Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060414 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 4, 2014— 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 14-17 PRELUDE MUSIC: Earlene Bundy CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Kight Roll Call: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio PUBLIC COMMENTS 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. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of May 21, 2014 • 1 r � ITEJ1 1 L J ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MAY 21, 2014— 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 14-12 PRELUDE MUSIC: Earlene Bundy CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero Roll Call: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio ABSENT: GUERRIERO PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 1 Business Spotlight Recognition Presentation, Golden West Biologicals, Inc., Christine Damko NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Action Minutes of May 7, 2014 APPROVED 4-0-1-0; MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS CAREY, HARTER, KIGHT AND TELESIO; GUERRIERO ABSENT COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Fiscal Year 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) General Plan Consistency, Dale West RECOMMENDATION: 1 3.1 Finding of Consistency with General Plan APPROVED 4-0-1-0; MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER KIGHT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS CAREY, HARTER, KIGHT AND TELESIO; GUERRIERO ABSENT 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. 4 Planning Application Nos. PA12-0131,PA12, 0132, PA12-0133 and PA12-0134, a General Plan Land Use Map change for Arbor Vista from Very Low (VL) Density to Low (L) Residential, a Zoning Map and text change from Very Low (VL) Density Residential to a Planned Development Overlay (PDO), a Tentative Tract Map (No. 36479) to subdivide 73 acres into 83 single-family cluster lots with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet with approximately 59% of the site preserved as permanent open space to preserve the existing drainage on-site, and a Residential Home Product Review for 83 lots with four floor plans ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 3,500 square feet with three elevation types each, Craftsman, Spanish and Traditional, located at the southeast corner of Nicolas and Via Lobo Roads, Matt Peters APPROVED 4-0-1-0; MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER KIGHT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS CAREY, HARTER, KIGHT AND TELESIO; GUERRIERO ABSENT 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA12- 0131, AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN MAP FROM VERY LOW (VL) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW (L) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE (OS)" ON 73 GROSS ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VIA LOBO AND NICOLAS ROAD (APNS 919-350-017, 018, 019, 020) 2 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA12- 0132, AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A ZONING MAP AND TEXT CHANGE FROM VERY LOW (VL) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO) BASED ON THE STANDARDS OF THE LOW (L) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION WITH PROVISIONS FOR A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE (OS) ON 73 GROSS ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VIA LOBO AND NICOLAS ROAD" (APNS 919-350-017, 018, 019, 020) 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA12- 0133, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36479 TO SUBDIVIDE 73 GROSS ACRES INTO 83 LOTS AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VIA LOBO AND NICOLAS ROAD" (APNS 919- 350-017, 018, 019, 020) 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA12- 0134, A HOME PRODUCT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR ARBOR VISTA LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VIA LOBO AND NICOLAS ROAD" (APNS 919-350-017, 018, 019, 020) 4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM VL-VERY LOW DENSITY TO L- 3 LOW DENSITY WITH A PDO FOR CLUSTERING AND OPEN SPACE; A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36479 TO SUBDIVIDE 73 ACRES INTO 83 LOTS; AND A HOME PRODUCT REVIEW APPLICATION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VIA LOBO AND NICOLAS ROAD" (APNS 919- 350-017, 018, 019, 020) Ray Stann, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission Michael Brewer, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission Ray Evans, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission Debbie Parnakian, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission Tom Parnakian, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Stanley Harter Armando G. Villa, AICP Chairman Director of Community Development 4 r � ITEM 2 L J STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: June 4, 2014 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Armando G. Villa, AICP, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Eric Jones, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA14-0024, a Major Modification for the SUMMARY: previously approved Highgate Senior Living facility to reduce the number of units from 94 to 84, minor site plan revisions, and a revision to the approved architecture at 42301 Moraga Road RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval CEQA: Section 15162 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. No further analysis is required. Negative Declaration for the project adopted July 20, 2011. PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Larry Markham General Plan Professional Office (PO) Designation: Zoning Designation: Professional Office (PO) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Vacant Lot/Professional Office (PO) North: Existing Commercial Structures/Community Commercial South: Via Las Colinas, Existing Multi-Family Residential/High Density Residential (H) East: Via Las Colinas, Existing Multi-Family Residential/Medium Density Residential (M) West: Existing Professional Office Structure / Professional Office (PO) 1 Existinq/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required Lot Area: 3.28 Acres 0.92 Acres Minimum Required Total Floor Area/Ratio: N/A N/A Landscape Area/Coverage: 0.42 Proposed 0.25 Minimum Parking Required/Provided: 43 Spaces Proposed 44 Spaces Required BACKGROUND SUMMARY Highgate Senior Living was originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2011. The application was for a Development Plan designed to allow the construction of a two-phase 89,148 square foot senior congregate care facility comprised of 94 units within an area zoned Professional Office. Congregate care facilities are permitted by right in areas zoned Professional Office. The project will consist of two wards. As previously approved, the first would have contained 44 rooms dedicated to patients with memory loss, dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The second ward would have contained 50 rooms for assisted living. On February 5, 2014, Larry Markham submitted Planning Application PA14-0024, a Major Modification application. The application will allow for a reduction in the number of rooms (84 units are now proposed), minor site plan revisions, and architectural revisions. The project will still consist of 52 assisted living and 32 memory care units. The project will now be constructed as a single phase instead of the originally approved two phases. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project will be constructed on a parcel totaling 3.40 acres. Rancho California Road is located on the north boundary, Moraga Road is on the east boundary, Via Las Colinas borders the south. A vacant lot is located immediately to the west. The surrounding area consists of existing commercial uses and medium and high density residential units. The room count and overall square footage for the project will be reduced as part of the modification. This structure will contain 84 units with 32 of these being reserved for residents suffering from memory related illnesses. The facility will now consist of a 87,885 square foot senior congregate care facility as opposed to the originally approved 89,148 square feet. Units will consist of studio, double studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom floor plans. Outdoor amenities will be enhanced as part of the proposed modification. These amenities will include a dining patio with fireplace, game patio, formal rose garden, tree bosque with seating area, bocce ball court, putting green, and bird houses that will be located throughout the project grounds. 2 Ingress and egress for the site will remain at two points. The primary access to the facility will be placed on Moraga Road. This entrance will take patrons into the parking lot in which the applicant will provide forty-four spaces. Forty-three spaces are required per Table 17.24.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. A secondary point of access will be located off of Via Las Colinas. The site plan illustrates accent paving will be used at both site entrances. Five retaining walls will be used for the project. One wall will measure two feet in height; two walls will be three feet; and one wall will be five feet. The final retaining wall will measure six feet. A screen wall will be located on the west and a portion of the north elevations. This wall will total six feet in height and will be constructed to mimic the overall structure with regard to finish to ensure continuity between the wall and structure. Architecture The project continues to include many design elements widely found in Southern California. For example, the applicant has chosen to incorporate concrete S roof tiles. Stone will be used on the support columns throughout the structure. The exterior wall of the project will consist of a cement pilaster with an acyclic sand pebble finish. The overall building form has been designed to ensure the project is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. For example, the project incorporates varied rooflines and wall planes. An arcade structure around most of the first floor as well as the window railings along the east elevation will create further visual interest for the project. These measures will ensure the two-story structure avoids having a "boxy" appearance. Patios and balconies have been added to all possible "Manor" units. Patios have also been incorporated at select "Cottage" units. Landscaping Landscaping for the project will feature a variety of trees, shrubs and ground cover plant materials. These plant materials will surround the property and will thus serve as a way to soften the hardscape features such as pedestrian walkways, drive isles, and the parking area. An abundance of trees and ground cover will be placed on the slope along Rancho California Road. Summary of Changes Feature Original Approval Modification Total Square Feet 89,148 Square Feet 87,885 Square Feet Total Number of Units 94 Units 84 Units Total Lot Coverage 46,375 Square Feet 43,880 Square Feet Total Parking Area 29,297 Square Feet 26,275 Square Feet Total Parking Spaces 49 Spaces 44 Spaces Total Landscaping 52,126 Square Feet 72,866 Square Feet LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on May 22, 2014 and mailed to the property owners within a 1,400 foot radius. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and is exempt from further environmental review. An Initial Study was originally prepared and adopted on July 20, 2011 for the project in an effort to further evaluate if the project would generate any potentially significant impacts to the environment. This document was distributed and made available for public review on March 11, 2011. The results of the Initial Study showed environmental impacts for the project were all less than significant with the mitigation proposed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program developed for the project. Two Initial Study elements were originally identified as having impacts deemed to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. These elements were Cultural Resources and Transportation/Traffic. Staff reviewed these two elements to determine if the proposed Modification Application would create any additional impacts that could not be lessened by the original mitigation measures. Staff determined that the mitigation prescribed for both elements remains valid. This is because the modification is partly for a reduction in the amount of units. The mitigation proposed for the Cultural Resources element of the original Initial Study is comprised mainly of ensuring that a Cultural Resources Treatment agreement is in place and that appropriate monitors be on-site during grading activities. These are typical mitigation measures and remain appropriate despite the modifications to the project. Original mitigation for the Transportation/Traffic element consisted of project driveway construction requirements and traffic signage and striping requirements. These mitigation measures remain appropriate for the proposed project modifications. FINDINGS Modifications (Section 17.05.030.E) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. As conditioned, the project will remain consistent with the General Plan with the changes proposed by the Modification. The General Plan has listed the proposed project as a compatible use within Professional Office zoning areas, and the project is in conformance with other Ordinances of the City and State law. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. As conditioned, the project will remain consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the project will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. In addition, the project was reviewed by a variety of external government agencies as part of the original Initial Study process to further ensure the project was designed and appropriately conditioned so that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. None of the revisions proposed by the Modification Application are anticipated to have an adverse impact to the original Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. 4 ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Original Initial Study Original Mitigation Monitoring Plan Notice of Public Hearing 5 VICINITY MAP 1 I u e Project Site - - — --- ------------- -- - -- 1 41°° ' Aill Irak # 1 • , 0 250 500 1,000 ,„,z*t 4k 0 Feet V ADJACENT PARCEL: BOFIRM MI$S DAEpr 4:Fr4N �� EXISTING EASEMENTS IOW.cc IcDM zurirc co6oArRUALI r^' �. ... Wit++A`u suE 1 • ■ USE cwFMERCwL] _ :I.'''. ' N.,,, AN I .« uoNn. o R LP„N,NR o nP,N / wwmu.R. I I PR JECL n«a nN 1�].>,.K 1,so.,a �NI oN Pf Drz A..�o.�TAR...,. - s'� -z f Ig o '1 I 1 L, F;1111101111114"ATF MIME r9•` N yam_ I xuuMN,r.,oRa PwFO,uo v / l _y-+ RO PD �_-'-''._ -._f /-- ��1 , i III MC1F U0R/`u7tir1♦pl .6 4 E 1 1 B91MID,Mlm+uk PROJECT STATISTICS ��� ■rJ I Drsa,n>Dlbwl COTTAGE(MEMORY CARE) ...•” Ir`111'1��R - y — F 1 'l Y R` RD+'NA^m�a^5 PRIVATE 00.LE TOTAL STUDIO STUDIO �"h, _ Y r'�~- i— V , 1 1 y } I 1ST FLOOR 4 IB 0/UN\ t.\`Y s a- —_ ` f 1 ITL I *, ■ OrLrr+ ,. 2 le 1_ y I \ ' J. 1µ I MANOR(ASSISTED LIVING( se - 'I""'�"'° +_ Y -�+� i I \\I 1 �� 1 9 UAW INNW rwlu TOTAL •/ 42,22-2.../, ... -i\ I 7',S I 11 ,Rr]soar x n , u �y : -\l',_.. �! , 17 �7. 1 I 1 I 101AI.NUMBER OF UNIS IN DE PROJECT.. - Y BUILDING AREAS s r sz .� —� l_�_r m Iu`� i .��.#-. � :.out I I.: I ( y } 1ST FLOOR as MO SF _ r � �y'�^ :7+�8 m� I i. 1 III 2ND FLOOR 44 DOS SF - - "'- - / '% •l 10a �._ A A 911 101u 87 666 _.- �..• a 9M1 _ 1 • a_�_�. " r I . I tl PROJECT DATA :f e _ 1 1 I lei 2001 r • 6611 ILL . .., ASSESSOVSSPARCEL 10. 94a.25ooz9 �PI • 5 � tl ■ 'I RD{a- . 10 111119 �• 7� r, 1 lo., f rt ill LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ALIOF PARCEL 2 AND IPON..OF PARCEL I OF r ' Y l,�L 7Ifpi pp '�.. -Oil; l �I� rri I 11 I RO( PARCEL MAP 35HI AS....BY MAP ON FILE IN I By�� -. i"' _IH H �. J' -.� 19rDr- IOrK 222 MAR r/•rtcr lAxCEI tART,y . `7 — f 1 _ (�,Fp'.. CI WAIF I OOF TOR• RECORDS OF RnERSUECON.rr,CALIFORNIA fCSL.JGIL�, B I GENERA,D ANDESG fa-11102221222124-WW2 P / IL 1 Ei - F ASSISTED i/GENERAL P.AN DESIGNATION M PRprllfprWaYryf,[ [ J ,y J ( . - Y I I Q EU9IMRG UND ubE vACAhi .• , I .....- _-'- l ! a 9�,{r'�1 1 IOIAL NEI AREA EA 1430215F 321 ACRES � 1' .] _� ill C L--� � T 1. _ •r L` \dl ��143021. 