Construction d 18 32 22 <1 2 2 Maximum Regional Emissions 18 39 25 <1 7 3 Regional Construction Daily Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Over /(Under) (57) (61) (525) (150) (143) (52) Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No • Compiled using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in the Air Quality Appendices. • PM and PM emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. ▪ Grading assumes that up to 2096 of the site is graded on a daily basis. Building Construction phase includes paving and architectural coatings. • The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 26 (Temecula Valley) interpolated for a 3.40 acre site with sensitive receptors located approximately 25 meters from the construction activity. 25 meters is the shortest distance for which an LST has been established. The proposed project's incremental increase in regional and localized emissions resulting from operation of the project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on regional air quality, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Pollutant emissions resulting from project operational activities were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model. Because the site is currently vacant, all trips related to the proposed residences are considered an increase from baseline. Mobile source emission calculations utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rate calculated by URBEMIS 2007 based on the specific proposed land use and intensity. The daily rate is based on the number of daily trips for each land use and applied to a commute percentage and an average trip length, both of which are land use specific values derived from the URBEMIS 2007. These values account for variations in trip frequency and length associated with commuting to the proposed project. Emission factors specific to the buildout year are projected based on Basin - specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future emission standards and fuel efficiency standards. The increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to provide power, heat, and ventilation was considered in the calculations as stationary point source emissions. Future fuel consumption rates are estimated based on land use specific energy consumption rates. Natural gas and G: \PLANNING \20101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP1PIanning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx electricity usage factors derived from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used to project fuel consumption rates. The emission factors used in this analysis represent a State -wide average of known power producing facilities, utilizing various technologies and emission control strategies, and do not take into account any unique emissions profile. At this time, these emission factors are considered conservative and representative. Area source emissions were calculated by URBEMIS 2007, and include emissions from natural gas and landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings (future maintenance). As shown in Table 2 (Proposed Project - Related Operational Emissions), pollutant concentrations resulting from Project operation would not exceed SCAQMD localized thresholds. Therefore, localized air quality impacts would be less than significant. Emission Source Sources: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. Table 2 Proposed Project - Related Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) VOC NO CO SO PM PM2.s Operation of Phase One a On Road Mobile Sources 1 1 12 <1 2 <1 Area Sources 3 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 Stationary Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Project 4 2 15 <1 2 1 SCAQMD daily Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Over(Under) (51) (53) (535) (150) (148) (55) Significant? No No No No No No Operation of Phase One and Two a On Road Mobile Sources 2 3 24 <1 5 1 Area Sources 5 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 Stationary Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Project 8 4 26 <1 5 <1 SCAQMD daily Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Over (Under) (47) (51) (522) (150) (145) (54) Significant? No No No No No No ° Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 emissions model. Model output sheets are provided in Appendix A. Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. 3.c. Less Than Significant Impact: As stated above, the proposed project would result in minimal new long -term stationary sources and generate additional vehicular trips from the baseline. However, the regional emissions calculated for the proposed project and presented in Tables 1 and 2 remain less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable State and national ambient air quality standards. These standards apply to both primary (criteria and precursor) and secondary pollutants (ozone). Although the Project site is located in a region that is in non - attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, the emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable as the emissions would fall below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. G:\PLANNING12010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 3.d. Less Than Significant Impact: Some population groups, such as children, the elderly, and acutely ill and chronically ill persons, especially those with cardio- respiratory diseases, are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. The Project is located in the City of Temecula, surrounded by commercial and residential uses and some vacant land. Single Family Residential land uses are located adjacent to the east, south and southwest of the project site and Quest Diagnostics (a medical office) is located to the west. However, the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residences south of the project site, approximately 17 meters from the Project site. The SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal and state standards. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. Table 3 Localized Construction Emissions' (Pounds per Day) VOC NO CO SO2 G : \PLANNING\2010\PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental\lnitial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx PM PM Phase One- Maximum Localized Emissions (On -site Only) By Stage Mass Site Grading 4 32 17 <1 7 3 Fme Site Grading 4 31 16 <1 7 3 Building Construction 12 36 19 <1 2 2 Phase Two - Maximum Localized Emissions (On -site Only) By Stage Building Construction 18 31 16 <1 2 2 Maximum Localized Emissions 18 36 19 <1 2 3 Localized Significance Thresholds • N/A 300 1,515 N/A 10 6 Over /(Under) Threshold N/A (264) (1,497) N/A (2) (3) Exceed Threshold? - No No No No Complied using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in the Air Quality Appendices. • PM and PM emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. • Grading assumes that up to 20% of the site is graded on a daily basis. Building Construction phase includes paving and architectural coatings. • The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 26 (Temecula Valley) interpolated for a 3.40 acre site with sensitive receptors located approximately 25 meters from the construction activity. 25 meters is the shortest distance for which an LST has been established. Note: Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding On -site emissions, a sub -set of the total construction emissions presented above, were calculated and presented in Table 3, Localized Construction Emissions. The applicable SCAQMD LSTs are also listed on Table 3. As demonstrated in Table 3, the incremental increase in emissions from the project's construction activities would be below SCAQMD LST Zook -up thresholds and sensitive populations near to the site are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant levels. Localized construction impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Because the project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of on -site emissions (such as industrial boilers or generators), CO is the benchmark pollutant for assessing local area air quality impacts from post - construction operations. Given the nature of the proposed project (residential), vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection locations. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. The SCAQMD recommends performing a CO hotspots analysis if the project increases the V/C ratio by 2% and worsens an existing LOS D or worse. Based on standard ITE trip generation rates, the project would generate less than 40 trips during the peak hour. Since the project would not generate a significant number of peak hour trips, a CO hotspots analysis was not required. The greatest potential for construction period toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation activities. In addition, incidental amounts of toxic substances such as oils, solvents, and paints would be used. These substances would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules for their manufacture and use. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70 -year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk - assessment methodology. Given the relatively short-term construction schedule of 3 years, the proposed Project would not result in a Tong -term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions with no residual emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. As such, Project - related toxic emission impacts during construction would not be significant. The proposed project may require the installation of back -up diesel powered emergency generators. All new generators would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations and include the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The installation of equipment with the potential to emit TACs must demonstrate, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1401, that no off -site sensitive receptors be exposed to health risks in excess of the significance criteria discussed above. If the installation of new generators results in multiple - generator groups, the installation would also be required to comply with recently promulgated Rule 1472 to ensure that localized risk remains below thresholds. Compliance with Rule 1472, if applicable, together with the limited need for, and operational hours of, this equipment would substantially reduce potential impacts. Impacts would therefore be Tess than significant. Because the project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of on -site TAC emissions, diesel particulate matter (DPM) from idling vehicles poses the greatest potential of creating an incremental increase in TAC emissions during operation of the proposed project. In 2004, GARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to limit heavy duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel PM and other TACs and air pollutants. The measure applies to diesel - fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds which are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. This measure does not allow diesel fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than five minutes at any given time. Potential localized air toxic impacts from on -site sources of diesel particulate emissions would be minimal since only a limited number of heavy -duty trucks would access the project site (deliveries, trash removal, etc.), and the trucks that do visit the site would not idle on the project site for extended periods of time. Based on the limited activity of the toxic air contaminant sources to be operated with implementation of the proposed Project, a detailed health risk assessment is not warranted. Potential air toxic impacts to off -site populations would be less than significant. As mentioned previously, the GARB has released guidelines which provide recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). G:\PIANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx Based on our understanding of existing nearby land uses, new sensitive receptors (future residents) should not be sited within 1,000 feet of a warehouse distribution center (which have extensive heavy -duty truck activity), within 500 feet of a freeway [or similar high traffic roadway (i.e., roads within urbanized areas carrying more than 100,000 vehicles per day)], or within 300 feet of a dry cleaning facility that uses perchloroethylene, among other siting recommendations. Since the Project would not introduce residential uses within the CARB siting distances for potential air toxic sources, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to on -site TAC exposure and no mitigation is required. As described above, operation of the project would not result in substantial localized or regional air pollutant impacts. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 3.e. No Impact: No objectionable odors are expected as a result from operation of the proposed project. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong - smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. Odors are also associated with such uses as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. Standard practices related to trash receptacle areas, such as keeping trash bins covered and located away from outdoor areas where residents of multi - family housing may congregate, will help minimize the potential for odor nuisance complaints. