Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101911 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694 -6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 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 OCTOBER 19, 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 October 5, 2011 1 Next in Order: Resolution: 11 -54 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.. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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. 2 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant (Simply Sharon's) to upgrade their existing Type 41 liquor license to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment, located at 27464 Jefferson Avenue, Eric Jones RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA11 -0217, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO UPGRADE THEIR EXISTING TYPE 41 LIQUOR LICENSE TO A TYPE 47 AND PROVIDE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ON WEDNESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 7 P.M. TO 1 A.M., LOCATED AT 27464 JEFFERSON AVENUE (APN 910 - 310 -010) 3 Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, a multi - family Development Plan for Maravilla at Rancho Highlands with a proposed 210 -unit triplex project with units ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,700 square feet on a 24 acre site, located along the west side of Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Road, Cheryl Kitzerow 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 -0326, A MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR MARAVILLA AT RANCHO HIGHLANDS CONSISTING OF A 210 -UNIT TRIPLEX PROJECT WITH UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1,100 TO 1,700 SQUARE FEET ON 21 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,600 FEET SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AT TIERRA VISTA ROAD, TRACT 23992 (APN 944 - 330 -003) 2 REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, November 2, 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 www.cityoftemecula.ora. 3 PRELUDE MUSIC: CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET OCTOBER 5, 2011 — 6:00 PM Earlene Bundy Commissioner Carey Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio Next in Order: Resolution: 11 -54 Approve the Minutes of September 21, 2011 APPROVED 4- 0 -0 -1; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HARTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY; VOTE REFLECTED APPROVAL; GUERRIERO ABSTAINED COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Review Quality of Life Master Plan, Aaron Adams RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and File RECEIVE AND FILE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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. 1 3 CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 MEETING: Planning Application Nos. PA10 -0145, PA10 -0146, PA10 -0147 and PA10 -0148, a Tentative Tract Map (No. 36295) to subdivide 25 acres into 45 single- family cluster lots, a Residential Home Product Review for 45 lots, a Zoning Map and text change from Very Low (VL) density residential to a Planned Development Overlay (PDO), and a General Plan Land Use map change from Very Low (VL) density residential to Low (L) density residential, located west of Butterfield State Road, east of Walcott Lane, north of La Serena Way and south of Calle Chapos, Matt Peters RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 To be continued off calendar (at applicant's request) APPROVED 5 -0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO; VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Pat Kight Chairman 2 Patrick Richardson Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Lot Area: North: South: East: West: Total Floor Area /Ratio: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 19, 2011 Eric Jones, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA11 -0217, a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant to upgrade their existing Type 41 liquor license to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment on Wednesday through Saturday from 7 p.m. to 1 a.m., located at 27464 Jefferson Avenue Approve with Conditions Categorically Exempt Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities John B. Wagner Highway Tourist (HT) Highway Tourist (HT) Site: Existing Restaurant/Highway Tourist (HT) Existing Office /Highway Tourist (HT) Existing Commercial /Highway Tourist (HT) Existing Commercial /Highway Tourist (HT) Jefferson Avenue, Existing Commercial /Highway Tourist (HT) Existinq /Proposed Min /Max Allowable or Required 0.88 N/A N/A N/A Landscape Area /Coverage: N/A N/A Parking Required /Provided: N/A N/A 1 BACKGROUND SUMMARY On August 15, 2011, John Wagoner, submitted Planning Application No. PA11 -0217. The application will allow the restaurant to obtain a Type 47 Alcohol License from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). 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 Simply Sharon's is an existing restaurant located within an area zoned Highway Tourist (HT). The applicant intends to upgrade the restaurant's Type 41 ABC License to a Type 47 ABC License (On -Sale General Eating Place). The license will allow for the sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Per the City of Temecula Development Code (Table 17.08.030), alcoholic beverage sales at restaurants, excluding beer and wine, require the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. ABC will process findings of Public Convenience or Necessity upon approval of the Minor Conditional Use Permit. No changes are proposed to the structure or site as part of the application. The applicant has also proposed live entertainment as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. The entertainment will consist of jazz conducted on Wednesday through Saturday from 7:00 p.m. through 1:00 a.m. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on October 6, 2011 and mailed to the property owners within a 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 (Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities). The application will allow an existing restaurant to upgrade their liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment. The upgraded license will allow for the consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. No modifications are proposed for the existing structure and site plan. The proposed five entertainment is typical for restaurants and also does not require any modification to the existing structure or site plan, FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.04.010) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The use will allow an existing restaurant to upgrade its liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47. No operational changes to the restaurant are proposed. Per the City of Temecula Development Code (Table 17.08.030), alcoholic beverage sales at restaurants, excluding beer and wine, require the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the proposed live 2 entertainment is typical of restaurants and will be consistent with General Plan and Development Code policies. 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 application will allow for the upgrade of an existing liquor license. Restaurants commonly pursue Type 47 Licenses from ABC as a way to offer their customers a wider selection of beverage choices. In addition, the proposed live entertainment is typical of restaurants. Therefore, the use will be compatible with the nature, condition and development of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. 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 the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The application will allow for the upgrade of an existing liquor license and live entertainment. The site will remain adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project meets all requirements of Development Code and General Plan which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. That the decision to 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 decision to conditionally approve the application for the conditional use will be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Statement of Operations Notice of Public Hearing 3 3 (E) Mal) Elora Salftalloot t II .."•••••• MENIMMINM. _ 10*1.1.11./M 0 amaalt Warr laama am. OM. 11■1M oaml Memat 0■1 111■1 — —a ‘—• -- ILLL 1 1 1 j 20' •cy am I •• IN • 1 1 mamma ar•••■ ••■• 1=. EP I • •—• 50' CO. Customer Entrunce L+J PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA11 -0217, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO UPGRADE THEIR EXISTING TYPE 41 LIQUOR LICENSE TO A TYPE 47 AND PROVIDE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ON WEDNESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 7 P.M. TO 1 A.M., LOCATED AT 27464 JEFFERSON AVE (APN 910 - 310 -010) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 15, 2011, John Wagoner filed Planning Application No. PA11- 0217, a 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 October 19, 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. PA11 -0217 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.010: 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; The use will allow an existing restaurant to upgrade its liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47. No operational changes to the restaurant are proposed. Per the City of Temecula Development Code (Table 17.08.030), alcoholic beverage sales at restaurants, excluding beer and wine, require the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the proposed live entertainment is typical of restaurants and will be consistent with General Plan and Development Code policies. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The application will allow for the upgrade of an existing liquor license. Restaurants commonly pursue Type 47 Licenses from ABC as a way to offer their customers a wider selection of beverage choices. In addition, the proposed live entertainment is typical of restaurants. Therefore, the use will be compatible with the nature, condition and development of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The application will allow for the upgrade of an existing liquor license and live entertainment. The site will remain adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The project meets all requirements of Development Code and General Plan which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to 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 decision to conditionally approve the application for the conditional use will be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities) The application will allow an existing restaurant to upgrade their liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment. The upgraded license will allow for the consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. No modifications are proposed for the existing structure and site plan. The proposed live entertainment is typical for restaurants and also does not require any modification to the existing structure or site plan. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA11 -0217, a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant located at 27464 Jefferson Ave to upgrade their existing Type 41 liquor license to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment, 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 19th day of October, 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 19th day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Patrick Richardson, Secretary Planning Application No.: PA11 -0217 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL -1. The applicant /developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty -Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48 -hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant to upgrade their existing Type 41 liquor license to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment on Wednesday through Saturday from 7 p.m. to 1 a.m., located at 27464 Jefferson Avenue 910- 310 -010 Exempt (No New Exempt (No New Exempt (No New October 19, 2011 October 19, 2013 Square Footage / Grading) Square Footage) Square Footage) 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. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved floor plan contained on file with the Planning Department. PL -7. 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 -8. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations revised on September 29, 2011, on file with the Planning Department, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. PL -9. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. PL -10. The City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in- lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. PL -11. OUTSIDE AGENCIES An 8.5" x 11" (or larger) sign listing local transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted at a conspicuous location within the building. Information to assist in the compilation of this sign may be obtained through the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce (951- 676 - 5090). PL -12. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 18, 2011, a copy of which is attached. POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements PD -1. Applicant has applied for an upgrade from a Type 41 to Type 47 On -Sale, General — Eating Place (Restaurant) which authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licensed premises and authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the licensed premises. Applicant must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Minors are allowed on the premises. PD -2. Applicant shall comply with Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.010, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited. PD -3. Applicant must complete a LEAD training either given by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or an ABC certified equivalent course. PD -4. Applicant shall ensure that no alcohol is sold to or consumed by any person under the age of 21. PD -5. 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, County or City agency. PD -6. As noted above, only a valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, County or City agency is acceptable, providing it complies with Section 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 the business owner and any person who serves or sells alcohol to be aware of current laws and regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverages. PD -7. Sections 24200.5 (b) and 25657 (a) (b) B &P; Rule 143 CCR: Section 303 (a) (PC): On- sale licensees may not: (a) employ hosts, hostesses, or entertainers who solicit others to buythem drinks, alcoholic or non - alcoholic; (b) pay or agree to pay such an employee a percentage of the receipts from the sales of drinks solicited; (c) permit any person whether an employee or not, to loiter for the purpose of soliciting an alcoholic drink. PD -8. Type 41, 47 and 49 licensees must operate and maintain their licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. They must make actual and substantial sale of meals, during the normal meal hours that they are open, at least five days a week. Normal meal hours are: breakfast 6:00 a.m. — 9:00 a.m., lunch 11:00 a.m. — 2:00 p.m., and dinner 6:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. Premises that are not open five days a week must serve meals on the days they are open. The premises must be equipped and maintained in good faith. This means the premises must possess working refrigeration and cooking devices, pots, pans, utensils, table service, condiment dispensers, menus, posters, signs, and enough goods to make substantial meals. The premises must comply with all regulations of the local health department. Incidental, sporadic or infrequent sales of meals or a mere offering of meals without actual sales is not compliance. "Meals" means the usual assortment of food commonly ordered at various hours of the day. The service of only sandwiches or salads is not considered compliance. However, certain specialty entrees, such as pizza, fish or ribs, and an assortment of other foods, such as soups, salads or desserts, may be considered a meal. The Department will presume that a licensee is operating as a bona fide eating place if the gross sales of food prepared and sold to guests on the premises exceeds the gross sales of alcoholic beverages. "Prepared" means any processing preliminary to the final serving of food. (Note: Some licensees have a "conditional" license that requires food sales to be 50% or more of the total gross sales Sections 23038 and 23787 B &P). PD -9. Licensees may not sell, give, or deliver alcohol (bythe drink or bythe package) between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day. No person may knowingly purchase alcohol between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Section 25631 B &P Code). Licensees may not permit patrons or employees to consume alcohol between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day (even if someone bought the drinks before 2:00 a.m. Section 25632 B &P). Some ABC licenses have special conditions (restrictions) as to hours of sale that are stricter that the law. Those licenses are marked "Conditional" (23805 B &P). PD -10. Police officers, sheriff's deputies and ABC investigators are sworn law enforcement officers (peace officers) with powers of arrest. Whether in plainclothes or uniform, peace officers have the legal right to visit and inspect any licensed premises at anytime during business hours without a search warrant or probable cause. This includes inspecting the bar and back bar, store room, office, closed or locked cabinets, safes, kitchen, or any other area within the licensed premises. It is legal and reasonable for licensees to exclude the public from some areas of the premises. However, licensees cannot and must not deny entry to, resist, delay, obstruct, or assault a peace officer (Sections 25616, 25753, and 25755 B &P; 148 and 241 (b) PC). PD -11. Licensees may not permit their licensed premises to become a disorderly house. A disorderly house is a licensed outlet (on or off sale) that: (a) disturbs neighbors with noise, loud music, loitering, littering, vandalism, urination or defecation, graffiti, etc; and /or (b) has many ongoing crimes inside such as drunks, fights, assaults, prostitution narcotics, etc. The licensed premises area includes the parking lot ( Sections 24200 (a) (B &P) and 25601 B &P; 316 PC). PD -12. Applicant shall ensure all employees involved with the sales, service and identification checks for the purpose of any sales of alcoholic beverages are trained in the proper procedures and identification checks. The Temecula Police Department provides free training for all employees involved in the 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 Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 506 -5131. PD -13. On -sale licensees who offer entertainment must abide by the following rules: (1) no licensee shall permit any person to perform acts of or acts which simulate; (a) sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law, (b) the touching, caressing or fondling on the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals, (c) the displaying of the pubic hair, anus, vulva or genitals; and, (2) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (1) hereof, entertainers whose breasts and /or buttocks are exposed to view shall perform only upon a stage at least 18 inches above the immediate floor level and removed at least six feet from the nearest patron. No licensee shall permit any person to remain in or upon the licensed premises who exposes to public view any portion of his or her genitals or anus (Rule 143.3 CCR. Also violates sections 311.6 PC if conduct is `obscene," e.g. intercourse, sodomy masturbation, etc.). PD -14. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 506 -5131. i UNTY OF RIVERSIDE • HEF. H SERVICES AGENCY fJ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AtegoL City of Temecula Planning Department c/o Eric Jones PO BOX 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 18 August 2011 RE: PA11 -0217 The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has received and reviewed the PA11- 0217 for the Minor Conditional Permit to allow an existing restaurant to upgrade their existing liquor license to a Type 47 inside of the Simply Sharon's Restaurant located at 27464 Jefferson Avenue, 7 am -10 pm Sun - Thursday and lam — 2 am Friday and Saturday , under the applicant. Simply Sharons. The restaurant building located on this Assessor's Parcel Number (APN 910 - 310- -010) is connected to a potable water line and sanitary sewer from an approved purveyor. Any restaurant use of the building shall require REHS inspector plan check compliance by the County of Riverside DEH. If your have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 951.955.8980 Sincerely, Gregor Dellenbach, REHS EHS 110792 Local Enforcement Agency '7 B �0 R,ec i e . CA 92512 1260 • 19i 0 955-8982 • FA L 81001. 781-9653 • 4080 Lemon 3 ee . Fiore R ...0d, CA 92301 Land iJse and Water Engineering • PO Box ' 206. Riverside. CA 302 -1206 • 90.9! 936 -8949 ° FAX '.909 ) 95:5-03 • 4080 Lemon 'feet 2nd Hoer . Riverside. CA 92701 Statement of Operations Simply Sharon's is a full- service restaurant in operation for over 14 months at its current location. We are open 7 days per week from 7 am to 9 pm most nights. We will offer live jazz entertainment Wednesday through Saturday night from 7 P.M. to 1 A.M. The business employs 30 individuals and can seat up to 240 customers. Parking for over 200 vehicles is on site. We currently have a beer and wine license (Type 41) and are seeking an enhancement to a full Type 47 liquor license. Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below Case No: PA11 -0217 Applicant: John Wagner for Simply Sharon's Proposal: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing restaurant to upgrade their existing Type 41 liquor license to a Type 47 and provide live entertainment, located at 27464 Jefferson Avenue Environmental: 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) Case Planner: Eric Jones, (951) 506 -5115 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: October 19, 2011 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp11020223.doc C 250 500 Feet 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. ITEM 3 I. J DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Allowable DU's: Site: North: South: East: West: Planning Areas 4/5 Planning Area 6 Planning Area 7 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 19, 2011 Cheryl Kitzerow, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, a multi - family Development Plan application for Maravilla at Rancho Highlands to construct a 210 -unit triplex project with units ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,700 square feet on 21 acres located approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road, along the west side of Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Road, Tract 23992 within Planning Areas 4 through 7 of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan Approve with Conditions Mitigated Negative Declaration w/ Monitoring Plan Trent Heiner on behalf of Woodside Homes High Density Residential ( "H ") Specific Plan No. 2, Rancho Highlands ("SP-2") High Density Residential - Vacant, streets installed in Planning Area 6, streets and pads graded in other areas of project Highway Tourist Commercial - Existing Commercial - Embassy Suites Hotel, Marie Calendar's Restaurant Low - Medium Residential - Existing Single Family homes within Rancho Highlands Professional Office - Temecula Duck Pond across Ynez Road Specific Plan Implementation - Interstate 15 Proposed 210 units 271 units max 81 units 98 units max 102 units 133 units max 27 units 40 units max Min /Max Allowable or Required Building Area /Coverage Landscape Area /Coverage: Parking Required /Provided: BACKGROUND SUMMARY 220,414 SF /22% 653,836 SF /64% 514 proposed 50% Maximum 30% Minimum 473 required = (2 *210) +( 210/4) On May 3, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA05 -0167, a multi - family residential Development Plan and Product Review for 70 tri -plex buildings totaling 210 owner occupied condominiums on 21.07 net acres in vacant Planning Areas 4/5, 6 and 7 of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The approval was valid for two years and expired on May 6, 2008. Prior to the project expiring, the original developer completed the street improvements to Rancho Highlands Drive and Tierra Vista Drive. In addition, the internal circulation within Planning Area 6 was constructed and the street network and pad areas were graded for the entire project. Although these improvements have been constructed, they have not been accepted by the City. Because no building permits were issued the project expired. On November 5, 2010, Trent Heiner, representing Woodside Homes, submitted Planning Application No. PA10 -0326 to construct the same project that was previously approved. The project proposal is consistent with the original submittal and existing improvements. On March 16, 2011, the Planning Commission continued the project off calendar to allow staff and the applicant time to address outstanding items related to CEQA. In response to a letter received from Ray Johnson, Johnson & Sedlack Attorneys at Law, dated February 23, 2011, additional technical studies were prepared to analyze potential impacts that may result from the project. Staff incorporated the findings of these technical studies into the project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and re- issued the documents for public review on September 26, 2011. On September 23, 2011, Mr. Johnson submitted a letter indicating their concerns with the project have been fully resolved. Staff has worked with the applicant and Mr. Johnson to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project site is 21.07 net acres located west of Ynez Road and east of Interstate 15, approximately 1,615 feet south of Rancho California Road. Direct primary access to the site is provided from the signalized intersection of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road. The area is characterized by three developable pads with significant slopes around the project perimeter. The project architecture has been designed to resemble a large single - family home subdivision rather than very large apartment or townhome -like development. The site plan includes a recreation facility with a central pool, wading pool, tot lot and restroom facility in Planning Area 6. A system of internal trails and sidewalks has been provided to promote pedestrian connectivity within the project. Each Planning Area contains a picnic area with tables and chairs, and two view seating areas are provided in Planning Area 7. Per the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, Planning Area 4/5 is permitted up to 98 dwelling units at 15.3 units to the acre and 84 units are proposed. Planning Area 6 is permitted up to 133 2 dwelling units at 16.6 units to the acre and 102 units are proposed. Planning Area 7 is permitted up to 40 dwelling units at 16.7 units to the acre and 27 are proposed. The net density for this project is 10 units to the acre, which is consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. Access /Circulation The project can be accessed from three locations: 1) the existing signalized intersection of Tierra Vista Road and Ynez Road (primary access); 2) the existing non - signalized intersection of Rancho Highlands Drive and Ynez Road (restricted access — right -in /right -out upon the completion of the raised median in Ynez Road); and 3) Tierra Vista Road from the existing single family neighborhood to the south (this point of access is currently barricaded but will be opened upon completion of the project). The Public Works Department and the Fire Department have reviewed the circulation plans for the proposed project and have determined that there is adequate ingress and egress, as well as emergency vehicle access. Landscaping The proposed landscaping for the project exceeds the requirements of the Development Code and the Specific Plan as 30 percent of the site is required to be landscaped and approximately 64 percent of the gross site is covered with landscaping. The Specific Plan requires heavily landscaped transitional areas between Planning Areas 6 and 12, and between Planning Areas 7 and 8/9. These are slope areas where existing residents will be looking down over the proposed site. Per the Specific Plan, the proposed project has incorporated heavy landscaping in this and other perimeter slope areas. A combination of 36 -inch box, 24 -inch box and 15- gallon evergreen and deciduous trees will be planted in the perimeter slope areas. Internal to the site, a combination of 15- gallon trees will effectively serve to provide shade and screening for units. The applicant is proposing to construct a stabilized decomposed granite trail segment along the southern boundary of Planning Area 7 from Tierra Vista Road and connecting to a view /gazebo area at the southeast corner of the project. Where the trail is adjacent to slope areas, the project has been conditioned to construct a split rail fence for protection. Project walls and entry monumentation is consistent with the requirements of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. Where practical, view fencing will be constructed. The interior fencing material will be block walls at visible locations and vinyl on interior locations. Architecture The project proposes one two -story building type with four architectural styles. The building includes 3 units: Plan 1 is 2 bedrooms and 2 baths at 1,128 square feet; Plan 2 is 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths at 1,523 square feet; and, Plan 3 is 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths at 1,739 square feet. The architectural styles include Spanish Colonial, Monterey, Mediterranean and Italianate. With the attached Conditions of Approval, the project meets the intent of the Specific Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. The proposed elevations create a street scene with character as well as function, and visual variety. 