3 26 ACRES PROPOSED(AND USE CONGPEGAIECMEFACIJIT `y ' - ,} NI � ' '« • Mr ` +5 � _ `• -I� fl I ce •Lot COVERAGE 4 I Q I�DRIG APEA 43.460 SF ADJACENT PARCEL: r In IBALr.ONES/PAll05 NOT MCIUDEDI I ' •'RFII+11� S P WGAREq 162]5'F OdO ACRES PARCEL NO 8.260 ORS 1- ='I�� "I r 'IIEI ` R �. �_. 7* • v IANOSLA%NG AREA 7.66 SF U2 ACRES 20NN0 PO IPRGfF$voNAIOFFICkI , d �� �� Y •B PAVex: ■F � .r• jLiel 1111 SPACES REQUIRED SPACES PROVIDED USE VACANT ,ky I V -Sn Sl SP A } � I�{ �vV �^ : 1 ----,��.} 1 O �ORAllO 059 PER UNIT RESX)EM A!b Iy'�'�[,tl� 1I�o�r'i 1.. d [� ;.,'(I 1 1 1 IASSISIFD LIVING UNITS O]RYI R •'rl T � le el S••Ph41 f.-...4I , AI 020 PER UI.R GUEST 1623 9F ss L1 1022201/°222 IoulSPACES am° a I5 41r e+'�' MEMORY -: 1,Ijl. 1 -- -.. , I: - °I -� ' row rwl.EB IMDRYtlf} m l CARE �'• '� r ,r, * MOTORCYCLE PROVIDED 2 SP OPEN SPACE - Itj4 ����1111t}}}} NZ MI Y _I I ryI.WY G51l l'plLKArY r9S1y Tr 5L •�•• . I!A — + -`� id{1. ._. * �'tl .� NV{'� -rh � .. I I r *MD.TORY CARE BALCONY 3015E 1 1 1 AR° B1 6. y .. 4P� ..---��� _ /1/ I. ALL Loll PAPS 4 BALCONIES 3:40 SF B • • • II FLOOR AR.RA ID-N/A UNDER r.^iTaEUDNwLSms. �Ie 11` 1‘ ...` ,. r/= n it F1 OCCUPANCY CxtsIFlcAlnl l B I R2. ii1l�� ;eL`.,_ _ �""7� "J 1 41 E TYPE OF CONSiRUCfION(CRC' TYPE rlexrrxRUm22211 wR.+rRBTDAf r9 rc.sP,cla - , „ . . . , r..1, . . , . /f - ii. I We1ReGF3TPt4 r t+ ...OE BAD.. .2]'-s 5 '*•._ e` " " " 1, �� '‘ Listsimmillik. 1 in DRAWING INDEX `y I_' :{R._ L,:wwt n�notcbar .,<_.,IY. LEGEND EtS3' -ue12.22.•o 1 g ' ',,, 10 .d..•..m. VIA LAS COLINAS ) 1 �� --�PROPfR1Y LI.E —_ _ __..�. _ _ _ r y, >R -.• Y v M+.'IRY:p'.AAA4 ClN rtlfrRYr:4rRV ��l qi 4222442224242.222.2 n:r. ..0 REQUIRED SMACK +° '� ��- 9`.JIL5F' lit 4 v ACCESSIBLE OUr ' _ OPEN SPACE _ - NOTES Iq 1965FPROVmEDI Y+ ———— _ _.— _-— _- _-_ �,I' ` wuccm FOAM I I r •Ne Nroe,r x•x n1<-u rHAUUtRr =dbFIDIf.L'IK ��•'•.� �1�d_ PARCEL NO..9"0.290023 --1- I 1 I / �� �- r*alplrtN11.2s ZOrNlG:I-1(HON DENSITY RFBIDENOALI ` 1 I uFSwnl urc.,o.,u. ww S.mcn =IRIII.CATED DOMES / V/ USE:APARTMENTS 1 I I Al 1"=20' Al h� r„ Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA SITE PLAN v Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604,687.2280 Brurmr F..MO, ,>Ilt British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 1".a°°"C"^" ODTI I-27(14 `°""RG"'2014 isi 5rA1R_ R_ 7.7 SF II "86 9R5FBr ,1 A ., i vasF ! 28 R B STOR. FOP ari Rs �� IA. 7EsF 2BR B�+A- riii BR C' BR-B r. �9143E �-•� MECH. MEDS RESIDENT 11UI15E �` � 1 � f 1�1I (- .-.. ly .! p �f'+ 113 SF 113 SF LAUNDRY KEEP. - • '- � R 1 BR�C MAINE. MAINT. 214 SF 152 SF '\ ' 2BR-B Bp Bn 3{�TT 733"SF STOR. OFFICE • • G9 1 �� 1 V 1 737.F P SF • 3'38158 1565411 113 5. etr----_----"--__: _. = OFFICE 1mp - ED NURSES '1 WINE OFFICE 245 SF •� "" l o e 4= BAR 180 SF ® 1405E ---- ��•� M • ,DISCOVERY • 3 aP ,'F •� • 1 ,--., 3OOM Al 3925E p 28Pp a �,BISTRO'1; L'_L • F ; • 5755E r� LOUNGE Try STAIR k 325 SF ___--1,---------___ 111 r p, �1 ■ • r • 3523E --•------- f------ SP --I--- ASSISTED} IN ](1 SCi�___ __ " • �r GRAND • a I 306 SF yp P 1 r STAIR •r-_---• SPA fl Sr �1 I 1755E FIRE ALARM Qr 161 SP - i• • StOI� - •1r CONTROL PANEL K_S WI I DINING • 154 = [S� ROOM t Inl In fff`{I(�'r • 8305E BU5 T 'J' T NURSE& � I� • e A s DINING 370 SF MEDS F1 c' 111 233 SF V 'srp 352 5F SP SP SP SP 5r.. Ee_ 3255F•. 3525F 352 SF., 328 5F BR- __ _ : X66 SF 519' ` a KOCAGE R- BR STAIR KITCHEN r !A3 SF 364 SF ■ Fig=�-1 77 _ l -R .� 177 �„`•1f SriI ..._I I J .6D SF 60 SF • MEMORY CARE l �. �,` STAFF C ` - I .R-c 1 BR- _. SP " 5P SP ' SP STAIR 731 F 77 SF 1 BR-C'° 1. '1 BR-C 5485E �6 ' ,,�, 326 SF 352 SF 352 SF 328 SF '�"" I• { 737 SF - 7375E 216 SF I - FIRE SPRINKLER 1 EG, d RISER ROOM 1 1_•_._ 1 __a••i • I • U 91 1-L.,..., 1'=10` E . . Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2 Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1 177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687 2280 aoa 1.1v mrAw 1x11+ British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 REVISED OArt:a-u DATE-D-19 coaxcw °I' lIIcalilll'I'II ,,, i BR-C 1 R.-5 7 SF STAIR ��liiili'�i1'1"Irt. � $.� �zr- - = �..__.I l ig. weal. 4 5 --k42L g pi STOR, STOR, s 914 Sf II STAIR. MR, rr! :.y',-" a SF 83 SF 1 -r' •'i- •RS 1175` MN r'~ _. I. —..... v 1 - 777333777 ryry(pyg7 C r LgEY1P5FB N r ' RESIDENT 1 LIR-C 1, J 'r'-i+ BR-B it ' LAUNDRY ,.75P ,Sta!R, LQR f7 ��, RI 352 SF II7SF 914 S€ ppp p Pli--,BR-c TS R^• BR" li t Err)p R-' T3a " irs• -1737 SP SALON SPA/TUB • s_ 9 9' Y l �p 363 SF 3595F 1 1•SF 737 Sf 7 SF SP 111 _ r' Mi. Illlllrtlllllt • 11=111011,11,1,11 11/ 11737SF� ` miss�s f FJ-F / • r gm a 7^ S I GAMES • II.St `SP • I 950 SF 929 SF HMI 1 1 _ LOUNGE 694 SF • •• r_' 3Ss2SF �pT. -- - ] -ASSISTED—UVFPd� i — — — C 1■I / GRAND • .5045= ■ J7""" SP `2� 1 STAIR • ■ SPA 3575E w -- , - NSSF r 1615E _ Sc`a08 S• = _=,SP � � 9eSF.11lllll�. ,r NURSE B, 1.1 t ' 111'11 I" ACTIVITY • 1 MED3 (�p (� �+ 1 e.. SP6p, 233 SF MCP S SP SP ___r—,,••,_,• • �� 7035E JP •7 7 STOR. EO. SS'x SF ^' 3283F,,3525E 352 SE 512850 ., bd SF:SB SF OE AIR FIR, 364 SF ���jjj����'"" ��831 7.7 �,ry,}y�� OFFICE is 4.� 3 � '.1 235 SF MEMORY CARE, I" CHAPEL LIVING/ACTIVITY �"^"' p '�* •• 1540 SF SPA f ff �1° 5-D 796 SF ,.•-1 3225E it ■ •F•r, 1 BR3C s8 - Z BR- .t BR^C 5F 328 SF}� 5SPPF P P !1 - 737 SF imisiimm 111111,F11,111111 _" / 1S • ,. 8 Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 A3 6� Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 u.i_i.la rmyw, 4s111 British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 rt nm ase"' Mfr Lv.0 rnnnenl a6n .,__ Tit -y -7 __. __ %lir a— _� I I 1 — 1 f MM. 1 — - i _ Ilk Ns," IS11111 I ,/"\\ to , n I —Ail kii 1 /1 1 -- _T-7--- l All11°' Leir400 _ / i � 1w . f I " / I I I I f I g ❑ 1 CI � I��\f//' f 1 s �—I�/'����, __, N iI . t t / \1 1 _t V . ,I :41 I I� t _ 1 i. 11 I 1 1 ,_ �, / 7 \/ 7f —_ ❑ i_ urC.orn.■Kieg < L.< 1 lAor Xr ..401.. ., i 1 i IA ,s.„..\ Ari \ _____ Asks i 1 „,... ehi 1 II\ ,,, 'INI / t I _ 1 *1 ;, .01r ate„ XN--- AO ■ OS 10 ,1 b „JIM Highgate Senior Living Temecula, CA I s,a 1��� .���;T�U.� 9- ROOF PLAN A4 C Buren.Inc..Vancouver,1 177 West Hastings Street.Suite 2133 604.6872289 BrIllsh Columbia.Canada V6E2tC3 .ean.n .rr un 7-7/41 m.air MR C,T CO •iii ...0 � TI�'I f,li 11;,�1'p1." Ems,. 'gill tN; I n T l P r M* 1 610 r'ir It It X i -- .. . - to 0 4. EAST ELEVATION .n r J ■ mi �7 a T 1 —a I. t ! ® � wI EXTERIOR FINISHES fFJ Se; 0" BELiYl:oFMOE_SBEEIGAC 6r.PEBBLE MITA MATC11 3.SOUTH ELEVATION 2. EAST ELEVATION ®CEMET„ICPLAYI PEW ER/ACCENT/ACRYOCSANDPEERN. MAIL MOO...SUPREME BEAM 0.001 ©R OLEutE'CAwSTRAERO"cONCREIE S'1EE EAGLE ROO FR. WAURUT CRffR BLEND-JiIJ © Mb=W FRAMES-VINYL DARR BROWSE COLOR RFA¢GIASS ©STONE El DORADOSTONE MORINTARJ LEDGE'YLWoEI ©RATINGS PAINTED METAL 10MATCII WNDOW FRAMES ©TR115,MEMIER5 MOON SAWN HEAVY TIMM-PAINTED• I I l l • >N I' rj I err, i ■ •._ - �4 Ili --® ' ` 0."i Ldi11 , 1. EAST ELEVATION ab MORAGA ROAD ENTRY KEYPLAN gill R RBJ 1/8"=11-0„ A5 Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 SORER FSR.PE TWMUO IRFFR British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 REVISED DAZE:5.5.15 DARE I-rzl-LA COPTDDAIT ZDIR „1 'PIT ll"51 , ' ,4x„1 R 6., 101_11111 a ,-; 1:,' , fE� EXTERIOR FINISHES O CY 00fLSo AK.OAwPUeIEIMAS1?MICl U O © tt 4. EAST COURTYARD ELEVATION 3. NORTH ELEVATION o,C=14,L4Arolafr411 SUTAEmEB A=lIf MM. ®500f TKf'CAPSTSANO'CONCPEIE N r55 EAGLE 500500 WAlfll)I CRfEK BLFND,ll]] Op wN00WF5AM1S 00151 1701M WHIM COLOR CIEAR GLA55 QE sm.51 DORADO STONE MOUIIA.11E005 YUKON ©RAIUNGS PAINTED METAL TO,0100 011:00'0 FRAMES RFU6MEMEESS SOUGH(VON WAVY 150515-PAPOED 5 DARK 550501, FO 5 I '' :'' I h� lii ® 4+"' A i 0 r 4.4 - il k El ill 'Pri • .0 .1 4____,--- ...- I L,tiJITi - 2. WEST ELEVATION 1§ KEYPLAN © Cr) o ,.-- 0,4tAILL, I',:: il ,TIPt:', I.. P”-1 --� i Al ill y® r� • ■ .-- ? _ li I IP J .�i _ .r� K �M ' �I� rr, ' ni 1 i.1 il`.. mu ! '� " �a r i ; ��i .'PL ! a i I � ` 1.SOUTH ELEVATION VIA LAS COLINAS ENTRY P611■1 1/9"=1-0" A6 Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 SCALE 1/5'=1Q 1,110 No- 1,114 British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 Rf 6H DAIS DATE 1-v-u 0005000(1 2014 0-t5f, ■� SIDEWALK -0-o:L.O, . 14- fnr n - =IN , P SIDEWALK ■ I 41 J IMAA .1] PI . _■ PARKING . . VIA LAS COLINAS F.F.=1132,lYP. RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD © 'S ® RESIDENCE . RESIDENCE liX I fl� , . s. .RESIDENCE ■ RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE , !I I I RES1D t E RESIDENCE _- , I R,1 K4 I��� u .s 4 I s. Ill -.g EXTERIOR FINISHES - - O CEMENI PLASTER IFEBOI ACRYUCSAND PEBBLE FIR.MAICF RHLr MUOaE-wLEeEac RAUOxai 2. WEST COURTYARD ELEVATION oMac MLTMOORESUPREMcEM zEPaBw W/CROSS SECTION O R AUNT GF£R B1£IN"J1 rx-st-rE S IRE.EAGLE ROOERRG BO WINE W FRAMES Valli OGRE BPONIE COLOR O STONE EL DORAD051ONE MOUNIAN LEDGE 013R011 ©RAILINGS PARRIED METAL 10 0010110010005101000 OB IRELUS ROUGH SAWN HEAVYRMBER PALMED a I Y•aYI rl o �Ilfl i�a l I la-� I Swnnp� w .,..,,,,, ,...,4 I, e c> 1. NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION eo KEYPLAN ill �r 1/.d'=l.a A7 X211 q, Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS +SITE SECTION Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1 177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 - WALE 1,13.1.0. 7V1M150 II I' British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 REIDE0 DATE-R+I. DALE I rFIR 1050 10 2011 ■` k i_ ill.1 i 11 III 1 1i „Iii ii IIIII I 11 wl 1 1� Il4nllI IE' l 1!► 1, ® ;Ii M. ® I ;. I ,j 1 F end ■ 6 "1 ■ ; ■ i5 3. NORTH ELEVATION RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD FilAli r Moir, r 1 oA�.R°I,a�0, . ... .,,,,. . ,_.„ ollwiLl- =,... EXTERIOR FINISHES 2. WEST ELEVATION ®CEAIFNf PVSIERIHEA1-1RYDCSANDPRBBEEHMSN WIC" RHEY MOORE'1ULESBERG K,Ap361 OB CEMENTNAe ER PCC NII PCR CMOPEBN11e16H MAICI I RELY IKAORE SUPFLEME BEPI,,MrD}}R O RW C C.APTRA1Fq'OONCREIE 5 Fit EAGLE FLOORING 0 WMOOW FRAMES 5111 LE DARE BRONZE COLOR aue Guns ©510NE H DORADO STONE 00011Aw LEDGE IMP, ©RPAINOS.RANI ED ME1AL TO MAICII W 0DOW FRAMES ©IREDSMEwIBER1 ROUGH SAWN NEAYE 1W.5ER-PANTED wR0 eeowN \ i I 1.. T� F DI , 141 tl1 11t5a l J mt.II 1 1 , ++ {iI o 0 1.SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION a� KEYPLAN rUBI1■ k'g Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8 Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 SCALE 101.1 0' PN,A110 1,1. British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 .rxam"ML«-IK mut 05151 Sc.nrl 1550 S O hip_h :.`.. I1 � i� �14 �� - J a-v'll -. .. i �•�:.,y. _.-._:.....�.r 111 .111 -,. i'ii r ■ L ILJ ! 1lilt�.1 I k t 4. EAST ELEVATION , - 411111118111111p- _ Ill r) Ili f fui I C . '': O 11111 W I , r EXTERIOR FINISHES • i , ® O KEIIVENIEi0.F.IFlL[7f2 GAn AxT.,,r'''''''EHIrt1 MAICH 3. SOUTH ELEVATION 2. EAST ELEVATION o 71„ M°�G=EH° i',..SAI°E bb,EE'r'sH, UGRE 3V?FFh•.F EFAN un50A]] © T,A E C CNE0o,cFE S tYE EAGLE ROOI41, Ob WI�JOWEPAMES 0.111 HAP1.81001E 00101 CIEAP GIASS O 51011E 110050001r00r 00011001E005 10501+ 0 5011405 1514150 WE/A_10001011 Wi111)OW 145015 0 OACKELI1r,,E.ROUGH SAWN HEAV1101011•PU11F0 EE • 'y _ f (0 0 A �I LT -__ -. -,. . ,., - -,, --. - - , --..- - --„.'tr-tr r fI I — w i ■':! L , ,iy�iII , , .I 1,' Ill I • U 0 ! r T 1 1. EAST ELEVATION ab MORAGA ROAD ENTRY KEYPLAN 4"1 11� 1Ie,-r:o. - A5 Highgate Senior Living -Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS j MO mill.;T Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1 177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 E 110:10 I. British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 ""'" "�" 1 x" Rrj N.4. si, , 1 � T ° ill :M: LJUI - ;,r;; EXTERIOR FINISHES O CO1NIELAS17, 171-.=rt.PM...MATCH (r) © KBLLYMOORE'10LESNRG KMtl}o-1 4. EAST COURTYARD ELEVATION 3. NORTH ELEVATION S „KPH ' « ERd N SVIETLEEINSH. ©SOOT IRE-CAnS'RRNO'CONCREIE S'iME EAGLE ROOFING WALNIII GREETS dLf1O JP] ©W I AfRAAES R1I1 OARS BRMOE COLOR CLEAR OIw55 ©51011E ES DORADO STONE MOIRIIARILf0Gf 0001.5 O RAMGS-PAR.TEDAEIAL SO MATCH 110000 FRAMES ©I TELLS OEMRARS-POUCH SAWN MEALY TLMBEP PAWIED DARK BROWN • • Al y `”■ _- - ® d0 :- © © 2. WEST ELEVATION a� KEYPLAN r4F eY- 'DI ...-'-' 1 4.1. 4 1 111 - ISA ik: I ,'*., ;r,-, :. LI p �' I. VIII r �1 L 1 M _� , I, ■ 1 M I II mil !ir i I K w:; .. 1 1. SOUTH ELEVATION VIA LAS COLINAS ENTRY MI M=19■1 6 Li" Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS H Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1 177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 SCALE I,R-Ite ,WAND I,114 British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 '�"'°'0" " " RS `°Px"" SO S 44L ,1....: j 1i.. _ .''._ -SIDEWALK moo.. ■�A- _ _ ` MN J SIDEWALK •K•,..w NM Po :4, 4 _•[I. .il,4 _1111 PARKING - - - - -F.F.=1132,TY VIA LAS COLINAS P. RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD or RESIDENCE i RESIDENCE I-I 1- 1P" 4F51 DFE I RFN';)Feit-'F RESIDENCE RES[7ENGE I I 0 RESIDENCE RI:S+nFnc'. I.5 iLJC �ti1 J�r T�ilr�L'J■ ra EXTERIOR FINISHES O ar Mw RIw IC A CmSAO PEE9E Hd1 MATOI©- - 2. WEST COURTYARD ELEVATION OMAICNRELLY MOERIORE SUPREME KWK.111201 °" W/CROSS SECTION © lE-C r3-toNCmlE s-IRE.EAGLE ROOERLO wwuwl csEEic aLEERr SS ®S000WFRO,..ES.1'1t DARK[IRONER COLOR av,a Guu ©sroNE EL 001000 sm.Mow1ARLN.r.F Luca, RR ©RAUU+GS-PANTED METAL 10 MA1CN WINDOW FRAMES JAM 0 1REWf MOLIERS-ROUGH SAWN DEEVr IOU R PANTED DARK BROWN yy IV III • -.,tR rl 11, Ill 'Al:, 1 T , rte ! ` _ �.. f I IBM fl--11 ill _ _ I milk �� f� I ,*-10 7 IT I 1 II 16i HI F 1 I 1 ID 0 1. NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION PO KEYPLAN Pill IN=r-m A7 Ui„ Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS +SITE SECTION 1A Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 REVDEDO E++1.'eRUE-I i+ COP GHImi © -0 ff IL 'n � � _ • VIII • I �° N I. I. P ■ �4 1p ■ o 1, 1 , r_ .ALA NIIIL isil! I dI4Iii ,! #.fin : i I © o 3. NORTH ELEVATION RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD �tt f.. -© N .L°".4 j ej 1-C:f.f.tr74, „. 0 2. WEST ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES O CFMENI PLASTER IHERDI-ACRIUC 5AN055691E FRED MATCH KEIIY MOOSE'JULESRERG'KMNU2}I cF.EM P1A51EY IAGCENtI ACRrtK:SAND PEEEI E EM6H, R MAICII KELLY M.OGRf SINRFIM BFANKMROJJI ROOF IRE CARSIRANO'COHCREIS S!IL EAGLE ROOFRNJ O YIAlNU1 CREEK EIFIRS JEEJ QU WLEAR GLAtWDOW FRAS MES CAM DARK ERODES COLOR C Q 510,1E EL DORADO SIONE~MN LEDGE 50501, O RAh1HG5•PANTED METAL 10 KIAICII V.NOGW FRAMES • ©o MOMS .ROUGH SAWN HEAVY 15.1155 PAIME9 DER RK KROWD� r �■y c 1� Al 1 II a1 ■ t El ME I j I I I ' I 1 1 , pl j . di ,,, 1 1.SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION ab KEYPLAN r.. PAP-1'4'Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, CA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8 Buron,Inc.,Vancouver,1177 West Hastings Street,Suite 2133 604.687.2280 .SCALE IIU-I O IWMNO 12 British Columbia,Canada V6E2K3 A DOAIF"'° DAIS"''" `°`YR"„ p" • ...•...,f: ."7XX.l+,'r".....tri CONCEPTUAL PLANT LEGEND PROJECT IDENTITY tl0 nN,cu •�r SIGNAGE ' L tr..rfq PLANI r+, yhNl.Lryq �,IIIVVn SIRER IRE6 FACTOR -. 4 Ayn M-f�ty, DIRECTIONAL/IMFORMATIONA L ei1.w. .urwrw a.w 4.r. SIGN STATIONSALC'WCi uwnrMf nrxcr..n- ..,.....1w�.+ xwa ....,•..• .N.w 1 m .,1.1.MAL a 11 nr...w.w CJ���RQP 10� SLOPE PLANTING PLA1u11e n'ROCCO. LONDON PLANE-An Re ROIL Avc DOC .MwRA ^ AnafM µa G_.Ne +f COMAS wuuawwcAMPHORA cxx Ma swtl .xsn.r.1 Avwr LAGER...RINCA CRAPE wdDw.. -' I��'", f )r f LOOP PATH rLf.Urt 1)1011. _ COAST LIVE OM LOW L. cxau c.uDMOeA San1ERNAUCNOIU rMORRA WOW '* DNALRD TATRMLI R ..aN DW LnaDRLaD DAMDn NDM • .- n r ,o G # ccFNLP wANPAM comanlops MEADS DADRaRA OMffuM D 12.. WASH.IONIAFIREA °AL1DRM IAN M. 10 17 MD, -- E .1 tr'."s ,., - - tiR �'" ■ 1' Nr:iuD.MRNA R ,u"m.'iLr ware ReLDf AL IAWSws $+�. �a _ r I ��ll-1t i }, 6'TUBE STEEL rgwf y t f SECURITY FENCE �{{�1I f IOW _ 141 A � �� r .IL Fir f CA S@NFIR YNIIS J .. f i�. T -r� f © �luarA r.,wn A ELEM. Asslwvm Lower es E II 7F`" i '~" 1- yi 1 •� — tltl : FLAGPOLE r MA ,� /J { c+•- nxoMeM 4aa O.F3dLinW Nil WWII 17-:,i � _ _ —+, _ v.:A M.aaw CM M.PPM a I•f- ^•" rL I: LNSS c19•0:,......ORNIA kat illr'I - r �+ o_ 1 ]CAL nccENrs OR PROJECT IDENTITY N.N ti.._ l _ 61GNAGE mfxauwLwu+A rROCR cARaNAU1RR CN2Rr scn0ox N1n MEOW ArADIUM �•.,, �—y I C�r � 4i•-] - i � SARUM xaLwANnu• 1 � - ACCENT PALMS 1,[-J ira e"Rr '' u o HDMN�.LN w� !, 1fAl C$1 RAVING 0114.1 iFMw C W ON.,{R11141 I PROJECT SIGNAGE• A0e LOW yw . 7 . I 4.1.. J • . 0 LOW • --'�- I I' O W GALLON a c LOW MAUS MAPLE. ROCKROSE t+1Bh9R'r CARS UNrt6 SENOR 4RMAC'UM75 0 w GRASS T = L Q w.iffr°u r 4 L. I .