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed which would create objectionable odors. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. GAPLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP\Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X 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? X e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X 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? X Background The parcel is completely surrounded by multi- family residential, commercial and medical office land uses. Topography on the parcel surface is basically flat -lying and featureless, except for a 10 to 15 -foot high berm located along the south property line. The parcel appears to have been graded flat in the past. It is elevated ten to forty feet above the existing grade of Rancho California Road. Riverside County adopted the Western Riverside County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on June 17, 2003. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion in favor of adopting the MSHCP was released on June 22, 2004. The City of Temecula is a signatory to the MSHCP, and therefore, the project is required to comply with the MSHCP. Section 6.0 of the MSHCP identifies the local implementation measures. Section 6.1.6 details the County and Cities Obligations and corresponds with Section 13.2 of the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS. The program requires the City to undertake the following steps to insure compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP: • Payment of local development mitigation fees and other relevant fees (Section 8.5) • Comply with the Habitat Assessment program (HANS) processor equivalent process to satisfy local acquisition obligation • Comply with the survey requirements (Section 6.3.2) G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning\Environmental \Initlal Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx • Comply with the policies of the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2) • Comply with the policies of the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3) • Comply with the policies of the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4) • Comply with the Best Management Practices (Section 7.0; Appendix C) Comments: 4.a. -f. Less than Significant Impact: The project site is in the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The project site is not within a Criteria Cell of the MSHCP Plan Area and no HANS review is required; however a habitat assessment was required to address, at a minimum, the potential habitat for Burrowing Owl in accordance with MSHCP guidelines. A letter dated January 22, 2007 from Consulting Biologists Principe and Associates, along with an MSHCP Compliance Report and Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment conducted by Principe and Associates on June 12, 2007, indicate that suitable habitat for the burrowing owl was not found on site; nor is the site suitable to support habitat for the burrowing owl. An updated Burrowing Owl survey was conducted on August 12, 2010 by the consulting biologists Principe and Associates. The results of the survey indicate that Burrowing Owl habitat is still not present on the site or within the 500 feet buffer zone. Burrowing owls were also not observed on the site or within the buffer zone. The applicant will be required to pay applicable MSHCP mitigation fees. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project site does not contain any wetlands, riparian forests, vernal pools, or wildlife nursery sites. There are no natural watercourses on the parcel surface. The parcel is mostly bare ground with no significant biological resources present on site. There are some cottonwood trees on the project site, however, they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. The site is located within the Quino Checker spot and Gnatcatcher as well as Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required as a condition of approval to offset the effect of cumulative impacts to the species from urbanization occurring throughout western Riverside County. The MSHCP does not have any further habitat assessment requirements for the project site, so no additional wildlife or plants surveys are necessary. No significant impacts are expected. G:\PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP1PIanning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? X b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? X c Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Comments: 5.a.b.d. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: A Historical - Archaeological Resources Survey Report was conducted by CRM Tech dated February 2, 2007 for the Rancho View Development. This development was to be constructed on the parcel as the proposed project. On January 23, 2007, an archaeologist carried out an intensive - level, pedestrian field survey of the project area with the assistance of Native American monitors from the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians. The intensive -level field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural resources and no artifacts more than 50 years of age were encountered during the survey. Furthermore, the City of Temecula General Plan does not identify the project site as a sensitive archaeological resource area. In addition, archaeological monitoring was conducted during all grading activities on the 20.5 acre property located adjacent/east of this project site (Temecula Ridge Apartments) and, according to the Archaeological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates dated May 8, 2006, only one artifact was found (a prehistoric lithic artifact) which was considered not significant due to the lack of associated deposits. No further cultural resources were identified during the archaeological monitoring. Due to the lack of historical and archaeological resources found during the archaeological monitoring during grading at the adjacent site; and the negative findings for potential cultural resources conducted during a survey of the project site, less than significant impacts are expected. However, in order to ensure that significant impacts will not result, the project will be conditioned consistent with City policy and the recommendations set forth in the Historical - Archaeological Resources Survey dated February 2, 2007 that if, during excavation /grading or construction of the site, any artifacts or other objects that reasonably appear to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, including human remains, all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area is to cease immediately and a qualified specialist shall inspect the site to determine the significance of the discovery. Mitigation for the project will be as follows: Mitigation: 1 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor and professional Pechanga Tribe 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. 2 At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of G: \PLANNING\20101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. 3 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre- grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM 2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. 4 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 MM 2. 5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 6 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. 7 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological /cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and /or City Council. 5.c. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The City of Temecula General Plan EIR sensitivity map for paleontological resources identifies the project site as an area having possible paleontological resources. In addition, paleontological monitoring conducted during grading activities on the 20.5 acre property located adjacent/east of this project site (Temecula Ridge Apartments) revealed at least 32 discoveries of vertebrate fossils dating from 300,000 years to 1.8 million years old (all of which have been deposited into the permanent paleontological collections at the San Diego Natural History Museum), according to the Paleontological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates dated May 8, 2006. Due to the potential for such resources to occur on the property, a paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations, and during grading and excavation activities a qualified paleontological monitor will be required to be present on site and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of any exposed paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered, adequate funding shall be provided G:\PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. With these measures, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation: 1 A paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations. 2 A qualified Paleontologist shall be on -site during grading activities. G:\PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning\Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv Landslides? X b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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? X d Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Comments: 6.a. Less Than Significant Impact: According to the City's General Plan EiR, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. The Geotechnical Investigation of the site, prepared by GeoCon Inland Empire, Inc. on February 12, 2007, indicates that no active faults are known to project through the site and the site does not lie within the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the Elsinore Fault is located approximately one - quarter mile to site. There are 20 nearby or regional faults within a 50 -mile radius from the site, and the site could be subjected to moderate or severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake at any nearby or regional earthquake fault. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to build the structures in accordance with the current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances. The project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction according to the City of Temecula's current GIS mapping information. Furthermore, according to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoCon Inland Empire on February 12, 2007, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be very low based on the relatively dense nature of the formation soil. In addition, no soil or geologic conditions were encountered at the site which would preclude the proposed commercial development of the property, provided compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report. Development of the property is considered feasible and less than significant impacts are anticipated for the project. 6.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The General Plan requires mitigation for projects to control erosion. Further, the state -wide NPDES program requires every project with ground disturbance greater than five acres to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during project construction and operation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are identified in the SWPPP to control erosion on a site and any G:\PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \EnvironmentallInitial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx sedimentation generated by disturbing the site for development with conformance to the NPDES program. Less than significant impacts are expected. 6.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of this project, and potentially result in on or off -site grading landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. In general, the on -site soil consists of sands with variable amounts of silt and silts with variable amounts of sand. The soil generally possesses a very low to low expansion index as defined by the Uniform Building Code Section 18 -i -B and moderate shear strength characteristics. The on -site soil is considered suitable for use as fill. It is recommended that soil with an expansion potential greater than medium (El > 50), if encountered, be kept at least three feet below proposed finished grade. In addition, no soil or geologic conditions were encountered which would preclude the proposed commercial development of the property, provided compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report. In addition, the applicant will be required to prepare soils reports prior to issuance of a grading permit. Development of the property is considered feasible and less than significant impacts are anticipated for the project. 6.e. No Impact: The project will not utilize septic tanks, but will instead be connected to the public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G: \PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning\Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Comments: 7.a. Less Than Significant Impact: A Green House Gas study was conducted by PCR Services Corporation in March of 2011. The report analyzed green house gas emissions from both construction and operational circumstances. Construction Emissions of GHGs were calculated for each year of project construction. Construction of the project is projected to emit a total of 945 metric tons (MT) of CO2e. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Due to the potential persistence of GHGs in the environment, impacts are based on annual emissions and, in accordance with SCAQMD methodology, construction - period impacts are not assessed independent of operational- period impacts. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. Table 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) Source Emissions Construction Construction (Total) 945 Construction (Amortized) 31 Operations On Road Mobile Sourcesa 487 Electricityb 184 Natural Gast 94 Water Conveyance 165 Operations Total 930 Project Total t 961 • Mobile source emissions ore based on an overage trip length of 13.3 miles for workers and 8.9 miles for customers, and fleet percentages provided by URBEMIS 2007. Mobile source values were derNed using EMFAC2007. Electricity Usage Rates from the Energy Information Administration's 003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. • Natural gas emissions ore derived from URBEMIS2007. • Water Conveyance Calculations are based on factors derived from the California Energy Commission, and cakulations are part of the electricity calculations in the Appendix. Future Scenario includes VMT reductions due to GHG reducing protect features. amortized construction plus annual operations G:\PLANNING12010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx Operations Project operations would result in a change in land use from vacant land to residential use. As shown in Table 1, GHG emissions resulting from vehicle, electrical, and natural gas usage during operation is estimated to be 930 MT CO2e, including the savings in natural resource consumption due to the project design features. When added with the amortized emissions from construction, the total project -level emissions from the proposed project was estimated to be a maximum of 961 MT CO2e, which is Tess than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 tons per year. With regard to the first CEQA checklist question, the GHG emissions resulting from project construction and operations would not directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment based on the above mentioned threshold. Therefore, the project would result in a Tess than significant impact with regard to construction and operational GHG emissions. 7.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Temecula has established a Sustainability Action Plan which encourages the reduction of GHG emissions from new projects and existing operations . This plan is based on the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords, and is generally supportive of the goals of AB32. Specifically applicable to the proposed project are: • Community wide energy usage reduction target of 10% more efficient than current standards. • Promote alternative modes of transportation As highlighted above, one of the project design features is to lessen energy used in the buildings and the residents' reliance on personal automobiles. To these goals, the applicant is committed to installing a state -of- the art heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system which will provide domestic hot water, heating and cooling with approximately 20 percent Tess energy consumed. In addition, the center will promote alternative modes of transportation by providing a shuttle bus and driver in which the residents will be transported off-site for routine needs such as shopping, health needs, and entertainment. Based on similar facilities, it is expected that less than 10 residents will own and use a personal vehicle while residing at Highgate. In addition, vehicle trips for the overall project would be reduced with the transportation shuttle services provided. In addition, the project would be subject to the mandatory CalGreen requirements which will serve to further reduce GHG emissions. In November 2008, the California Building Standards Commission established the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which sets performance standards for residential and nonresidential development to reduce environmental impacts and encourage sustainable construction practices. When the CALGreen code went into effect in 2009, compliance through 2010 was voluntary. As of January 1, 2011, the CALGreen code is mandatory for all new buildings constructed in the State. The CalGreen code addresses energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. Therefore, the project will comply with CALGreen requirements. Because the proposed project is supportive of local and State goals regarding global climate change, and does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for reducing GHG emissions, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Due to the complex physical, chemical and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, there is no basis for concluding that the project's very small theoretical emissions increase could actually cause a measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change. The GHG emissions of the project alone cannot cause a direct physical change in the environment. It is global emissions in their aggregate that contribute to climate change, not any one source of emissions alone. Due to the incremental amount of GHG emissions estimated for this project, the lack of any evidence for concluding that the project's GHG emissions could cause any measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change, and the fact that the project incorporates design features to reduce potential GHG emissions that are consistent with the goals of AB32, the project is not considered to have a significant impact with respect to global climate change on a project- specific basis. Moreover, there is no non- speculative method for G: \PLANNING \20101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx assessing how the project's very small theoretical GHG emissions increase could cause a significant project - specific effect on global climate change. Construction and operation of the project would create an increase of GHG emissions but would remain below SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project will consider incorporating the project features described above which will result in lower GHG emission rates as compared to "business as usual ". Because these features and measures would meaningfully reduce project GHG emissions and are consistent with the Temecula Sustainability Action Plan and State's CAT strategies, the Project is supportive of the State's goals regarding global climate change. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to cumulative Global Climate Change. G: \PLANNING\20101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X 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? X c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X 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? X e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Comments: 8.a. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is designated for a congregate care facility, which may include medical and biological waste. Therefore, the project may include hazardous materials. However, chemicals and waste stored, used, and handled at facilities are required to ensure that proper types of fire and life safety protection systems and procedures are in place. All businesses that plan to use hazardous materials will be required to submit a chemical classification packet to the City as required by the California Fire Code and California Building Code for compliance with these requirements. There will be no significant hazard to the public or the environment from the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result from this project. 8.b. Less Than Significant Impact: It is not anticipated that the project would 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. The project proposes a congregate care facility. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G: \PLANNING120101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 8.c. No Impact: The proposed project does not include any activities or uses that would pose a potential health hazard to the local population or the nearby school. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 8.d No Impact: Review of available data including site appearance, California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site Lists, and the Preliminary Title Report indicate no past uses that may have involved hazardous materials. Based upon the available data and the historical land use, there is no evidence to support that hazardous wastes would be present on the site. No impacts are anticipated. 8.e.f. No Impact: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip according to Figure LU -2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 8.g. No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan and will be designed to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8.h. No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING12010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? X e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f Require the preparation of a project - specific WQMP? X g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 9.a. Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes a congregate care facility totaling 97,685 square feet. This type of development typically generates domestic and /or municipal wastewater that does not require pretreatment or waste discharge requirements. No water quality standards are forecast to be violated by implementing the proposed project which will deliver its wastewater flows to the regional wastewater plant. Wastewater will be delivered to the regional treatment plant for treatment under waste discharge requirements established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. During construction and occupancy, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented which will control storm water runoff pollution to a level of no significance, therefore Tess than significant impacts are anticipated. G:IPLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DPIPlanning \EnvironmentallInitial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 9.b. Less Than Significant Impact Groundwater related problems are not expected to be encountered during site development. If shallow perched groundwater is encountered during construction, it can be managed with the use of sump pumps placed in the bottom of excavations which will be incorporated. The proposed project does not include any extraction of groundwater, so no adverse direct impact can result from implementing the proposed project. The City's General Plan EIR addresses water demand from development in the City of Temecula. The General Plan EIR concludes that cumulative water demand within the City can be met by the City's two purveyors without having a significant adverse impact on the environment, including depletion of the areas groundwater supplies. This is verified by the Rancho California Water District's Urban Water Master Plan which defines the resources available to the District to meet future cumulative demand within its service area. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property and thus, is considered consistent with the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project will not contribute to a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area groundwater aquifers. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 9.c. Less Than Significant Impact: Through the implementation of the project SWPPP (storm water protection program), erosion and siltation issues are controlled to a less than significant impact level and this project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 9.d.f. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site. The City imposes standard mitigation to detain surface runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum runoff volume from the site is not significantly increased. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements established by the State of California. However, the project is required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm -Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A preliminary plan has been submitted and conceptually accepted. The project will comply with RWQCB standards as designed. Based upon the information presented above, no significant adverse impact to either downstream flows or water quality is forecast to affect properties downstream of the site from developing the project as proposed. Less than significant impacts are proposed. 9.g.h. Less Than Significant Impact: No buildings or structures will be located within the 100 -year floodplain according to the City's General Plan as a result of implementing this project. No significant flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. No significant flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. Less that significant impacts are proposed. 9.i. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The subject property is not located within a dam inundation area per the City's General Plan. In addition, the City has implemented a multi - hazard functional plan pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act. The proposed project does not contain critical or essential facilities. Less than significant impacts are proposed. 