3 The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style: • • Spanish Colonial: concrete "S" shaped roof tile, varied roof lines with a typical roof pitch of 4:12, light sand stucco finish, recessed primary windows, mullioned windows with trim (on all sides), decorative wood shutters, arched main entries, decorative gable end details (on all sides), wrought iron railings on second floor balconies, stucco foam trim above garage, and exposed rafter tails. Monterey Ranch: flat concrete roof tile, light sand stucco finish, wood siding on all elevations, wood columns and railings at upper floor balconies, decorative brick veneer at building base, decorative shutters on prominent windows (on all sides) with foam trim around windows (all sides), varied roof lines with a typical roof pitch of 4:12, and decorative wood planter shelves. Mediterranean /Santa Barbara: concrete "S" shaped roof tile, varied roof lines with a typical roof pitch of 4:12, light sand stucco finish, mullioned windows with trim (on all sides), shutters on all elevations, arched main entries, decorative tile gable end details (on all sides), wrought iron railings on second floor balconies, stucco foam trim above garage, and exposed rafter tails. Italian /Tuscan: concrete "S" shaped roof tile, varied roof lines with a typical roof pitch of 4:12, light sand stucco finish, stone veneer at base and entry ways, decorative wrought iron railings on second floor balconies, mullioned windows with trim (on all sides), decorative window trim and sills on second floor, arched main entries and balcony openings, and stucco foam trim above garage. The applicant has provided specific details, which are unique to each style proposed on each elevation, including window and door trim, matching front and garage door designs, materials such as wrought iron details, stone, roof variation, shutters and the overall silhouette. In addition, the applicant has provided a variety of garage doors for the differing architectural styles. Building Elements /Mass, Height, and Scale The proposed project includes a two -story building with four elevation styles. The proposed maximum height of the units is 30 feet. The units provide adequate articulation in roof forms and offsets to reduce massing and the elevations are visually broken up with changes in materials, and /or sloping roof lines. Proposed enhancements include additional window shutters on second -story sides and rears, additional building materials on sides and rears, and second -story pop -out elements. The proposed enhancements meet the requirements of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the Citywide Design Guidelines by varying the roof plans, providing "pop- outs" which break up wall planes on all elevations, and providing trim and architectural details consistent with each style. Materials and Colors The project includes variation in both building materials and colors which help to provide variation and interest, as well as break up the massing of two -story units. Each of the proposed elevation styles have a different color scheme, which will result in four compatible color schemes for the development. Brick, tile and stone are encouraged as paving and wall accents, and have been adequately integrated into the proposed elevations. Roof materials are compatible with the elevation style and complement the primary building colors. 4 IMPACT MITIGATION Noise Construct a 6.0 -foot high noise barrier for Buildings 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to occupancy; construct 6.0 -foot high balcony barriers for Buildings 41 and 50 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to Product Placement Units have been plotted to avoid repetition of the elevation style to create an interesting and varied streetscape. No single story units are proposed, however, single -story elements on two - story products will avoid a "canyon" effect along the street. The following is the mix of unit types: Triplex Units (70 Buildings, 210 units) 1. Plan 1, one story (over garages), 2 Bed /2 Bath, 1,128 square feet 2. Plan 2, two stories, 3 Bed /2.5 Bath, 1,523 square feet 3. Plan 3, two stories, 4 Bed /2.5, 1,739 square feet The project proposes sufficient architectural variation with four different styles. The following is the mix of elevation types: Spanish "A" Monterey "B" Mediterranean "C" Italian "D" 17 buildings 17 buildings 18 buildings 18 buildings A restroom facility, designed with architecture consistent with the project, is located near the community pool within Planning Area 6. Staff has determined that the proposed Development Plan is consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, General Plan and Development Code, and the project has been conditioned to ensure that all required public and private improvements are constructed and maintained. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on September 23, 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. The Initial Study prepared (Revised 9/2011) for the project indicates that the project will have the following potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval. 5 Based on the above mitigation measures, staff recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. FINDINGS (Development Plan (Code 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. The proposed multi - family development is permitted in the High Density Residential Use designation standards contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, the City's Development Code and the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the multi - family development, including the site, buildings, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. 6 occupancy; provide standard dual - glazed windows and a "windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) for all buildings; provide upgraded windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 34 for Buildings 42, 43, 51 through 56 facing the 1 -15 Freeway; and, all homes should be provided with weather- stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall /roof assembles should be free of cut outs and openings. Traffic and Circulation The Project shall participate in the funding or construction of committed off -site improvements that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) and payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). The Project shall participate in the funding of its' Fair Share allocation for the 1 -15 southbound ramps improvements for the Cumulative scenario. Based on the above mitigation measures, staff recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. FINDINGS (Development Plan (Code 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. The proposed multi - family development is permitted in the High Density Residential Use designation standards contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, the City's Development Code and the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the multi - family development, including the site, buildings, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. 6 ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map Rancho Highlands Specific Plan Land Use /Planning Area Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring Plan Public Correspondence Notice of Public Hearing City of Temecula 0 250 500 Feet Aerial - March 2010 PA10 -0326 This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System. The map is derived from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's 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. FURRIfl endt112:11K, 1.4AP MITIMITIAL sasesessza MORO% mao ACIMI 1M11= 10130= UM 11/20 MA 0.4.4 MAC NI nil miD10VW. 4/0.11 UMW 01.0 4.4 00/30 404 11,14,11, 10,10 EMMERT= 1,40.4 14.1 14-30 MAUL 1 0 1 "MST MOB 114.1 60111101 mums 0301 00. 04 0011 casstss■ 20 MOM 10 103*2171011/ =I ORM MOM/ 10303 IOW WM MUSTS Oat 1111011C4 TOMLO MAMMA OMWM WMTIOMI ansi ECM MOE NO. 01 MILTS. 14.4 4.0 1.1 3/.4 314.0 00 COMM 031 ELM 1040019 TO MAXIMM )13010/20. AMENDED SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN RANCHO HIGHLANDS by RANCHO CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENT CO.. Figure 6 T0?.?& 310 1.011S 53 t W ILOh6 .U&0 A 11 ST t[ A• SPAWN COLONIAL e • MONISM RANCN C• SANTA SWAM 1NDflA1NEAN D- ITALIM IMCNI WOOD H OME$ , MARAVILLA PHASING PLAN S•RIW 20. 2011 i rr DY .raw, U100A�41LC 2 lantri Magi V B. w 1l.•,)•p Wri 4- �a• iun n AV.., — ws n eiM11 L1/4•Trzer Ir d.01 II tin NO' RM MANIC 000 0w r IM ••m a t r. owoor. 0 ...we 11.I9ta 0PRI G4•L 000‘. S A De t& NM- 0010A A pWMJ. M000 0.01.9. A■0101. ANA toot IgO/A PMU 11100 e~. P W U yo µ r2.UL U1U N.tAA fAiA[ MUM ea % v 070.'(D ADllC2 Q 2 4 n11nR n r ea AO /TM ,manor MARAVILLA TRACT NO. 23992 CONCEPTUAL GRADING /SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMEUCLA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3101110E INTDR11A 1]� 100 WEI of WV .e Aww•+•ww r � IA � - RJ'i IL2AL.OLSCRIPJQN EXGTRR] RESIDENTIAL DP IDO EMSASST el.l'E9 HOTEL 9P 164 WAN YAP TRACT NO. 22992 OWIER /APPUCNIT Met< MVO IWO .00 3101•0 Ise •vpser. OW ,01) Lwow DATA TABLE Z L irm )'011_11 °• 112000113 www 31 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL , . sr •eo l ae. $ ,••R rweep 1110 TN T . dt i VPIT •Nf{ TEMECU DUCK POND LOT COVERAGE ANAL29S =}n. ex e.l u• 'R..a.M� Z =2 - •, wn m u =ie p.�i,eerinl v Mw MD VW •■• 42 em � -era IN DEO NOV m�rrn.I as000© IECLNO s -1- -V—V– itv .9e VW . nc • NON WT YAP CITY OF TEMECULA Plmnln9 Atellc0ll0n N0. 10 -022D MARAVILLA CONCEPTUAL GRADING/91TE PLAN LOTS 1.2. AND 3 OF TRACT 23992 y rylr aclic SFCTI(N B — B SECTION C —C M SECTI9 E —F � SECTIQN F —F SECzi G -G ALTAANS RO* wrrn 0VWTY M9D DISASSY SOTO 1t01CL SP ISO _ Ci7Y OF TEMECULA <v.... e +u+4 AlAMVILLA CONCEPTUAL GRADING 9TE PLAN rs>vn wml LOTS 1.2. ANDS OF ACT 23992 2 • 2 *an • • 5 I I I o mll 0 •••■••14••••■•■ •.• 0 . I •• IT* .m.s rt, me rIc•mr T•17 MACT1i...71r .r .1 C3nM -.1•" ICO:::•■1 ZTL:INI rrMINIZi =71 • • •• , a a am . • a • .11•17110 .r hrl• mr.w 1 winnvL-..•_._-._-_,■ FA CZITZIM . ILL 0, =0 r i i.t '..c s- -= G7GilICIE M:1=11",T ol a: a 0 LC' •SalNNINN Jra ,_.., . t -._ CIM7■1 0 . ea . -■ Tr NM — ■ c.,r_m r•—■ • ■INIX.M1 IMI=M 1-1'L• MI= Or= ,L....11■1 NZ.TIN ERAMI 1.-,XT...-7■1=•■ MINN MINN C31=MPTIMI L2.7C.=.711■1 1...X.71 c= n!!!&111111Mir-- , -v--mr.rmorr'-'■-• ri C1114Y1, uldot.. - -, 71110[711 r—.--w c..,zi - • ..- r-..,,... woo L ..m■I •.--= morzmnm■tunwe an= MIMIN CENN•C.-....a C LUN■111,M1 Wm .. .• • —'"••TT" 4 . 4 .. L.I... r• 14■•■ .4 ... '■...---.1CL.,OL Itt17. / .. .4. L . • . um. veal.. EMT .C.12/11 EMT M=.111.7 4.1%.• NAP MARAVILLA ---- S•:•••"":1"••• " M2,111, 4,410 .. INJOTIOUNIO0 • PREPARED FOR 1100050C MOWS 11170 OtTICt STREET. STVIE RATUTOOE. CA 12505 PHONE: (ISO 710-1900 (191) 490•13631 CONTACT: 100NT NOWA ALHAAERA GROUP 4,:t af VStr 'ed L.VA. 12 twilltA ENTRY WALL ELEVATION [ 1 111.0 4 MI • ea me mob mu. ••• 11NOWNID DoaTEr.1":or 1.1.1.1.11.11. %NOY am Ise•••••oso• •• ••• ••• • -22--Na ma wan 16. 1014 ...1.41 MAP VS 400 .11.• • MOM • PRELIMINARY PLANTING LAN L-1 090410 0 marti•■•• — rr. r. 17m0 pr I.N rui - iES CT7 S'NII ■ .AMIN r•VOir Mil f.i VM.l•I ^..mil -2 y 7-�r crass= �r-r_�cr7c = :.ins L '4 - VE 7GT-,-. tT=r.r.� >•CalT a C.c -MI M Lti,D 8�� t=∎ti7 "--- 8t7 arm C .1 1 -1 7c ^ � tS1� r 7ta 1 "- ti'�1 ^ r-T \WEIN -- r tiw "e"I'l WZ7 .- 3 te - G__]CCJC': W.VM 9 S ,t t ttOf. <01: A NO RNII1101Em0 tIW 51141 [W0001 NY Olt M meat. aWxOS MO 7471•01 O 4. MVOL' OR 1 a 'or •QlIK me IAllt At tans a• s r tames W #M4 IM MARAVILLA PREPARED FOR NOCOSIOE NOYEs 11970 ova s01[U. StAX 100 R'H0¢OE. CI 87305 ROC: (831) 710 -1900 /AS: (93 M8 -sssl CONVCT: TN[NT NEVER AL.HMBU =TAME Nagar. nnuQt RA*. harlimmon .07/ icar PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN L -3 10 000�} OS©0O .M_/ __ I.... 1 r — Maa• rrl•r1- 111 -_ •- � 7 1Ta[�T^. C_L'71'.'5 Q'7 C� � _ _ _ ________ -7 111=1■1fD_>t. C'{' @'aIt7LZ7 R'\!aL MIRE MIRE - _ 1.. CLAD ∎lmr 711•110 _ Jv rir I^mf1_.. crarc1 cS w _.� = _ ∎n•n oC±4= ^� c n _ _ �r^r.�rpe r p • -. - - ®o a ri a mr. ∎70 +■ =ME 1=_r n 1.:7G MIr tt:IM u 7M■Rfl =MI 1M110/ �...ar � t ` -.0—. Q L r r Cr.T ".-1 —r. .� r I ` , - Tm O■n z z -,_ myr -- am -1_ sew . - � r. ∎ � - o rs> riarr.rfr -.te ILYIII'C/MMO *El ROAD � vt .A... MARAVILLA MOM NM11M IT. 1' — 001W FlQMm FOR 310009X ROWS 00 IMMO 0111/1V, . 501 51111 100 MYERS/CC (03 0 11105 MOO (051) 110 -1000 1 AC (a1) 000 -seal OOMIA0/. IOpf 105•W ALHAMBRA MOW , I M W .. MUT/ NMI. .ru/maxamra NOM 9ena4Briftff N 0.1001 aRaa0y9•41 MIAMI tO OA OW Of TRW fILMOCIT SIAADOMO .AV AMY. Sflaill SOU AO VIAJOA0 /0/ A/u IMAM HANG f•.• 191 WOMAN WO AMY .0 OA t11 Ills I M MMR 14W f 1:•0•1 I /NM.ME M. Vafte IOU PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN L -2 ALHAMBRA GROUP LANDSCAPE ARC.ITECTURE Co fi+o n:e rcense /2017 RECREA'IQH :41CIU1IEES P140i,n4 iscon:r 9219 $')296 -C 2 i96 -6803 111T WM. MA nM 004./1 1N COG <:RTE •o, , ee CALLE LUMINA YNQ ROAD MARAVILLA PICNC 431.( min swots 119. WO( CAVE IOUIR72PI w.n. P(CEP1Y,lI 04C✓ MI( p1.t91201R <' ANLIZED 31, 3Pp u . .W S' Ip9311 am CDNCILIE NM TM —} 34ES9 NN PDX 191Ilf /Nat D4 71141. PREPARED FOR WOODSIDE HOMES 11870 PIERCE STREET, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92505 PHONE: (951) 710 -1900 FAX: (951) 688 -8681 CONTACT: TRENT HEINER -MW PURIM) 11.9. ( 3 ) CINAIC S MX M 86 1 e1CH . ID IT GAZEBO VIEW SEATING AREA EXHIBIT L -4 ALHAMBRA GROUP UWD ARC� Co IRonso 82017 RECREATION FACILITIES PLANNING t A55 GV. � Ch 1b0 52. C IrRVq, ct 92590 (951) 2 - e0 rAa 299 -1005 MARAVILLA PREPARED FOR WOODSIDE HOMES 11870 PIERCE STREET, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92505 PHONE: (951) 710 -1900 FAX: (951) 688 -8681 CONTACT: TRENT HEINER CRAP■CC SCAI.0 10 1 909 • 10 F1 RECREATION AREA EXHIBIT L -5 KEY MAP MARAVILLA 09/26/11 Job // 10 -105 LOCATION OF EXHIBIT VIEW SEATING AREA WITH BENCHES TYP. QUICK CRETE #Q1AV78B GRAPHIC SCALE IO 0 10 20 1 NCH - 10 Fr. 40 VIEW AREA EXHIBIT L -6 KEY MAP a N.T.S. MARAVILLA 09/26/11 JOB Il 10 -105 LOCATION OF EXHIBIT VIEW SEATING AREA WITH BENCHES TYP. QUICK CRETE //Q1AV78B 10 0 GRAPHIC SCALE to 20 1 INCH = 10 FT. 40 VIEW AREA EXHIBIT L -7 MARAVILLA 09/26/11 JOB /j 10 -105 PICNIC SHELTER PICNIC TABLE WITH BENCHES TYP. QUICK CRETE iQLMR72PT BAR -B -QUE UNIT TYP. TRASH RECEPTACLE QUICK CRETE #QR- CAL2436W LOCATION OF EXHIBIT KEY MAP 4 N.I.S 0 GRAPHIC SCALE ID 20 1 INCH = 10 FT 4 0 PICNIC AREA EXHIBIT L -8 Santa Nal i -S00 � FENCE AND WALL PLANS FOR: Z 4 #IT,.�: —I ':: © f O SACK w u. YY.iIl11!>a 111/ M YO'112 NAIL neor*lnoR O y N � wl t t rol I �KIKW • 00 4 w% K � • 10 qL {r\il NOVI It►� Il(WMl 1011 Oflfl WWLL "=: :114 OC1E6_- 0 C AES TECFNVALL UAE SYSTEM N.L5 (y 001 51N. rllt. 110}rt1.) - MONISM CJTV4,5' O id' so. PIASTER .ts IA MON , NNW MARA V /LLA CITY OF TEMECULA Kt IT rr NNW NM Nat 0. N.1 -1 OC OS ON IOQIt LINO PREPARED FOR WOODSIDE HOMES 11170 PRICE STET 9U(EM 11119mE, CA 92005 ;wee 010 7/0.1100 FAA 030 010-901 CONTACT 1118(T HEMP SEZINIti 0110K we _ tigy i CI IN LINT 1 ) w •l.1 A Ile1M 1RR Wt a /N1.cM Ki¢ N. 1011N on W M IN 4;W., tYW .RRI* 1 I{' RL WROUGHT IRON CE WROUGHT FEN (y Cale, Slat. Novi NON.) 01.S 0,111 R+11A00100 M/t AL (00 1R� F M 4 0.1af 1/r Oft MN We dt NI 71MIN MI LO.NY W 717NN els 1, u IOK WON ON K d 0/ N0+ sew .RRPNOt 1. MOO UMW *100 01 MO 41+111 ® TWO RAL FENCE IL LI r ft40 qn (O R� O MUMS 3 u"IM� .NY •000 L q "10i11 B) nt e.t .s1 M eat ENTRY WALL ELEVATION ♦ VINYL FENCE IOOIWL N WINN 0P ) 'f *1010 11111 MT WIN.. •— -- 1 =w= 1 IA I 1 NIMMOOM• =MEM= IMINIMINNINI EMIR 01 IN MW N. TITLE SHEET & DETMLS FENCE AND WALL PUN F GAM O WOOD (00 BLOCK 11N1) N.t.S. SHEET INDEX TITLE SHEET • 70117 IAN me (a011* Olt NUN L- L-2 6o•: V.0. Checked: V.O. dote: 02/30/00 SHEET L - 1 of 2 emits J08 ND. 10 -127 1 Santa Nal i -S00 � FENCE AND WALL PLANS FOR: Z 4 #IT,.�: —I ':: © f O SACK w u. YY.iIl11!>a 111/ M YO'112 NAIL neor*lnoR O y N � wl t t rol I �KIKW • 00 4 w% K � • 10 qL {r\il NOVI It►� Il(WMl 1011 Oflfl WWLL "=: :114 OC1E6_- 0 C AES TECFNVALL UAE SYSTEM N.L5 (y 001 51N. rllt. 110}rt1.) - MONISM CJTV4,5' O id' so. PIASTER .ts IA MON , NNW MARA V /LLA CITY OF TEMECULA Kt IT rr NNW NM Nat 0. N.1 -1 OC OS ON IOQIt LINO PREPARED FOR WOODSIDE HOMES 11170 PRICE STET 9U(EM 11119mE, CA 92005 ;wee 010 7/0.1100 FAA 030 010-901 CONTACT 1118(T HEMP SEZINIti 0110K we _ tigy i CI IN LINT 1 ) w •l.1 A Ile1M 1RR Wt a /N1.cM Ki¢ N. 1011N on W M IN 4;W., tYW .RRI* 1 I{' RL WROUGHT IRON CE WROUGHT FEN (y Cale, Slat. Novi NON.) 01.S 0,111 R+11A00100 M/t AL (00 1R� F M 4 0.1af 1/r Oft MN We dt NI 71MIN MI LO.NY W 717NN els 1, u IOK WON ON K d 0/ N0+ sew .RRPNOt 1. MOO UMW *100 01 MO 41+111 ® TWO RAL FENCE IL LI r ft40 qn (O R� O MUMS 3 u"IM� .NY •000 L q "10i11 B) nt e.t .s1 M eat ENTRY WALL ELEVATION ♦ VINYL FENCE IOOIWL N WINN 0P ) 'f *1010 11111 MT WIN.. •— -- 1 =w= 1 IA I 1 NIMMOOM• =MEM= IMINIMINNINI EMIR 01 IN MW N. TITLE SHEET & DETMLS FENCE AND WALL PUN F GAM O WOOD (00 BLOCK 11N1) N.t.S. SHEET INDEX TITLE SHEET • 70117 IAN me (a011* Olt NUN L- L-2 6o•: V.0. Checked: V.O. dote: 02/30/00 SHEET L - 1 of 2 emits J08 ND. 10 -127 WALL LEOBO f TANtAe►tAaf MAJ. WM CAA. NE OETOL ON IFNOT Li • • • _ ■ r,r1_. It VW.RIM ON T.'pi•QTLi ste•rlAenrLe • TIM NAL ltNANVOL Or MGM Ot OVAL I eR •reiLN YVI MT! Q [VOL V ON HET Li 011011!NCo MS1d1 •e0 E03=103 DC NW AIL DOA PEACE IRITM wcusm 1171511 • NON YILATg1 Ila/!lOe T A MAN elealfr eTATID M M M4CI10 NOLN0111iMAYLA NLe.L•Olt VIM MOM MAN QIOeNOK•OATm NAM MN Mr MOIRMNlCf umATWICE DOW Mt Tro. VOW ML TN. cawl■e xALf • •OUSE too( M. gob• 4,710./.1 &A% C.a.. IaAo .m .. et I.U. •V. •V. t Inv. 10.10..1 V s •. el/ V, 11/. MR11R 30 Lt. 1U. . 1/. •V. 10 V. MINI •V. •U. WV. SOU. •V. MR Mt nl V. •V. >U. ••V. •U. M • • U. 10 V. M U. 70 U. •V. of R. 1. Lt. luv. U. Mt PM 1• U. 1111V. . V. U V. • V. MR. An 1.1. 1v. 11/. •V. •V. MR d •I V. 1 V. • V. • V. • V. MR 110 I. Lt. 111. t•U. 10 V. •U. roV. •V. L., MI L1. •V. wV. •v. Mv. tt V. •v. Mt IY•R• O V. .1/. • V. U v. MIL 11.0 NV. 11 U. 411. •V_ •V. Ms YAP le J. • ✓. •V. Mv. 01 V . • V. i• V. eA V. )• LA • V. t1 V. • V. WS e000 1ll. •V. M V. •V. If V. t•y L11 V OW. 110 U. INS V. 1.YI U. (MR ML TN. FENCE AND WALL PLAN at'vraEo i drown: V.O 1 checked: v.0. I dole: 12/30/10 i SHEET ■ L -2 1 of 2 sheets J08 N0. 10 -127 T T'. --CRISTALT LEGEND [lit 3. X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS t I T NUMBE.1 • • 1 CONSULTING • PLANNING • 1:1E8G3N • DONSTRUCTILIN Npi eam -• .'"411,08 I . 40810 COVITY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 100 *IEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 9259F-8022 9.51,076.8042 FAX 951678.7240 • www.F101 • MARAVILLA PHASE 1 & 2 Ira Is I 4 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXH I Bi T a 0 7.1 • M • CONSULTING PLANNING ■ UBBICIN N UUNNIRUOTIUN 40810 COUNTY CENTER ORNE, SURE 100 TEI.ECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-0022 951.676,8042 • FAX 981.$76.7240 • www.RBF.00m LEGEND 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS UN 1'1 NUMBER R MARAV1LLA PHASE 3 & 4 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT _.aewalOW• ..ye...lflr •1 LEGEND 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS tJy1 NUMBER • ■ • CONSULTING PLANNINC1 • UEHIC3N A OONSTRLIU'TIUN 40810 COI:NrY CENTER MINE, SUITE 100 'rEM :CULA C,ALIFOHMA 92591 -0022 951.6768042 • FAX 951.67G.7240 • www.IM3Fcorn MARAVILLA PHASE5&S // TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHI3IT RIPIF PLANNINL3 ■ DESIDN r UUNSTRUL•TIUN 40810 COUNTY CENTER 1. SURE 100 TEMECULA, CAUFORMA 92591-0022 CONSULTING 951.676.8042 • FAX 951.676.7240 • www,RBF.com LEGEND /yin 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS N- L.INi 1 r NUMOER MARAVILLA PHASE 7 & 8 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT *en ■ • ■ CONSULT 1N13 O q'w, __ 13 PLANNING ■ ❑EGILIN • QON.:aTRULITION 40810 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SURE 100 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 925% - -022 051676.6042 • FAX 951.676.7240 • ww ,y.1113F.com LEGEND R11, 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS T NUME3ER MARAV I LLA PHASE 9 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT C 21 L'3I 41 131 AVENIDA— AVILA- - - AVEN --- -AM ISTAD T3j in ■ ■ CONSULTING; PLANNING • DE33ION • UONk3TRUC:IIUN 40810 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 100 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-0022 951.878.8042 • FAX 981.878.7240 • www.R0F.com i t ,r I LEGEND it 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS UN 1 r NUMBER MARAVILLA PHASE 10 &11 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT P. CONSULTING P ANNINC9 • DESIGN • DGNSTRUUTIUN 40810 COUNTY CENTER DONE, SUITE 100 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 -6022 951.676.8042 • FAX 851.876.7240 • wwwR6F.com LEGEND 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS UNIT NUMBER MARAVILLA PHASE 12 &13 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT LEGEND in] 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS UN[ NUMBER e• ■ ■ • CONSULTING PLANNING ■ DESIGN II GONSTRUOTION 40810 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE. SUITE= TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 -8022 951,6769042 • FAX 951.678.72A0 • www.flBF.com MARAV1LLA PHASE 14 & 15 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT VA INTA --- CALLE LUMINA CD ■ ■ 11t CONSULTING PLANNING • DEE3It3N ■ UUNB7RUCTIUN 40810 COUNTY CENTER DINE, SURE 100 TEMECULA, CALII -0FNA 92591 -0022 951.876.8042 • FAX 951.676.7240 • wwwARF.com LEGEND 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS UN ! " NUMBER z J / MARAVILLA PHASE 16 & 17 TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIE3IT wro 1! / � I! (1 n t 60 E1 17i 1 711 t • A • N—GALLE-68TRBLLA-- 1 41 ) ;* _M IS at, 1 59 . Mir r 1 MUM 1 • is ■ CUN5ULTING PLANNING A OEHUHN • LION5TRUUTION 40810 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SWTE 100 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 -0022 951.6768042 • FAX 851.676.7240 • www.FlOF.com LEGEND [ILIA 3' X 3' TRASH AND RECYCLE CANS \ - LJN 1 T NUMBER MARAVILLA MODEL & BUILD -OUT TRASH CAN PLACEMENT EXHIBIT 6 M41 1 1j oW'R PLAN 3 4 BR/ 2.5 BA 1,739 S.F. MARAV1LLA Wc2Op mliosi,+ALAs 4 L PLAN 1 2 BR/ 2 BA 1,128 S.F. LANA 11 , 1 4.1crwm I,w I lira tiatall &LOUP outs ri 1:59 E,1 8i8 , tSi 1 : PLAN 2 3 BR/ 2.5 BA 1,523 S.F. \ iise404 I • ••:.".T• 2 O 4 16 4 iTti 11 -- 1 IFISECULA, CA 11110 mom. PLAN 3 FLOOR PLANS PLAN 1 ■•■•••••••■••• lbae• PLAN 2 Arch1tecturooPlonnIng 17922 Rich Irma, CA 92614 848 851 2133 muy com • 501. W(1( Ur. uS.11: M A R A V I L L A .La PLAN 28 ALTERNATE OPT. TUB AT MASTER BATH SECOND FLOOR 1 PLAN 3 OPT. TUB /SHOWER COMBO AT MASTER BATH SECOND FLOOR =L I IL PLAN 2B ALTERNATE (1.692 S.F.) SECOND FLOOR Y01 D 4 F =If 3 $ ILA 11106616.11 ■1116.1 16 n FLOOR PLANS IEMEtftA, CA t• p1 4!r PLAN 3 OPT. BEDROOM 4 FIRST FLOOR MM1 PLAN 2 OPT. TUB AT MATER BATH SECOND FLOOR A1chilec1we•P1anNna 17ancn0l Iryne. CA 97614 49 1151 7111 1107 corn AO. 7 U LOW PROVE 'e' OHARO VONOA[TF ROOF 142 U LIGHT ONO 6T000O MO RI � 6 CORATIVP OAPLI FRO MI P WROWNr OWN 603234 U 060060606 ammo CJ row COMM wleTUCCO ova O6CORATNP WROLIOHT NON RAPNO n MOW° OPRIONO L MOA4100* W / &D0000 O0IR LJ 0160103 RAFTER TAIL nN IL1M.Al6O 0003416 mat 1P /N6 OCPARTISNT CON'ECTIGN6 1101 AWN CONTROL YAM RNOA 600 V 0000//03 LEFT 0 8 I Z1 4 16 M A R A V I L L A W HOMES o 32 ❑ III � IIII� IIII 401. La . j , „ rw FRONT U e. n REAR r- � 0 4 0 �e1 2 9 16-- 0 111 • RIGHT BLDG. A ELEVATIONS 'SPANISH COLONIAL' 1EMfCUTA, CA r I1rj4 03110 ROOF PLAN 0 16 6 32 AreMtnctur64Phnning 17922 Filch Irvine. CA 92814 949 891 2133 Irtyy coal 64 0 AO.1 lJ El LOW rMOAe •L• t91NED ©ON34079 ROOF 7449 ma DAMP OTM00o re.Mn DECAMPS OAPE EOM OCTAL 1 � 66010.,1 r.Da IE occo11Alut .IA,tt010 O❑ rOAM comas WIytOCOD O99 � 1 � 7� OARCHED A1M4 WROOUO OCM R Wq I 1J ADC! O1VIq U VOAM TIM W16I1.1000 OVER 10 EXP081D RAFTIAA TALE 11 LL•IA„i AOPaN N?N (tJ] rK DCPARTMOW 44447301•9h ITC ALARM CONTROL PAWL A Ox OOT 6 FEWHEDI n LEFT 0 R 4 16 W16 I: IIUMIS O 32 n M A R A V I L L A • • • t. FRONT REAR 2 0 4 16 e 1tl 1!(Iv1 IIiIIlIiI1 011 nTIII( T fllTlf ! 11 TEMECULA. CA • • 1 • 11 1111.4,11 RIGHT BLDG. A ELEVATIONS 'SPANISH COLONIAL' U ROOF PLAN 0 16 9 32 , y;l,]aiiiii I!IGIillh (11l1� � � I!I 81 I L IIL�J 01 Il � ITI 1 Architectulo•PILRMRg 1702290th ham CA 92014 919 001 2133 klpy tom 64 Olt 1LAT 00NCJETO 000P TSL ®N IT SANO STUCCO IHbI 1 mmoo N.a.AF9 14 WNOUT., IWO na.., 16 000O 00IM10 n.TRCCO Cri1 10 VKS 16.0 . 17 WAY O1Y WI6IUCCO Orin 10 Of CON•In0 b.,Itrn6 19 E000IOnve W0D0 f9910f ONt! Ib IWOOOMO A41IA, ftl l a.1.0441/0 AIA9IOl O 01 pi ME 00ART1r0R CONIECIOONS• 1 ALL401 CONTROL PANEL NNOX 00X IF RFC0/i ®1 LEFT 0 t1 4 16 M A R A V 1 L L A wcuosun tiomvs 4 32 • • FRONT REAR ID 6 1 6 1 21 1.1 0 4 2 B 16 0 BLDG. B ELEVATIONS 'MONTEREY' TEMECULA, CA 1 1 • 1 11 00110111 RIGHT ROOF PLAN 0 16 NIL 01 32 A,ch11ectulo.Plallnlny 1 79771.111, I10It. «0 ..V14 940 9S1 %IX/ I Ig7 cool 111 FLAT CONCPEIE ROOF 11E 121 uom sup 810060 F1N11 1 wood oaA« l8 L1 WO0110111 11011 11ALM1 © IOAN COn8118 w/Ot0000 01111 1J mow AMR IA FOAM ma 10/6/0060 0YE8 L8] 66001ATNE 8N.171138 �) wc01MTN8 WOW 1689110 IMF ® 11AM/OA9D 8013 •I.IAkOIFD 8006086 9999 C1 FM 006801000 6018107■8* PER ALAAW 606}00 VA)p 0101 W1 1F MOWN0 LEFT 0 8 4 16 WOOD IDv ilOMli3A4_ 1 32 ❑ M A R A V I L L A 7 FRONT jou ., 11 111 4-1 177 11 11 1 11 I III REAR 0 ts3 LC Ld (i t1 t) 1. 1 liJ a 8 0 4 16 TEMECOLA. CA 1 IY 1111111* I I L � I _1 RIGHT BLDG. B ELEVATIONS 'MONTEREY' � L ROOF PLAN 0 16 32 Arch119010 e*Pdllnln0 17022 Poch 11th; CA 02644 049 851 2133 810T can 64 L' -I RAT CONCJItII ROOF TLC 111 LICIT 5M& STUCCO FIiO11 1 woo° colas') 111 070604, rwN III6INI r1 00414 ca.n6 rosTiRcn 004n U 6700 77661 U FOAM 1191 WISTUCCO 0601 M °LCO■4IOC CAW TOO 101 010066106 71000 PLAMFA 5140.7 1AROB0AI0 St IRO 111 LLN■NATEO AOCI♦451 NON i2 F% OEPANI■NN? CON0C1■0N44 FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL 0400 BOA IF 70014+61 ❑ LEFT 0 0 4 16 MARAVILLA 111K11>S113111Olrflsti _1 32 FRONT a1 141 3 1191 1 tot I• l6 . 71:'1 11 1111 11 10 I I 1 11111111 II(I>I MO.__ i1•` 11 1 I� , f 'Aida REAR O 0 4 a !I 16 r 1 =1 au TEMECULA, CA 1 1 •I III rtlll:ln • I I 11 11 -- RIGHT BLDG. B ELEVATIONS 'MONTEREY' ALT. ■ ROOF PLAN 0 16 E 32 AtchlteclurePPlannIng 17922 F14f1 Irma CA 92614 949 651 21:13 6790 ran 64 LI 1 LOW PROFES 'e' BNAPIO CONCRETE ROOF Re [J ICBM OMO BILVO0 FwN [] OECONAIVC OARS VC VITAE 141 CRFOOtO RAFTER TALI 1E1 DECORATIVE Elur, s [e I FnFU halms WNIOCCO oven [7] V Cueln PION MUNE [e 1 FOAM TR*I YNrUCCO OVER [PI EAUEUxO AAAALAA WM I7 PRE OLPAAMIINT CANECTMINI. NE MEAN CONIROE PANG ANOX e0% a► IEOIIRmI • • FRONT LEFT 0 8 16 32 M A R A V I L L A HI NIl.tIIf. 11113:1♦��\ I REAR I'1 r•: VI If F I n &I 1 O 4 16 7 8 1 t 1 111 IICINIII RIGHT BLDG. C ELEVATIONS 'MEDITERRANEAN' TEMECULA, CA ROOF PLAN 0 16 o 64 32 Archllehlule.Pleming 17922 Fitch khan, CA 02614 949 6512133 6499 horn 111 Low P 82 U •8 BNn•O 00899(72 ROOF AS (2] tart WO (lotto FNaN �] PONE VENEER �d I ARCHES WA' OM ripe wnt0000 0988 Ie1 VO•9 IRO wr510000 ov9N [e] wnwrany FRY! n81.44. I tl FOAM CO80R.9 0938 900 0999 [a 138008911VC FOAM t1u *9519900 OVER [el 1•aaWAt1O 0O•1111 WWI [jOl 889 0/859/9151 3840/1986 891 ALAR9 908 8008 90 BANEL wax 009 t< 116011 • LEFT 0 8 4 16 32 LJ M A R A V I L L A 04 IN 41. N'l11!1XilUB I88X81liS , FRONT 9,1 1111111 II Ilieu ➢1Uiu; . REAR 0 4 2 211 16 11 r 4 r11111114191, uuliI i!iiilN l a fill! Il I RIGHT BLDG. D ELEVATIONS 'ITALIANATE' TEMECULA, CA ROOF PLAN 0 16 11 32 AtchlttclUIOtPbnninq 17922 Filch 1189(, CA 92614 949 651 2133 ki y corn 64 13 AO.1 1 — r/ FRONT REAR N'11U11SIDE N11M1.S tel 11 1"I I? cowman weto 1711•.n •.w .IUCUn 1el etas vow OlCORATIYI e1411Y1e 16110.,. 