�. • 11'4.11;A A r.... O RoSASPE °1M'Ou .11111 DA 5010 5GAUON )nr 00002 1 1 't'' f I J MI GROUNOCOVP15 N ,/ ",' ,t= . 0.1,6Aa oN 011,7 c°r D:T { t .,K i o&1100 - f 0 ' cr.MR1Le 1,ONYY.NLxn AA.e1 nNiLxix own E SALIDA.2r cmlm NRPa sACnu AIS 0170C LONE..SAPOLOCA NALL.HA NAILS 1101.1.1.1, aA1� IOW LMAb1 F}00a0 IRE I RDSMMR.«ao TRH rRD1RARRD1M,Rr si^u�:zco� ` RDLRSfAfoAM GAa,D°DYLRRDI 11'10110 LOT I v WPM • . -MfhfORT CARE C000FEANIL _ - 2' - i100 .. 3EffkaARGHMSO11 • --_ I, - • • • PAR1111.0e51.61111.5110. 1100m 5GALLON MEDIUM s� f ' e 1 I' ' _ aAOr RD.a AD w Mr. `^ I:rA ,1AN A:N+DRDA MP.4.1111 A. .� ry L •. Sys'! a PANSA CALEORwA MUlWSE.f MARS a0.e rxuw ii. NO-SWALE I BALM • 4 _ ., T, 119FATR9099R e ' - COYF+v'4DPAR1220E 97- I VICINITY MAP O'OJNIOSET rtltcwn km& FQI 79AC L•050EIE$YS &O-sWALe iECU91192EPtL'E rr}R Gp UtRESr v[ItlCL€5 ENHANCED PAVING Y PROJECT RH91t,caT BASIN VIA LAS COLINAS DIRECTORY: I -, LOCATOR OWNER: TcNR_ECT: W 111 - - Boron,In. TAM ,p SITE CALCULATIONS Cates:Manna Grover CDNetl:POJNMMM, y 4 ,s SHEET 1 OF 3 TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 5 AWAY FROM WATER SITE AREA 33ACRE3013.718SF) 00005WVM,BBC 057123'S,Je 2133 C15-0125Ti0(91( ,' IEA„f}R METER GAS METER.OR SEWER LATERALS;IRE01N1A OF IO AWAY FROM POWER /,_/' OVERALL SITE PLAN \\‘POLES:MID AD ST001 OF a AWAY FROM FIRE HYDRANTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT PROIWSI06WALE AREA 7000 SF PR.(604)6814117 CIVIL ENGINEER: SPRINKLER AND STANOPWE C3NECRONS PROPOSED PLANTING AREA: 65,716 SF Fa.10041687-2290 SWS E1gr4er*y, EXISTING RANTING AREA: 0 951.21: 5dMaR2M TO TAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 60.6 06 LANDSCAPE pRCHRECT 061.280-3407 David NeWL ALe0lgbe,Inc C011011,0 David NOM. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT: 41677 ENMMw CNe NOAH, MMAfals 1301/8100.10111 1421.La°w � LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR: ° 20 40 BS HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING 61a,40 CatM18462',Witham G� �.I- NORTH Fla, A TemenM,CA 62690 660-322-0462 n�11R Puite141963/30 95,-2963166(207) N'YLL•R eal Fa.96,•296.313, JII BURON,INC. _ - _ _ CITY OF TEMECULA .°Z�11. I 04.0213 - — - A. BIRD HOUSES BOCCE BALL COURT WITH PATIO WITH GAME TABLES BENCHES'SYNTHETIC TURF) I] r P Tr r .' I i 11i II o `I IHI �, t ,AU I�.t e••••PI IF W�✓, 1 + !. 41L I..IL{+ ,M' _ ' 1 JI / !�"= tiJ'v nAllC rl � •.. , ig,LAV� I mow.- .&,, .f it,. r -1T'ILI--'II BENCH!1 OF41 C4.': I •�t•I - L 1.4' .� ,.,a BENCH ITOF221 ;I' •r ry I' ` 1�=e „e 1` GAZEBO RETREAT .i -. • .I y 1 TOSTSt4 ■w E r WA..,:.13 1�.' r-Trs 1 no 411■ FOCALART ON PEDESTAL Y° r_` yea TSUtca.E_,,.•,pTER WALL �'�e�- ._.. 0. 4 f �' I. ' V Lam. � • _ rr - >R 1 yy -I ,;' ''1' �' 1!i; r'r JiI TL r 1 l_ MEMORY CARE COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT — �� C �' • ' [1,__I t r 1"=10' ll F r]' I; 1'_.I1 i hr,- .I,I 1 N _ I r ... T-y ....•J FORMAL LAWN/ ■ F '4 ,'• _ P1.11 MG GREEN +fr 'SYNTHETIC TURF) ! - 11, - . I , I I �. J I Ill {'III r f T •-fl --II-- )lf I I uu I_. ly �I. ��,• v I)II - t III �R 7 BIRD HOUSES ?RIFE BOSOUE! 1:14NWOPADO FORMAL KyleeARDEN. SEAIRID ARF,AS wEH FIRM ACE iiik. by t cRwesysasnriD MAIN COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT 1"=l0' r sTRrsTre • I4''ex ',A 4 .,1. r •'� _•y+•. 7•* S I - -k- < �'.tow YARSWAT MNa P:c: S�eVi A:s —, ' ° - SECTION AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1/8"=1'-0" SHEET 2 OF 3 ENLARGEMENTS/SECTIONS MONUMENT SIGNAGE(RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD) ri■;{ ii■L Wig LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR: o ice m ,B HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING Scale:1-=IB• NORTH Tji ,,„„,„, BURON,INC. CITY OF TEMECULA '°—� 040213 / a., a . • .. tt IL -11,4 . A.di LA ... .' .. Hillalf.Lailatei 021.2,121bItLid tal..511.E 2ACLIL H.A. .........",L.....!':,., ,F, :le ...•...•.,..2Ar, a ._ ... ..:.::.:.::.:41,tY'L.re.,...1.,.' '','Li.■1•::;:-..... 0 ,14,11.(ppoci 1 ul„A CA IF PAlhl IP .1.111I, ■II.O.Pl II[C,II c....eo•I./.r,•iPnuu n.It•■•• 4,44.4 0.. ......:.:Xfy•-•, ...5•.,,..6.....,„'AD 0 OAkiAltikt, (1.1.'".:::::. Ma .1. .••••, ...... •.%,....:.....01141";' '•'.1k illk..•;' .\\::•\\*/,'1:6;,..:;I:. 0,1.l141IIION OW .$1...... Wt.. •••<••••• cw wy, 11.C.1. NY.. ....m..... •-.,,.......Z1kr.:38-'1, '' \k‘t\\\\\\.1C4,, S11;) .k.; ,,, ,,, '" ,S C■■■[..E RAW IKE •:. .1.,...... •..... .5. MAC,lIG9,1[4,0,,, ,,CCIA191.G.I.C,LIA pin* 701.1,4111. 4044 OtFA fl.,J,AE■1,,11 lE,11.5 0,f itAl/11,11/LER,. ..,... .,... ...... ..... .11,1[IF■■Eln 74,AO. 41 I.. Orbkm. N\ '•• • . '\'‘'`, \ \''''''''\*".k., k\.\.`• \*\•sr,'"*\ .lit, ;.:'' &k,, ,-..,,,\60'0'2 11(k\\,\,,,c1k1,4\ ,“\.k i■\ '' .\ki.'431,:\\• )gl.':':' ''''1•4‘irilON N*I 4:•• ..,,,\...\1•NM \M'O 1,‘ ,ye,',,,,41‘,13- :::: UOPE REFS '‘.'''N.$%,4.'AV trA•\,,k•,‘.'•\'•A• ., ...13r7-40:\V\ ISL„N•41,)' B.'.... 0 •=I,.„..... 1,4•4y..1, nt•I•••■ 0•71:•••■■ CI+,t.1 RA.ILf F .1.414,1 .1..,1•••4 *Mb, •k•.•\\• ,,,..„\\,‘..,:‘ 4 ,,,,,,„„,..„...,:4:::::::::::.. ‘... -,„ . -,,,,:.::4;:,..,-. .,..:. .,17::::::•■■40 ..•••,,,,,,c,.. •KI.0.• Al poa or. . , . L— ...F.:A(1i gr.. A(j 1 .C.,''''.•: \•\.‘ .... Tia„...„..,:::::::::::::::-$.}:,:::::::::::::::::::::::::;•.;4,:i• V V\ ,'ea, ri :.: ::41-:.(0. 'Ff. ...: s.•.;,........ii&ii:P..:§imin:?,loggi.:M7.00., ,.:,;,:\, s.. .t'il, .::: A.21.43 ti .- .-v14-•.--a-iiiy, -_-1.-. --.01.-:,,„- .0.01:--:-', TYPICAL PLANTING-CORNER MONUMENT/SLOPE 0 .--....E.. CAPOLIII,C 1,, 1,5G411011 AS,Max, ME.A.1 LGIVItE,,AliON ViCC.0 1,G,L011 AS,,,,,r, I.,fre.II :::P*Y..lekr .i.2,::.:. .::i:,C1g9fitia:(S,E:,:::: 1"=10' fOINDA1101.117uas -.j ‘....,••••'•trS 01\ .:'• ASA11115,400 .1..1,,,II-n 5 0•11.0,1 AS,1041 10X c,....0_,i1,,,......-:...:, -,i-iii.i. &PAIO.,,,NCOO 5GALLC. As•.,..,..ry. NE0,1 0 CALLE10,11111a.1,7 ..16011L<E,, 5 G.1,,,fl IS SHO,01. ,,,,, ittea.,..4,50,1-C,u. PS..., 5.-.11.C,1 IS,40. NECAA1 ... .@,,f3!i,..._ ,.1 U1,4,1• ....,•,.. i LEL,COPIOILLM f onco■c000r IE,AS PPG. 5 OILL041 nssnowo Lon MI " Of*nt 1,11-ne.' I ELEIC,,,S,,,E. °,441.0.1 6C.ALLI ASI,Crhit LOA, Ili tbZr. moor...e.1 La. ,c...... As,OWX KuEDuN Ilarkiireamatmr resszmittaluttavag 1. ,.....,1 4—.., IOW •CALLON A5,0. WC., 1. 1111141, =MI• -- - Gpl.1 ASSLO. IOW i: DBES VEGFIA 0•110,1 A5,101. M£C,I.,d 111. [!. !, r 0 111 • 1,,C10190,,,ISID.VERVLOC ft,0/1 OR,. I GAL.! IS,10. LOX 11L111111 ligal i 011111a , ell•MOO 71 I 2 r„, i r 11 ,,„.,„—„.„„,..„ ono, ,onnoo Aso,* ,nnon, Mi.. M M•MI I I 1 0 0 0 I re.Mg 8."111._,JA, , -1•k•A ., ncoosomcnvona OFINIA4 f0,6■V*GYAS, ■GAIL.■ Assoc.-on /I,OLLI1 P,.,•!Nr- ,i ww.=11 111111.. pilii ___,__ ___ Low %TINE. 61,-,2[11111:-.12.1. : \CIAO A LIIIIIN ,_ AtA..A.,.:::i_gi SLOPE SFRI.Ig I=II ha I■mo 1 " , -,--, PI° . 4. '—'•MI a ...- . . ,ro 3 4R,t) .- . CFA1,41.S5S,Lf 5 CEILJSF,P4[IllS 511,,NMFIRT ICH WO LUNG ,,mo.. ,,,,,,,, ,or, SCAILCII ASSOC-Ali 1.0■1 ail=MI mr.E1 . u 4.'1:I, ,V:t. =-.1 ; i • /wait Alm M .--- FLEIG11115,,,18 £11,,,R, ,ALL011 A55,10. LON I. MEM 11. I HP EISVELES AfT0,1,014 !coon SGALLGI1 o OUAO LON 'Milli IN" .7.7. ..a.11111h tj IP lila l Al LE1■00,1■110.11 G.11CLOL I IF,,ASC,I,EI SAL,A1£1,01.1. IIIXICIIISP.E 6 OILLUI nconono Low sonuom .soon, too -,*.,Rai 1 ell ' ..11 .,......,,,c.,..... SKtir LEM r.ILOSIA SCALL,1 ISS.,01 MEDIU .......... 11-,:1•AZ I GALLON*I 2,1 OC LOA ...lb 4 Ai, 't-,• •.. 1 ! ..—.Y.wil:111=1111-' ,PC-ELEMPSCAI,E I GALL.0.OC LON I .,.. =-...■.111.4-.1„q„.....:.... ir,, -4- .. re,:4',. pm BM tIllUilli i ---,V ii+0,1.1,7 Pi03117,,,F noon/nor ■c OLON 0 1.1 CI, MFG, 1,..IS4 FLOnI3CARFEI VANI. .."01,CCO,FRPOIF r G.11.0.10 II Or LOW ,.. I . : . ..1...... II: i.fit:,,J-F-tt,LLEA:: i3Or IiiiilliMi'774411 1; —. -- 4.1,:, -1.1,-risr ir.ir.4... 11.3.3.1401. . ,,•1 CF/4.1,1.0140,,,NOLL, C.IAL CFIFHP ■0-.4..a r.o c Low r c.a..,2.■0 C LON color.ono.o IONMI len/AS1 COlOr.SIER 1CALLC,1 0 II C C LON 1,12Xcelaildr.aati. OttErt,,C.P.A.5f,, I CALCII a:A a C LOW I,II0 WOO. a ooloo...' ow Mimi NI Al di AM' Ji i . . =i10.,Eik=iia I ,, •1 =::::-;.:- com.a 3..0 c •‘ CEA?uint,5 GlIC,0111,6 C'arCft‘,717' 1 0,10../,,S. oo 0 I :61 .:.:1„:. •--. liel, 0 i111,,PIII"7 ier."4 i i coracno,o looroo non ono COI...V. I CANONS IS.1,4 Cv31115 snoaol.ii..lus Inon■LO.E.5... I G*,14 If to,G it,,,WIls,0 PG,,,11,41, f,,,,FIdER,,,,,,,, II c.•10101,,at oo on oo. IA",0.):.)•:.. 47: )13.17.7r1 7• .6 • 1731,0 Witilittill pls.SOYA.Gleuebtpt. .1:-:. i . i ...eta ais7 t, . • 13 , :€1 71,0 – inn ................ ..4.1,1...V0 race, AO: joi ..4 A '-'"31.144i..__ ■1111 ....„....::::::,..: -..... TYPICAL PLANTING-MAIN ENTRY 1 01 11:632i15 , i . 0 TO 0 a:ix ii I, ri ri • i"=la 02 '1 I .II II 1 ii• 0 PI .... e TYPICAL PLANTING-MAIN COURTYARD/DINING AREA 1"=10' SHEET 3 OF 3 TYPICAL PLANTING LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR: 0 HY , 40' a Fil Scale I=10. HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING NORTH 23Averg. BURON,INC. CITY OF TEMECULA 0.4.02 13 / Poligon Product Specification Form bY PORTERcoRP AVE.POPIERC.P.4240 N Man HOLLAND...".a" www.pollgonoan 800-354-7721 PROTECT NAME: PROJECTLOOATION: CUSTOMER NAME f E.ATAK, 1111111 PHONE FAX r WIND LOADC SNOW LOAD: rr yy!1 •ems 3 SEISMIC DESIGN; _ _NAG CODE: ��. ft..ea ;are� 4 Neo Classic Hexagon Standard Sizes Sheet index COVER SHEET/ORDER FORM it _BIN SIZE ELEVATION VIEWS I NCH 16 STRUCTURAL FRAME 6 Shelter Options NCH 20 ANCHOR LAYOUT SELECT APPLICABLE ROOF TYPE: S M ELECT ODIFICATIONS TO A STANDARD: NCH y 24 q MR(MAL81 Rang INCREASE UPB HEIGHT: NCH 28 SPMR(Structural Panel under Metal Roar) ADD ELECTRICAL CUTOUTS:_ TOMB(TeUBue&Groove undid Mehl Roof) ADD CUPOLA: 54(Mending Seam Reel) ADD ORNAMENTATION: NCH 20 SPSS(S ueit fal Panel under Standing eam) ADD BENCHES: TOSS Tnnguc 8 Groove trader R7anuEng Seam) ADD HANDRAILS: NCH 24 SHELTER.MODEL: SPAS Structural Panel under fupbraR Shy J SPCS SaucluralPanel trnd�Cedar s+nn e9`1� NCH 28 NEOCLASSIC OCTAGON SPCH I(SbuctuW Panel under!Abed Cedars nglat SELECT CUSTOMIZATION: I NCO SEAS gangue 8 Groove under AaphYl SHinglas) TOGS(Tongue 8 Groove under Cedar5ftirgrM)y o INCREASE UPB MORE THAN 2': REFER T41AIS/yW,pi}7,(({ON Op)g :.r.e TGCH Coegue A Groove undo'.MAed Cedar She1RPos) 0 CUSTOM COLUMNS: OOWNLOAIO AREA KM +� �.,,n. A w. +azanoog IATIA(Banta Fe metal glek ITYle] o CUSTOM PITCH: - FOOTING AND ANCHOR TRELLIS o ADD GALVANIZING FRAME INFORMATION$VsN "4'. on® o ADD GALVANIZING FRAME • COLUMN STYLE OPTIONS CUPOLA OPTIONS ORNAMENTATION STYLE FRAME COLOR -• INTEGRATED BENCH OPTIONS NS PARK ARCHITECTURE ROOF COLOR. _ MISCELLANEOUS OPTIONS odium end talomom AT Poligon Au Thar we protected under copyright PORTERCORP MANUFACTURES AND •0 end pewee end ne ymeIse.eenewconrnactionordamnore burly anal it not babbled by Poligon. DELIVERS PRODUCT IN STWCT COMPLIANCE TO GOVERNING M PORTERcoRP BUILDING CODES. w.n" 4240N n.N""e VIOLA..."w2. rm - www.poEgen.com 800-354-7721 COVER SHEET C: NOTE:THIS IS A COMPRESSION RING PLANNING LEVEL DRAWING. THE STRUCTURE SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO ON-GOING DESIGN REVIEW AND 1r UPDATE.EXPECT SOME CHANGES PURIM TO MATERIAL SIZES AND GENERAL DIMENSIONS ONLY USE DRAWINGS -"� PROVIDED WITH ENGINEERED ;� J STRUCTURES FOR CONSTRUCTION I_i$\W ��. 4�z-� 7RTENSIDN MEMBER' 11111 ORNAMENTATION FRAME —coLuMN \:\ i// .., ..-''''' ,N/ ■ ■ R �� ..00000 .� � / � POLY-5000 FRAME AND ORNAMENTATION FINISH: F I RRRRIIII■ �RRRrL IRRRRALIB I.■ 1=!—Ri MEMBERS SHOT BLASTED TO NEAR WHITE CONDITION ISSPC e SP-101,WASHED AND SEALED IN A PHOSPHATE SPRAY.PRE- COATED WITH AN EPDXY PRIMER,OVERCOATED WITH SUPER DURABLE TGIC POLYESTER POWDER AND OVEN 13-0 I/4' CURED, REF. I B'-10"UNDER SHELTEROM-,ODEL: FRAME NEOCLASSIC OCTAGON 20 NC20 -��� sz IIE..�, n r lanvage WISH GRADE T T �`bi �' �� �. PhkT, :PMIF:I1K Designs and coksRa lions of Polgon buidgs ate psolecled under capyrghl laws and pole nb and may not be used n the co,nslrucbn or Design of a baking mai is fbI suppled by Polgon. I by PORTERcoeP •O.n.co..,ron 1r4s4.w ap'LNR..cap www.pogon.com B00-3UH-7721 I FRAME VIEWS NOTE THIS IS A PLANNING LEVEL DRAWING, THE STRUCTURE SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO ON-GONG DESIGN REVIEW AND UPDATE EXPECT SOME CHANGES TO MATERIAL SIZES AND GENERAL DIMENSIONS.ONLY USE DRAWINGS PROVIDED WITH ENGINEERED t 6'-6 TIT STRUCTURES FOR CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO ANCHOR AND FOOTING DOWNLOAD SHEETS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ON BOTH ANCHOR 0 O ATTACHMENT AND TYPICAL FOOTING TYPES,ANCHOR ATTACHMENT AND FOOTING DESIGNS ARE SITE AND SITUATION SPECIFIC AND ARE INTEGRAL TO THE FINAL SHELTER DESIGN. 1 N. . DO NOT POUR FOOTING OR INSTALL [ ANCHOR BOLTS WITHOUT JOe SPECIFIC 1 ANCHOR AND FOOTING DESIGN D DRAWINGS. ` 4 t I ❑ ALL POLIGON COLUMN ANCHORING I SYSTEMS ARE OSHA COMPLIANT_ c 1 1 0 0 SHELTER MODEL: NEOCLASSIC OCTAGON 20 NCO-20 1 I,tz az A ;.e 10/24/2008 0 — 0 / ..--7"7 0 0L Iel-- -. e:C ir:11 X Designs clad cdcuIRans of Poigon bui4gs ate p.olecled uaM copyighi laws and polenls and may nol be used in'he cominclon orcesgn of bilking Ihal is nol wooled by Poigan. by PORTERcoiu www,pofgan.com�8003554-77721 (COLUMN LAYOUT s w............,.w......r.........c....,....L,.......w.......,.......,n HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING City of Temecula Gazebo yr :"� I, NCO 24 Concrete Paving(Stamped Concrete) t ' i -...„.......< --.7 • - ,..,,, .. •. .. s 19'-O PAINTED TUBE STEEL COLUMN PAINTED METAL FASCIA 18'-0" TYP CARPORTS REF.DRAWING: ISSUE: RCHITECT, t 4 k k Highgate Senior Living - Temecula, CA SCALE: 1/T0" TWM 13-114 DATE:5-12-14 C) 2014 TWM STUCCO ON C.M.U. WALLS & PILASTERS 1 MAW f PLAN PAINTED METAL FASCIA 11111111.91 I PAINTED STEEL °` GATES cxr L. FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION TRASH ENCLOSURE REF.DRAWING: ISSUE: RCF-IITE:C:I': "` Highgate Senior Living - Temecula, CA SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" TWM 13-114 =' '' DATE:5-12-14 0 2014 TWM PATIO FURNITURE EXHIBITS Location; Outdoor spaces -Highgate Temecula Dining Tables & Chairs, Benches -Woodard Furniture I ,• r< 1 -): `. a �/ �� -`r' :144447' rim ''�5.7, . . . ,, ,,,„,iiiiorifireiry .. .. , _ „,..,R MA _ . . 14111, . . t" 1t, ti� . 1 Pcsit:on All - ....-.7ipit vet Wk._ li I ,ai gab 40-:141.0.01 lo.a u;.-gz A•■•CYa;+ _SSSacca•to to+a D;FK n•• C►a:+_Scat ta0 to lO..a Lau a Cra:• 31152 31152C 33052C ) 1ifielliz.7.0.0.01 rir......rz:r,..1 l to.pa Orco-a. K...a.Lovucoac. low.Sot. 33.52C 33152C 33352C .4-*Ni'll;ferIA ,„_ r.,,„I roto , itt 1V4.1. frA • '11'...bat:1 MAY-0 '!Itv214,, I*-4‘F '''- I' -- €11;:Stli".'"'"""...7.-------h- •■■-a tfux.4-No Co .o. to-a 6s.,%-Lauz...Cia►aa lar wa AA in.,.•lu CSa.m L,w..•y.a 1 of 2 Firepit Surround Furniture -J. Ennis Furniture Corner Sofa Set Brown(See VILLA831146) 2 of 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA14-0024, A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HIGHGATE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 94 TO 84, MINOR SITE PLAN REVISIONS, AND A REVISION TO THE APPROVED ARCHITECTURE AT 42301 MORAGA ROAD (APN 944-290-029) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On April 6, 2011 , the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA10-0309, a Development Plan for a two-story, 89,148 square foot senior congregate care facility featuring 94 units consisting of studio and one bedroom units generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. B. On February 5, 2014, Larry Markham filed Planning Application No. PA14- 0024, a Major Modification 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 June 4, 2014, 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. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA14-0024 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. 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: Modifications, Development Code Section 17.05.030.E A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; As conditioned, the project will remain consistent with the General Plan with the changes proposed by the Modification. The General Plan has listed the project as a compatible use within Professional Office zoning areas, and the project remains in conformance with other Ordinances of the City and State law. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; As conditioned, the project will remain consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure the project will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. In addition, the project was reviewed by a variety of external government agencies as part of the original Initial Study process to further ensure the project was designed and appropriately conditioned so that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. None of the revisions proposed by the Modification Application are anticipated to have an adverse impact to the original Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. 