9.j. No Impact: Due to the project area's distance from the ocean or other large body of water and its and elevation, there is no potential for a tsunami. The project area is not located near a large surface water body and there is no potential for inundation by seiche or mudflow. No impacts are anticipated. G:\PLANNING12010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \PlanninglEnvironmental\Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Physically divide an established community? X b Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact The project site will not divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Surrounding property uses include commercial, office and multi - family apartment residential so the addition of a congregate care use will not divide an established community. The proposed site is zoned Professional Office (PO) and allows for congregate care uses. The project is consistent with the zoning standards of the City's General Plan and Development Code. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City comments on the scope of the analysis contained with the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Furthermore, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. No impacts are anticipated from this project. 10.c. No Impact The project site is not located within a Criteria Cell of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and is consistent with the applicable Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conversation plan related to this project. No impact is expected. G: \PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X 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? X Comments: 11.a. No Impact: The project will not result in the Toss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. According to the General Plan EIR, the City is within Mineral Resource Zone 3a (MRZ -3) as classified by the State Geologist. The MRZ -3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and graval for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value, based on available data. These areas are primarily located in proximity to the Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, as well as other significant drainage areas. The project site is not located in the vicinity of these areas. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 11.b. No Impact: The project will not result in the Toss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Please reference Response No. 11.a. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. G:\PLANNING12010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e For a project located within an airport and 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? X f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Comments: 12.a. -d. Less than Significant Impact: Development of the land will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long -term. No activities are anticipated within the proposed project that would expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the project site. However, those noises are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, noise from construction of the project will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No significant impacts are anticipated. 12.e.f. No Impact: This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. According to Figure N -3 (the French Valley Airport Future Noise Contours in the Noise Element) on page N -12 of the General Plan, the project is not located in the noise impact area for the French Valley Airport. In addition, the project is not located in the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone according to Figure LU -2 on page LU -7 of the Land Use and Planning Element of the General Plan. Therefore, people within the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport and no impacts will result from this project. G : \PLANNING\20101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning\Environmental\Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Comments: 13.a. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project proposes a congregate care facility that could attract people that live outside City limits to relocate to Temecula. This is considered a moderate direct affect due to the fact that the facility only has 99 units. The project will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b.c. No Impact The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is vacant property and is not zoned for residential uses. Therefore, the project will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing due to displacement of housing or people. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING12010\PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \PIanninglEnvironmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a Fire protection? X b Police protection? X c Schools? X d Parks? X e Other public facilities? X Comments: 14.a.b.d.e. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The development of the site will incrementally increase the need for these services. The project will also contribute its fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 14.c. No Impact: The project is creating a residential use. However, the use will provide housing for senior citizens and not school age children. Therefore the use will not have impacts on, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Development of the parcels within the project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable school fees at the time the parcels are developed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:IPLANNING120101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental\lnitial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 15. RECREATION. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Comments: 15.a.b. No Impacts: The project will have no impact on the demand for neighborhood, regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The project has proposed recreational areas for its residents. However these are not available to the public since the use is designated as a congregate care facility. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:IPLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? X b Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e Result in inadequate emergency access? X f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X Comments: 16.a.b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project is located at the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga, with ingress and egress at the south and east side of the property line along Via Las Colinas. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed project is developed. However, the Statement of Operations for the project indicates that van service will be available to residents. This van service will reduce the overall vehicle trips created by the facility. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that the project will have a less than significant impact to the existing road system and adjacent intersections because the existing roadways have been developed consistent with the City's General Plan in anticipation of the area's proposed development. In addition, the City's Public Works Department noted that the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated February 18, 2000 for the adjacent commercial and residential project, Temecula Ridge Village, included this property as well and all required mitigation has been implemented including the southerly extension of Moraga Road and a traffic signal upgrade at the intersection of Moraga and Rancho California Road. A focused traffic study dated September 21, 2010 specific to the project was prepared by Urban Crossroads. Several mitigation measures were developed as part of the study. These are listed below and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. G:\PLANNING12010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmentalllnitial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Mitigation: 1. Construct the driveway on Moraga Road (Drive way 1) as a Full access driveway with stop control. 2. Construct the driveway on Via Las Colinas (Driveway 2) as a full access driveway with stop control. 3. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans /City of Temecula sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 4. Traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Congregate care facilities are a permitted use within Professional Office (PO) zones. No conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system is anticipated. A less than significant impact is expected. 16.c. No Impact: The proposed project will not have an impact on the air traffic patterns and will not result in a substantial safety risk. This site is not within the French Valley Airport influence area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 16.d.e.f. No Impact: The proposed project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. The proposed project provides for adequate ingress and egress from the site. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on- site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on -site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. The proposed project will meet parking requirements per Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Development Code. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. G:\PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ,and regulations related to solid waste? X Comments: 17.a.b.e. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.c. Less than Significant Impact: The project may result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place along Rancho California Road and to an existing City of Temecula storm drain located both east and west of the project site. Construction of any storm drains will comply with the General Plan. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.d. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "RCWD anticipates supplying water to 167,640 persons within its service area in 2020 (p. 5.14 -3)." The FEIR further states: "EMWD anticipates supplying water to 756,699 persons within its service area in 2020, (p. 5.14 -3)." This anticipated water supply includes a portion of Temecula. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.f.g. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G: \PLANNING \20101PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning\EnvironmentallInitial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Comments: 18.a. Less than Significant Impact: This site is surrounded by development and does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in -fill development and it does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.b. Less than Significant Impact: The effects from this project are less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. All cumulative effects for the subject site, as well as the surrounding developments, were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The cumulative impacts related to the future development of this site are anticipated to have a less than significant impact. 18.c. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The residential project will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING120101PA10 -0308 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. Comments 19.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study. Earlier documents developed by consultants can be found in the below Sources section. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department located at 41000 Main Street. 19.b. A previous initial study was conducted for the project site in relation to a different development (Rancho View Professional Center). This development consisted of two office buildings totaling 85,000 square feet. However, it was never constructed. All items discussed above, with the exception of air quality and traffic, were within the scope of the proposed congregate care facility. Separate air quality /green house gas and traffic studies were conducted specifically for the congregate care facility. 19.c. See attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook 4. MSHCP Compliance Report and Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment prepared by Principe and Associates (June 20, 2007) 5. Updated Burrowing Owl Assessment prepared by Principe and Associates (September 8, 2010) 6. Historical /Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM TECH (February 2, 2007) 7. Paleontological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates (May 8, 2006) 8. Archaeological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates (May 8, 2006) 9. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon (February 12, 2007) 10. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Temecula Village Development prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (February 18, 2000) 11. Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 21, 2010. G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Initial Study.docx Project Description: Location: Applicant: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Monitoring Program A two phase Development Plan Application for a three story 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. The project features 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments as well as a courtyard Generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road Larry Markham 41635 Enterprise Circle North Temecula, CA 92590 Cultural Resources Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor and professional Pechanga Tribe 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. 2. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. 3. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre - grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM 2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate G: \PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP\Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. 4. 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 MM 2. 5. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 6. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. 7. If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/ cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, G:\PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP\Planning \Environmental \Initial Study\CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc Specific Process: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department General Impact: the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and /or City Council. 8. A paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations. 9. A qualified Paleontologist shall be on -site during grading activities. Place the above Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval on the project to reduce potential biological impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Milestone: Above referenced mitigation measures shall be placed on all applicable project plans. Transportation /Traffic Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Mitigation Measures: 10. Construct the driveway on Moraga Road (Drive way 1) as a Full access driveway with stop control. 11. Construct the driveway on Via Las Colinas (Driveway 2) as a full access driveway with stop control. 12. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans /City of Temecula sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 13. Traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \Planning \Environmental \Initial Study \CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc Specific Process: Place the above Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval on the project to reduce potential transportation /traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Milestone: Above referenced mitigation measures shall completed before any grading permit is issued. Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department and Public. Wnrks Department G: \PLANNING\2010\PA10 -0309 High Gate DP \PIanninglEnvironmental \Initial Study\CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below PA10 -0309 C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp1995394.doc Larry Markham, MDMG, Inc. on Behalf of Buron Inc. A two-phase Development Plan Application for a three -story, 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment based upon a completed Environmental Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted in compliance with CEQA. Eric Jones, (951) 506 -5115 City of Temecula, Council Chambers April 6, 2011 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at (951) 506 -5115. DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: BACKGROUND SUMMARY Deny STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 2011 Cheryl Kitzerow, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA11 -0010, a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade from an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Type 20 License (Off -sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 License (Off -sale General Liquor) for Stop Quick Mini Mart located at 29762 Rancho California Road Categorically Exempt Section 15270, Projects which are Disapproved Dr. Sami Jihad, on behalf of Sarmad S. Bidi Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial (CC) Site: Developed with Stop Quick Mini Mart North: Miscellaneous Retail, Community Commercial zoning South: Vacant property across Rancho California Road, Professional Office zoning East: Automotive Uses (Quick Lube /Car Wash), Community Commercial zoning West: Automotive Uses (Shell Gas Station), Community Commercial zoning On January 6, 2011, the applicant filed a Pre - application request to upgrade an existing Type 20 ABC license to a Type 21 license to allow the sale of full liquor at the Stop Quick Mini Mart. On January 20, 2011, Planning and Police representatives met with the applicant and explained that because the area is over - concentrated (more licenses exist than are permitted by ABC in the census tract), Staff could not support the request. The applicant decided to pursue the request and on January 20, 2011, submitted a formal application for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade their license to sell full liquor as an incidental use of the market. The liquor display would be located behind the cashier /counter. 1 Previous Requests: Stop Quick Mini Mart has previously requested a license upgrade. The most recent request was in May 2008 via the pre - application process. At that time, staff could not support the request per Section 17.10.020.B.3 which required businesses selling alcoholic beverages and requiring a Conditional Use Permit to be located more than 500 feet from any religious or educational institution, day care center or public park. At that time, KinderCare day care center was located on the adjacent property (KinderCare has since closed that location). The applicant did not pursue the request. In 2002, the applicant had submitted a Conditional Use Permit for the license upgrade with a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PA02- 0223). Staff did not support the request due to the areas over - concentration. The Planning Commission denied the request; however the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council. On January 28, 2003, the City Council denied the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the existing Alcohol Beverage Control license from a Type 20 (Off -sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 (Off -sale General) for the subject business. ANALYSIS Stop Quick Mini Mart is an existing convenience store located in the Moraga Plaza Shopping Center. The business has been owned and operated by the current owner since 1989. The business currently offers for sale food items, beer, and wine typically found in a convenience market. Daily hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. The project site is zoned Community Commercial. Per Table 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code, a Convenience Market (with the sale of alcoholic beverages) requires a Conditional Use Permit and is also subject to the requirements of Section 17.10.020.B, Supplemental Development Standards. A Conditional Use Permit is required for particular uses which may have some special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. The Conditional Use Permit provides the City with the means to review the location, design, configuration of uses, and potential impact and compatibility with the surrounding area. Staff reviewed the proposed license upgrade Conditional Use Permit based on these requirements. The project site is located within an urban area surrounded by commercial, residential, religious, and park/educational uses. It is important to note the proximity of such uses to the subject site: First Baptist Church of Temecula is located approximately 600 feet to the northeast of the project; Temecula Elementary School is located approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast along Moraga Road, and Margarita Community Park and the YMCA is located approximately 1,500 feet to the northwest along Margarita Road. Alcohol beverage sales are not compatible with these uses. The Stop Quick Mini Mart store is located in Census Tract 432.16. The Census Tract includes the area bound by Winchester Road on the north, 1 -15 on the west, Rancho California Road to the south, and generally follows Margarita Road south to N. General Kearny and runs along the southern boundary of the Meadowview Open Space area west to La Serena /Rancho California Road intersection. The Census Tract includes the Promenade Mall and surrounding commercial uses, commercial uses along Ynez Road, and residential areas to the east. Per information provided by ABC, the Tract contains 15 active 'off -sale' licenses (9 Type 20 and 6 Type 21). As provided by ABC, this tract is considered over - concentrated when there are more than 4 "off- sale" licenses. The 6 existing Type 21 licenses are held by Food 4 Less, Costco, 2 Vons, Michaels Market, Target and CVS Pharmacy. Per Section 17.10.020.8.2, all of these businesses, with the exception of Michaels Market, are permitted to offer the incidental sale of alcoholic beverages since they are either a grocery store, drug store, and /or discount /department store. Michaels Market obtained their Type 21 license via a transfer from another business that discontinued their Type 21 license in 1998 (no net increase of Type 21 permits in the Census Tract). Although the Census Tract is considered over - concentrated, the ABC is not requiring a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity because the applicant's request would not result in an increase in total off -sale license types within the Census Tract. Precluding this determination from ABC, City staff has determined that the over - concentration is not desirable and upgrading the license type further intensifies the alcohol beverage sales in the area. The Temecula Police Department concurs with this determination as provided in the attached letter. Staff also reviewed surrounding Census Tracts to determine existing license types. Census Tract 432.15 contains 15 off -sale licenses (11 Type 20 and 4 Type 21). The 4 type 21 are held by MK Market, Old Town Liquor, Melano Liquor, and Rancho Liquor. These establishments were either permitted by right (previous Old Town Specific Plan allowed liquor stores under 2,500 square feet) or were permitted under the County's jurisdiction. Census Tract 432.10 contains 10 off -sale licenses (6 Type 20, and 4 Type 21). The 4 Type 21 licenses are held by Trader Joes, Sam's Club, Ralphs, and Winco Foods — all large grocery stores. Historically, the City has not supported the issuance of Type 21 licenses to gas stations or small convenience stores. As records indicate, the majority of Type 21 licenses were permitted for large, chain grocery stores and a large pharmacy. Since 2002, for uses that require a Conditional Use Permit (and have a Type 21 license), there were only 2 requests approved for businesses that were not grocery/department stores or pharmacies. These permits were for Barno's Liquor (PA10 -0063) and Melano's Liquor (PA10 -0168) — both requests were for a transfer of the license to new locations and did not result in an increase in Type 21 licenses. The applicant has submitted signatures from customers to support the request for the Type 21 license. In addition, the applicant has submitted an application to ABC for the license upgrade. ABC staff has informed planning staff that they have received one protest to the application but could not disclose the protesters information. Based on overconcentration of the Census Tract, surrounding sensitive uses, and previous decisions not to permit Type 21 licenses to gas stations or convenience stores, staff is recommending that this CUP request be denied. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the request, staff recommends continuing the item to the April 20, 2011 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to prepare the necessary findings, conditions, and resolutions. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on March 24, 2011 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. 3 The request is for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade an ABC license within an existing business /building. No construction or expansion of the building is proposed. At this time staff is recommending the project be denied. Therefore, the project would be exempt per CEQA Section 15270, Projects which are Disapproved. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, it would be exempt per CEQA Section 15301, Existing Facilities. FINDINGS Per Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.04.010.E regulating Conditional Use Permits, to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission or Planning Director (or Planning Commission and City Council on appeal) must make all of the following findings: • That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. • That the proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. • That the site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. • That the nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. • That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The proposed CUP application, however, does not meet the following findings for the following reasons: The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures, The proposed conditional use does not meet this finding because it is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and may adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. While the existing Mini Mart is not proposing any new construction or modifications to the exterior of the site, the license upgrade represents an intensification of use. This project will adversely affect the following properties which are in close proximity to the project: First Baptist Church of Temecula is located approximately 600 feet to the northeast of the project; Temecula Elementary School is located approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast along Moraga Road, and Margarita Community Park and the YMCA is located approximately 1,500 feet to the northwest along Margarita Road. Alcohol beverage sales are not compatible with these uses. Additional liquor sales may negatively affect the surrounding church, public park and school in the project vicinity. In 4 addition, the area is already considered over - concentrated with existing off -sale licenses and City staff has determined that the over - concentration is not desirable and upgrading the license type further intensifies the alcohol beverage sales in the area. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by Building and Safety, Planning, Fire, and the Police Departments to determine whether the nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Given the proximity to adjacent sensitive religious and education facility uses, the project is likely to be detrimental to health, safety and general welfare of the community. ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map Census Tract Map Letter from Temecula Police Department Resolution Statement of Operations Statement of Justification Public Correspondence - Customer signatures in support of request Notice of Public Hearing 5 City of Temecula 0 253 Aerial - March 2010 500 Feet PA11 -0010 This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System The map is denved from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessors Department and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Riverside County. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification The Geographic Information System and other sources should be queried for the most current information. This map is not for reprint or resale. 043217 043218 PAUBARO 043219 RRIETA BPRINas an 043223 \„ 043215 043210 eV 3000 0 / 3000 6000 2000 Census Tract Boundaries - etr 043218)- 043215 Feet 043214 LPAREENA 043203. rag istcensusdataicenaus_2000. mxd Patrick Richardson Planning Director City of Temecula The reasons for recommendation are: TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT 3/28/11 The Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention Unit was asked to look into a request made to the City to upgrade a Type 20 license, Off Sale Beer and Wine, to a Type 21 license, Off Sale General (Beer, Wine and Liquor) by Stop Quick Mini Mart located at 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula. Based on the reasons outlined below, the Temecula Police Department recommends the City of Temecula DENY this request for upgrade. 1. Current policies of the City of Temecula do not support the issuance of Type 21 licenses to small convenience stores, gas stations and similar small businesses. The Type 21 license issued by the City is reserved for large pharmacy /grocery style chain stores, with the exception of small businesses in operation prior to the city incorporation. 2. Based on a survey of other retail businesses in the same census tract (432.16) possessing "Off Sale licenses ", the area in which this business is located is currently over - concentrated with Off Sale licenses per the guidelines of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The limit is four (4) Off Sale licenses and this census tract has 15 Off Sale licenses (Nine (9) Type 20 and six (6) Type 21). 3. While the existing Mini Mart is not proposing any new construction or modifications to the exterior of the site, the license upgrade represents an intensification of use. This project will adversely affect the following properties which are in close proximity to the project: First Baptist Church of Temecula is located approximately 600 feet to the northeast of the project; Temecula Elementary School is located approximately 1200 feet to the northeast along Moraga Road, and Margarita Community Park and the YMCA is located approximately 1500 feet to the northwest along Margarita Road. Alcoholic beverage sales are not compatible with these uses. Additional liquor sales may negatively affect the surrounding church, public park and school in the project P.O. Box 892050 • Temecula, CA 92589 • (951) 696 -3000 • FAX (951) 696 -3010 Given the proximity to adjacent sensitive religious and education facility uses, the project is likely to be detrimental to health, safety and general welfare of the community. Ronald A. Heim Lieutenant vicinity. In addition, the area is already considered over - concentrated with existing off-sale licenses. PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA11 -0010, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE FROM AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) TYPE 20 LICENSE (OFF - SALE BEER AND WINE) TO A TYPE 21 LICENSE (OFF - SALE GENERAL LIQUOR) FOR STOP QUICK MINI MART LOCATED AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (APN 921 - 310 -022) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 20, 2011, Mr. Sami Jihad, on behalf of Sarmad Bidi, filed Planning Application No. PA11 -0010 Conditional Use Permit Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application 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 Application and environmental review on April 6, 2011, 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 denied Planning Application No. PA11 -0010 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 denying the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and may adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. While the existing Mini Mart is not proposing any new construction or modifications to the exterior of the site, the license upgrade represents an intensification of use. This project will adversely affect the following properties which are in close proximity to the project: First Baptist Church of Temecula is located approximately 600 feet to the northeast of the project; Temecula Elementary School is located approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast along Moraga Road, and Margarita Community Park and the YMCA is located approximately 1,500 feet to the northwest along Margarita Road. Alcohol beverage sales are not compatible with these uses. Additional liquor sales may negatively affect the surrounding church, public park and school in the project vicinity. In addition, the area is already considered over- concentrated with existing off -sale licenses and City staff has determined that the over - concentration is not desirable and upgrading the license type further intensifies the alcohol beverage sales in the area. B. The project has been reviewed by Building and Safety, Planning, Fire, and the Police Departments to determine whether the nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Given the proximity to adjacent sensitive religious and education facility uses, the project is likely to be detrimental to health, safety and general welfare of the community. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6 day of April 2011. ATTEST: Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) Pat Kight, Chairman I, Patrick Richardson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 11- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 day of April 2011, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Patrick Richardson, Secretary December 1 2010 Director, Community Development 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Director, Re: Statement of Operations CUP for Liquor License Upgrade I took over the ownership and management of Stop Quick Mini Mart in July 2001 with a beer and wine license. I have owned and operated successfully other businesses in the City of Temecula since 1989. Herewith is my statement of operations: • The daily hours of operations will be 7 AM to 11 PM. • Number of employees will be one and my partner as a manager. • Daily peak trips will be between the hours of 3 PM — 7 PM. • The equipment used include beverage reach -in coolers, ice -cream freezer, ice machine, soda fountain, coffee machine, dairy cooler, ATM, and a lottery machine. • There is no hazardous material nor there be any at the mini mart. In response to my customers' requests, needs and conveniences to upgrade my present type 20 (beer & wince) license to type 21 (general liquor) license, I have applied to ABC for same as well to the city of Temecula for a CUP. I was awarded the type 21 license by ABC through priority drawing (copy attached). There is an overwhelming support to this effort of upgrading my present license as evident by the attached signed petitions. There are no other liquor stores within the proximity of the Moraga Plaza where my Stop Quick Mini Mart is located to serve such a populated neighborhood. Moreover, my mini mart is well stocked to meet the conveniences and needs of my well deserved customers. The intent is to make my mini mart a one -stop shopping mart. Based on the above, I would very much appreciate your approval of the minor CUP for this alcoholic upgrade, especially when there will be no physical changes to the premises Thank you for your cooperation in this effort. Sincerely, Sarm. a � idi Stop Quick Mini Mart • JAN 2 :,a 21 STOP QUICK NIINI MART By 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 (951) 699 -7968 December 42010 STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 (951) 699 -7968 Director, Community Development 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92589 Dear Director, • Re: Statement of Justification CUP for Liquor License Upgrade I have been a successful businessman in the City of Temecula since 1989. I have since owned and operated several businesses. I am proud to be part of Temecula dynamic business community, and that I had contributed through my businesses to its progress and success. I am applying for a CUP to upgrade my type 20 (beer and wine) license to type 21 (general liquor) license for the following justifiable reasons: 1. To serve the conveniences and needs of my loyal customers as well as the surrounding populous neighborhood near my mini mart. I have a great number of customers who live in the apartments on Moraga Road, Via Los Colinas, and Lyndie Lane who shop at my mini mart and who are constantly asking for Liquor. 2. To respond to my customers requests for the upgrade who are very supportive as evident by their signed petitions (attached), and also to make Stop Quick Mini Mart a one -stop shopping mart for my customers' conveniences. 3. The site is both suitable and adequate for the proposed upgrade since it is located in a shopping plaza. Thus, it will neither have any adverse impact on the general welfare of the persons residing in the community, nor a substantial adverse effect on the traffic circulation, and on the planned capacity of the street system. It has an easy access in and out of the shopping plaza. 4. The upgrade will be compatible with the existing development within the district and its surroundings since the mini mart is already in existence and has met all of the city requirements. Moreover, it does have an approved beer and wine license. 5. This request is for a minor CUP is for an upgrade and not for a new license. I was awarded the type 21 license by ABC through priority drawing (copy attached). 6. I have owned and operated several businesses in the City of Temecula since 1989, I believe that I deserve due consideration for my request. I have a beautiful and well - stocked mart that has complied with all of the ABC and City rules with no violations. I am totally dedicated and determined to provide my worthy customers with excellent services, quality merchandise, and food products to satisfy their conveniences and needs. I sincerely hope that my request will meet your kind consideration in approving my CUP for the proposed alcoholic license upgrade, especially when there will be no physical changes to the premises Meanwhile, please accept the assurances of my highest regards and appreciation for your assistance in this effort. Thank you. Sincerely, Sarmad S. Bidi Stop Quick Mini Mart • • WE, TILE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. I Name w 471 7/- Signature ,��,�� _AA Address 9 2, r^ cc , 16 V'cA (� , Date Signed 19, _ Name .) 6 \ A C\ o Signature� � ' Address jC5 5 Q Id c f \ b ey Date Signed 1 _ _\ Name A n a- t _ (` o < - Signature Address 29 ,F 5 d n 5 4. 1 Date Signed 2 O AD Name ` 1 ' ( \-1 : ' � l S c; \ Signature /)1- (c r ( Address 3 2, ( te c' p R, c )1../ . - - ,4 1 Date Signed f Z_ >v S �> NO ; ct ( , -, \ € „y- Signature y z _____,. Address 2 2 1 4 5 'fl c- c •..,.'•,' , •c . .k 0), Date Signed is - j> ( le- r Lk, C R 6 f 3 c_14 / J}. f c___,i` Address 5 'To t k. ka Cl n ,,ii l� 2 '2 V Date Signed , '2..