10. w tout Mw wnu.0 10. wmu CO Ono M A R A V I L L A LEFT 0 4 16 I_ 2 $ P001 BUILDING f(M((ULA to " a P1 0 R00f PLAN 0 S 32 4 16 RIGHT FLOOR PLAN 633 S.F. AiWNoW10.P'Wamp 11912 FIth Inns CA 02614 Mit 01 2131 etpy can PC RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0326, A MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR MARAVILLA AT RANCHO HIGHLANDS CONSISTING OF A 210 -UNIT TRIPLEX PROJECT WITH UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1,100 TO 1,700 SQUARE FEET ON 21 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,600 FEET SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AT TIERRA VISTA ROAD, TRACT 23992 (APN 944 - 330 -003) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On July 18, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan No. 180 by Resolution No. 88 -398. B. On November 5, 2010, Trent Heiner, on behalf of Woodside Homes filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, Development Plan Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on March 2, 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. At the applicant's request, the item was continued to the March 16, 2011 meeting. E. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on March 16, 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. At the applicant's request, the item was continued off calendar. F. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on October 19, 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. G. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA10 -0326 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. H. 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 Application 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; The proposed multi - family development is permitted in the High Density Residential Use designation standards contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, the City's Development Code and the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the multi - family development, including the site, buildings, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan Application: A. 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 February 8, 2011, and expired on March 1, 2011. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised and re- released for public comment on September 26, 2011 and ended on October 17, 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 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. C. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to and at the 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. D. 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. PA10 -0326, a multi - family Development Plan application for Maravilla at Rancho Highlands to construct a 210 -unit triplex project with units ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,700 square feet generally consisting of 21 acres located approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road, along the west side of Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Road, Tract 23992, 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 19 day of October, 2011. ATTEST: Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) Pat Kight, Chairman 1, 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 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Patrick Richardson, Secretary Planning Application No.: PA10 -0326 Project Description: PL -1. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project A multi - family Development Plan application for Maravilla at Rancho Highlands to construct a 210 unit triplex project with units ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,700 square feet on 21 acres located approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road, along the west side of Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Road, Tract 23992 within Planning Areas 4 through 7 of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan 944 - 330 -001, 944 - 330 -003, and 944 - 330 -017 Residential (8.1 to 14 DU) Residential Attached Residential Multi- family October 19, 2011 October 19, 2013 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 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)]. If the applicant/developer provides a completed and signed No Effect Determination from the California Department of Fish and Game, the Two Thousand Forty -four Dollar ($2,044.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) will not be required and the applicant shall deliver a check made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty -Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the Cityto 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. 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 instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 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. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 2, Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. PL -7. The project shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Tract 23992. PL -8. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program, as stated below: a. Noise -1 Construct a 6.0 -foot high noise barrier for Buildings 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to occupancy. b. Noise -2 Construct 6.0 -foot high balcony barriers for Buildings 41 and 50 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to occupancy. c. Noise -3 Provide standard dual - glazed windows and a "windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) for all buildings. d. Noise -4 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, provide upgraded windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 34 for Buildings 42, 43, 51 through 56 facing the 1 -15 Freeway. e. Noise -5 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, all homes should be provided with weather - stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall /roof assembles should be free of cut outs and openings. f. Traffic -1 The Project shall participate in the funding or construction of committed off -site improvements that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) and payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). g. Traffic -2 The Project shall participate in the funding of its' Fair Share allocation for the 1 -15 southbound ramps improvements for the Cumulative scenario. PL -9. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. PL -10. A separate approval shall be required for a Sales Trailer or Model Home Complex. PL -11. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. PL -12. The design of the retaining wall adjacent to the Ynez Road right of way shall be a plantable (landscaped) wall or similarly screened, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. PL -13. 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 -14. 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 -15. 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 -16. 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. PL -17. Adequate trash and recycling areas shall be provided at the Recreation Center. PL -18. 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 -19. The developer shall contact the Temecula Community Services District Maintenance Superintendent for a pre- design meeting to discuss design perimeters and obtain Temecula Community Services District Landscape Standards. The median landscape plans submitted for consideration for Temecula Community Services District maintenance shall be in conformance with the Temecula Community Services District Landscape Standards. PL -20. Construction of the landscaped median shall commence pursuant to a preconstruction meeting with the developer, Temecula Community Services District Maintenance Superintendent, Building and Safety Inspector and Public Works Inspector. Developer shall comply with City and Temecula Community Services District review and inspections processes. PL -21. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaped median until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the Temecula Community Services District or other responsible party. PL -22. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing streetlights shall be paid for by the developer. PL -23. The applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. PL -24. All landscaping, recreational facilities including trails, landscaped parkways including those within the right of way; medians and street lights on private streets, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. PL -25. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. The CC &Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. PL -26. The CC &Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Planning Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney and shall include such provisions as are required bythis approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. PL -27. The CC &Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. PL -28. The CC &Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments and the City Attorney. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. PL -29. The CC &Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the Project's Water Quality Management Plan. PL -30. The CC &Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. PL -31. The CC &Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. PL -32. The CC &Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC &Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon bythe CC &Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. PL -33. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC &Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. PL -34. All open areas and landscaping governed byCC &R shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of building permits. PL -35. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC &Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. PL -36. An Article must be added to every set of CC &Rs to read as follows: Article CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA 1. The Conditions of Approval of Tentative Tract Map Number 23992 requires the City to review and approve the CC &Rs for the Parcel. 2. Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC &Rs and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC &Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC &Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC &Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessment procedures, assessment enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. 3. In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the land use entitlements issued by the City for the Parcel or Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, and regulations and these CC &Rs, the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and Federal, State or local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding the language of the CC &Rs. 4. These CC &Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise modified without the express written consent of the Planning Director of the City of Temecula. PL -37. An Article must be added to every set of CC &Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23992 require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC &Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC &Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC &Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC &Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC &Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC &Rs. Patrick Richardson Planning Director Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney PL -38. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC &Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and /or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC &Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. PL -39. CC &Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Building Occupancy. PL -40. Three copies of the final recorded CC &Rs shall be provided to the Planning Department. PL -41. Planning Department shall review and approve the CC &Rs. The CC &Rs shall address all trash collection issues including but not limited to the following: a. The trash hauler will invoice the HOA for trash service. b. The location of the individual property owners' trash bins placement for servicing will be designated including an exhibit. Include how the residents and visitors will be notified of various restrictions and bin placement. c. After all residential construction is completed the hauler will invoice the HOA for trash service for each unit regardless of occupancy. d. HOA will paint an address on each bin for identification. e. Address HOA enforcement of the trash collection issues. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PL -42. 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 -43. 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 may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Planning Director." PL -44. 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 -45. 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 -46. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. PL -47. 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 -48. 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 -49. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. PL -50. 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 -51. 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 surveythat 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." Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PL -52. All garage parking spaces shall maintain a minimum clear space dimension of 10 feet x 20 feet. PL -53. Street trees on Tierra Vista shall match those for the approved adjacent Tierra Vista Condominiums (PA03- 0552). PL -54. Street trees shall be provided at the ratio of one per 45' off street frontage. PL -55. All trees shall be planted from a minimum 24" box (except on slopes where 15- gallon size may be used) per the City of Temecula City -Wide Design Guidelines for multi- family projects. PL -56. Vines shall be planted on fences /walls where adjacent shrubs are of insufficient height to soften the fences. PL -57. Tot lot shall be constructed with a perimeter fence or landscape materials to create a buffer along the street. PL -58. 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 bythese 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 -59. 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 -60. 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 -61. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating that Two landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will verify irrigation installation with open trenches. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head - to -head coverage, and to verify that all planting have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans." The applicant /owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL -62. 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 -63. Specification of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate that "A final planting and irrigation inspection will verify proper landscape maintenance for release of one year landscape maintenance bond for all HOA landscaped areas." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL -64. Automatic irrigation shall be installed for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right -of -way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas. PL -65. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, it shall be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. PL -66. Landscape Construction Plans shall include all hardscaping for trails within private common areas. PL -67. Landscape Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to shade structures /gazebos, decorative furniture, and hardscape to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. PL -68. 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 -69. 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 -70. 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 -71. 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 -72. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional streetlights on Ynez Road, Rancho Highlands Road and /or Tierra Vista Road, 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 to the TCSD for the dedication of street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. The streetlights on the private streets shall be the responsibility of the HOA. PL -73. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication (Quimby) requirement through the payment of in -lieu fees equivalent to 1.95 acres of park land, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. Said requirement includes a 25% credit for private recreational opportunities provided and shall be pro -rated at a per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each residential building permit. PL -74. The landscape construction drawings for the landscaped median shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. PL -75. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to install the landscaped median. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit PL -76. 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 -77. 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 -78. Landscaping and trails adjacent to buildings shall be completed for inspection. PL -79. HOA landscaping shall be completed for inspection for those lots adjacent to HOA landscaped area. PL -80. 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 -81. 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: PL -82. 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 -83. It shall be the developer's responsibilityto provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. PL -84. The developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. PL -85. All site improvements shall be installed. PL -86. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. OUTSIDE AGENCIES "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 -87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated December 6, 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. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. B -6. 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 -7. 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 -8. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. B -9. Commercial and industrial project trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. B -10. 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 -11. 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 Ordinance 03 -01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. B -12. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. B -13. Commercial and multi - family residential 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 -14. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. B -15. Provide a Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2010 edition of the California Building Code. B -16. Provide number and type of restroom fixtures, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2010 edition of the California Plumbing Code. B -17. Provide precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. B -18. Provide truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) B -19. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction B -20. 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 multi - family buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 -hour duration. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 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. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F -4. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) F -5. Maximum cul -de -sac- length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul -de -sac shall be 45 feet (CFC Chapter 5, 503.2.4.and 503.2.5.along with Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 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 503.2.3 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 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 503.2.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 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). 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). F -10. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2.5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) F -11. The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. 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. Plans will need to be resubmitted, permit fees paid and plans need to show the installation of the fire sprinkler riser on the plans (CFC Chapter 14, Section 1412 and Chapter 5, Section 501.3 and NFPA 24). F -12. These buildings are required to have fire sprinkler protection. 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 (California Residential Code, Temecula City Ordinance Section 15.16.020 and NFPA 13R). F -13. These buildings are required to have a fire alarm system. 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 (CFC and NFPA 72). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F -14. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) per City Ordinance 15.16.020 F -15. New buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Multi- family residential buildings shall have a minimum of 12 -inch numbers with unit numbers being a minimum of six inches in size (CFC Chapter 5, Section 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F -16. A directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. F -17. 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 -18. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506) . F -19. 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). F -20. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable. POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements 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. Applicant must comply with the standards of title 24 part 6 of the California code of regulations, refer to publication CEC- 400 - 2008 - 016 -CMF- REV -I. PD -9. 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 -10. Any roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PD -11. 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 -12. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. PD -13. 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. 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. 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. g. 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 -14. Businesses desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department. PD -15. 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 PW -1. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed bythe 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. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right -of -way. PW -5. All grading and improvement 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 -6. An Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted for review and approval showing construction -phase pollution prevention controls that will prevent non - permitted runoff from discharging within the project site, or off site, or entering any natural or constructed storm water conveyance system during all field activities. If the project requires coverage under the State's NPDES Construction General Permit, the pollution prevention controls shown in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall also be reflected on the ESC plan PW -7. 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, in order of priority, Low Impact Development (LID) measures, source controls, and structural treatment devices, to prevent negative impacts to receiving waters by pollutants and hydrologic modifications resulting from the project. All of the water qualityfeatures shown on the WQMP site plan shall also be reflected on the grading and improvement plans. PW -8. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. 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. 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. PW -11. PW -12. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works 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 for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. PW -13. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. PW -14. PW -15. PW -16. PW -18. 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, associated technical manual, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and CASQA's BMP Handbook for Construction Activities. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES Construction General Permit by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) and Risk Level Determination. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. PW -17. The stormwater drainage system from each phase shall tie into the nearest water quality feature prior to discharging any runoff into the City's drainage system. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Planning Department, or other affected agencies. PW -19. 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 -20. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. PW -21. 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. PW -22. PW -23. Prior to issuance of the first production building permit: a. A line of sight easement shall be approved and recorded for the Rancho Highland Drive at Calle Carilla intersection. 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. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PW -24. PW -26. b. A right -of -way dedication for an additional five (5) feet of right -of -way along Ynez Road from the southerly property boundary to Tierra Vista Road shall be review and recorded. Prior to the issuance of the 20 production building permit or six months after issuance of the first production building permit, whichever occurs first, the following shall be constructed and completed: a. Installation of half- street improvements on Ynez Road from the southerly property boundary to Tierra Vista Road, including transitions. PW -25. Prior to the issuance of the 28 production building permit, the following shall be constructed and completed: a. Installation of a raised landscaped median on Ynez Road from the southerly property boundary to Rancho California Road, b. Installation of street improvements on Rancho Highland Drive from the northerly property boundary to Tierra Vista Road, c. Installation of street improvements on Tierra Vista Road from Calle Reva to Ynez Road, including the removal of the existing median on Tierra Vista Road, d. Signing and striping improvements on Ynez Road, Tierra Vista Road, and Rancho Highland Drive, and e. Installation of traffic signal improvements (vehicle detectors) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road and the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road. 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. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. f. All street and driveway center line intersections shall be at 90 degrees. PW -27. PW -28. g. Public street improvement plans shall include plans and profiles showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. h. 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 design and 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. a. Improve Ynez Road (City of Temecula Standard No. 101 modified) to include installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, modified parkway, one streetlight, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median as shown on the approved Development Plan. i. In compliance to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Ynez Road is classified as a Principal Arterial (6 lanes divided) therefore, dedicate an additional 5 feet of right -of -way adjacent to the property boundary along Ynez Road. ii. Install a raised landscaped median from the southerly property boundary to Rancho California Road. 1. Portions of the constructed median improvements on Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road and Rancho California Road may be eligible for reimbursement. Reimbursement requires an executed agreement and an audit of expenses by the City of Temecula. 