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 15162 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations); An Initial Study was originally prepared for the project in an effort to further evaluate if the project would generate any potentially significant impacts to the environment. This document was distributed and made available for public review on March 11, 2011. The results of the Initial Study showed environmental impacts for the project were all less than significant with the mitigation proposed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program developed for the project. Two Initial Study elements were originally identified as having impacts deemed to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. These elements were Cultural Resources and Transportation/Traffic. Staff reviewed these two elements to determine if the proposed Modification Application would create any additional impacts that could not be lessened by the original mitigation measures. Staff determined that the mitigation prescribed for both elements remains valid. This is because the modification is partly for a reduction in the amount of units. The mitigation proposed for the Cultural Resources element of the original Initial Study is comprised mainly of ensuring that a Cultural Resources Treatment agreement is in place and that appropriate monitors be on-site during grading activities. These are typical mitigation measures and remain appropriate despite the modifications to the project. Original mitigation for the Transportation/Traffic element consisted of project driveway construction requirements and traffic signage and striping requirements. These mitigation measures remain appropriate for the proposed project modifications. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA14-0024, a Major Modification for the previously approved Highgate Senior Living facility to reduce the number of units from 94 to 84, minor site plan revisions, and a revision to the approved architecture at 42301 Moraga Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of June, 2014. Stanley Harter, Chairman ATTEST: Armando G. Villa, AICP Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Armando G. Villa, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 14- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Armando G. Villa, AICP Secretary EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA14-0024 Project Description: A Major Modification for the previously approved Highgate Senior Living facility to reduce the number of units from 94 to 84, minor site plan revisions, and a revision to the approved architecture at 42301 Moraga Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 944-290-029 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial TUMF Category: Service Commercial (Per TUMF Worksheets A.2.1 & A.2.3) Quimby Category: N/A (Commercial Project) Approval Date: June 4, 2014 Expiration Date: June 4, 2016 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL-1. Filing Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) 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 Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements PL-2. Indemnification of the City. 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. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL-4. Expiration. 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, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. PL-5. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. PL-6. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. PL-7. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. PL-8. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. PL-9. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. PL-10. Paint Inspection. The applicant shall paint a three-foot-by-three-foot section of the building for Planning Division inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. PL-11. Photographic Prints. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. PL-12. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. MATERIAL COLOR Main Exterior Walls— Cement Plaster Acrylic Sand Pebble Finish, Kelly Moore—Julesberg KM4026-1 Accent Exterior Walls—Cement Plaster Acrylic Sand Pebble Finish, Kelly Moore— Supreme Bean, KM4030-2 Roof Tile — Capistrano Concrete S Tile Eagle Roofing, Walnut Creek Blend, 3773 Window Frames —Vinyl Dark Bronze Stone El Dorado Stone — Mountain Ledge, Yukon Balcony Railings Dark Bronze Trellis Members — Rough Sawn Heavy Dark Brown Timbers PL-13. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. PL-14. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. PL-15. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. PL-16. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. PL-17. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. PL-18. All previous Conditions of Approval from PA10-0309 shall remain in full effect unless superseded herein. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PL-19. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. PL-20. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. PL-21. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at 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-22. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. 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-23. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and 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-24. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." PL-25. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "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-26. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." PL-27. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." PL-28. MSHCP Pre-Construction Survey. 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 Division prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. PL-29. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." PL-30. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PL-31. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. PL-32. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. PL-33. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees. PL-34. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized. PL-35. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. PL-36. Parking Area Landscaping. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall provide a minimum five-foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. PL-37. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. PL-38. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." PL-39. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. PL-40. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. PL-41. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. PL-42. Irrigation. The landscape plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property. PL-43. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping for equestrian trails and pedestrian trails within private common areas. PL-44. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. PL-45. WQMP Treatment Devices. 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 Director of Community Development. PL-46. Roof-Mounted Mechanical Equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision; however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Community Development approval. PL-47. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. PL-48. Building Construction Plans for Outdoor Areas. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit PL-49. Screening of Loading Areas. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. PL-50. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the 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-51. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. PL-52. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. PL-53. TCSD Service Levels. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. PL-54. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. OUTSIDE AGENCIES PL-55. Compliance with Dept. of Environmental Health. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 9, 2010, a copy of which is attached. PL-56. Compliance with RCWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated November 15, 2010, a copy of which is attached. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Conditions B-1. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. B-2. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2013 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2013 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2013 California Energy Codes, 2013 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and City of Temecula Municipal Code. B-3. Green Measures. The applicant shall provide 10% voluntary green measures on the project, as stipulated by the 2013 California Green Building Standards. B-4. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as club house, trash enclosure, tot lots and picnic areas. B-5. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of- way. B-6. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. B-7. Clearance from TVUSD. 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 Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. B-9. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. B-10. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. B-11. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits B-12. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. At Plan Review Submittal B-13. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) B-14. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) B-15. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction B-16. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements F-1. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. F-2. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of 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. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" 2 '/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent 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). The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-4. Fire Hydrant Clearance. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. (CFC Chapter 5). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) F-5. Turning Radius (Cul-de-sac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 45 feet (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-6. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-7. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet for commercial buildings with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-8. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-9. Two Point Access. This development shall maintain two points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) F-10. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). 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 (CFC Chapter 5 and Chapter 33). F-11. Fire Department connection (FDC) and Post Indicator Valve (PIV). The FDC and PIV need to be located away from the building in one of the planters. F-12. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. F-13. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). 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. F-14. Fire Sprinkler Riser Room. The fire sprinkler riser room shall be located on the exterior of the building with access from the exterior and shall house both the fire sprinkler riser(s) and fire alarm control panel. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F-15. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-16. Addressing. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6-inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-17. Knox Box. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). F-18. Site Plan: The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs (CFC Chapter 5). POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements PD-1. Defensible Plants. Applicant shall ensure any landscaping surrounding buildings is kept at a height of no more t han three feet, or below the ground floor window sills. Plants, hedges, and shrubbery shall be defensible plants to prevent would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings utilizing lower level windows. PD-2. Trees. Applicant shall ensure any trees surrounding building rooftops be kept at a distance to prevent 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. Any berms shall not exceed three feet in height. PD-4. Exterior Door Illumination. 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-5. Exterior Building Lighting. All lighting affixed to the exterior of buildings less than 8 feet high shall be vandal resistant. PD-6. Hardware. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. PD-7. Graffiti. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings or other structures 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-8. Alarm System. Upon completion of construction, each building or business shall have an alarm system that is monitored by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi-tenant offices/suites/businesses located within a specific building shall each have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is open 24/7. PD-9. Roof Hatches. Any roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PD-10. Rooftop Addressing. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. PD-11. Public Telephones. 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. Disable Parking. 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 Design. Crime prevention through environmental design, as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI), supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." The nine primary strategies that support this concept are included below: a. Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery, or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. b. Provide clearly marked transitional zones. Persons need to be able to identify when they are moving from public to semi-public to private space. c. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control. d. Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location less attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention. e. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. f. Redesign the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. g. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. h. Redesign space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be 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. j. Contact. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 506- 5132. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements PW-1. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. a. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 35481 as approved on October 3, 2007. PW-2. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. PW-3. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. PW-4. Haul Route Permit. A haul route permit may be required when soils are moved on public roadways to or from a grading site. The developer/contractor is to verify if the permit is required. If so, he shall comply with all conditions and requirements per the City's Engineering and Construction Manual and as directed by Public Works. PW-5. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required. An encroachment permit shall be obtained: a. From Public Works for public offsite improvements PW-6. Street Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit public/private street improvement plans for review and approval by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with Caltrans and City codes/standards; and shall include, but not limited to, plans and profiles showing existing topography, existing/proposed utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. PW-7. Signing & Striping Plan. A signing & striping plan, designed by a registered civil engineer per the latest edition of Caltrans MUTCD standards, shall be included with the street improvement plans for approval. PW-8. Storm Drain Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit storm drain improvement plans if the street storm flows exceeds top of curb for the 10-yr storm event and/or is not contained within the street right-of-way for the 100-yr storm event. A manhole shall be constructed at right-of-way where a private and public storm drain systems connect. The plans shall be approved by Public Works. PW-9. Private Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. PW-10. Retaining Wall and Parkway Landscaping. All retaining walls and parkway landscaping areas shall be privately maintained. PW-11. Landscaped Medians. The developer: shall contact the Park/Landscape Maintenance Supervisor for a pre-design meeting to discuss design parameters. The design shall be in conformance with the Temecula Community Services District's Landscape Standards a. Shall set a pre-construction meeting with the appropriate parties including Public Works and Building & Safety, prior to start of work. The developer shall comply with the Public Works' review and inspection process b. His successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaped median until such time Public Works accepts that responsibility Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PW-12. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. PW-13. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearances/permits from applicable agencies such as the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (401 certification), Army Corps of Engineers (404 certification), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement), RCFC&WCD and other affected agencies. PW-14. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction-phase pollution-prevention controls to adequately address non-permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/enqineerinqconst manual.htm PW-15. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security for private development and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. PW-16. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml PW-17. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project- specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www.cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQMPandN PDE S/WQMP.htm PW-18. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. PW-19. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. PW-20. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. PW-21. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. PW-22. Letter of Permission/Easements. The developer shall coordinate with adjacent property owners affected by the project's improvements and shall obtain the required documents such as letters of permission, easement(s) and/or maintenance agreement(s) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. PW-23. Sight Distance. The developer shall limit landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all street intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. PW-24. Habitat Conservation Fee. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in the ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit(s) PW-25. Public Utility Agency Work. The developer shall submit all relevant documentation due to encroaching within City right-of-way; and is responsible for any associated costs and for making arrangements with each applicable public utility agency. PW-26. Traffic Control Plans. A construction area traffic control plan (TCP) will be required for lane closures and detours or other disruptions to traffic circulation; and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The TCP shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and City standards. PW-27. Improvement Plans. All improvement plans (including but not limited to street, storm drain, traffic) shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. PW-28. Street Trenching. All street trenches shall conform to City Standard No. 407; refer to the City's Paving Notes. Prior to Issuance of building Permit(s) PW-29. Construction of Street Improvements. All street improvement plans (and the construction plans for landscaped medians) shall be approved by Public Works. The developer shall start construction of all public and/or private street improvements, as outlined below, in accordance to the City's General Plan/Circulation Element and corresponding City standards. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Rancho California Road (Principal Arterial (6 lanes divided) Standard No. 100 — 110' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and softscape for the raised landscaped median. b. Moraga Road (Collector (2 lanes undivided) Standard No. 103A — 66' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Via Los Colinas (Local Street Standard No. 104 — 60' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing, striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). PW-30. Undergrounding Wires. All existing and proposed utility lines, except electrical lines rated 34kV or greater, shall be installed underground per Title 15, Chapter 15.04 of the Temecula Municipal Code and utility provider's standards. The developer is responsible for any associated costs, for making arrangements with each utility agency and for obtaining the necessary easements. PW-31. Street Lights. The developer shall submit a completed SCE street light application, an approved SCE Streetlight Plan and pay the advanced energy fees. If not obtaining a building permit, this shall be done prior to installation of additional street lighting. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing street lights shall be paid by the developer. PW-32. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer-of-record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy PW-33. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. PW-34. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearances from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. PW-35. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. PW-36. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying satisfactory completion of all improvements per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer—of-record certifying the final compaction. C JNTY OF RIVERSIDE • HEAL -I SERVICES AGENCY 0 AZA•00;66, :DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH November 9, 2010 r 4 City of Temecula Planning Department /..1/ Attention: Eric Jones rt ,` .� y:hl P.O. Box 9033 1 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Development Plan(DP)No. PA10-0309 (No Related Pre-App cases) `-`` Dear Eric Jones: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the development plan for a two phase DP for a three story 98,970 square foot senior congregate care facility generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, featuring 72 unit studios, one and two bedroom apartments as well as an open space area in the center of the property (APN 944-290-026). The site plan does indicate water but sewer services exist at station 17 +00 (Via Los Colinas), we assume that these services will be available but RCWD should indicate with mylar drawings to the City Public Works engineer how these connections will be made available. 1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: a) "Will-serve"letters from the appropriate water and sewer district. b) Contact DEH Food Plan check at 951.461.0284 for compliance for the restaurant style dining kitchen. c) Contact DEH Hazardous Materials at 951.766.6524 regarding the storage of chemicals for laundry purposes. d) Contact DEH Swimming pool/spa plan check at 951.461.0284 for the SPA shown in the floor plans. Sincerely, --,' i / .i Iiil i i / Gregor Dellenbach, REHS (951)955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. EHS l O 1024 Local Enforcement Agency ° 00 Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 • (909) 955-8982 • FAX (909( 781-9653 • 4080 Lemon Street. 9th Flooi. Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering ° 00 Box 1206- Riverside. CA 92502-1206 ° (909) 955-8980 • FAX(909) 955-3903 • 4080 Lemon Street. 2nd Floor Riverside CA 92501 November 15, 2010 , ; Rancho ter NOV 1 6.---12010 Eric Jones, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Board of Directors Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Lisa D.Herman President Lawrence M.Libeu SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY Sc Vice President HIGH GATE DEV. PLAN Stephen J.Corona PARCEL NO 2 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL NO 1 OF Ralph H.Daily PARCEL MAP NO 35481 Ben B.Drake APNS 944-290-026 AND 944-290-025 John B.Hoagland [MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MGMT. GROUP] William E.Plummer Dear Eric: Officers Matthew G.Stone Please be advised that the above-referenced project/property is located within Leneral Manager the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The Jeffrey D.Armstrong Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer subject project/property fronts an existing 8-inch diameter water pipeline (1305 N.Craig Elitharp.P.E. Pressure Zone) within Via Las Colinas, and an existing 24-inch diameter water Director of Operations& VI intenanre pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Rancho California Road. Water service, Perry B.Louth therefore, would be available upon the extension of water pipeline facilities Director of Planning within Moraga Road, between Ranch California Road and Via Las Colinas. Andrew L.Webster.P.G. Chief Gnguserr Keni E.Garcia Water service to the subject project/property does not exist. Additions or District Serretac modifications to water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and C.Michael Cowett g System Regulations (governing))\ Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the Best Best R Krieger LLP General Counsel completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) destroying all on- site wells and signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition, water availability is contingent upon the timing of the subject project/property development relative to water supply shortage contingency measures (pursuant to RCWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances). As soon as feasible, the project proponent should contact RCWD for a determination of existing water system capability, based upon project-specific demands and/or fire flow requirements, as well as a determination of proposed water facilities configuration. If new facilities are required for service, fire protection, or other purposes, the project proponent should contact RCWD for an assessment of project-specific fees and requirements. Please note that separate water meters will be required for all landscape irrigation. Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road •Post Office Box 9017•Temecula.California 92589-9017•(951)296-6900•FAX(951)296-6800 Letter to Eric Jones/City of 1 .ecula November 15,2010 Page Two Sewer service to the subject project/property, if available, would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office at(951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FeSPLrof.41060404 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\PM:1m024\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135\Riuiciiester i4oad • Post Office Box 9017 • Temecula,California 92589-9017 • (951)296-0900 • FAX 051)296-6860 ORIGINAL INITIAL STUDY City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Highgate Senior Living, Development Plan Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Eric Jones, Assistant Planner (951) 506-5115 Project Location Generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address Larry R. Markham MDMG, Inc. 41635 Enterprise Circle North Temecula, CA 92590 General Plan Designation Professional Office (PO) Zoning Professional Office (PO) Description of Project The proposed project consists of the construction of a two-phase, three-story, 99-unit senior congregate care facility totaling 97,685 square feet with associated parking on 3.40 acres. Phase one of the project will total 77,161 square feet and phase two will total 20,524 square feet. A lot line adjustment designed to increase the project area by 0.78 acres will be analyzed by a separate application. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The site is currently a vacant lot that has been previously rough graded. To the east and south of the project are existing multi-family apartment complexes. To the west are existing office buildings. To the north, across Rancho California Road, is an existing commercial development including a gas station, car wash and retail/restaurant uses. Other public agencies whose approval None is required G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture and Forestry Resources Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation Cultural Resources Transportation and Traffic Geology and Soils _ Utilities and Service Systems Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mandatory Findings of Significance Hydrology and Water Qualm _ None _ I 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, nothi_g further is required. .r _..r � ± 3- it - it Signatur- Date Eric Jones City of Temecula Printed Name For G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\lnitial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ril Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? IISubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adverse) affect da or ni•httime views in the area? Comments: 1.a. No Impact: The proposed project is on vacant land. No scenic vistas have been identified per the City's General Plan or will be adversely impacted from developing the proposed project. No impacts are expected. 1.b. No Impact: No major rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the project site. The project site is not located on a scenic highway. No impacts are expected. 1.c. Less Than Significant Impact: Apartment residents living across Moraga Road (to the east of the project) and across Via Las Colinas (to the south of the project) will be most affected by the proposed development. However, this project will not degrade the existing character of the area. The project fits within its current Professional Office zoning and General Plan designation and is a vacant parcel entirely surrounded by existing commercial uses and apartment complexes. The City's Development Code and Design Guidelines establish design and landscaping standards which will ensure that the project site is developed in a manner consistent with the City's standards. Based on fulfilling the City's code and design standards, project aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 1.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare. However, this project will be constructed in accordance with zoning development standards including maximum height, landscape buffers, and the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Im.act a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest X 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)? d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X to non-forest use e Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X 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? Comments: 2.a. No Impact: According to Open Space/Conservation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, pages OS-18 and OS-19, Table OS-5 "Significant Farmland" and Figure OS-3 "Agricultural Resources" depict that the project is not located in an area of farmland of statewide or local importance. The subject site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes, and the City's General Plan Land Use Element has designated the site for Professional Office uses. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts as a result from the project. 2.b.e. No Impact The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated from this proposed project. 2.c.d. No Impact: The project location is not suitable for forest and/or timberland uses as defined by the Public Resources and Government Codes. Forest land is defined as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx recreation and other public benefits. The proposed project site is zoned Professional Office (PO) and not as a Timberland Production Zone as defined by Section 51104(g) of the Government Code. As such, the parcel is not available to grow trees commercially as required by the timberland definition contained in Section 4526 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, forest land does not exist on the parcel or in the immediate area. No impact is expected. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Comments: 3.a. No Impact: According to an Air Quality Impact Study prepared by PCR Services Corporation and dated March 2011, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated from the project site upon completion of this project. The study states that the RTP projects that population in the City of Temecula (local area)will grow by about 4,000 persons between 2011 and 2014. The proposed project, which contains 99 beds, is projected to result in a net population increase of approximately 100 persons, which is 2.5 percent of the total population growth projected for the local area, although it is conservative to assume that all future residents currently reside outside the local area. The RTP estimates that employment in the local area will grow by about 4,295 jobs between 2011 and 2014. The proposed project is projected to result in a net increase of 85 full-time equivalent jobs, or approximately two percent of the total job growth for the area. Such levels of population and employment growth are consistent with the population and employment forecasts for the local area as adopted by SCAG. Because the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections in the AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would be consistent with the projections in the AQMP. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact related to the implementation of the applicable air quality plans, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.b. Less Than Significant Impact: Construction The SCAQMD has established daily significance thresholds that address pollution sources associated with general construction activities, such as the operation of on-site construction equipment, fugitive dust from site grading activities, and travel by construction workers. Project construction emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model, originally developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The analysis assumed that construction activities would comply with applicable portions of SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the control of fugitive dust. Construction emissions are presented in Table 1, Regional Unmitigated Construction Emissions, under conservative assumptions, which imply a default equipment mix and a worst-case construction schedule. As G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx indicated therein, the incremental increase in emissions from project construction activities would fall below SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional emissions. Table 1 Regional Unmitigated Construction Emissions a (Pounds per Day) VOC NOx CO 502 PMl b Prvl,,st' Phase One- Maximum Regional Emissions(On-site + Off-site) Mass Site Grading 4 33 19 <1 7 3 Fine Site Grading 3 22 14 <1 7 3 Building Construction d 13 39 25 <1 3 2 Phase Two-Maximum Regional Emissions(On-site + Off-site) Building Construction ° 18 32 22 <1 2 2 Maximum Regional Emissions 18 39 25 <1 7 3 Regional Construction Daily Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Over/(Under) (57) (61) (525) (150) (143) (52) Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Compiled using the URBEMf52007 emissions inventory mode!. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in the Air Quality Appendices. PMi° and PM25 emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. Grading assumes that up to 20%of the site is graded on a doily basis. 4, Building Construction phase includes paving and architectural coatings. The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 26(Temecula Valley)interpolated for a 3.40 acre site with sensitive receptors located approximately 25 meters from the construction activity. 25 meters as the shortest distance for which an LST has been established. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. Operation The proposed project's incremental increase in regional and localized emissions resulting from operation of the project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on regional air quality, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Pollutant emissions resulting from project operational activities were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model. Because the site is currently vacant, all trips related to the proposed residences are considered an increase from baseline. Mobile source emission calculations utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rate calculated by URBEMIS 2007 based on the specific proposed land use and intensity. The daily rate is based on the number of daily trips for each land use and applied to a commute percentage and an average trip length, both of which are land use specific values derived from the URBEMIS 2007. These values account for variations in trip frequency and length associated with commuting to the proposed project. Emission factors specific to the buildout year are projected based on Basin-specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future emission standards and fuel efficiency standards. The increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to provide power, heat, and ventilation was considered in the calculations as stationary point source emissions. Future fuel consumption rates are estimated based on land use specific energy consumption rates. Natural gas and G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx electricity usage factors derived from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used to project fuel consumption rates. The emission factors used in this analysis represent a State-wide average of known power producing facilities, utilizing various technologies and emission control strategies, and do not take into account any unique emissions profile. At this time, these emission factors are considered conservative and representative. Area source emissions were calculated by URBEMIS 2007, and include emissions from natural gas and landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings (future maintenance). As shown in Table 2 (Proposed Project-Related Operational Emissions), pollutant concentrations resulting from Project operation would not exceed SCAQMD localized thresholds. Therefore, localized air quality impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Proposed Project-Related Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) Emission Source VOC NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Operation of Phase One a On Road Mobile Sources 1 1 12 <1 2 <1 Area Sources 3 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 Stationary Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Project 4 2 15 <1 2 1 SCAQMD daily Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Over(Under) (51) (53) (535) (150) (148) Significant? No No No No No No Operation of Phase One and Two a On Road Mobile Sources 2 3 24 <1 5 1 Area Sources 5 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 Stationary Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Project 8 4 26 <1 5 <1 SCAQMD daily Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Over(Under) (47) (51) (522) (150) (145) (54) Significant? No No No No No No a Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 emissions model. Model output sheets are provided in Appendix A. Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Sources: PCR Services Corporation,2011. 3.c. Less Than Significant Impact: As stated above, the proposed project would result in minimal new long-term stationary sources and generate additional vehicular trips from the baseline. However, the regional emissions calculated for the proposed project and presented in Tables 1 and 2 remain less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable State and national ambient air quality standards. These standards apply to both primary (criteria and precursor) and secondary pollutants (ozone). Although the Project site is located in a region that is in non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, the emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable as the emissions would fall below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 3.d. Less Than Significant Impact:Some population groups, such as children, the elderly, and acutely ill and chronically ill persons, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases, are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. The Project is located in the City of Temecula, surrounded by commercial and residential uses and some vacant land. Single Family Residential land uses are located adjacent to the east, south and southwest of the project site and Quest Diagnostics (a medical office) is located to the west. However, the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residences south of the project site, approximately 17 meters from the Project site. The SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal and state standards. Table 3 Localized Construction Emissions ' (Pounds per Day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PMmb PMx,Sb Phase One- Maximum Localized Emissions(On-site Only) By Stage Mass Site Gradingc 4 32 17 <1 7 3 Fine Site Grading 4 31 16 <1 7 3 Building Construction 12 36 19 <1 2 2 Phase Two Maximum Localized Emissions(On-site Only) By Stage Building Construction 18 31 16 <1 2 2 Maximum Localized Emissions 18 36 19 <1 2 3 Localized Significance Thresholds a N/A 300 1,515 N/A 10 6 Over/(Under) Threshold N/A (264) (1,497) N/A (2) (3) Exceed Threshold? - No No - No No Compiled using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in the Air Quality Appendices. PMi;; and PMMS emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. Grading assumes that up to 20%of the site is graded on a daily basis. Building Construction phase includes paving and architectural coatings. C The SCAQMD LSTs are based on Source Receptor Area 26(Temecula Valley)interpolated for a 3.40 acre site with sensitive receptors located approximately 25 meters from the construction activity. 25 meters is the shortest distance for which an LST has been established. Note: Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. On-site emissions, a sub-set of the total construction emissions presented above, were calculated and presented in Table 3, Localized Construction Emissions. The applicable SCAQMD LSTs are also listed on Table 3. As demonstrated in Table 3, the incremental increase in emissions from the project's construction activities would be below SCAQMD LST look-up thresholds and sensitive populations near to the site are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant levels. Localized construction impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Because the project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of on-site emissions (such as industrial boilers or generators), CO is the benchmark pollutant for assessing local area air quality impacts from post-construction operations. Given the nature of the proposed project (residential), vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection locations. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. The SCAQMD recommends performing a CO hotspots analysis if the project increases the V/C ratio by 2% and worsens an existing LOS D or worse. Based on standard ITE trip generation rates, the project would generate less than 40 trips during the peak hour. Since the project would not generate a significant number of peak hour trips, a CO hotspots analysis was not required. The greatest potential for construction period toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation activities. In addition, incidental amounts of toxic substances such as oils, solvents, and paints would be used. These substances would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules for their manufacture and use. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively short-term construction schedule of 3 years, the proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions with no residual emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. As such, Project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would not be significant. The proposed project may require the installation of back-up diesel powered emergency generators. All new generators would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations and include the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The installation of equipment with the potential to emit TACs must demonstrate, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1401, that no off-site sensitive receptors be exposed to health risks in excess of the significance criteria discussed above. If the installation of new generators results in multiple-generator groups, the installation would also be required to comply with recently promulgated Rule 1472 to ensure that localized risk remains below thresholds. Compliance with Rule 1472, if applicable, together with the limited need for, and operational hours of, this equipment would substantially reduce potential impacts. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. Because the project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of on-site TAC emissions, diesel particulate matter (DPM) from idling vehicles poses the greatest potential of creating an incremental increase in TAC emissions during operation of the proposed project. In 2004, GARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to limit heavy duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel PM and other TACs and air pollutants. The measure applies to diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds which are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. This measure does not allow diesel fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than five minutes at any given time. Potential localized air toxic impacts from on-site sources of diesel particulate emissions would be minimal since only a limited number of heavy-duty trucks would access the project site (deliveries, trash removal, etc.), and the trucks that do visit the site would not idle on the project site for extended periods of time. Based on the limited activity of the toxic air contaminant sources to be operated with implementation of the proposed Project, a detailed health risk assessment is not warranted. Potential air toxic impacts to off-site populations would be less than significant. As mentioned previously, the CARB has released guidelines which provide recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Based on our understanding of existing nearby land uses, new sensitive receptors (future residents) should not be sited within 1,000 feet of a warehouse distribution center (which have extensive heavy-duty truck activity), within 500 feet of a freeway [or similar high traffic roadway (i.e., roads within urbanized areas carrying more than 100,000 vehicles per day)], or within 300 feet of a dry cleaning facility that uses perchloroethylene, among other siting recommendations. Since the Project would not introduce residential uses within the CARB siting distances for potential air toxic sources, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to on-site TAC exposure and no mitigation is required. As described above, operation of the project would not result in substantial localized or regional air pollutant impacts. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 3.e. No Impact: No objectionable odors are expected as a result from operation of the proposed project. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. Odors are also associated with such uses as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. Standard practices related to trash receptacle areas, such as keeping trash bins covered and located away from outdoor areas where residents of multi-family housing may congregate, will help minimize the potential for odor nuisance complaints. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed which would create objectionable odors. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X 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 X 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? c Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X ' 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 interru•tion, or other means? d Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation 'Ian? Background The parcel is completely surrounded by multi-family residential, commercial and medical office land uses. Topography on the parcel surface is basically flat-lying and featureless, except for a 10 to 15-foot high berm located along the south property line. The parcel appears to have been graded flat in the past. It is elevated ten to forty feet above the existing grade of Rancho California Road. Riverside County adopted the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on June 17, 2003. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion in favor of adopting the MSHCP was released on June 22, 2004. The City of Temecula is a signatory to the MSHCP, and therefore, the project is required to comply with the MSHCP. Section 6.0 of the MSHCP identifies the local implementation measures. Section 6.1.6 details the County and Cities Obligations and corresponds with Section 13.2 of the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS. The program requires the City to undertake the following steps to insure compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP: • Payment of local development mitigation fees and other relevant fees (Section 8.5) • Comply with the Habitat Assessment program (HANS) processor equivalent process to satisfy local acquisition obligation • Comply with the survey requirements (Section 6.3.2) G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx • Comply with the policies of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2) • Comply with the policies of the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3) • Comply with the policies of the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4) • Comply with the Best Management Practices (Section 7.0; Appendix C) Comments: 4.a.-f. Less than Significant Impact: The project site is in the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The project site is not within a Criteria Cell of the MSHCP Plan Area and no HANS review is required; however a habitat assessment was required to address, at a minimum, the potential habitat for Burrowing Owl in accordance with MSHCP guidelines. A letter dated January 22, 2007 from Consulting Biologists Principe and Associates, along with an MSHCP Compliance Report and Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment conducted by Principe and Associates on June 12, 2007, indicate that suitable habitat for the burrowing owl was not found on site; nor is the site suitable to support habitat for the burrowing owl. An updated Burrowing Owl survey was conducted on August 12, 2010 by the consulting biologists Principe and Associates. The results of the survey indicate that Burrowing Owl habitat is still not present on the site or within the 500 feet buffer zone. Burrowing owls were also not observed on the site or within the buffer zone. The applicant will be required to pay applicable MSHCP mitigation fees. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project site does not contain any wetlands, riparian forests, vernal pools, or wildlife nursery sites. There are no natural watercourses on the parcel surface. The parcel is mostly bare ground with no significant biological resources present on site. There are some cottonwood trees on the project site, however, they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. The site is located within the Quino Checker spot and Gnatcatcher as well as Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required as a condition of approval to offset the effect of cumulative impacts to the species from urbanization occurring throughout western Riverside County. The MSHCP does not have any further habitat assessment requirements for the project site, so no additional wildlife or plants surveys are necessary. No significant impacts are expected. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or uni•ue •eolo•is feature? d Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments. 5.a.b.d. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: A Historical-Archaeological Resources Survey Report was conducted by CRM Tech dated February 2, 2007 for the Rancho View Development. This development was to be constructed on the parcel as the proposed project. On January 23, 2007, an archaeologist carried out an intensive-level, pedestrian field survey of the project area with the assistance of Native American monitors from the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians. The intensive-level field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural resources and no artifacts more than 50 years of age were encountered during the survey. Furthermore, the City of Temecula General Plan does not identify the project site as a sensitive archaeological resource area. In addition, archaeological monitoring was conducted during all grading activities on the 20.5 acre property located adjacent/east of this project site (Temecula Ridge Apartments) and, according to the Archaeological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates dated May 8, 2006, only one artifact was found (a prehistoric lithic artifact) which was considered not significant due to the lack of associated deposits. No further cultural resources were identified during the archaeological monitoring. Due to the lack of historical and archaeological resources found during the archaeological monitoring during grading at the adjacent site; and the negative findings for potential cultural resources conducted during a survey of the project site, less than significant impacts are expected. However, in order to ensure that significant impacts will not result, the project will be conditioned consistent with City policy and the recommendations set forth in the Historical-Archaeological Resources Survey dated February 2, 2007 that if, during excavation/grading or construction of the site, any artifacts or other objects that reasonably appear to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, including human remains, all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area is to cease immediately and a qualified specialist shall inspect the site to determine the significance of the discovery. Mitigation for the project will be as follows: Mitigation: 1 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor and professional Pechanga Tribe monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. 2 At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. 3 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM 2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. 4 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the Treatment Agreement described in MM 2. 5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 6 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. 7 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 5.c. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The City of Temecula General Plan EIR sensitivity map for paleontological resources identifies the project site as an area having possible paleontological resources. In addition, paleontological monitoring conducted during grading activities on the 20.5 acre property located adjacent/east of this project site (Temecula Ridge Apartments) revealed at least 32 discoveries of vertebrate fossils dating from 300,000 years to 1.8 million years old (all of which have been deposited into the permanent paleontological collections at the San Diego Natural History Museum), according to the Paleontological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates dated May 8, 2006. Due to the potential for such resources to occur on the property, a paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations, and during grading and excavation activities a qualified paleontological monitor will be required to be present on site and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of any exposed paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered, adequate funding shall be provided G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. With these measures, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation: 1 A paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations. 2 A qualified Paleontologist shall be on-site during grading activities. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact _ Impact a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv Landslides? X b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of X the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: 6.a. Less Than Significant impact: According to the City's General Plan EIR, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. The Geotechnical Investigation of the site, prepared by GeoCon Inland Empire, Inc. on February 12, 2007, indicates that no active faults are known to project through the site and the site does not lie within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the Elsinore Fault is located approximately one-quarter mile to site. There are 20 nearby or regional faults within a 50-mile radius from the site, and the site could be subjected to moderate or severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake at any nearby or regional earthquake fault. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to build the structures in accordance with the current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances. The project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction according to the City of Temecula's current GIS mapping information. Furthermore, according to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoCon Inland Empire on February 12, 2007, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be very low based on the relatively dense nature of the formation soil. In addition, no soil or geologic conditions were encountered at the site which would preclude the proposed commercial development of the property, provided compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report. Development of the property is considered feasible and less than significant impacts are anticipated for the project. 6.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The General Plan requires mitigation for projects to control erosion. Further, the state-wide NPDES program requires every project with ground disturbance greater than five acres to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during project construction and operation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are identified in the SWPPP to control erosion on a site and any G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx sedimentation generated by disturbing the site for development with conformance to the NPDES program. Less than significant impacts are expected. 6.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of this project, and potentially result in on or off-site grading landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. In general, the on-site soil consists of sands with variable amounts of silt and silts with variable amounts of sand. The soil generally possesses a very low to low expansion index as defined by the Uniform Building Code Section 18-i-B and moderate shear strength characteristics. The on-site soil is considered suitable for use as fill. It is recommended that soil with an expansion potential greater than medium (El > 50), if encountered, be kept at least three feet below proposed finished grade. In addition, no soil or geologic conditions were encountered which would preclude the proposed commercial development of the property, provided compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report. In addition, the applicant will be required to prepare soils reports prior to issuance of a grading permit. Development of the property is considered feasible and less than significant impacts are anticipated for the project. 6.e. No Impact: The project will not utilize septic tanks, but will instead be connected to the public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I a Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? _ b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: 7.a. Less Than Significant Impact: A Green House Gas study was conducted by PCR Services Corporation in March of 2011. The report analyzed green house gas emissions from both construction and operational circumstances. Construction Emissions of GHGs were calculated for each year of project construction. Construction of the project is projected to emit a total of 945 metric tons (MT) of CO2e. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Due to the potential persistence of GHGs in the environment, impacts are based on annual emissions and, in accordance with SCAQMD methodology, construction-period impacts are not assessed independent of operational-period impacts. Table 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) Source Emissions Construction Construction(Total) 945 Construction(Ainortized) 31 Operations On Road Mobile Sourcesa 487 Electricity" 184 Natural Gast 94 Water Conveyance 165 Operations Total 930 Project Total 961 Mobile source emissions are based on on overage trip length of 113 miles for workers and 8.9 miles for customers, and fleet percentages provided by URBEMIS 2007 Mobile source values were derived using EMFAC2007 b Electricity Usage Rates from the Energy Information Administration's 003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. c Natural gas emissions ore derived from URBEMIS2007. Water Conveyance Calculations are based on factors derived from the California Energy Commission, and calculations are port of the electricity calculations in the Appendix. Future Scenario includes VMrreductians due to GHG reducing project features- ); amortized construction plus annual operations Source: PCR Services Corporation. 2011. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Operations Project operations would result in a change in land use from vacant land to residential use. As shown in Table 1, GHG emissions resulting from vehicle, electrical, and natural gas usage during operation is estimated to be 930 MT CO2e, including the savings in natural resource consumption due to the project design features. When added with the amortized emissions from construction, the total project-level emissions from the proposed project was estimated to be a maximum of 961 MT CO2e, which is less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 tons per year. With regard to the first CEQA checklist question, the GHG emissions resulting from project construction and operations would not directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment based on the above mentioned threshold. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to construction and operational GHG emissions. 7.