- Name ) c7 S e ti? y c , d' Signature ) ' ( eE,Ai �r ' C Date Signed )1. _ 0 Name Name Address Name c< v o, v ( o Vti Signature � A Address (4- 2 S I O 'e u VV o o ,� Q Date Signed t) ? Name 1 (',O■ �\ ( U '( ( Y E Signature Address 2 22 2 Name Address Name Name Address Name Address STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 126., -t� ,, A , 1 vc c� G S' l L �1� 0 -t .\ 5 ,1. -\ c\ h r j j) j e Signature Address 9 (,t 3C% V \� (� 4 c . ;� �.�'� r� 0 tr V 0+- �.k \ �--') Signature V CCUL,c Signature C v� c_ L'L v- i — L _ - - Signature Date Signed 1 I Date Signed ) _ ,C ate Signed 1 g, ( 0 s Z.7 I ` k 5 c- 'Y� ` „_,j\ n Date Signed k? g... 1 0 STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name C v_N Q - `n -C \`(-( Signature Address 4. 2 2 2_ \ L.. s `(c, v p Name (, J V c' l c \i C— Signature p . (Q .' ` ' A )2(. Address k ' G V-" , 7 / S 1 _5r ,.e- : A. . Date Signed l 2. _ e ,. l c Name i '�' '' 1 (�-. t (. vv- Signature k vl ("kV' \` Address Lk, '7. 2 1 8 ... -r..n. u,,,,, ,Y,,, -. r Date Signed / 9 _ r.._1 Name ' to % 1. h os, L w ( I G.'V'` Signature Address Name Address Name Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Li, 2 2 u ,ye� ur- 0. 3 A e-‘f Signature h c7 ( k L15$ l Signature J■ Address ,/ 1 _, 2__2--c) t5 n (k6.,/c\ (1 , Date Signed t 2- 0 Q a Date Signed C a Date Signed 1 _ .4 C Date Signed 1 �. Date Signed 12 .. l,'V si- C ture 9 7 r . &N2 CZ \S o }� r fic c < O / G -.L 1 t7 d 6 `? c SZ - e-LA ` v 5 -7 1 ( ;\ Signa 7 9 1 ( 3 , i p;s■v\,.r- u Signature 1n \A e a C) ok tit n pa c T7 c) tir• � cy �Z ... ��ti c v� U Y"` C �< , � ) '{ < Signature ✓( /lam Signature ture Signature ZZ 1 ' 93 R C}`°) l . .e iluj 5 o cr � ' W�e r Signature • ') (� , Date Signed i 2, - Date Signed ' 2 - k ( _ ate Signed ! 2 g' Date Signed 1 _., ii,Q Date Signed 1 !�— - Date Signed IQ Xv ! e) WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Address 3 3 S o M 4 - ) c-%e-ck Name cA 0` f- Address Name M 4,.•.• ' l.-..41e4 z. Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Nance Address 4 /2 l-7 c'o( Address y2 2zc: Name ^ ` Signature Address Name Or e/> ACK - 3 S `f L ! eA 11 '� -� c3 E .M '.(2216 /S STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 / 1 c• / c jcc�V�W-C�G r) � f - "LC) CZ_� o --7/c7)///c- G C, rcs J ?ASignature PC) C 0 L,'\ c Date Signed •\ Name Address (,? 1 G `� Name Ce,ck\w∎ coo Co e^--v1/4c`c ij 7 .\_. Address 2R \ Signature Signature Signature Signature A - 2'-- Co Signature Signature Signature Signature Date Signed y Date y igned cc -f at \ a Date Signed o 94 oei - t Date Signed 7 1/n Date Signed c \ a Date Signed I 2 4c q t o _C8? Date Signed \ ? - ' t \ C) er Date Signed /2 Signature Signature Date Signed % Date Signed \ f ' `/ C G � � �c� V erov cep r � q c n ( eunee� Yr Date Signed CD Name /-'biz /2, , -T r z ( ,U Signature Address 3? /�z_ re4 r) if) 57- Date Signed z/ g /7g STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. t,w■■1 Signature Address 4 0 Q ,�j. ox ck• u Name p � i S o {V, CR Signature ^ Address pt e J a /�/ rn d� 0 J e. � c� I� � � `J' , L Name r,CI feC V MCP} Signature Address 1 � ,(72,,6 Name f o. 'r G. e9 'r Address M Z, e 5 2 .' d' 3 Name :)U,k 60-Are Address 3 2 2 , R2(-) ask 'a.h 0,0 `2 i - ‘-c 4 2 N r L A b 1 Name jV\ av y F, ) -\o ) �D y Viz ' ? Address':, A k ` I Name Name Address t 1 •0 Name G K 1 5 - 0 ? lx o,? ~ . Address 2 _ e Name r I c_Nn t Ak, C_S Address 'Z f - ' )i, Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Date Signed 11. k 4 Date Signed )2 1�� 00 Date Signed ` ? A O ( Date Signed (9 t, () Date Signed f ._ lam- Date Signed 1/),, Address Date Signed I8 ,1 Name l Signature Date Signed I ) _ Name C ' Signature Address V47_ ( 1 '� vs� t'r { (� �� Date Signed ) 2 _ Name et e Vc,- Signature Address p �j 2.�� Ga ~ '� '�"^ `^- M nv i � � Date Signed �� 16 Name l Signature Address 2 5 Z 42-c< Date Signed k 2 O_ Date Signed (2 (r,". Signature \, f Date Signed t 2 - �c �� STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name 5 ,) (V \�� \) , , z Signature Address C' > T /4c '1 ')) 1v y \ — t Date Signed Name r d o. w'.\ L \ cx A Signature Address 3 p (3 \.)- Z ') 9 TY r Date Signed _ Name S c is? Address v,- z, 2 M e 12 d , 9 L5 '4 ate Signed ) 2 r OQ, �b Name (� •d�anli 4 / 4 / 1 G V Signature C; I Address 1\ > tC ? s a 4 Name ✓J p Address 3 i ..? (4 0 A. Name f r � � � S . s Signature Address 4 � 3 is k A Yo-- ao-c_, Name 4,,g4Ain (.6-95 Signature Address 2 f ,P - �� Date Signed 1 2 ) c' ,)(c3 Date Signed 1 Z- b 0,. C Date Signed ( Date Signed << L , ,<<. Name ")<-0 5 e _ e_ 9 A h 07, e ,. Address C'D 0� Name r Address Name g �� j c (, ;Z_ c . Address 1 _ '2 - Lt S 1 Name y �_t V E' \, Address 4 L\r\c.) Addres s/;,, Name Signature h- (z0 Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Date Signed c2,_ Ap 9 4' )Q Signature Date Signed 12 h Date Signed ( Date Signed l? t - to AYJ Date S Name S ��� (A- ' 6 &.. Signature Address ,,-Z `) 5 // Date Signed kP STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Signature Name /11 Address 7 �, ` r r,, < �� �1 -`� � Date Signed Signature Name C c- Ck Signature Address 1 2- 2 2 c 'T v` Name � b �!' ri jr Address 0, ?2-; £ G __ Name C c A )1 D Q 1(P L' Addressd\L) 4S7 0 .s1 6 V 6, 5 L Signature Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Q es __ \i Address U 2 — , Signature cf)-- g, ( r)\- Address Name e. r Signature Address Name ' .\ S `r 'Y'- , Q s c°,? a Signature Address Name • ; -� ; >: �., Y , ;{ Signature Address `) 3 � ' > - { - {• Name r Signature N- 1 c_ \r �j Signature \\0 .r Signature r �� • L /� Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed ►'L Date Signed (2_ 1Z p Date Signed \ I\ 0 L) . c Date Signed J D c7 Date Signed Date Signed ? _ \ Date Signed V1 (L t c, Signature Date Signed 1 1 �_ 6 t �-�� r> �,^ Date Signed t ` C - Q L Address Date Signed 7 - \ -(t) STOP QUICK MINE MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name •' e f6- V'r2 r rc " Signature Address 5 \ © ' GnV^ \ `o t 57,n. `e- Date Signed 11_ 03 A.() Name \e\G / Signature Address _71).. g Ara 5 C a e L Date Signed 12 - \ (7) Name s 03u- q S Signature / > "s \V y1, - _ 1; •1 Address } t 'Z () 7 6 NA o v- u,7- r /c7 Date Signed k Name -I .,, Signature L -� { c Address cs ,L ` c' c'� lr- 7 n l r ` F -�' Date Signed \ 2 _ i% d Name .' , Signature Address y Sj 1 )' b c h L_ ,_ Date Signed / j ,. `� 6 Name ec.c Z 0.ho- R.-09 S Signature Address ' it 3 T r b © t'Z C. c Date Signed k 2 _' S- ,4) Name I v S /0 Signature Address - , Date Signed j '2 - \ Name 2r- e,t 1' 1 (:<, �� S \ \,t) Signature Address VI 2 A"? \J J Q 3 Q 'C) Date Signed 49 Name 6 Signature y , Address Lh , S - v.J'�. 1. Date Signed ) • _ �' d Address 61 Name r`) 9 = f, �' -L Signature Address Name Address 2 � e_ kNist4- Signature Name L ok (o S ■ \ V• _ Signature Address � o�_ � � cknO / l 2 Date Signed \C Name g (9 v\CJ.A(b vM Y ! ak `'( Signature 1/1/T-° Date Signed Date Signed (tZ 21L Date Signed i,`_e STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name L . ► 5V, v 0 • C r Ic?<_ve r$ignature Address ( rZ ( I' w Date Signed _) � � Name ■ A h s `r0 {'n e c cm' Signature 1? 5 Address 2 2 C u-- Date Signed 1/ 5 _ Name !va n cal- pi e v'0 S Signature Address 6 L La KZ %j r r Date Signed 1.2 Name � p fi t/ i p a- 5 •j, 4/cY Signature Address 2 U 7 6 , 1 - O r ct t,- ‘•l 1 1R6 Date Signed j _ lc) Name - J v \ 1; � '� ' c Signature -( 6L c.64 -tom_ Address 2 c5 `7 l '' - S' Da t Signed a Name .:56 „1A' \ C C-j c) (M ' 0 .- WC ” S ?Signature Address Name Address Name 1-P 3 Signature ( C UCe 1 � G 12c^'( ( lSi g nature Date Signed 1 ' 1 . l Date Signed k Address (c5 q ii. 1 & re-k- n v A. / '- E Date Signed ' 9 _ Name fro (\m r„ , / aJ Ft-- t'l(___,L_e Yci Mignature r s c, k <)_ (A_ , a l ts Address Ck_ 7 S "t 0 .,.,---- v ,c, Cr, Date Signed k j _Q\ ,, k) Name G ,,._ a, A O .0 t \-, ,.- �.„ 7 Signature Address 3trg -: C-6\--(a ' \ c-, R p . Date Signed l 2 , _. to Name r '1 -c S - \ Y3 ck \ e,c,T -e Signature Address j- C 3 k , ; p 6-\A b O ` �-u Date Signed 7 _9 ._S � Name Y__SCf j e) e-sL-S Signature -c NS r Address �e k l S. G Date Signed t 2 _ 9:, i.7) Name '1 ,_). -' (\i \ h S vv c- , a , y\ Signature j Li. k 1) Z 1 1 V\ ` (, c-- Address ( ? R 6._k") c.V1 - -(\L }. — Date Signed ' 0„ — `) _ G STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVIC Name S / //G J ' Signature Address /0 'hors,C,r a tic) Name J 5 h u� F. _ ( a �1 C:\ Signature Address G' �, .5 j C YYen W\ d t 3 2 5 1 1 Name Signature Address Name (jc,wt•\ G ki hAa, Address ti,.2 \ , 0 Name 3 Gam. Y' `c_ Address Name Signature ■ Signature Signature Address 3 2_ ir 5 Name L S h \MC VY . \ �� `� r °--- Signature Address \t' ? -1 A A :/ ; ;AO/ ate Signed /7 - - /0 ate Signed 12 � 4,0 Date Signed i 2 _011.1'6 14.E Signature Address 3 . \ To. )0 r ht 4 7 Name y(j,, L Ne A L { -a Signature Address o 2 c pek tt.por r s 2,5 ° \ Name 4 ( � /.$ � t? �( j�k, Y(��,t Signature Address � 11/4,. b , ^> > P p� c 2 3 h -- "`A Name c !) \ p Signature Address ' ' ( e. _) , r 04_ otir)c" v{R, Name 1? a ev Address Li 2QCC7 1 x32 � {\ Name I. j cjw Signature Address (1 a -, ?t, /4"-e%.\) l c D a Signed Name A Lc.,. V e Q --p ' � Signature C k '2 r:> 3� � ''. Date Signed i ( (� 5_ _ `d C F . . Date Signed \2, _ Date Signed V2 — Date Signed (2 --9 o Date Signed `S r ) L Date Signed (e - �l ^ Z Date Signed k,) Date Signed ` \ Name Address Name Name Address Name 47 Li... Address Name Address Name ( (4) ( CA L ZOO 2 2c9C9 Address J /C / ,)s Name (A Gv(i ( ,O Address /- o I c c't Name (jcl ( C-1( ./( 0 ., STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Address 4/ Name i),,¢ 17 jr; Address 3/ ? (t7 /A! Yt`" Name C t' j[) /-47 / 70 r -0 Address 2 pi/ /-7 S A1 A. Name a by vf"1/ Address2 � (if f °i L V r' r e'er Or' ei 7 7 hoy 40 C • 42.(©r) (ANC) C ) (. l j �1- /404 r> W27(50 14A0*A(i I&" /( A (2 - - 4- k(.(A n►oVii5;O Address ,k t 0 (c, 9 ci. Uir/ixv'Jc 4_,p �Lt/P�� ci (cA l ec, c_ • P l: lec L' Signature U/n Date i Signature Signature Signature /� #Z/Z7 tr' t Signature Signature Signature Signature (J/ - 7;A s Date Sign Signature ///1/4 Date Si P/7/ a /Z /7// o d /2/7/76 Date Si d R/7/(11 fr=='" Address 6( C6_,t1 Date Signed ! 2- k 0 - /VC !4 4 To Ate' -tfSignature l e/77 i Address '9-P er J��(;L D . t S' : e [2-1--Lt) Name CO ((Or) i C C Signature to Signed ( 2- 1— 1 o c I Date Signed 2- 1- t b Date Signed 2-1- l o t <n 19S 1/Iu11)N Dat• Si• red \ -1- ( v Date Signed t Signature _) i C�(�, v Date Signed' 7 - k 0 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Address Name Address Name Address STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 � ' I q r ri1 Z, 04 I A Sean) Signature 7v0 >7 1).14 a n i' ( Wlopjo Sw i Signature Signature Address w( r 'Q '("Z Name ,) e, S L ' 6 Z a rrfr r Address- ele-ti dy 1 6( $ 5i eits. t, Name Signature Name J 0 E? / C a, Signature Address kr. ,,, c ,� (c G ea Jcv, Name Q17n to Address / c ,,. ) Name M toa el / -! e r\c c.c. Signature Address )- e e 64.0 1 u c t a r 4 e n (99- tif ZS t el o t e 3 G IC 4 €3- Va3- 10 Signature 22 S 2 5 it q A q Name Co e„, /V( e, `l� & v z Signature Address )12--24) 0 A o ' vnc cl a /ID /6 Name ( pl / Address 3222-1 L41A(r -Lr' Name n h iZe /// Address -5.3S 7 / D Name k./ 5 Fe // /A Address 07 f /i>,'l �<t-- Name A - Address - c11'1; &Iv et) Ql4-, Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Date Signed 7 //) zp t o S o on 114n.i w ( 1A.10,080Eo,70 Date Signed 7 / 2oi 0 Date Signed • + 7 , 20/ 0 Date Signed 7 , (z -2 c, j U Date Signed ) 412 Z 0 ) Date Signed 7 — P. 20 /d Date Signed z 1 2-Z0 Date Signed `7 • Date Signed r CA}e.ge Date Signed /2/4 l o Date Signed 2- '1 -- k u STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK A I MART DO RERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CTIY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COi TED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name E a CA 60 n' \' Address ? Z ton nc rte/ v ,( 12 ' 0 Nana Akco nS n t kk✓1e7 Address 4 - L )-O 0 C t'o nN Go( A- ( Name !3 1 A IJ1 1 a rW in al e Address 424./; G (Z .40 Name 6e gAgbo 41,40..6)Q.1.7 Address ZZ9 F f)c• v` 4., 4/ -S / Name / 161 Address Z111 S 1' c■tu:hoc>– v , - /.I 91 Address vd L•d 15Z0 1.8i' 898 R .0 Signature Signature Signature Signature f 6 0 ,� l IC Date Signed /2/0/7/0 /Y Date Signed (2 /a � , ` / ,o a is 1 ' r rt (� (� rl x yrs^ Date Signed r 2,/0 , (a Date Signed / L./ Signature —J L I t1 Date Signed t ^2- (o Signature Name ,EyMa OY -9Q.. Address ,2C/()/6 ,Rc,$) ( f-IC r , 1 - 1 C i< , 1 / 6 3 Name Col los 1461-160 Signature Address K(11'010, Q. A 1\ `L3 P Name ( /l / //t u " . A/04;4 nb )c l/ 1011 A DC1(0 ‘i /1 Da a Signed /- - - /6 Date Signed l2 - - 1 0 Signature j -7/ , yJj fl S F�ur�4 1, - - ,,( Date igned /a / Name / Signature Address 59Q / % ,e-c <i / / t./i /%'?J(A Date igned /2 ' 6, - - Name ✓,/j,,, <GicO), Signature J C�<.__. Address Y/A C14 w5 - / 12J i i; / / .: Date Signed /2 - 6 . i 0 Name j (Yi -fr, S 5 /(AN Signature ,� Address - ?.t: 1 c! 'k cof -)( q� v,J f e Date Signed / - /' /d Name r41//ex $ CM ps64, Signature _.e0° Address 3) ,4C GCf',W 50 .9 i/A )C Pit_ Cf.' l,4 Date Signed /p1-- 7 — /O Name -tk 10 j a r Z- vnt(ni.' Signature Address 1a n yo S ft Date Signed 7 // 2c) ID e1oZ !AB STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Env/ D yc,h l,aIdOCa Signature Address MO! A 9 U. Kr) Name 1Zc, r\ M.orc( I I5 ('r Oz_- Signature Address1l,lo>,e 0L5 ct r . Name A x - f - t) -v o 1e 2 Signature Address 21 1 1 S o var. >rcA 4 �"� . k2 Name k' R s , y 0 v- fr. v\ Address tv\ o Y• (-N V R 1) . 