2. The Developer shall install or provide a cash deposit for half -width raised landscape median improvements on Ynez Road from Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Highland Drive. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. b. Improve Rancho Highland Drive (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W — City of Temecula Standard No. 103A) to include dedication of full -width street right -of- way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Improve Tierra Vista Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W — City of Temecula Standard No. 103A) to include dedication of full -width street right -of- way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and removal of the existing median. i. Tierra Vista Road at Rancho Highland Drive 1. Install a stop control on the eastbound approach 2. Construct the intersection with the following geometrics: one shared northbound left- through lane, one shared southbound through -right turn lane, and one shared eastbound left -right turn lane. d. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right- of- wayand pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. 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, PW -29. median, sidewalk, drive approaches; streetlights, signing, striping, sewer and domestic water systems; undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines; and storm drain facilities. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved, the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Improve Calle Carilla (Private Street - 30' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan. b. Improve Calle Carilla (North) (Private Street - 30' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan. i. Calle Carilla (North) at Rancho Highland Drive 1. Install a stop control on the northbound and southbound approaches 2. Construct the intersection with the following geometrics: one shared northbound left- through -right turn lane, one shared southbound left - through -right turn lane, one shared eastbound left- through -right turn lane, and one shared westbound left through -right turn lane. c. Improve Calle Celeste (Private Street - 30' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan 1. Install a stop control on the westbound approach Construct the intersection with the following geometrics: one shared northbound through right turn lane, one shared southbound left - through lane, and one shared westbound left right turn lane. d. Improve Avenida Abril (Private Street-24' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan e. Improve Avenida Amistad (Private Street — 24' R /E) to include installation of full - width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan. f. Improve Avenida Avila (Private Street — 24' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan. g. i. Calle Celeste at Tierra Vista Road Improve Avenida Cielo (Private Street— 24' R/E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan h. Improve Calle Bonita (Private Street — 24' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities i. Calle Bonita at Rancho Highland Drive 1. Install a stop control on the northbound approach 2. Construct the intersection with the following geometrics: one shared northbound left -right turn lane, one shared eastbound through -right turn lane, and one shared westbound left- through lane. PW -30. PW -31. PW -32. PW -33. PW -34. j. k. i. Improve Calle Carilla (South) (Private Street — 24' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan. Improve Calle Casera (Private Street -24' R /E) to include installation of full -width street improvements, including utilities, as shown on the approved Development Plan Improve Calle Cristal (Private Street -24' street improvements, including utilities, as Plan. 1. Improve Calle Estrella (Private Street -24 street improvements, including utilities, as Plan m. Improve Calle Lumina (Private Street -24' street improvements, including utilities, as Plan n. Improve Corte Melosa (Private Street -24 street improvements, including utilities, as Plan. o. Improve Calle Verano (Private Street — 24' street improvements, including utilities, as Plan. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy R /E) to include installation of full -width shown on the approved Development ' R /E) to include installation of full -width shown on the approved Development R /E) to include installation of full -width shown on the approved Development ' R /E) to include installation of full -width shown on the approved Development R /E) to include installation of full -width shown on the approved Development 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 lane closure, 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. 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. As recommended in the Rancho Highlands Maravilla Traffic Impact Analysis dated August 9, 2011, the Developer shall provide a fair share contribution in the amount of $2,019 for the construction of an additional southbound left turn lane at the 1 -15 southbound ramp on Rancho California Road to mitigate the project's direct impact. PW -35. The project shall submit a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Agreement for future property owners and Home /Property Owner Associations (HOA /POA). The O &M Agreement must include the original owner's notarized PW -36. signature, proof of recordation with the County Recorder's Office, and all maintenance procedures for each of the LID measures and structural treatment devices outlined in the WQMP. The project shall demonstrate that all of the LID measures and structural treatment devices outlined in the WQMP have been installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation PW -37. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. PW -38. PW -39. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PW -40. 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. 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 -41. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. Rancho Water Board of Directors Lisa D. Herman Prendent Lawrence M. Libeu Sc Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake John E. Hoagland William E. Plununer Officers Matthew G. Stone Genera Manager Jeffrey D. Armstrong Chief Financier officerTreaau N. Craig Elitharp. E. Director of OyeraGnns & Maintemnce Perry R. Louck ftrec of Planning Andrew L. Webster. P.C. Chret F :;iaeer Kepi E. Garcia C. Michael Cowett Best Beet & Krieger LLP _rierai aun December 6, 2010 Cheryl Kitzerow, Project Planner City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY — LOTS NO. 1, 2, AND 3 OF TRACT MAP NO. 23992; APNS 944 - 330 -001, 944 - 330 -003, AND 944 - 330 -017 RANCHO HIGHLANDS MARAVILLA (PA10 -0326) [WOODSIDE HOMES OF SO CAL LLC] Dear Cheryl: Please be advised that the above- referenced property is located within the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The subject property fronts an existing 48 -inch diameter CML &C water pipeline and a 16 -inch CML &C water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Ynez Road The property also fronts a 12 -inch PVC and ACP water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Rancho Highland Drive, a 12 -inch PVC water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Terra Vista Road, and an existing 20 -inch CML &C recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone) at the intersection of Diaz Road and Rancho California Road Water service to Lot 3 of Tract Map No. 23992 exists under Account No. 0104004322. Additions or modifications to water /sewer service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Regulations (goveming) Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Where private (on -site) facilities are required for water service, fire protection, irrigation, or other purposes, RCWD requires recordation of a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for such on -site private facilities, where private on -site water facilities may cross (or may be shared amongst) multiple lots /project units, and/or where such 'common' facilities may be owned and maintained by a Property Owners Association (proposed now or in the future). Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) 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). Rancho California Water District ..�; nfe-. w,. 9n1, • Trm=rnla (talifam;a 99599 - 9014 • (9511 296 -6900 • FAX (9511 2964860 Cheryl Kitzerow /City of Temecula December 6, 2010 Page Two In accordance with Resolution 2007 -10 -5, the project/property may be required to use recycled water for all landscape irrigation. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on -site and/or off -site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from RCWD. 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. Sewer service to the subject 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 10 WM:hab025T450WEG Rancho California Water District • Poet Office Box 901' • Temecula, California 92589-9017 • (95U 296 -6900 • FAX 1951 i 296-6960 City of Temecula *Revised 9/2011* Planning Department Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration PROJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, Rancho Highlands Maravilla Trent Heiner, Woodside Homes of California The 21 -acre project site is located approximately 1,600 linear feet south of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in the west - central portion of the City, Interstate 15 is to the west, Ynez Road is to the east. The site is along both sides of Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Drive. DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would result in the development of 21 acres into a multi - family housing development. The development will consist of 70 buildings with a total of 210 individually owned single - family attached units (triplex) and private recreation facilities including a pool, wading pool, recreation building, tot lot, pedestrian trails, and passive areas with shade structures. The building footprints for all 70 buildings total 220,414 square feet (22% of the site), and 653,836 square feet is dedicated to landscaping (64 %), which will consist of a palette including drought tolerant species along with areas of turf. Parking and streets total 140,698 square feet (14 %). The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant tq the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning Commission will review the project and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 19, 2011. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this Notice and will be included as part of the Negative Declaration for this project. * The Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project were previously released for public review on February 8, 2011. The analysis has been updated to incorporate the conclusions from recently prepared project technical studies for Noise, Traffic, Health Risk Assessment and Air Quality. In addition, the CEQA analysis has been updated to clarify the existing condition of the project site. In 2006, the Planning Areas were graded in their entirety, most of the backbone infrastructure work in Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Road and connections to Ynez Road were completed, including construction of water and sewer facilities, dry utilities and street improvements. Most of the grading and in -tract infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving has been completed for Planning Area 6. The lots in Planning Area 6 would typically be described as "Finished ". Most of the grading and backbone infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, curb, gutter and sidewalk has been completed in Planning Areas 4,5 and 7. The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is September26, 2011 to October 17, 2011. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 -9033. City Hall is located at 41000 Main Street. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through: X The Local Newspaper _ Posting the Site X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Cheryl Kitzerow at (951) 694 -6409. ) Prepared by: 2 Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planner (Name and Title) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Maravilla at Rancho Highlands — Planning Application No. PA10- 0326 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planner (951) 694 -6409 Project Location The Project is located in the City of Temecula (the "City ") and within the boundaries of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan No. 180 (the "Specific Plan "). The Project is generally located approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection Rancho California Road and Ynez Road on either side of Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Drive and will be constructed on approximately 21 acres of land within Planning Areas 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Specific Plan (the 'Project Site ") in the west - central portion of the City. Interstate 15 is to the west, Ynez Road is to the east. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Trent Heiner, Woodside Homes 11870 Pierce Street, #250 Riverside, CA 92505 General Plan Designation The site is designated H (High Density Residential, 13 -20 dwelling units /acre) which allows up to 271 units to be constructed on the site. The Project proposes 210 units. Zoning The site is zoned SP -2 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan). Prior owners of the Project submitted Planning Application PA05- 0167 to the City of Temecula Planning Commission on May 3, 2006. The Planning Commission approved the Application and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based upon that approval and associated permits, the prior owner commenced development of the community. In 2006, the Planning Areas were graded in their entirety, most of the backbone infrastructure work in Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Road and connections to Ynez Road were completed, including construction of water and sewer facilities, dry utilities and street improvements. Most of the grading, in tract infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving has been completed for Planning Area 6. The lots in Planning Area 6 would typically be described as "Finished ". Most of the grading and backbone infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, curb, gutter and sidewalk has been completed in Planning Areas 4, 5 and 7. Building permits for model homes were issued in 2007. Because of the downturn in the real estate market, the prior owner did not commence construction of the model homes, or submit an application for an extension of the previous approvals, which have now expired. The applicant, Woodside Homes, acquired the site in October 2010, Description of Project 2 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting with the intention of building the community with the same product type and in the same manner as contemplated in the previously approved plan consisting of 210 individually owned single - family attached triplex homes. The Project would result in the construction of 210 individually owned attached units (triplex) in 70 buildings, with private recreation facilities including a pool, wading pool, recreation building, tot lot, pedestrian trails and passive areas with shade structures on approximately 21 acres of land. The building footprints for all 70 buildings total 220,414 square feet (22% of the site), and 653,836 square feet is dedicated to landscaping (64 %), which will consist of a palette including drought tolerant species along with areas of turf. Parking and streets total 140,698 square feet (14 %). The Project consists of three distinct building areas that integrate architecture, site planning, and landscaping that are consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. Backbone infrastructure including streets, water, sewer, electric, gas, and telephone services were previously constructed and extended onto the site from Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads from existing main lines. Water and sewer is provided by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Gas will be provided by Southern California Gas Company; electricity is provided by Southern California Edison; and telephone service will be provided by Verizon. The site is located within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) boundaries. The Project Site is located within the City of Temecula General Plan area and the Project will be evaluated in the context of the City of Temecula General Plan EIR (2005) which contains current and reliable data for a thorough analysis of the Project. Also, studies have been conducted for the following issue areas: biological resources, cultural resources, geology, noise, aesthetics and air quality. Additional studies were conducted for Health Risk Assessment and Traffic. The Project Site is bordered on the north by Rancho Highland Drive, the Embassy Suites Hotel, a Marie Calendars restaurant, a vacant parcel of land proposed for a Comfort Suites Hotel and a vacant parcel of land approved for the construction of 23 condominium units. To the south, the Project is bordered by existing single family residential homes within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. To the east, the Project is bordered by Ynez Road, vacant undeveloped land and the Temecula Duck Pond. Interstate 15 borders the Project to the west. In 2006 the Project Site was fully graded and all major backbone infrastructure, including sewer, water, storm drain, curb, gutter paving and sidewalks were constructed in Rancho Highlands Drive, Tierra Vista Drive and the internal streets in Planning Area 6. No major earthwork or grading of the Project is required. Balancing of the streets in Planning Areas 4, 5 and 7 and final grading of the lots prior to landscaping will be required. Earthwork is balanced, so there is no need for transporting any dirt to or from the site. 3 4 Off -site work will involve the construction of a landscaped median along Ynez Road from the southern Project boundary north to Rancho California Road. Tierra Vista Road at the southern Project boundary is currently barricaded but would be open to through traffic once the Project is completed, allowing residents of Rancho Highlands a secondary access point to the signalized intersection at Ynez Road. Other public agencies whose approval is required None 4 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 X Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation Cultural Resources X 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. A Signature Cheryl Kitzerow Printed Name 6 q'l l Date City of Temecula For 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 Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Comments: 1.a. Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Community Design Element of the City of Temecula's General Plan ( "General Plan ") identifies important scenic viewsheds to ensure that all new public and private development projects will not obstruct the public views of scenic resources. According to General Plan Figure CD -1, a view shed is located along Rancho California Road east of the Project site toward the west to identify the views of the western hillsides. While adjacent to this view shed, the Project site has been designed consistent with the height requirements of the zone and the adjacent development. In addition, landscaping is proposed along the Project slopes to enhance the development. The Project is expected to have a less than significant effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are required. 1.b. No Impact: The Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The site has been previously graded and no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings are located on -site. Interstate 15 is not classified as a state scenic highway in the vicinity of the Project. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 1.c. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The site was previously graded in its entirety. Backbone infrastructure, including sewer, water, storm drain, curb, gutter, sidewalk and dry utilities has been constructed to all of the Planning Areas. Planning Area 6 is fully finished with all in -tract sewer, water, storm drain, curb, gutter, sidewalk and dry utilities complete. Construction of the Project will result in the construction of individually owned single family triplex residential units, hardscape for streets and parking areas and landscaping within the site and along the slopes. The proposed development will be consistent with the City's General Plan, the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, the Development Code and the Citywide Design Guidelines. Consistency with these requirements will ensure that the Project will enhance the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Lastly, the triplexes are architecturally designed to give the appearance of single - family residences and will be compatible with the existing single - family residences to the south. Impacts are considered less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 1.d. Less Than Significant Impact: According to Figure 5.1 -1 (Palomar Observatory Lighting Impact Zone) of the Temecula General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (March 2005), the Project is located within Zone B, which is within a 45 -mile radius of the Observatory. The Project will create new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. However, the Project will be required to comply with the Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance No. 655). Compliance with this Ordinance will ensure that all lighting will be of an acceptable type and wattage and that parking lot lighting will be required to be shielded in order to not adversely affect the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Lighting issues will be addressed during the building plan check and inspection process, prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project. Therefore, since the Project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655, it will not 7 adversely affect the day or nighttime views or create substantial light or glare, resulting in a Tess than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. 8 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 Sign ficant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Imp 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? X b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X 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)? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? X X d 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: Implementation of the Project will not 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. The site has been previously graded and is not being used for agricultural purposes. According to Figure 5.2 -1 (Agricultural Resources) of the Temecula General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (March 2005), the majority of the Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is located to the east of the City in Wine Country and to the north, within French Valley. None of these designations exist on the Project site. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 2.b. No Impact: Implementation of the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. According to the Initial Study contained within the Temecula General Plan, the area is not under a Williamson Act contract. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation is required. 2.c. No Impact: The Project site 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, recreation and 9 other public benefits. The Project site is zoned High Density (H) residential and not as a Timberland Production Zone as defined by Section 51104(g) of the Government Code. Implementation of the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The site has been previously graded and is not being used for these purposes. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation is required. 2.d. No Impact: Implementation of the Project will not result in the loss of forest land. The site is vacant and has been previously graded. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation is required. 2.e. No Impact: Implementation of the Project will not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use. The Project site is not utilized for agricultural cultivation. Please reference the response to 2a, above. 10 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 No Impact a Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed • uantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X X X c d e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Comments: A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted with the City's General Plan EIR for City- wide Air Quality impacts, primarily from mobile sources. 3.a. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed residential Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the responsible agencies for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan for the SCAB. The Project is subject to the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and SCAQMD. A Project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and /or employment growth that exceed growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. An Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA) prepared by Urban Crossroads dated August, 2011 indicate the Project is in compliance with the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality management Plan and the Project will not exceed any applicable thresholds for short -term construction or long -term operational activity. Additionally, the AQIA now includes a Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis as recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The purpose of the LST analysis is to determine whether or not projects would have significant localized impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses during construction activity. The results of the AQIA indicate the project will not have a significant LST impact during construction activity. The AQIA and GHGA utilize the California Emissions Estimator ModeITM (CaIEEModTM) which was released on February 3, 2011 by the SCAQMD for purposes of determining air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from development projects. The AQIA determines that the project would not conflict with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); the AQIA also determines the project will not cause significant pollutant emissions from traffic, construction, and cumulative impacts. The conclusions of the AQIA support the project would not have a significant impact for any of the aforementioned criterion. The Project is consistent with regionally adopted growth projections for the study area. 3.b. Less Than Significant Impact: According to the Air Quality Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated August, 2011 the Project generated emissions will not violate federal and state ambient air quality standards, thus the Project's impacts are less than significant. 3.c. Less Than Significant Impact: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (h)(3) stipulates that for an impact involving a resource that is addressed by an approved plan or mitigation program, the lead agency may 11 determine that a project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the adopted plan or program. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan is the most appropriate document to use because it set forth comprehensive programs that will lead the South Coast Air Basin, including the Project area, into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. It also utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Because the Project is in conformance with the AQMP and the Project is not significant on an individual basis, it is appropriate to conclude that the Project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is not cumulatively significant. 