3L- A Name t/ ,.f i F « ; S T ( „k Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Signature Signature Signature Date Signed \2 Date Signed _1_ ∎ R r' n 1;E Signature 1t 2 0 Yv\ c.) Y a ° 117 , V0) A `: V' (< r7 t 7 Signature Date Signed' 7 -4 -1 Date Signed (. - Date Signed `, — 7 C� Date Signed -- d ? - - o ; : ; / t - Date Signed h — ratt‘e/..d.„ > , } h 4 . ' }? p to ) \ p9 A' \re) p e_ve_7 ,7.531 Name S O 13 k p f R j Z Signature Address �' M h P R Date Signed A 4 7 - / 0 Date Signed ( 2 _ Name f,@y'G c c j' c'- 0 a d t(' Lan Signature fl u e L c) \ • ,-._, /lt Address m o Y', or ek /7/) , 0 ,Q . 5a.. Date Signed 12 _7 . k 0 Name d? v� �- Signature / Address 1 C C% c c U j LJ() 0 A pr, Date Signed t.- 7.,( n Name E 1 C ( C 4/ r Signature f f I .. Address ,� ( G + r Ji h ( (1 * ■\ \ C (l r Date Si ned a , ?\ 0 Name c(, 1 C c f 1 i j u q Signature Address 76 L- FveA A,,, t ip - :w Date Signed (/ 7 4 0 STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMNIITED TO PROVIDE US HIS C STOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name C )l /Ri Address 4/l !/,^ (-).,-, t- / / G/i /ivii Name Z_-- (.. 7,- S ignature Address 3O /"i tM wi!t L‘- Date Signed /2 '3. -/b Name . r) r, L--- C 1 ? V Address 2 c ? 9 � ° R o oore, o 6 -< /i.4•Y , Date Signed / 2 _/p Name 0S(' ('z u ` ovk? r ,'7 Signature Address ' f - 2-2-0 0 /-L r a y is ,2/) Al) L Ej Date Signed /'7.- 7 --fly Name 0 i /5 r5 g er n r,if iiii.n Signature �2- Address /5 08 �E / TZ Name Address Name . Name Address j / 7 )~ Nam Signature Signature ate Si e /)7 -1 - /f2 ate Signed 07', /2 , /Q Signature 7 „elm. Address 1 E 1.4 7114 F'c2 2) R , `7"e a ec A Signature L1%lr ncd 1.2�i�,tbl v ed l } 7 /0 • Date Signed 07 - / 2 ` / U c> Date Signed 17 C l U 6 W Z U 1./ Signature Address j 3 /Kr) p f -,-;--?_° ,`) p 4 41 favix Date Signed D Name /hh) /V '2 (a .4/ Signature j ,A.'—t_ / L, —_ Address 3 m5- , / r -''`cam Q ,� : Y' J '✓- - _ o � l S � �- /1. � ••v `� Date Signed IV � - 1 Name '-\. , k� CV C, Signature . S , Address M r, j k L C\ e .iN ir■A t.) i f 1 (- 4 C Date Signed /2- 0? 1U Name W \ O> , ■Ca r 1.. t Z Signature 2.. /`-,1 1 Address ft c% I )e rte n 4vA•i 4 Y \C Date Signed 12-.0 - ) 0 STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name r1'-k. (0 (- ; 1 Address 30 0 2,0 / J\ Name &O R d1Y`'1 %) 5 Address 7 70 \ rA ; 0 yvvi 'Dr Name ,ycZ k ‹f ivy Address Name (, � V (° S / ! - v1 4.2 Signature Signature !` W\r c Signature Signature Address k(A,,� c,i,� Ca (l i'da , q z 6 1 Name e S ,, S r, ), J- r\ , ` 0, � a 1 Signature Address (rte 1,4 (A /l) IJr � L V1,,, oiYA T J �( Name / ,v- f y I 4 (� L ) -7 Signature Address 9 _) Y'-c_ wp r vv. r , Name 4 ni S1 (,/... )17 Signature T e NAA,c c LcO ck ('_ t qco ( •—T A t re' 'r 1 Signature Address Name Name Address Name Address � jlft- 6-1 Ai � yykAr 5 7 - e.,Av \c t t � 2 6 Date Signed 1 2__ — ct (a Date Signed t 2_ __ 9 _ 1 0 Date Signed c ( _ ( 01 )1, tv0 Date Signed ( 2 ( C, C/11 _C S F Date Signed r1 `/ LA Date Signed Date Signed ` 0 1 O 1 1_ g _ jv 1 2 _ (0 Address 4,,,..v.,( r , `19 , Z y ) Date Signed ! 2 g Name A v ,,L te ,0 - 7o 2 Signature - - -. 6::-. 6::-. Address c' S r� 1 J / rc v ,,, t e EL( G1 c p / Date Signed ( 2 ._ ('0 Name Lo 1 �,,,n y „�. c - P ! Signature . f��, - Address Li .2_2 J 2 a;,, E,,;. ,,d C 7 2 6-r: Date Signed ` Z ^ _ Name (,--, � \ 1ct h, U t 1 -- Signature ,- kJ- Address -t kvti C r, 1 — Date Signed 1 7 ` 1) ( Signature c( 2 . 5y Date Signed c ( 0 Signature T, -- " j � Date Signed_ (-o STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name AOLk 1 \&E4% LA) . Signature Address \ 43 1 u F 9 Name `W\ . c\r\cf, cis C k Signature Address 2 G nLs Name * 5�,� (� a 1 S Signature Address `I 3a I C � e �c ���e\ros "CQ� ecsL't Name � \ B y s �c� Signature Address kJ Name � �c; �c /"\ 0 \c\ 1 \'\ Signature Address S P �rct E A(-?--\ Cy O1' ek \ e z Signature Address z \ 1 ooc\ kk 6 Name Name Address Li 22 1 a Name Address y 2_2_ 00 koq Name Address 2 0g 0 kiJ Name Address Signature Signature Inn ecu \Q Signature Signature Address 4/0 C. C 2J sr ` V M Date *pied 12 - v - t Name 0 L - \ n Signature ��--- Address A .N �� 6 C A ` L * C> (Z v \ 4 Date Signed / ' Y(j4 Name ev �; �� M e �� e - 7 Signature ? EA Address _3 S I' t \ s\ \n n R. Date Signed 12 - c 0 - 1 Name C H 2∎ N c F» ‘1 Q c, 5 Signature Date Signed '1 /-kg/ro Date Signed Date Signed l 2 - a S - Date Signed \ , _1(38 6 Y eh „„\ t&. Date Signed - - - O8 / 0 a k ,e 4 qi3l,(24 ' z Date Signed 2- 0 8 • I� Date igged D to Signed \ Q " 1 D ) ELMO Date Signe dk /a Date Signed . ( STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Address S eV e. Address -; C� `l �o ‘, Name "� a VeAr Address `(3 E`) LA Q Date Signed 12, _ $ - I 0 Signature (\)\-‘ �� ",,� :��'1 Date Signed ► _ ► s �/ 2 P - c u'L.A Date Signed 1 2_ 6 Name ( PO,■■e \o, S Qv tang Signature U�u�vrci� e c� Qt Signature ke),1\-(11/ Address Name Address R.) ems(' \c„, `(3�3 Cr \ Name `� �� Signature Address ' 2 ? C C) �' C) `� �{ �j' C, �. . Signature Signature ec Date Signed k ' - _ ;j A Name \ `\ : 0 & ( '� co e Signature Address it ?O U U L �t u,, ��c�,:��c �� r M �N2.4, Date Signed 1 2 - c Name J U A 6O C S Signature Address 2 Q 0 A\-A\J \ r EC \ CIO Se -'1 l!)I Date Signed 1 j (, _ 1 e Name -N � Signature , i )-k - Address ( 4 2_ Op \ M r oP . �,,,,_...,.AR Date Signed 11 _ i 16 Name 1,. r, G^ dal Signature › V k Address 5 y 2s- S ,o . , /-- .,. 1i �7 -e 7r, Date Signed 1 2 _ R ( v Name i O . _` „ € N \ c Signature L_ L;- \ > -- , Address 0 - `'' c ' M Vz t, c. ,> 2 0, fi , t ,_ L v Date Signed ( U ` 0 Date Signed 1 8_1 a Address .( 4-1 kot 'h c �� Date Signed f 7 Name Pv- € r ■p, , ea , e • -L , Signature Address , g5 ( U l c� '�v v r \ e'er `Q Date Signed 1 2_ `l3 _ ( b i Name CA / C• 5- .5 Signature > r ; Jk t 1 Date Signed 7 , t WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Address Name Address Name Name Name STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 e l v " \ J 1 - c 5 ) - ( \ 76F 2 1 t t .j tiv� ae - .( i fis LSI tr S Name Address 2. Name 1, , `ro, \r\ r r J [ Date Signed C O ( 1 Obi c Address 1.k. ,9C72 C M c �' << Name . =`t « Y Address i 2) ; i < f; Name 1.r4 /'tt. . Yl Address 4 1- 00 w\ 6' A i Name rt. e 4/1 c:4 \ Address - ,) rZ `/ ) ci ;7, Name 19..i, i V' vesei.l cz Address 4 9K r i c. d fr (i) � ('\ Signature Date Signed 12 -1(9.-10 Signature . 6 Date Signed). 1 o .. 1( Signature Signature P \e\ Date Signed v c t Signature . Signature Signature Signature Address L. 2.2 r, M 1Ztr) o r a V\ Signature / Address l / 5/00 W` Ti 9 0 Y� Q Signature Address X 2 3 6 4R V X ,y G E Signature Address 4' ! 2 r2 1X2 V1 Vlit- e9 C(7 (4 Name r Signature r Address L . f - {'J N1. �. z ,,; . r `.' (1 ' \' Name J r . t ' (`,c (.;- (Pr Signature Date Signed ), f Date Signed ) 2 . c'I 1ve Date Signed / Signed Date Signed Date Signed l Date Signed �- Date Signed ("'1 bC . WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Z rAt v , rcyq s C4 c'W■ .o A Address t7 2 c, L. '(""r, o v∎ ',, c - , A Date Signed W^ ACC) 40) Name s F e_h w _ S Signature = Address � 2.- So f, Date Signed g Q_ £ d - Name Address /,V/( r„ �ct1� iE` L \r c, v C 2 r Address pi L ce —' Name f Name Addressi, Name (2E; ,s a \-"( l� Address •y'k. Name /) ( ; ,.; c t r•.x Address ) pr . ,)\c Name Address Name Address Name Name e)ar e, Address Address Name Address Name Address STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 • 1 `, •• • IS \ v' ice\ C/ ,,S` - t)- 1IX• L< >r ! ( l" . i } �; " ;) Signatur Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature Date Signed I c► _ 0.4) 1 Date Signed k .L _ _ Date Signed (`L_16 1 ( ) Date Signed ' ? I ( Date Signed //2 _ r> , _ ,��1 Date Signed ) k .4 0 Date Signed 1.1_ - c? a. , \C2 Date Signed (2 _ Date Signed (''L _ A 1 \ ' -\ Date Signed 1 l\ Date Signed STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMI ED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name I) oyC \ Signature � �5�• 1_0\ 2 Address Jb■kl-k Name AN r a r� e Signature , . . � , Address A - (i t / c( // Date Signed /-7 :�f ilJ 6 Name 2 � ,4 /� (� cfi r/ ZLa Signature Address $O) 1 Ea/ Date Signed / /O'le Name -t C /t,„( Ac.-AC) Signature Date Signed,. ,S / , e to / 3 Address x 0 O ■uciA C& r C Cr V Mvt A Name 4`'R Cc:c � �� �1 < � - Signature Address ? 1 `> C / • �: ! = Date Name U ,� r l �� e l Signature Address O 6 0 Name 23 4 /44 U/7 / 2 Signature - 5' a �' y S e,gee Address Name , n,� Address V� Name (7/1 Address , 3 Name Address Name Address Name Address t J •Qu CNV \� 2/ � 1 , / i `(�`J ( J lt' ile 1 \ Signature lC . Jc-kk "C•cie( Signature Date Signed 2— \ 0 — \ 0 gned \ C'. Date Signed 2 / A 0 - C 66 D • to igned hr Date igned /Z /d' //c Signature C(//, Date Signed \ ; �, Date Signed ( Date Signed / - /(‘ O T V \ ` . � C C) `' //� Signature /` C ',) I /(— / �('L ", €e �' 1 �� -( \e 5 Signature ( =a �.�- s T2e /(t •�v0 Wcy)( . 'Vev - ve( )( AO 5 e_ L c F c.-\• r ." \)k Signature Address - T og-o�D0 ' )'I • liCk k 11 Date Signed \ N) - O Date Signed ,- ( ,),__Ao- A c) 0 Address Address Name Address 1 STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name k `� � , —/` �(� Signature i \ -- Date Signed Name Signature Address ��, Z [ *1--) C > r 'L `y Name h r c 5 . 1 t t r Signature Address l Name C \ e . s Signature Address .3 c, p 7 . y. a ►. cti� Name 511 a't\ k o S St Signature Address i 6 6, S. e . ti f /oz nl Name to - c-t- -- Signature /11-9,70 i) c „ a2 ate.. Address Name yn •'cnh t L (�1: Signature Address f{-T 12 5 r 0 n1r1 w v r Pi Name C 5 e. d r o\t k) d ` Signature t'hcrrt._ L h v ��e`� tit Ir c-) .0 of Crq v ^ 'L - Signature Name cA--,Y h r L Address `V.,‘5 tl c;t2Z5' ,k Name /ozlfo- _ Address ,!tom 2 vv., n ■n Gc Signature '11 Date Signed /, a t Date Si d ) . he Date Signed I9 l A Date Signed \ (-) _ C_ Date Si ned j 7 _ (r) _ Date Signed /?__ _ ko-- Date Signed 1'2 1O 10 Date Signed ) 2 _ c > 4 c� Date Signed V) i1D_ /,( am Signature Date Signed 112 „la n Gam_ Name \ �\\t- \ Q Signature Address cs.� a-�-m Q2 Date Signed )0-- k& 4p Name / nth Sr _■i■ ok. (I) Signature n' . ��� Address In z 2 -7 d r> nr` © G tk '.e__ RD. Date Signed f 2 1.,co . -d o WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name 3 vQv\ c Lo Era ,„ Address cr /371 +' e( 3 Name Gltpc-) ` p Signature Address 9//3'Z /it/hie s r-0 klL'vvc - Name Q h k2 Address 42 200 M o /V`', 4 :? , o Name -Ja17, c r ci (In Address A 2 2(10 Name Address Name Name STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 r1 •e`i 7L e Z Signature Date Signed / Signature �� � � M∎ l ( -2 (‘'L ' t i 4 Signature / 1 / 3 2 ,6' Date Signed "z -� ' eJ to l._ Signature Date Signed / // / /c. Signature Signature y ('fr i (? Signature Address Name joy c7\ c'2 Address z l? a 5'+(') e Signature Date Signed j '-- /i yid Date Signed 12 - \O _. 1 O Date Signed (2 - c, Date Signed l21/0/(7) -c ( Date Signed / Date Signed Address Name 11 • Address Tot /C _A.GrzAA'IS Address - 2 . a c-/ Name "- r\.10 o c:)1C Address 2 7 (,'c( • LJ -t Los COLS v&c S So !ro, Dc U o Address 20 3C kr,rctQO '(2& Name — JO /l 1314 IA C:2 C(a Address Re ? /0 • /C /l?V S �� t v1 P� (� � � Date Signed Name Name Signature Signature Signature \ 6)- -\ Signature Date Signed ' \"z ( t O 1 (C) Date Signed 17_ « \ 0 Scx`.l c&t ek c cl rta-0 Date Signed \ 2- \ -\ O Name (n j cU L A . r ° r L Signature Address Address \ 2 7 r� ��2 Name �S e-yr c d Y Address 3 . -r Name A o - Signature Address 4- 2 f 4-t,e-, Name e) •r j ( 2 Address 3 � 65f n:1r \\ ('� Name STOP QUICK MINI MART 29762 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA 92591 WE, THE CUSTOMERS OF STOP QUICK MINI MART DO HERWEBY FULLY SUPPORT ITS OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL LIQUOR LICENSE WITH ABC, THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SERVE OUR NEEDS AND CONVENIENCES. THE OWNER IS DEDICATEDED AND COMMITED TO PROVIDE US HIS CUSTOMERS WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Name Address Name Address c „. \--‘- tt-tr Ca Signature Signature T Ott 1 5Signature Signature p lc ) o h ( Signature Address 2_ 6 (> G 5 5,.:k c Name Address ' �� , Name 5 i i ` „ 1/4 � \ kr G' i'.Y Address ( (: A «-- , ? '� Name e_ (-A y r (r) (� \ P eiN Signature Address oc70, f p c e - ) (.-- Name �� Address L i ? d ao e Name \ ' e \1 \( t Signature C y YC ��' C i Address c4• ' 9 c .) c._, �^ Name L sts N" s r , Address 5 (t) Signature Signature Signature TR r) -434. Signature Date Signed Date Signed (9, ■O l T) Date Signed k Date Signed 1 < J e)_ ,' d s• Date Signed t 2 , 1)0 h Date Signed i 1 '_ Date Signed V t. r Date Signed ( "3 _ h 0 46 lo Date Signed 1 7 - Date Signed ) 2 _ c ),tj Date Signed4246 Date Signed') ; Date Signed ( 2 rD (�� Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: PA11 -0010 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below Notice of Public Hearing Dr. Sami Jihad on behalf of Sarmad Bidi A Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade from an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Type 20 License (Off -sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 License (Off -sale General Liquor) for Stop Quick Mini Mart located at 29762 Rancho California Road 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 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities and Section 15270, Projects which are Disapproved Cheryl Kitzerow, (951) 694 -6409 City of Temecula, Council Chambers April 6, 2011 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at (951) 694 -6409.