3.d. Less Than Significant Impact: Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons suffering from illness and are normally associated with locations such as schools, daycare facilities, convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. Sensitive Receptors as shown on page AQ -7, Figure AQ -2 "Sensitive Receptors," within the Air Quality and Land Use Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, the nearest (a child care center on Rancho California Road ) is located approximately 1,100 lineal feet northeast of the Project site. The Project is not anticipated to generate substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore, there is no opportunity for any exposure. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated August, 2011, to address the concerns of locating the project near the I- 15 Freeway. Results of the HRA indicate that the maximum cancer risk as a result of being located adjacent to the 1 -15 Freeway will be approximately 6.2 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Additionally the HRA evaluated criteria pollutant emissions (CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5). The results of the analysis indicate the project would not subject future residents to pollutant concentrations in excess of the recommended thresholds by the SCAQMD. Therefore a less than significant impact is expected. 3.e. Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the Project will create minimal objectionable odors associated with construction activity, which will be temporary. During construction the Project will have odors associated with equipment and materials. The site is not located within the immediate vicinity of sensitive receptors and these odors are normally not considered offensive so as to cause sensitive receptors to complain. Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment and new asphalt paving fall into this category. These impacts will be of short duration and are considered less than significant. No objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people will be created when the Project is operational. No mitigation measures are required. 12 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 X 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? 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? 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 X D 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 Comments: 4.a. No Impact: Implementation of the Project will have no impact, 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. The prior owners of the Project submitted Planning Application No. PA05 -0167 to the City of Temecula Planning Commission on May 3, 2006. The Planning Commission approved the Application and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based upon that approval and associated permits the prior owner commenced grading and development of the community. In 2006 the Planning Areas were graded in their entirety, all of the backbone infrastructure work in Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Road and connections to Ynez Road were completed including construction of water and sewer facilities, dry utilities and street improvements. Most of the grading, in -tract infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving has been completed for Planning Area 6. The lots in Planning Area 6 would typically be described as "Finished ". Most of the grading and backbone infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, curb, gutter and sidewalk has been completed to Planning Areas 4, 5 and 7. 13 In connection with the Project's 2006 approval and subsequent grading operation, a Biological Constraints Analysis and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis (Analysis) was performed by Thomas Leslie Corporation. The report concluded that prior to grading, no natural habitat occurred within the boundaries of the Project Site. Prior to grading, the vegetation was dominated by non- native "weedy" grass and herb species. No listed threatened, endangered, or unlisted special - status plant or wildlife species were mapped on the Project site by California Natural Diversity Data Base records, nor were any observed onsite, and the site has been graded and improvements have been installed since the analysis was performed. Prior to the 2006 approval and subsequent grading of the Project Site, the Project area was considered to be a possible habitat for the Burrowing Owl (BUOW). According to the Biological Constraints Analysis and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis performed by Thomas Leslie Corporation, one (BUOW) habitat element, grassland, was observed onsite; however, no BUOW individuals or BUOW occupied ground burrows were identified. Furthermore, no vacant California Ground Squirrel burrows that could provide suitable burrow sites were observed. The analysis recommended that, due to the presence of the one suitable BUOW habitat element, a qualified biologist survey the property 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to check for BUOW occupied ground burrows. Under prior ownership, the grading operation was conducted and completed in accordance with the prior conditions of approval and under the supervision of a qualified biologist, thus the construction of homes on the Project Site will have no impact 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. 4.b. No Impact: Riparian /Riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to, or which depend upon, soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year. Implementation of the Project will not 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. Prior to the 2006 approval and subsequent grading of the Project Site and according to the Biological Constraints Analysis and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis (Analysis) performed by Thomas Leslie Corporation, no natural habitat occurred within the boundaries of the site. Prior to grading, the vegetation was dominated by non - native "weedy" grass and herb species. No listed threatened, endangered, or unlisted special- status plant or wildlife species are mapped on the Project site by California Natural Diversity Data Base records, nor were any observed onsite. The Project site is not characterized by any riparian habitat. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 4.c. No Impact The Project site does not contain federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To be considered a wetland, a site must meet three criteria: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric soils are defined by the national Technical Committee as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the grow season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil. Wetland hydrology is present when, under normal circumstances, the land surface is either inundated or the upper portion of the soil is saturated at a sufficient frequency and duration to create anaerobic conditions. These conditions are also required in order for hydrophytic vegetation to be present. Implementation of the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on 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. The Project site is not characterized by any riparian habitat or wetland. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 4.d. Less Than Significant Impact A portion of the Project site is located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell and within Constrained Linkage 13. In connection with the Project's prior approval, a Joint Project Review (JPR # 05070701) was prepared, and concluded that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project does not propose any conservation. The JPR concluded that the Project site is not located within nor does it contribute to the objectives of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 because 1 -15, Ynez Road and several commercial, industrial, and residential developments lie between the subject property and Murrieta Creek. 14 Therefore, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Project would conflict with Reserve Assembly in this area. Impacts anticipated are less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 4.e. No Impact The construction and development of the Project will not conflict with any local ordinances or policies as they relate to the protection of biological resources. The City of Temecula has recently adopted a Heritage Tree Ordinance designed to protect certain species of trees within the City. However, no trees designated in the Ordinance are located on the subject property. The City of Temecula General Plan outlines number of policies which emphasize the interrelationship between the built and natural environment. The General Plan recognizes the importance of conserving important biological habitat and protecting plant and animal species of concern. As a result, the General Plan requires that development proposals identify significant biological resources. The prior Biological Assessment that was completed for the Project site did not identify any sensitive plant species, sensitive bird species, sensitive mammal species, sensitive reptile or amphibian species on site. Additionally, prior to grading the site, a Burrowing Owl survey was completed to identify any potential habitat which would assess the likelihood that Burrowing Owls would utilize the property. No Burrowing Owls were found on -site. No impact will occur. 4.f. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed development of the Project will not conflict with the provisions of the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi - jurisdictional plan which focuses on the conservation of 146 species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The Plan's overall goal is to maintain a biological and ecological diversity within the rapidly urbanizing area. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres and includes the City of Temecula within its boundaries. According to the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) for the Proposed Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) the Project site is located within the boundaries of Cell No. 7079 (Cell). This Cell has been developed to preserve and enhance biological resources in the vicinity of the Murrieta Creek (Creek). The nearest portion of the Project site is located approximately 1,500 feet from the Creek and is separated from the Creek by urban development in Old Town Temecula and Interstate 15. A Joint Project Review (JPR # 05070701) was prepared in July, 2005 that determined the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project does not propose any conservation. The JPR concludes that the Project site is not located within nor does it contribute to the objectives of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 because 1 -15, Ynez Road and several commercial, industrial, and residential developments lie between the subject property and Murrieta Creek. Therefore, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Project would conflict with Reserve Assembly in this area. Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 15 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 X A Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? B Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X X X C D Comments: The project developer is required to comply with the "Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement (Pre- excavation Agreement) for Tract 23992, Maravilla ", dated July 12, 2006. 5.a No Impact. "Historic Resources" as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5 are prehistoric and historic resources that are assessed as being "significant ", insofar as their evidentiary contents can be demonstrated relevant to the established local, regional or national research domains, issues and questions. According to the "Cultural Resource Assessment and Constraint Analysis" prepared by Viejo California Associates, for the same Project proposed by a previous applicant, no known historical resources are located at the Project site. The site was previously mass graded and the topography for the majority of the site has been altered for the construction roadways, slopes and building pads. As a result, the site has been over - excavated and re- compacted to the extent that any cultural resources would have been disturbed, if they were present on the site at that time. Minimal grading is proposed for the site in order to balance streets for paving and finalize building pads. No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the Project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, as a standard condition of all projects, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth - moving operations associated with the Project, all work in that area would be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. 5.b No Impact. The "Cultural Resource Assessment and Constraint Analysis" prepared by Viejo California Associates under prior ownership stated that no potential remains for intact archaeological resources exist onsite. Native soils that may have contained cultural resources were removed in December of 2000. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 5.c No Impact: The "Cultural Resource Assessment and Constraint Analysis" prepared under prior ownership by Viejo California Associates identified the area as sensitive for paleontological resources. Specifically, the Pauba Formation, which comprises the competent bedrock of the subject parcel and which was employed as a borrow source for fill during the 2000 -2001 Rough Grading, is sensitive for vertebrate fossils. To ensure that any potential impacts to paleontological resources were mitigated to a less than significant level, the Cultural Resource Assessment and Constraint Analysis recommended a qualified paleontologist monitor any excavations into any Pauba Formations. Grading of the site was conducted in accordance with the requisite permits and in accordance with the paleontological recommendations. No impacts associated with the Project are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. 5.d. No Impact: Implementation of the Project is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. As has been previously discussed the site has been graded in the past and the topography of the majority of the site has been altered for the creation of areas for roadways, slopes and building pads. In addition, the site has been over - excavated and re- compacted to the extent that 16 any cultural resources would have been disturbed, if they were present on the site at that time. Additional grading is proposed for the site, but it will be minimal and contained within the areas that have been previously disturbed from the prior grading activity. No additional mitigation measures are required. 17 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: 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 X i. ii Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X X iii 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? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X X e Comments: 6.a.i. Less Than Significant Impact: According to Leighton and Associates, Inc. the Project is partially located within the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Wildomar Fault. The Wildomar Fault is approximately 180 km (112 miles) long and runs generally in a north / south direction through the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. According to the As- Graded Report of Rough Grading, Maravilla Tract 23992, Lots 1 through 3 (Buildings 1 through 70) and Recreation Center prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. as of March 12, 2007, and revised on June 4, 2007, an active segment of the Wildomar Fault was previously mapped within the northern edge of Lot 3 within the Project. A structural setback from the active fault was recommended by Leighton and incorporated into the design of the Project. As designed, all buildings to be constructed within the Project are outside the setback zone and in accordance with Leighton's recommendations. It is the opinion of Leighton that the fault setback zone effectively mitigates the risk of instability of habitable structures within the proposed development due to ground rupture along the Wildomar Fault. Therefore anticipated impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. 6.a.ii. Less Than Significant Impact: As mentioned above in 6.a.i., a portion of Lot 3 of the Project is located within the fault zone of the Wildomar Fault which may cause strong seismic ground shaking. Structural setbacks have been incorporated into the Project design as discussed above. To address seismic design issues, Leighton and Associates, Inc., in the Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Highlands II, Tract 23992, Lots 1, 2 and 3, City of Temecula, California, recommends structures should be designed as required by provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4 using seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Compliance with these measures as well as City Municipal code will ensure impacts will be less than significant. 18 6.a.iii Less Than Significant Impact: According to a letter entitled Response to Comments on Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rancho Highlands Maravilla Project, Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, Temecula California dated May 13, 2011 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. groundwater was locally encountered during past site geotechnical investigations and grading of the onsite alluvial soils (Petra 2003). This groundwater was found to be perched within the alluvial soils, overlying the Pauba formation / bedrock. However, as a part of the Project overall rough grading, these alluvial soils were removed to expose dense underlying Pauba formation bedrock and replaced with compacted fill up to 45 feet in thickness to achieve current pad elevations. Additionally, prior to fill placement, canyon subdrains were installed during grading to capture and release any accumulation of future subsurface groundwater. Therefore, regardless of previously reported groundwater conditions, the water bearing alluvium has been completely removed and replaced with engineered compacted fill. Due to relatively dense compacted fill and Pauba formation / bedrock underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction at the subject site is very low or considered non - existent. Therefore, anticipated impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. 6.a.iv. No Impact According to the As- Graded Report of Rough Grading, Maravilla Tract 23992, Lots 1 through 3 (Buildings 1 through 70) and Recreation Center, City of Temecula, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. dated March 12, 2007, revised June 4, 2007, based upon Leighton's review of the Project geotechnical reports and geologic observations during the course of grading operations no evidence of landslides or other significant surficial failures were observed within the Project. Therefore no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 6.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The site may be susceptible to soil erosion during the short-term construction activities. Short-term erosion effects during the construction phase of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required in accordance with the Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Permit. The SWPPP includes standard construction methods such as sandbags, silt fencing, and temporary detention basins to control on -site and off-site erosion. Therefore, with the implementation of an approved SWPPP, impacts resulting from erosion during construction would be less than significant. 6.c. Less Than Significant Impact: According to Section 4.0 of the As- Graded Report of Rough Grading, Maravilla Tract 23992, Lots 1 through 3 (Buildings 1 through 70) and Recreation Center, City of Temecula, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. dated March 12, 2007, revised June 4, 2007 the Project is suitable for its intended residential use provided the recommendations included in the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the residential structures and associated improvements. Compliance with standard conditions and requirements contained in the UBSC and City Municipal Code will ensure that significant impacts will not result. 6.d. No Impact: The Project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Therefore no impacts are anticipated. 6.e. No Impact: The proposed development will not be serviced by septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 19 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigrificant Impact X No Impact a Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Comments: 7.a.b. Less than Significant Impact: A Greenhouse Gas Analysis was prepared for the Project in August 2011 by Urban Crossroads. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the following relevant statutes, regulations and standard conditions: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets /Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375), Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles, Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code) establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction, Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards) establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances, Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020, California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881) requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes, Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368) requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions; and, Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078) requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. The results of the analysis indicate that the Project would generate GHG emission that would not have a significant impact on the environment. The Project is consistent with, or otherwise not in conflict with recommended measures and actions in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) December 2008 Scoping Plan (CARB Scoping Plan) setting forth strategies and measures to implement in order to achieve the GHG reductions goals set forth in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required for operational or construction activities. 20 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. No Impact: The Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed land use is a residential Project and will not involve routinely transporting, using or disposing hazardous materials. The Project will consist of residential uses that do not involve significant potential for routine transport or use of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous wastes beyond those normally encountered in a residential setting, typically termed "household hazardous wastes." The generation of such wastes from residential uses is not considered to rise to a level of a significant potential for significant risk of accidental release of hazardous materials or accidental explosion. The City provides a program to accept and dispose of household hazardous wastes. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required for the long -term residential use of the site. 8.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 21 8.c. No Impact: The Project will emit emissions and utilize substances that are commonly associated with the development and operation (occupancy) of similar residential uses. There are no schools within a quarter mile radius of the Project site. There is no potential for any school to be impacted. No mitigation measures are required. 8.d. No Impact: According to the "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Rancho Highlands Project, South of the Intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California," dated February 10, 2005 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. for Project by a previous applicant, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, Leighton and Associates conducted a Limited Environmental Review, Maravilla Tract 23992, Temecula, California as of September 20, 2011. According to this limited environmental review, no evidence of recognized environmental conditions were identified on the Project or on surrounding properties No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 8.e. No Impact: The Project site is not located within any airport land use plan. The closest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 4 miles to the north /northeast of the Project site. There is no potential for any airport or CLUP to be impacted or for the Project to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No mitigation measures are required. 8.f. No Impact: The Project site is not located near any private airstrip. There is no potential for the Project to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No mitigation measures are required. 8.g. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project will take access from Rancho Highlands and Tierra Vista Drives off of Ynez Road. Emergency response vehicles utilize Ynez Road for their daily operations. Any construction along Ynez Road and within the Project site will be in accordance with the City requirements for traffic control and will not significantly impact emergency responses within the City. Once occupied by residents, on -site circulation will be sufficient to provide necessary access for emergency responses. Any Project impacts would be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. 8.h. No Impact: According to the City of Temecula Geographic Information System, the Project site is not located within a High Fire Hazard area. Therefore, the Project will not 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 residents intermixed with wildlands. The closest High Fire Hazard areas are located approximately 4.5 miles to the northeast and southwest of the Project area. Since the Project is not located within a High Fire Hazard area and is not located in the immediate proximity of a High Fire Hazard area, injury, death and loss of life resulting from a wildfire is not likely to occur. Additionally, the City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed and conditioned the Project to ensure that it meets all fire code requirements, and that the Project will be provided with fire protection, if needed, in the case that fire does occur on -site. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 22 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 will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project is required to comply with all current soil erosion and national pollutant discharge elimination system standards in effect at the time of grading permit issuance. As a condition of approval for this Project the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit from the State Water Quality Resources Control Board. A less than significant impact is anticipated. 9.b. No Impact: The Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project has previously been fully graded. Major backbone infrastructure including sewer, water, storm drain, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and roadways have been improved. Therefore, no potential exists to directly intercept the groundwater table during development of this Project. Water for the 23 Project is supplied by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), which utilizes both groundwater and imported water supplies to ensure adequate water is available for consumers. Imported water is utilized to ensure that significant overdraft of local ground water supplies does not occur. No adverse impacts to groundwater resources are forecast to occur from implementing the Project. No mitigation is required. 9.c. No Impact: Grading of the Project has been completed and storm drainage facilities have been constructed onsite. Construction of homes on the land will not 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. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was reviewed and approved for the Project. There are no anticipated negative downstream impacts that would result from implementation of the Project. Project drainage design will insure that increases in surface runoff from the site as a result of increased impervious surface will be reduced to an insignificant level of flow before leaving the Project site. Storm flows will be controlled to a level that does not cause any significant increases in runoff downstream. The onsite facilities will control the increased runoff in a manner consistent with the General Plan's requirements for flood control. No potential for significant adverse impacts due to the increased volume of flows is forecast to occur and no mitigation is required. 9.d. No Impact: Grading of the Project has been completed and storm drainage facilities have been constructed on -site. Construction of homes on the land will not 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. There are no anticipated negative downstream impacts that would result from implementation of the Project. Please reference Response No. 9.c. No potential for significant adverse impacts due to the increased volume of flows is forecast to occur and no mitigation is required. 9.e. No Impact: Grading of the Project has been completed and storm drainage facilities have been constructed on -site. Construction of homes on the land will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Please reference Response No. 9.c. No potential for significant adverse impacts due to the increased volume of flows is forecast to occur and no mitigation is required. 9.f. No Impact: 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. The water quality control measures identified in the WQMP have either been incorporated into the design of the Project or have been added to the Project with specific conditions of approval and are expected to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. With the implementation of the WQMP, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 9.g. No Impact: The Project will not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. According to the Figure PS -2 of the City's General Plan the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone or a dam inundation area. No mitigation is required. 9.h. No Impact: The Project will not place people or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. According to the Figure PS -2 of the City's General Plan the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone or a dam inundation area. No mitigation is required. 9.i. No Impact: The Project will 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. According to the Figure PS -2 of the City's General Plan the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone or a dam inundation area. No mitigation is required. 9.j. No Impact: The Project will not expose people to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not located in an area that is proximate to these natural occurrences. No impacts are anticipated. 24 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. No Impact: The Project will not physically divide an established community. The Project site is surrounded by existing residential uses to the south, proposed residential uses to the east, Interstate 15 to the west and commercial and residential uses to the north. The Project is considered "in -fill" development. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 2 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) and the City's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Through this consistency the Project serves to further connect and become integrated with the established community. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 10.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Please reference Response 10.a. Other Sections of this Analysis discuss the applicable plans, policies and regulations from local, state and federal agencies that are in addition to those under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. Any impacts have been determined to be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. 10.c. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project site is located within Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Cell No. 7079 (Cell). This Cell has been developed to preserve and enhance biological resources in the vicinity of the Murrieta Creek (Creek). The nearest portion of the Project site is located approximately 1,500 feet from the Creek and is separated from the Creek by urban development in Old Town Temecula and Interstate 15. The Project site has been previously graded and, based upon the information contained in Section 4 above, there is no habitat located on the site. Given this information, the Project is consistent with the adopted HCP (MSHCP). The Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. A Report was generated for the Project from the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) for the Proposed Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 25 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Slgnificart With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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 loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the 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 gravel 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 loss 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. 26 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potential} Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated X 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? b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X X c d A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X X e 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. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Project has the potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan Noise Element or applicable standards of other agencies. According to the Noise Impact Analysis dated August 2011 prepared by Urban Crossroads, future vehicle noise from the 1 -15 Freeway and Ynez Road are the principal sources of community noise that will impact the site. Based on the future buildout traffic projections, portions of the site will experience unmitigated noise levels that exceed the City of Temecula noise standards for transportation related noise impacts. The City of Temecula has adopted interior and exterior noise standard sources as part of the General Plan Noise Element for assessing the compatibility of land uses with transportation related noise impacts. For high density noise sensitive residential land uses, the City requires an exterior noise level of 70 dBA CNEL for the outdoor living areas and an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Noise monitoring locations were selected by Urban Crossroads based on the impact potential. Section 5.2 of the Study describes the monitoring locations. The results of the noise level measurements indicated a range from 61.4 to 71.1 dBA Leg and produce a 24 -hour Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 73.1 dBA. The results of the noise measurements and field observations show that the major source that impacts the site is traffic noise from the 1 -15 Freeway. In order to mitigate these impacts to meet the exterior noise standards, the following mitigation measures are required: Mitigation Measures Noise -1 Construct a 6.0 -foot high noise barrier for Buildings 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to occupancy. 27 Noise -2 Construct 6.0 -foot high balcony barriers for Buildings 41 and 50 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to occupancy. Noise -3 Provide standard dual- glazed windows and a "windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) for all buildings. Noise -4 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, provide upgraded windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 34 for Buildings 42, 43, 51 through 56 facing the 1 -15 Freeway. Noise -5 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, all homes should be provided with weather - stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall /roof assembles should be free of cut outs and openings. With implementation of all exterior and interior noise mitigation measures provided in the Noise Impact Analysis, the Project will meet the City's noise level standards for residential development and potential noise impacts will be less than significant. 12.b. Less Than Significant Impact: Residential development is adjacent to the Project site on the south and north and therefore, there are persons that may be exposed to groundborne vibration or noise. This impact would occur during normal construction activities. It should be noted that this impact will be considered less than significant for the following reasons: The existing residential development is located no closer than 19 feet from the existing building pads and separated by a minimum of 44 feet in elevation; the site has been previously graded; therefore, any proposed grading operations will be of a shorter and will be of a less intensive nature; and all impacts associated with the grading operations will be of short duration and not a long term impact. In addition, people working near the heavy equipment will be exposed to high noise levels for short periods of time. This level, however, is below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise exposure limit of 90 dBA for 8 hours per day. The City and its private contractor are required to comply with OSHA requirements for employee protection during construction. Incorporation of construction noise Best Management Practices (BMP's) will reduce any noise level increases produced by the construction equipment to the nearby noise sensitive residential land uses to a level that is less than significant. The Project shall incorporate the following BMP's: • During all Project Site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site during all Project construction • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. Haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings With the incorporation of the BMP's above, Impacts are considered less than significant; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required 28 12.c. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not result in substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the Project. Any noises generated by the Project will be less than the roadway noise generated primarily from 1 -15 and secondarily from Ynez Road. Impacts, while incremental, are considered less than significant. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. 12.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project, but impacts will be considered less than significant. Please reference Response No. 12.b. Based on the five phases of construction related noise impacts, the noise impacts associated with the Project are expected to create temporary noise impacts at receptors surrounding the Project Site when certain construction activities occur near the Project property line. Though construction noise is temporary, intermittent and of short duration, and will not present any long -term impacts, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) will reduce any noise level increases produced by the construction equipment to the nearby noise sensitive residential land uses to a level that is less than significant. These Best Management Practices will be incorporated into the project's conditions of approval: • During all Project Site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site • The construction contractor shall utilize temporary noise barriers in the event construction activities take place within 100 feet of an existing residential structure • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site during all Project construction • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. Haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. No additional mitigation is required. 12.e. No impact: The Project site is not located within any airport land use plan. The closest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 4 miles to the north /northeast of the Project site. There is no potential for the Project to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. No mitigation measures are required. 12.f. No Impact: The Project site is not located near any private airstrip. There is no potential for the Project to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. No mitigation measures are required. 29 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)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X b c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Comments: 13.a. Less Than Significant Impact: Pursuant to criteria contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, a maximum of 271 units are permitted on the Project site. The current proposal is well within these guidelines. The Project will create 210 new residential units with a potential population of 683 persons. Relative to the total number residents of Temecula, the population generation of the Project is not significant and will not result in significant population growth or exceed population projections. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and therefore has been included in City population projections. The Project will not extend any major infrastructure into or through the general area. No potential for substantial growth is forecast to occur from implementing the Project. Impacts are considered less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. 13.b No Impact: No homes are located on the Project site; therefore, none will be displaced as a result of the development. No impacts will occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. 13.c. No Impact: The site is vacant. There is no opportunity to displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. 30 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Imoact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Comments: 14.a Less Than Significant Impact: Fire Protection The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection and safety services to the City. The nearest fire station is No. 84, at 30650 Pauba Road in Temecula, approximately 1.5 miles from the Project site. The Project will result in incremental impacts to existing fire protection resources. Payment of the City's Development Impact Fees ensures that any potential impact will be reduced to an insignificant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. Police Protection Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contractual agreement with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The nearest police station is located at 28690 Mercedes Street, approximately.9 miles from the Project site and the main station is located at 30722 — A Auld Road, in the French Valley area. The Project will result in incremental impacts to existing police protection services. Payment of the City's Development Impact Fees ensures that any potential impact will be reduced to an insignificant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. Schools The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) The site does not currently have any residences and does not place any demand on the existing school District. The Project will put an additional demand on school facilities. For a two -year building schedule to reach buildout of the Project, the Project is expected to generate students at a rate commensurate to that of the TVUSD which are: 0.3754 elementary students, 0.1718 middle school students, and 0.2011 high school students. For the 210 dwelling unit scenario, this would result in 79 new elementary school students, 36 junior high school students, and 42 high school students at buildout. The student generation total for the Project is forecast to be 157 new students. 31 The District requires payment of impact fees per dwelling unit. The development impact fee mitigation program of the TVUSD adequately provides for mitigating the impacts of the Project in accordance with current state law. As a result, the Project will not have a significant impact on the provision of school services and no additional mitigation measures are required. Parks The Project will increase population and associated burden on parks in the area. The Project will contribute to cumulative demand for public services within the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula's Quimby Requirements and Development Impact Fees (DIF) are designed to offset the potential impacts to fire, police, park and recreation and public facility maintenance, including roads. The Project's payment of these fees can reduce the potential service demand impacts related to the 210 -units to a less than significant level. Since the Quimby Requirements and DIF are mandatory for development within the City, no additional mitigation is required for the public service issues. Impacts are incremental, but are considered less than significant. Other public facilities The Project will incrementally increase population and associated burden on other governmental services, including the library. To offset any impacts, the development will be required to pay the DIF which contains components to offset impacts to other governmental facilities. Since the DIF is mandatory for development within the City, impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. 32 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. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will incrementally increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities; however this increase will not be so great that it will result in a substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. The 210 residential units may support a population of up to approximately 521 residents (Per Ordinance 99 -23). The City's parkland requirement is for five acres of park area per 1,000 persons, so the Project would require approximately 2.60 acres of park and recreational resources to meet the demand from the Project and prevent it from contributing to significant cumulative demand for such resources. The Project does propose on -site private recreation areas. The City requires the payment of fees for park and recreation services as part of its Development Impact Fee (DIF) structure. Fees are considered sufficient to fund park and recreation facilities to support the population generated by the Project. In addition, the Project will be required to pay fees to satisfy the Quimby requirement generated by the subdivision of the land. With payment of the DIF park and recreation fees and satisfaction of the Quimby requirement, the Project's contribution to cumulative demand for park and recreation resources is reduced to a Tess than significant level of impact. No additional mitigation is required. 15.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project includes recreational facilities including several small park/gathering areas, a tot lot and a pool with recreation building. Please reference Response No. 15.a. above. With payment of the DIF and satisfaction of the Quimby requirement, the Project's contribution to cumulative demand for park and recreation resources is reduced to a less than significant level of impact. No additional mitigation is required. 33 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. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Project involves the construction of 210 residential units on approximately 21 acres with access from Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Drive (primary signalized access) and at Rancho Highlands Drive (to be restricted secondary access /right in and out only). The General Plan EIR assumed that Development would occur on the Project site consistent with the Land Use Designation of High Density Residential (H). The General Plan Land Use Designation is implemented by the City's zoning designation (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, SP -2). The Rancho Highlands Specific Plan was approved to allow a maximum of 271 units on the Project site and the proposal includes only 210 units. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation and meets all applicable Specific Plan zoning standards. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential traffic impacts of projects in the High Density Residential Land Use Designation, has indicated that the long range implementation of the General Plan will create a capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units. A Traffic Impact Analysis for the Project was prepared as of August 2011 by Urban Crossroads. Traffic impacts were analyzed based on "Existing Plus Project" and on a "Cumulative Basis" considering eight potential future developments within the general area of the Project. With respect to "Existing Plus Project" conditions, no direct traffic impacts were identified, thus the impacts for the "Existing Plus Project" condition are considered to be less than significant. The Project was also analyzed under an Opening Year (2013) "Without Project" scenario and a "Cumulative scenario ". The Cumulative scenario includes existing 2011 traffic volumes plus the proposed Project plus an ambient growth factor of 6.12 %, and cumulative projects. Based on the Opening Year "Without Project" 34 scenario the 1 -15 southbound ramp at Rancho California is projected to operate below the City's acceptable level of service threshold of "D" or better during the PM peak hour. Based on the Cumulative (2013) Conditions scenario the 1 -15 southbound ramp at Rancho California Road is projected to operate below the City's acceptable level of service threshold of "D" or better during the PM peak hour. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, Project impacts under the Cumulative Conditions scenario are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Traffic #1 The Project shall participate in the funding or construction of committed off -site improvements that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) and payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Traffic #2 The Project shall participate in the funding of its' Fair Share allocation for the 1 -15 southbound ramps improvements for the Cumulative scenario. Fee -based infrastructure mitigation programs have been found to be adequate mitigation measures under CEQA. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is responsible for administering the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) fee program in Western Riverside County. WRCOG is a joint powers authority consisting of each of the 17 cities in Western Riverside County, the Eastern Municipal Water District, the Western Municipal Water District, and the March JPA. Chuck Washington, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Temecula is a member of the WRCOG Executive Committee. TUMF — Fee Program - The TUMF program is intended to explicitly address the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and as such, the focus of the TUMF program is improvements to the regional system of arterial highways that respond to the impacts of new development. TUMF is the nation's largest transportation fee program and will generate more than $4 billion from fees paid by new development to provide approximately 700 new lane miles to the regions road system. In addition it will improve 58 freeway interchanges and build or widen 56 bridges and construct 17 railroad grade separations. As of June 30, 2010, since its inception in February 2003 WRCOG has received $524.4 million in revenues for regional transportation improvements. WRCOG — TUMF Program Nexus Study - AB 1600, the California Mitigation Fee Act, requires that a reasonable relationship exist between a development impact fee collected and the proposed improvements for which a fee is used. WRCOG's TUMF Program Nexus Study was prepared to satisfy the requirements of AB 1600, and has two primary objectives: 1) to demonstrate the relationship between the transportation improvements needed because of new growth and the estimated cost to construct those improvements; and 2) to establish the "fair share" component of the improvements for each land use category (the TUMF Program cost to be applied to different land uses based on the trip - generating characteristics that are typically associated with such uses). TUMF — Implementation of Regional Improvements - TUMF is an established "Fair Share" program that has constructed many regional roadway improvements in Riverside County since its inception. Of the 118 projects programmed since the inception of TUMF, 40 projects have already been completed, 12 are under construction, 32 projects are in engineering or right -of -way (ROW) acquisition, and another 27 projects are in planning and environmental stages. The remaining projects are in preliminary design and planning phases. 1 -15 / Rancho California Road Interchange - The 1 -15 / Rancho California Road Interchange is identified as part of the Regional System of Highways & Arterials — TUMF Network Improvements in the 2009 Update of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (the "Nexus Study "). The interchange is classified as a Level 3 interchange and is an identified improvement included in the City of Temecula, Rancho California Road Segment from Jefferson to Margarita in the Nexus Study. 35 Project's Fair Share - Based on the current multi - family TUMF fee structure, the Nexus Study has determined that the Project's fair share of cumulative regional transportation impacts to currently be $6,890 per unit, or $1,446,900 in total (210 units @ $6,890). In addition to the TUMF fee, the Project will be responsible for the payment of the City of Temecula Development Impact Fees (DIF Fees) for city improvements in the amount of $5,580.71 per unit, or $1,171,949.10 in total. According to the City of Temecula, $1,220.21 per unit is specifically identified for Street System Improvements ($256,244.10) and $172.72 per unit is specifically identified for traffic signals and traffic control ($36,271.20). The Project proponent will be required to pay these fees in connection with the issuance of building permits. In addition, the Project will be responsible for payment of its' fair share contribution for the addition of a southbound left turn lane at the 1 -15 southbound ramp. A rough order of magnitude cost has been prepared to determine the appropriate contribution value based upon the Project's fair share of traffic as part of the project approval process. The total cost of needed study area intersection improvements is $50,000. Based on the project fair share percentage of 4 percent, the projects' fair share cost for the recommended improvement is estimated at $2,019. Also, the Project will be conditioned to construct certain street improvements, consistent with all applicable Department of Public Works standards and requirements. The Roadway Plan contained in the General Plan classifies Ynez Road as a principal arterial which will be constructed to its maximum right -of -way width of six divided lanes within a 100' right -of -way. The impacts of this Project have been analyzed as a part of the long -range implementation of the General Plan, and the continued implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of the General Plan EIR Update will ensure that the traffic impacts associated with this 210 unit development are less than significant. In addition to the above mitigation measure, the City will condition the Project to construct a median on Ynez Road adjacent to Rancho Highland Drive to restrict movements to right in / right out only from Rancho Highland Drive and install stop sign controls at the Project driveways where they intersect with Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Road. In addition, on -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project. After implementation of these measures, Project impacts will be within the acceptable General Plan standards. No additional mitigation measures are required. 16.b. Less Than Significant Impact: Please reference Response No. 16.a. No additional mitigation is required. 16.c. No Impact: The Project will not 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. The Project is not located in an area that would affect any air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is required. 16d. Less Than Significant Impact: Access and roadway improvements have been designed to comply with design criteria contained in the Caltrans Design Manual and other City requirements and standards. As designed, no significant hazards are expected. 16.e. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not result in inadequate emergency access. The Fire Department has reviewed and accepted the proposed multi - family attached residential uses (with conditions). Impacts are considered less than significant; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. 16.f. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. On -site parking spaces (both residents and guests) have been provided in accordance with the City's Development Code. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is required. 16.g. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Bus turnouts are present on Ynez Road at this time, adjacent to the Project; turnouts within the Project are not likely. Tenants will have storage available for bicycles and bike 36 racks may be available at the recreational facility. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 37 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potertially S gnificant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? b 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X X X f g Comments: 17.a Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will likely create urban pollutants typical of any development, including oils and other substances. However, water quality standards and discharge requirements will not be violated if the following is satisfied: Given that the Project site exceeds five acres, the Project is required to acquire a Notice of Intent from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, in accordance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit is required for any discharge of wastes to surface waters, resulting from dewatering during construction, stormwater runoff from construction, and construction sites. The permit includes a list of Best Management Practices which outlines measures to be undertaken by the applicant to guard against accidental contamination of ground waters and surface waters. Compliance with the foregoing ensures significant water quality impacts will not result. 17.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will generate demand for wastewater service system capacity and have a potential to contribute to a cumulative demand impact on the wastewater system. Through the payment of sewer connection fees, the impact of implementing the Project on sewage systems is forecast to be less than significant. Other than mandatory fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no additional mitigation is required. 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact: On site drainage facilities have been constructed for the Project and are presently in operation. The Project incorporates an on -site detention facility for water run -off. It is anticipated that the Project will not create a significant amount of storm water to require or result in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Considering the limited scope of the Project, and the required Conditions of Approval, the Project is anticipated to have a less then significant impact. 38 17.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project is located within the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). All backbone water facilities required for this Project have been approved and inspected by RCWD and constructed by the previous owner of the Project. 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 (pg. 5.14 -3)." The FEIR further states, "EMWD anticipates supplying water to 756,699 persons within its service area in 2020 (pg. 5.14 -3)." This anticipated water supply includes a portion of Temecula. The Project is not subject to Senate Bill 221 requirements because it is not a residential development of 500 or more units, and it will not increase the number of water service connections by 10 percent or more in a district with fewer than 5,000 service connections. This Project is not subject to Senate Bill 610 because it is not a large -scale development. Other than mandatory fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no mitigation is required. Since the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the this Project. 17.e. Less Than Significant Impact: Please reference Response No 17.b. Other than mandatory fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no additional mitigation is required. 17.f. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity and has a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on the solid waste system. Solid waste disposal capacity has been increased under the County to provide adequate disposal capacity for cumulative demand over the planning horizon (minimum of five years). The Project area's solid waste is collected and disposed of at the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road east of Interstate 15 in the Gavilan Hills. According to the State of California's Solid Waste Information System, the landfill is active and permitted with a projected closure date of January 1, 2030. The Project is not expected to generate solid wastes other than typical municipal solid waste generated by residential uses. Estimated generation rate is 1.57 tons of solid waste per year per household, or an estimated 329.7 tons per year from this Project. Combined with the City's mandatory source reduction and recycling program, the Project is not forecast to cause any adverse impact to either the solid waste collection or landfill disposal system. 17.g. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project does not propose activities that will significantly impact solid waste services or facilities. The Project must comply with construction and debris removal and recycling requirements and shall contract with the City's waste hauler /franchisee for all bins and their removal in accordance with City Ordinance. Impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. 39 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: Based on evaluations and discussions contained in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed 210 unit multi- family residential Project will have limited potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 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 Project will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The effects from this Project are Tess than significant from a cumulative impact perspective. None of the impacts associated with the Project will be considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of the past projects, current projects and future projects. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. 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 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. 40 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. SOURCES 19.a. 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. "Rancho Highlands Maravilla Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Temecula, California ", Urban Crossroads, May 4, 2011, August 9, 2011 (Revised) 5. "Rancho Highlands Maravilla Noise Impact Analysis City of Temecula, California ", Urban Crossroads, August 11, 2011 6. "Rancho Highlands Maravilla, Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Temecula, California" Urban Crossroads, May 4, 2011, August 9, 2011 (Revised) 7. "Rancho Highlands Maravilla, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Temecula, California" Urban Crossroads, May 4, 2011, August 9, 2011 (Revised) 8. "Rancho Highlands Maravilla, Health Risk Assessment, City of Temecula, California" Urban Crossroads, May 4, 2011, August 9, 2011 (Revised) 9. "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Highlands II, Tract 23992, Lots 1, 2 and 3, City of Temecula, CA ", Leighton and Associates, Inc. dated May 16, 2005 10. "Response to Riverside County Review Comments, City of Temecula Case No. PA05 -0167, Maravilla Project Site, Tract 23992, City of Temecula, California ", Leighton and Associates, Inc. December 30, 2005 11. "As Graded Report of Rough Grading Maravilla, Tract 23992, Lots 1 through 3 (Buildings 1 through 70) and Recreation Center, City of Temecula, California" dated March 12, 2007, revised June 4, 2007 12. "Response to Comments on Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rancho Highlands Maravilla Project, Planning Application No. PA10 -0326, Temecula, California ", Leighton and Associates, Inc. May 13, 2011 13. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Rancho Highlands Project, South of the Intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California" Leighton and Associates, Inc. February 10, 2005 14. "Limited Environmental Review, Maravilla, Tract 23992, Temecula, California ", Leighton and Associates, Inc. September 20, 2011. 15. "Results of a Biological Constraints Analysis (BCA) and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis (MSHCP -CA) of Lot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Tract No. 23992 (TR23992) ", 41 Thomas Leslie Corporation, May 10, 2005 16. "Cultural Resource Assessment and Constraints Analysis for the Rancho Highlands parcel, Temecula, CA ", Viejo California Associates, April 28, 2005 19.b. On May 3, 2006, the City of Temecula Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA05- 0167 and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approvals for that project have since expired. The current proposal, PA10 -0326, involves the same exact Project description, design, layout and unit count. This initial Study includes an update to the originally prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration and applies specifically to the current proposal. 19.c. See attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. 42 Project Description: Location: Applicant: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Noise -1 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA10 -0326 is a Development Plan to construct 210 individually owned attached units (triplex) in 70 buildings, with private recreation facilities including a pool, wading pool, recreation building, tot lot, pedestrian trails and passive areas with shade structures on approximately 21 acres of land. The building footprints for all 70 buildings total 220,414 square feet (22% of the site), and 653,836 square feet is dedicated to landscaping (64 %), which will consist of a palette including drought tolerant species along with areas of turf. Parking and streets total 140,698 square feet (14 %). The Project is generally located approximately 1,600 feet south of the intersection Rancho California Road and Ynez Road on either side of Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Drive Trent Heiner, Woodside Homes 11870 Pierce Street, #250 Riverside, CA 92505 Noise 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 Noise -2 Construct 6.0 -foot high balcony barriers for Buildings 41 and 50 facing the 1 -15 Freeway, prior to occupancy. Noise -3 Provide standard dual - glazed windows and a "windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) for all buildings. Noise -4 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, provide upgraded windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 34 for Buildings 42, 43, 51 through 56 facing the 1 -15 Freeway. Noise -5 Construct a 6.0 -foot high noise barrier for Buildings 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 facing the I- 15 Freeway, prior to occupancy. To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, all homes should be provided with weather - stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall /roof assembles should be free of cut outs and openings. G: \PLANNING\2010 \PA10 -0326 Rancho Highlands Maravilla DP \Planning \CEQA \Mitigation Monitoring Program Revised September 2011.doc Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Place the above conditions of approval on this project to ensure the Project will meet the City's noise level standards for residential development. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy Planning Department and Building Department Transportation /Traffic Cumulative impacts to southbound 1 -15 ramps at Rancho California Road are projected not to meet the City level of service threshold of "D" or better during PM peak hours Traffic -1 The Project shall participate in the funding or construction of committed off-site improvements that are needed to serve cumulative traffic conditions through the payment of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) and payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Traffic -2 The Project shall participate in the funding of its' Fair Share allocation for the 1 -15 southbound ramps improvements for the Cumulative scenario. Place the above Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval on the project to reduce potential traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Building Permit Issuance Planning Department and Public Works Department G: \PLANNING \2010 \PA10 -0326 Rancho Highlands Maravilla DP \Planning \CEQA \Mitigation Monitoring Program Revised September 2011.doc Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP Carl T. Sedlack, Esq., Retired Abigail A.Broedling, Esq. Kimberly Foy, Esq. September 23, 2011 Mrs. Cheryl Kitzerow Associate Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Dear Mrs. Kitzerow: c 141 / 4-- By: Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP Johnson Sedlack A T T O R N E Y S rY L A W 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula CA 92590 E - mail: EsgAICP @Wildblue.net RE: Rancho Highlands Maravilla Project, Planning Application No. PA10 -0326 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Johnson & Sedlack Abby.JSLaw @Gmail.com Kim JSLaw @Gmail.com Telephone: 951 - 506 - 9925 Facsimile- 951 - 506 - 9725 On February 23, 2011, we submitted a letter to you on behalf of concerned area residents regarding the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rancho Highlands Maravilla Project, PA10 -0326. Since submitting that letter, we have had the opportunity to meet with the applicant and to discuss our concerns with the proposed project. We also have reviewed proposed changes to the MND. We would like to advise the City that (1) any concerns we may have had with the project have been fully resolved to our satisfaction, (2) we are withdrawing the comments contained in our letter of February 23, 2011, and (3) we do not object to the approval of this project. Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP Abigail A. Broedling, Esq. Kimberly Foy, Esq. Carl T. Sedlack, Esq. Retired February 23, 2011 Cheryl Kitzerow Associate Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 (951) 694-6409 Cheryl.Kitzerow@cityoftemecula.org VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL Greetings: Johnson Q_Sedlack ATTORtfteSatLAW 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Comments on Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rancho Highlands Maravilla Project, Planning Application No. PA10 -0326 This firm represents concerned area residents and submits these comments on their behalf. The adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ('MND ") for the Rancho Highlands Maravilla Project, PA10 -0326 (the "project "), is improper where, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record of a fair argument of significant environmental impacts as a result of the project. An Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") must be prepared for this project. If a lead agency is presented with a fair argument based on substantial evidence in the record that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. (Public Resources Code §21100 (a), Cal. Code of Regs, Tit.14 (`Guidelines ") §15064(0(1), No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68.) Substantial evidence consists of fact, reasonable assumption predicated on fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. (Public Resources Code §21080 (e)(1).) For the reasons detailed below, an EIR must be prepared as substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument of unmitigated potential significant impacts. The project involves the development of 70 buildings over 21 acres totaling 220,414 square feet. A total of 210 individually owned triplex units will be constructed, including 140,696 square feet of parking and streets. The development will also include recreation facilities including a pool, wading pool, recreation building, tot lot, pedestrian trails, and shade structures. E - mail. EsgAICPCWildBlue.net Abby.JSLawCgmail.com Kim.JSiaw®gmaiLcom Telephone: 951 -506 -9925 Facsimile: 951 -506 -9725 February 23, 2011 Page 2 The project is likely to have significant impacts which were not adequately addressed in the MND. Specifically, there is a fair argument that the project will have significant impacts to /from at least traffic, noise, air quality, water supply, and geology /soils. An EIR must be prepared. Furthermore, significant impacts are not shown to be mitigated below a level of significance. The mitigation measures relied upon by the Mitigated Negative Declaration are uncertain and unenforceable. The MND also defers studies necessary to an impact determination and the creation of mitigation measures. Mitigation that is proposed is inadequate to actually mitigate for the impacts of the project. The conclusions in the MND are not based on substantial evidence. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were not circulated to the State Clearinghouse as required. Air Quality The MND improperly relies on an Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared in May 2005 for the same project proposed by a previous applicant. As impacts have likely changed since 2005 due to continued and substantial growth in the area, this reliance is improper and fails to accurately depict the current environmental consequences of this project. From 2000 -2008, Temecula's population increased by 75 %, from 57,716 in 2000 to 101,057 in 2008. ("Profile of the City of Temecula," <http: / /www.scag.ca.gov/ resources /pdfs /Riverside/Temecula.pdf >, May 2009, p. 2.) In 2005, the population was 81,602, and recent numbers place the 2010 population at 105,029. ( <http: / /en wikipedia. org /wiki/Temecula,_California >) Temecula's population has thus grown by at least 23,427 residents since the potential air quality impacts of this project were last predicted. This outdated study represents an inaccurate depiction of the current state of the project area, and associated reliance is improper. The project fails to calculate current air quality impacts such that any conflicts with applicable air quality plans may be addressed. Specifically, this project is likely to cause significant pollutant emissions, specifically from traffic, construction and cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures employed to reduce construction related air quality impacts are unenforceable and uncertain to reduce emissions below a level of significance. AirQual2 provides uncertain mitigation measures. One provides for the "[u]se of electric or diesel powered equipment rather than gasoline powered engines where feasible." First, the use of diesel powered equipment will actually increase PMIO and NOX over the use of gasoline. This measure will therefore not reduce construction related emissions of NOX and PMIO. Also, the use of "where feasible" makes this measure unenforceable, as does this same where feasible" language in other AirQual2 mitigation measures. This mitigation measure should instead limit to February 23, 2011 Page 3 the use of electric powered equipment only, and all "where feasible" language should be removed or replaced with "where technologically possible." The second uncertain AirQual2 measure limits the application of zero -VOC paint/ limitations on paint "[w]here applicable." This "where applicable" language should be removed to make the mitigation measure certain and enforceable. With regards to exposing people to substantial pollutant concentrations, the MND fails to evaluate toxic air contaminants (TACs), despite being located next to I -15, a substantial source of diesel emissions. Mobile sources represent approximately 84 percent of the cancer risk from TACs according to the SCAQMD Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES III) in September 2008. (MATES III Final Report, p. ES -3, < http: / /www.agmd.gov/ prdas/ matesIII/ MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008 .htm1 >) Just as it is inappropriate to site new diesel emitters near residences, it is inappropriate to site new residences near such a major source of diesel emissions. (See, AQMD Guidance Document For Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, Chapter 2- Air Quality Issues Regarding Land Use, p. 2 -3 through 2 -13, <http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/doc/aq guidance.pdf >) Given the proximity to a highway, some analysis of impacts of TACs should have been undertaken. In fact, this project is likely to expose people to substantial pollutant concentrations and a high cancer risk due to its proximity to a highway, and air quality impacts from exposure to TACs are likely to be significant. For the above reasons, air quality impacts are therefore likely to be significant, and an EIR must be prepared. In addition, the following mitigation measures are feasible and should be required of this project: CONSTRUCTION DUST 1. Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud onto public roads. 2. Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect (eg. Install wheel shakers, wheel washers, and limit site access.) 3. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 4. Pave all construction roads. 5. Pave all construction access roads at Least 100 feet on to the site from the main road. 6. The maximum vehicle speed on unpaved roads shall be 15 mph. 7. Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. 8. Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. February 23, 2011 Page 4 9. When materials are transported off -site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. 10. All streets shall be swept at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers utilizing reclaimed water trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets. 1 1 . The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. 12. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. 13. Extend grading period sufficiently to reduce air quality impacts below a level of significance. 14. The simultaneous disturbance of the site shall be limited to five acres per day. 15. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to mitigate the impact of construction - related dust particulates. Portions of the site that are undergoing surface earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface, and then watered again at the end of each day. Site watering shall be performed as necessary to adequately mitigate blowing dust. 16. Any vegetative cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems required for these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain good ground cover and to minimize wind erosion of the soil. 17. Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered three times daily. 18. Apply non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 19. Any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed. 20. Excavating and grading operations shall be suspended during first stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 mph. A high wind response plan shall be formulated for enhanced dust control if winds are forecast to exceed 25 mph in any upcoming 24 -hour period. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 21. Implement activity management techniques including a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction truck trips during non -peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions; c) limitation of the length of construction work -day period; and d) phasing of construction activities.* 22. Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 AVR for construction employees 23. Require high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment.* 24. Restrict truck operation to "clean" trucks, such as a 2007 or newer model year or 2010 compliant vehicles.* February 23, 2011 Page 5 25. All diesel powered construction equipment in use shall require control equipment that meets, at a minimum Tier III emission requirements. In the event Tier III equipment is not available, diesel powered construction equipment in use shall require emissions control equipment with minimum of Tier II diesel standards.* 26. Require the use of CARB certified particulate traps that meet level 3 requirements on all construction equipment.* 27. Utilize only CARB certified equipment for construction activities.* 28. The developer shall require all contractors to turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and/or idling in excess of 3 minutes.* 29. Restrict engine size of construction equipment to the minimum practical size.* 30. Use electric construction equipment where technically feasible.* 31. Substitute gasoline- powered for diesel - powered construction equipment.* 32. Require use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel.* 33. Use methanol - fueled pile drivers.* 34. Install catalytic converters on gasoline- powered equipment* 35. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. * 36. Require the use of Alternative Diesel Fuels on diesel equipment used. Alternative diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. PuriNOx is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31, 2001 as achieving a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63% reduction in PM10 compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct - injection, heavy -duty compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates little or no difference in performance and startup time, no discernable operational differences, no increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke. 37. Electrical powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- powered engines where technically possible.* 38. All forklifts shall be electric or natural gas powered.* 39. Any construction equipment using direct internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05 percent sulfur and a four- degree retard.* 40. Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts.* TRAFFIC AND AIR QUALITY FROM TRAFFIC EMISSIONS 41. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.* 42. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off - site.* 43. Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets and sensitive receptor areas.* 44. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.* 45. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements.* 46. Minimize construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and providing for lunch onsite. * February 23, 2011 Page 6 47. Provide shuttle service to food service establishments /commercial areas for the construction crew.* 48. Provide shuttle service to transit stations /multimodal centers for the construction crew.* OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 1. All buildings shall be constructed to LEED Platinum standards.* 2. Buildings shall exceed Title 24 requirements by 30 %.* 3. Orient 75 percent or more of homes and buildings to face either north or south (within 30 degrees of N /S) and plant trees and shrubs that shed their leaves in winter nearer to these structures to maximize shade to the building during the summer and allow sunlight to strike the building during the winter months.* 4. Design buildings for passive heating and cooling and natural light, including building orientation, proper orientation and placement of windows, overhangs, skylights, etc.* 5. Construct photovoltaic solar or alternative renewable energy sources sufficient to provide 100% of all electrical usage for the entire Project.* 6. Install an ozone destruction catalyst on all air conditioning systems.* 7. Construct renewable energy sources sufficient to offset the equivalent of 100% of all greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources (intemal combustion engines) for the entire Project. * 8. Purchase only green/ renewable power from the electric company.* 9. Install solar water heating systems to generate all hot water requirements.* 10. Install solar water heating systems for the pool and wading pool.* 11. Utilize electrical equipment for landscape maintenance.* 12. Plant shade trees in parking areas to provide minimum 50% cover to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles.* 13. Plant at least 50 percent low -ozone forming potential (Low -OFP) trees and shrubs, preferably native, drought- resistant species, to meet city /county landscaping requirements. * 14. Plant Low -OFP, native, drought - resistant, tree and shrub species, 20% in excess of that already required by city or county ordinance. Consider roadside, sidewalk, and driveway shading * 15. Provide grass paving, tree shading, or reflective surface for unshaded parking lot areas, driveways, or fire lanes that reduce standard black asphalt paving by 10% or more.* 16. Electrical outlets shall be installed on the exterior walls of all residential and commercial buildings (and perhaps parking lots) to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment.* 17. Prohibit gas powered landscape maintenance equipment within the development. Require landscape maintenance companies to use battery powered or electric equipment or contract only with commercial landscapers who operate with equipment that complies with the most recent California Air Resources Board certification standards, or standards adopted no more than three years prior to date of use or any combination of these two themes.* 18. Provide a complimentary cordless electric lawnmower to each buyer if private lawns will exist in the development. 19. Create a light vehicle network, such as a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) system.* February 23, 2011 Page 7 20. Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent development.* 21. Provide safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes.* 22. Connect bicycle lanes /paths to city -wide network.* 23. Provide a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a prominent area accessible to residents. Cultural Resources CultRes2 fails to provide any substantive mitigation, such as assuring that the qualified paleontologist has the power to halt excavations and all ground disturbance activity until such time as appropriate preservation or mitigation measures have been implemented. Geology and Soils The MND fails to resolve intemal conflicts regarding potential liquefaction. The MND concludes that although a portion of the site is located within the Riverside County liquefaction hazard zone, the liquefaction potential onsite is considered low as, in a prior study, groundwater was not encountered in test pits at a maximum depth of 18 feet. On the other hand, the hydrology /water quality section of the Initial Study ( "IS ") section 9.b states that groundwater was encountered in exploratory trenches at 13 feet. A fair argument of significant impacts from liquefaction therefore exists, and an EIR must be prepared. Noise The project is likely to result in significant noise impacts for which an EIR must be prepared and additional mitigation measures required. The noise study is outdated and noise impacts are likely to be significantly worse than measured in 2005, especially since most noise is created by traffic with this project. Nonetheless, the IS concludes, based on the 2005 study, that noise levels from 67.2 to 75.8 dBA CNEL will be encountered with this project, well in excess of noise standards without mitigation (and likely to be higher given current traffic noise and increased area noise). However, the mitigation required is uncertain to reduce levels to acceptable levels below the standard in the General Plan. Noises and Noise6 will likely reduce impacts, but are uncertain to reduce them below the 45 dBA CNEL required for interior noise. A mitigation measure requiring that the performance standard of 45 dBA CNEL is met for all home interiors must be required of this project to ensure that noise is mitigated below significance levels. Noise7 improperly defers mitigation and a necessary study, contrary to the requirements of CEQA, by requiring that a noise study be prepared only prior to the issuance of building permits to "fmalize the noise requirements." Instead, a noise study must be completed for this project prior to approval so that the decision making agency and public will be informed of the extent of February 23, 2011 Page 8 the significant noise impacts in order to then determine whether the mitigation measures required of the project are sufficient to mitigate this impact below a level of significance. As currently required, mitigation measures are uncertain to reduce noise impacts to a level below significance, and an EIR is therefore required to evaluate this potentially significant impact. The following additional mitigation measures should be required for interior noise: 1. Require the use of at least STC rated 34 windows for all buildings. The project is also likely to expose persons to excessive groundboume vibrations from the project, even if only temporarily. The short term nature of this impact does not nullify its effect. Groundboume vibrations can cause annoyance and unpleasantness to people, disruption of vibration sensitive operations/ activities, triggering of landslides and damage to buildings. (See, <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TRANSPORTATION_RELATED EARTHBORNE_ VIBRATIONS.pdfl, p. 1, Table 2 at p. 11, 15 -16, 18 -19.) This impact is potentially significant and unmitigated, and an EIR is required. Potential mitigation measures which can significantly reduce this impact include: 2. Require the use of rubberized asphalt for construction of all roadways and parking areas. 3. Maintain quality pavement conditions that are free of bumps, pot holes, pavement cracks, etc. 4. Ban heavy trucks from entering the project area. 5. Use alternative construction methods and tools to reduce construction vibrations such as using rubber tired as opposed to tracked vehicles. The project will also likely result in temporary construction noise increases above General Plan standards. This impact is not evaluated in the IS except to state that it is temporary and will be below the legal level for OSHA. As the level in the General Plan is 65 dBA, this 90 dBA limit set by OSHA for 8 hours a day is well above significance levels. This impact should be considered significant and unmitigated, and an EIR must be prepared to further asses this significant impact. The following additional mitigation should also be required: 5. Temporary noise barriers must be installed during project construction. 6. Where technically feasible, utilize only electrical construction equipment 7. During construction, the developer shall require that all contractors turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and prohibit idling in excess of 3 minutes. The IS fails to provide a quantification of noise levels above those currently existing without the project, such that a determination of no significant impact for 12.c may be made. There is no quantification of ambient noise levels such that the conclusion that the proposed project will not result in substantial increases may be made based on substantial evidence. The MND therefore fails as an informational document, and any conclusion that the project will have a less than February 23, 2011 Page 9 significant impact to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels is not based on substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared. Last, the project is likely to have significant cumulative noise impacts, particularly from increased traffic. This impact is improperly not evaluated in the MND. Cumulative noise impacts must be evaluated and adequately mitigated. Traffic Payment into the TUMF and DIF programs for traffic mitigation are uncertain to actually mitigate for significant traffic impacts, as these programs are underfunded and will not necessarily go to use in the project area. For instance for FY 2008- FY2012, the TUMF expenditures already programmed are expected to exceed revenues by $308 million dollars. (See, "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 2009 Annual Report," <http: / /www.wrcog. cog. ca. us / downloads /Annual %20Report%202009a.pdf >, p. 42.) This mitigation is therefore uncertain to occur as the project will merely add further expenditures to this already maxed- out program. The MND fails to analyze impacts to the freeway on- and off -ramps at Rancho California Rd., SR -79S, and Winchester Road. These ramps are substantially congested and will be further impacted by this project. Furthermore, the MND fails to evaluate impacts to SR -79, I -15, and I- 215 Importantly, no mitigation measures for impacts to these highways have been required of this project. Impacts to these highways are likely to be significant, and an EIR must be prepared for this project. Traffic3 should require that sight distance be reviewed and compliance with Caltrans /City of Temecula sight distance standards be required. As written, Traffic3 provides no substantive mitigation. The following additional traffic mitigation measures should also be implemented for this Project: 1. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. 2. Provide dedicated tum lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off -site. 3. Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets and sensitive receptor areas. 4. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. 6 Minimize construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and providing for lunch onsite. 7. Provide shuttle service to food service establishments /commercial areas for the construction crew. 8. Provide shuttle service to transit stations /multimodal centers for the construction crew. February 23, 2011 Page 10 9 Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization. 10. Work with Caltrans to ensure adequate LOS at impacted on- and off- ramps to 1 -15. Water Supply Rancho Califomia Water District has stated, with regards to the project, that water availability is contingent on water supply shortage contingency measures. This is because California in general, and Riverside County specifically, are suffering from significant water scarcity issues which must be addressed with any new development. Recently, the Rancho California Water District considered a moratorium on serving new developments because `the local supply is tapped out," namely supplies of local groundwater and water from Vail Lake. ('Temecula: water moratorium meeting tonight', November 9, 2009, see also, "Region: New - water- service moratorium on tap," October 31, 2009.) Adding additional demand to this already short supply of water will either result in this project failing to receive water from RCWD and/or unavailability of sufficient water supplies for other uses in the area. The lack of available water could also result in fire hazards due to low fire flow to either the project or neighbors reliant on water supplies, an impact also not considered with the project. This project is therefore likely to have a significant impact on water supply, and an EIR must be prepared. Impacts to water supply from landscaping are not detailed in the MND. The below listed mitigation should be required of the project to reduce impacts to the water supply from this project, which are potentially significant. No water supply analysis was ever conducted for the project. Recent cases have overturned negative declarations and EIRs for failing to conduct a water supply assessment. This valuable analysis would forecast water demands cumulatively and for the project, identify the near-term and long term water supply sources and alternative sources, acknowledge the uncertainty about the availability of future water supply sources, identify the likely yields from the sources identified, and compare demand to supply sufficiency. A WSA should therefore be completed for the project. This project will also likely have additional impacts on agriculture through further reducing supplies available for agricultural uses in the area. Agricultural users have been put on mandatory 30 percent water reductions over the past several years because of water shortages. There is no analysis of the impact of the project on diminishing water supplies for agricultural uses, particularly in an area largely dependent on avocado and grape production. This potentially significant impact must be evaluated and an EIR prepared for the project. The following additional mitigation measures should also be implemented for this Project to reduce impacts to the water supply: 1. Use only recycled water for landscaping purposes. February 23, 2011 Page 11 2. Utilize low water intensive turf or artificial turf. Minimize the use of turf/ artificial turf to recreational areas. 3. Install only ultra -low -flow plumbing fixtures in all buildings. 4. Install only dual flush toilets, which allow users to choose a larger or smaller flush as needed. 5. Require drip irrigation for landscaping where technically feasible. 6. Require mulching or equivalent organic ground cover to reduce water needs for all landscaped areas. 7. Require that the pool and wading pool be covered at night and when not in use to reduce water loss through evaporation. 8. Provide all residents with free shower timers to help reduce time spent showering. Cumulative Impacts Given the location of the project and growth in the area, this project is likely to result in significant cumulative impacts in most of the above named impact areas. These impacts were not analyzed sufficiently in the MND. For instance, cumulative traffic impacts on 1 -15 are likely to be significant and were not evaluated in the MND. Likewise cumulative noise, air quality, and water supply impacts are potentially significant with this project, for the reasons explained above. These impacts must be evaluated in an EIR for the project and mitigated to the extent feasible. Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. Sincerely, Raymond W. Johnson JOHNSON & SEDLACK February 23, 2011 Page 12 Electronic Attachments: 1. "Profile of the City of Temecula," Southem California Association of Governments' Regional Council, <http: / /www.scag.ca.gov/ resources /pdfs/Riverside/'femecula.pdf>, May 2009. 2. "White Paper of Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution," SCAQMD, August 2003. 3. "AQMD Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning," < http: / /www.agmd. gov/ prdas /agguide /doc /aq_guidance.pdf >, May 6, 2005. 4. Air Resources Board "Emissions Inventory Methodology and Results" 5. "Final- Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds," SCAQMD, October 2006. 6. "Noise and Its Effects," Dr. Alice H. Suter, November 1991. 7. "Construction Noise Handbook," Chapters 3, 4, and 9, Federal Highway Administration, August 2006, <http: / /www. fhwa. dot. gov /environment /noise /construction_noise/handboo k/index.cfm> 8. "Construction Noise: Exposure, Effects, and the Potential for Remediation; A Review and Analysis," Electronic Library of Construction Occupational Safety and Health, November /December 2002. 9. '`Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control," Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, June 1980. 10. "Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations," California Department of Transportation, February 20, 2002. <http: / /www.dot.ca.gov/hq /env /noise /pub/TRANS PORTATION_RELATED_EARTHB ORNE_V I B RATIONS.pdf> 11. "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 2009 Annual Report,' Western Riverside Council of Governments. <http: / /www. wrcog.cog. ca. us/ downloads / Annual %20Report%202009a.pdf >, 12. Temecula Water Moratorium Meeting Tonight, North County Times -The Californian, dated November 9, 2009. 13. Region: New - Water- Service Moratorium on Tap, North County Times -The Californian, date October 21, 2009. February 23, 2011 Page 13 City Planning: Current Planning General Plan Environmental Analysis Representation: RAYMOND W. JOHNSON, Esq. AICP 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506 -9925 (951) 506 -9725 Fax (951) 775 -1912 Cellular Johnson & Sedlack, an Environmental Law firm representing plaintiff environmental groups in environmental law litigation, primarily CEQA. • Two years principal planner, Lenexa, Kansas (consulting) • Two and one half years principal planner, Lee's Summit, Missouri • One year North Desert Regional Team, San Bernardino County • Twenty -five years subdivision design: residential, commercial and industrial • Twenty -five years as applicants representative in various jurisdictions in: Missouri, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas and California • Twelve years as applicants representative in the telecommunications field • Developed a policy oriented Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lenexa, Kansas. • Updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lee's Summit, Missouri. • Created innovative zoning ordinance for Lenexa, Kansas. • Developed Draft Hillside Development Standards, San Bernardino County, CA. • Developed Draft Grading Standards, San Bernardino County. • Developed Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis, San Bernardino County • Two years, Environmental Team, San Bernardino County o Review and supervision of preparation of EIR's and joint EIR /EIS's o Preparation of Negative Declarations o Environmental review of proposed projects • Eighteen years as an environmental consultant reviewing environmental documentation for plaintiffs in CEQA and NEPA litigation February 23, 2011 Page 14 • Represented various clients in litigation primarily in the fields of Environmental and Election law. Clients include: o Sierra Club o San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society o Sea & Sage Audubon Society o San Bernardino County Audubon Society o Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice o Endangered Habitats League o Rural Canyons Conservation Fund o California Native Plant Society o California Oak Foundation o Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Marcos o Union for a River Greenbelt Environment o Citizens to Enforce CEQA o Friends of Riverside's Hills o De Luz 2000 o Save Walker Basin o Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District Education: • B. A. Economics and Political Science, Kansas State University 1970 • Masters of Community and Regional Planning, Kansas State University, 1974 • Additional graduate studies in Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City • J.D. University of La Verne. 1997 Member, Law Review, Deans List, Class Valedictorian, Member Law Review, Published, Journal of Juvenile Law Professional Associations: o Member, American Planning Association o Member, American Institute of Certified Planners o Member, Association of Environmental Professionals Johnson es Sedlack, Attorneys at Law 26785 Camino Seco Temecula CA 92590 (951) 506 -9925 12/97- Present Principal in the environmental law firm of Johnson & Sedlack. Primary areas of practice are environmental and election law. Have provided representation to the Siena Club, Audubon Society, AT &T Wireless, Endangered Habitats League, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, California Native Plant Society and numerous local environmental groups. Primary practice is writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning - Environmental Solutions 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 8/94- Present February 23, 2011 Page 15 (909) 506 -9825 Served as applicant's representative for planning issues to the telecommunications industry. Secured government entitlements for cell sites. Provided applicant's representative services to private developers of residential projects. Provided design services for private residential development projects. Provided project management of all technical consultants on private developments including traffic, geotechnical, survey, engineering, environmental, hydrogeological, hydrologic, landscape architectural, golf course design and fire consultants. San Bernardino County Planning Department Environmental Team 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387 -4099 Responsible for coordination of production of EIR's and joint EIR /EIS's for numerous projects in the county. Prepared environmental documents for numerous projects within the county. Prepared environmental determinations and environmental review for projects within the county. San Bernardino County Planning Department General Plan Team 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387 -4099 6/91 -8/94 Created draft grading ordinance, hillside development standards, water efficient landscaping ordinance, multi - family development standards, revised planned development section and fiscal impact analysis. Completed land use plans and general plan amendment for approximately 250 square miles. Prepared proposal for specific plan for the Oak Hills community. San Bernardino County Planning Department North Desert Regional Planning Team 15505 Civic Victorville, CA (619) 243 -8245 6/91 -6/92 6/90 -6/91 Worked on regional team. Reviewed general plan amendments, tentative tracts, parcel maps and conditional use permits. Prepared CEQA documents for projects. Broadmoor Associates /Johnson Consulting 229 NW Blue Parkway Lee's Summit, MO 64063 (816) 525 -6640 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. executive office park and an industrial park in Lee's 2/86 -6/90 Designed and developed an Summit, Mo. Designed two February 23, 2011 Page 16 additional industrial parks and residential subdivisions. Prepared study to determine target industries for the industrial parks. Prepared applications for tax increment financing district and grants under Economic Development Action Grant program. Prepared input /output analysis of proposed race track Provided conceptual design of 800 acre mixed use development. Shepherd Realty Co. Lee's Summit, MO 6/84 -2 -86 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Performed investment analysis on properties. Provided planning consulting in subdivision design and rezoning. Contemporary Concepts Inc. Lee's Summit, MO 9/78 -5/84 Owner Designed and developed residential subdivision in Lee's Summit, Mo. Supervised all construction trades involved in the development process and the building of homes. Environmental Design Association Lee's Summit, Mo. Project Coordinator Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 9200 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114 (816) 333 -4800 Economist /Planner City of Lee's Summit, MO 220 SW Main Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Community Development Director 6/77 -9/78 Was responsible for site design and preliminary building design for retirement villages in Missouri, Texas and Florida. Was responsible for preparing feasibility studies of possible conversion projects. Was in charge of working with local governments on zoning issues and any problems that might arise with projects. Coordinated work of local architects on projects. Worked with marketing staff regarding design changes needed or contemplated. 4/75 -6/77 Supervised Community Development Dept. staff. Responsible for preparation of departmental budget and C.D.B.G. budget. Administered Community Development Block Grant program. Developed initial Downtown redevelopment plan with funding from block grant funds. Served as a member of the Lee's Summit Economic Development Committee and provided staff support to them. Prepared study of available industrial sites within the City of Lee's Summit. In charge of all planning and zoning matters for the city including comprehensive plan. 5/73 -4/75 February 23, 2011 Page 17 Responsible for conducting economic and planning studies for Public and private sector clients. Consulting City Planner for Lenexa, KS. Conducted environmental impact study on maintaining varying channel depth of the Columbia River including an input /output analysis. Environmental impact studies of dredging the Mississippi River. Worked on the Johnson County Industrial Airport industrial park master plan including a study on the demand for industrial land and the development of target industries based upon location analysis. Worked on various airport master plans. Developed policy oriented comprehensive plan for the City of Lenexa, KS. Developed innovative zoning ordinance heavily dependent upon performance standards for the City of Lenexa, KS. Paul Jasien Carol Birmingham Residents of Rancho Highlands 43951 Gatewood Way Temecula, CA 92592 March 2 2011 City of Temecula Planning Commission 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Ref: Case Number: PA10 -0326, Rancho Highlands Maravilla Dear City Of Temecula Planning Commission, We are writing in regards to the upcoming hearing on March 2 2011 for Case Number: PA 10- 0326, Rancho Highlands Maravilla. We are unable to attend the meeting in person and therefore are submitting our opposition to the approval of the project in writing. We have lived in the Rancho Highlands development for over 12 years and have worked in the Temecula area since 1988. As one can imagine we have watched the growth (both the good and the bad) of the area for over 22 years. We have three major reasons for objecting to Case Number PA10 -0326, Rancho Highlands Maravilla. 1) At this time there are close to 2000 homes in the Temecula area which are currently on the market for sale. (Figure obtained from www zillow com by looking up zip codes 92590, 92591 and 92592 only.) There are likely many more in some state of foreclosure which will enter the market within the next 6 -12 months Why would the City Planning Commission approve the building of another 210 units that will add to the "glut" of homes which are for sale in the area? Shouldn't the Commission be concerned with the current state of the real estate market and put a halt to any new residential building within the city limits until the market recovers? (Not to mention the fact that Riverside County has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state and there are certainly no jobs in Temecula so why do we need more housing units ?) 2) What study has been done to address the traffic which will be created by adding another 210 units so close to already overcrowded streets and intersections? Perhaps the Conmiission should come out to either of the two intersections of Ynez and Preece or any of the streets that exit onto Ynez in this area in the afternoon and evening and see exactly how easy it is to pull out onto Ynez. At times the traffic is so bad that we are not able to pull onto Ynez from Preece (closest to Santiago) due to the fact that cars are backed up past the intersection. We do not need another 400+ cars traveling on that road until it is widened and signals installed where appropriate. We believe that the builder should agree to pay to have Ynez widened to 2 lanes in each direction all the way from Rancho California to Santiago before this project is approved. Shouldn't the builder have to pay for road improvements before they are allowed to put another 400+ cars on the road in the area? The other traffic issue to consider is the Ynez and Rancho California intersection. The traffic from the development would be dumping out onto Ynez right at one of the most heavily traveled intersection in Temecula. What problems is that going to cause? Has this been studied and if so what do the traffic planners have to say about it? It is one thing for traffic planners to do a theoretical calculation to determine that there will be no effect on traffic, but it is another thing in reality. 3) Our Last concern involves the fact that the building of the development will lower the property values in Rancho Highlands. We have been fortunate that up to now any of the building that has gone on in the area has been of larger more expensive homes (Laurie Rae Lane and Mountain View). The addition of 210 lower cost town homes will affect the price that home owners in Rancho Highlands will be able to obtain when trying to sell their homes. We will appreciate the careful consideration of the reasons for our objections when making a decision about this project. We opposed this development when it was first proposed in 2007 and oppose it even more strongly now. The traffic along Ynez has gotten much worse since 2007 and the housing market has collapsed. We believe that the Planning Commission cannot in good conscience approve this project at this time. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Paul Jasien Carol Birmingham 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 -0326, Rancho Highlands Maravilla Trent Heiner on behalf of Woodside Homes of California A Multi- family development plan application for Maravilla at Rancho Highlands to construct a 210 -unit triplex project with units ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,700 square feet on approximately 21 acres located approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road, along the west side of Ynez Road at Tierra Vista Road, Tract 23992 within Planning Areas 4 through 7 of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan 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. Cheryl Kitzerow, (951) 694 -6409 City of Temecula, Council Chambers October 19, 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. C:1Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converterltemp11020324.doc