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Temecula has established a Sustainability Action Plan which encourages the reduction of GHG emissions from new projects and existing operations . This plan is based on the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords, and is generally supportive of the goals of AB32. Specifically applicable to the proposed project are: • Community wide energy usage reduction target of 10% more efficient than current standards. • Promote alternative modes of transportation As highlighted above, one of the project design features is to lessen energy used in the buildings and the residents' reliance on personal automobiles. To these goals, the applicant is committed to installing a state-of- the art heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system which will provide domestic hot water, heating and cooling with approximately 20 percent less energy consumed. In addition, the center will promote alternative modes of transportation by providing a shuttle bus and driver in which the residents will be transported off-site for routine needs such as shopping, health needs, and entertainment. Based on similar facilities, it is expected that less than 10 residents will own and use a personal vehicle while residing at Highgate. In addition, vehicle trips for the overall project would be reduced with the transportation shuttle services provided. In addition, the project would be subject to the mandatory CalGreen requirements which will serve to further reduce GHG emissions. In November 2008, the California Building Standards Commission established the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which sets performance standards for residential and nonresidential development to reduce environmental impacts and encourage sustainable construction practices. When the CALGreen code went into effect in 2009, compliance through 2010 was voluntary. As of January 1, 2011, the CALGreen code is mandatory for all new buildings constructed in the State. The CalGreen code addresses energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. Therefore, the project will comply with CALGreen requirements. Because the proposed project is supportive of local and State goals regarding global climate change, and does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for reducing GHG emissions, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Due to the complex physical, chemical and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, there is no basis for concluding that the project's very small theoretical emissions increase could actually cause a measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change. The GHG emissions of the project alone cannot cause a direct physical change in the environment. It is global emissions in their aggregate that contribute to climate change, not any one source of emissions alone. Due to the incremental amount of GHG emissions estimated for this project, the lack of any evidence for concluding that the project's GHG emissions could cause any measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change, and the fact that the project incorporates design features to reduce potential GHG emissions that are consistent with the goals of AB32, the project is not considered to have a significant impact with respect to global climate change on a project-specific basis. Moreover, there is no non-speculative method for G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx assessing how the project's very small theoretical GHG emissions increase could cause a significant project- specific effect on global climate change. Construction and operation of the project would create an increase of GHG emissions but would remain below SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project will consider incorporating the project features described above which will result in lower GHG emission rates as compared to "business as usual". Because these features and measures would meaningfully reduce project GHG emissions and are consistent with the Temecula Sustainability Action Plan and State's CAT strategies, the Project is supportive of the State's goals regarding global climate change. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to cumulative Global Climate Change. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? I h ' Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 8.a. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is designated for a congregate care facility, which may include medical and biological waste. Therefore, the project may include hazardous materials. However, chemicals and waste stored, used, and handled at facilities are required to ensure that proper types of fire and life safety protection systems and procedures are in place. All businesses that plan to use hazardous materials will be required to submit a chemical classification packet to the City as required by the California Fire Code and California Building Code for compliance with these requirements. There will be no significant hazard to the public or the environment from the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result from this project. 8.b. Less Than Significant Impact: It is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project proposes a congregate care facility. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\lnitial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 8.c. No Impact: The proposed project does not include any activities or uses that would pose a potential health hazard to the local population or the nearby school. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 8.d No Impact: Review of available data including site appearance, California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site Lists, and the Preliminary Title Report indicate no past uses that may have involved hazardous materials. Based upon the available data and the historical land use, there is no evidence to support that hazardous wastes would be present on the site. No impacts are anticipated. 8.e.f. No Impact: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip according to Figure LU-2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 8.g. No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan and will be designed to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8.h. No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ` X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Require the preparation of a project-specific WQMP? X g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? i _ _ X Comments: 9.a. Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes a congregate care facility totaling 97,685 square feet. This type of development typically generates domestic and/or municipal wastewater that does not require pretreatment or waste discharge requirements. No water quality standards are forecast to be violated by implementing the proposed project which will deliver its wastewater flows to the regional wastewater plant. Wastewater will be delivered to the regional treatment plant for treatment under waste discharge requirements established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. During construction and occupancy, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented which will control storm water runoff pollution to a level of no significance, therefore less than significant impacts are anticipated. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 9.b. Less Than Significant Impact Groundwater related problems are not expected to be encountered during site development. If shallow perched groundwater is encountered during construction, it can be managed with the use of sump pumps placed in the bottom of excavations which will be incorporated. The proposed project does not include any extraction of groundwater, so no adverse direct impact can result from implementing the proposed project. The City's General Plan EIR addresses water demand from development in the City of Temecula. The General Plan EIR concludes that cumulative water demand within the City can be met by the City's two purveyors without having a significant adverse impact on the environment, including depletion of the areas groundwater supplies. This is verified by the Rancho California Water District's Urban Water Master Plan which defines the resources available to the District to meet future cumulative demand within its service area. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property and thus, is considered consistent with the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project will not contribute to a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area groundwater aquifers. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 9.c. Less Than Significant Impact: Through the implementation of the project SWPPP (storm water protection program), erosion and siltation issues are controlled to a less than significant impact level and this project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 9.d.f. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site. The City imposes standard mitigation to detain surface runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum runoff volume from the site is not significantly increased. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements established by the State of California. However, the project is required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A preliminary plan has been submitted and conceptually accepted. The project will comply with RWQCB standards as designed. Based upon the information presented above, no significant adverse impact to either downstream flows or water quality is forecast to affect properties downstream of the site from developing the project as proposed. Less than significant impacts are proposed. 9.g.h. Less Than Significant Impact: No buildings or structures will be located within the 100-year floodplain according to the City's General Plan as a result of implementing this project. No significant flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. No significant flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. Less that significant impacts are proposed. 9.i. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The subject property is not located within a dam inundation area per the City's General Plan. In addition, the City has implemented a multi-hazard functional plan pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act. The proposed project does not contain critical or essential facilities. Less than significant impacts are proposed. 9.j. No Impact: Due to the project area's distance from the ocean or other large body of water and its and elevation, there is no potential for a tsunami. The project area is not located near a large surface water body and there is no potential for inundation by seiche or mudflow. No impacts are anticipated. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a I Physically divide an established community? X b Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact The project site will not divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Surrounding property uses include commercial, office and multi-family apartment residential so the addition of a congregate care use will not divide an established community. The proposed site is zoned Professional Office (PO) and allows for congregate care uses. The project is consistent with the zoning standards of the City's General Plan and Development Code. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City comments on the scope of the analysis contained with the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Furthermore, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. No impacts are anticipated from this project. 10.c. No Impact The project site is not located within a Criteria Cell of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and is consistent with the applicable Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conversation plan related to this project. No impact is expected. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact a Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral . X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 11.a. No Impact The project will not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. According to the General Plan EIR, the City is within Mineral Resource Zone 3a (MRZ-3) as classified by the State Geologist. The MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and graval for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value, based on available data. These areas are primarily located in proximity to the Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, as well as other significant drainage areas. The project site is not located in the vicinity of these areas. No impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 11.b. No Impact: The project will not result in the 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. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X 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 X _groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? _ Comments: 12.a.-d. Less than Significant Impact: Development of the land will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long-term. No activities are anticipated within the proposed project that would expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the project site. However, those noises are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, noise from construction of the project will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No significant impacts are anticipated. 12.e.f. No Impact: This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. According to Figure N-3 (the French Valley Airport Future Noise Contours in the Noise Element) on page N-12 of the General Plan, the project is not located in the noise impact area for the French Valley Airport. In addition, the project is not located in the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone according to Figure LU-2 on page LU-7 of the Land Use and Planning Element of the General Plan. Therefore, people within the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport and no impacts will result from this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure ? b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of re•lacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 13.a. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project proposes a congregate care facility that could attract people that live outside City limits to relocate to Temecula. This is considered a moderate direct affect due to the fact that the facility only has 99 units. The project will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b.c. No Impact The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is vacant property and is not zoned for residential uses. Therefore, the project will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing due to displacement of housing or people. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a - Fire protection? X b Police protection? X c Schools? X d Parks? X e ! Other public facilities? X Comments: 14.a.b.d.e. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The development of the site will incrementally increase the need for these services. The project will also contribute its fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 14.c. No Impact: The project is creating a residential use. However, the use will provide housing for senior citizens and not school age children. Therefore the use will not have impacts on, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Development of the parcels within the project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable school fees at the time the parcels are developed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 15. RECREATION. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 15.a.b. No Impacts: The project will have no impact on the demand for neighborhood, regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The project has proposed recreational areas for its residents. However these are not available to the public since the use is designated as a congregate care facility. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\lnitial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy X 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? b Conflict with an applicable congestion management X 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 highs? c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e Result in inadequate emergency access? X f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding X public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: 16.a.b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project is located at the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga, with ingress and egress at the south and east side of the property line along Via Las Colinas. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed project is developed. However, the Statement of Operations for the project indicates that van service will be available to residents. This van service will reduce the overall vehicle trips created by the facility. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that the project will have a less than significant impact to the existing road system and adjacent intersections because the existing roadways have been developed consistent with the City's General Plan in anticipation of the area's proposed development. In addition, the City's Public Works Department noted that the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated February 18, 2000 for the adjacent commercial and residential project, Temecula Ridge Village, included this property as well and all required mitigation has been implemented including the southerly extension of Moraga Road and a traffic signal upgrade at the intersection of Moraga and Rancho California Road. A focused traffic study dated September 21, 2010 specific to the project was prepared by Urban Crossroads. Several mitigation measures were developed as part of the study. These are listed below and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx Mitigation: 1. Construct the driveway on Moraga Road (Drive way 1) as a Full access driveway with stop control. 2. Construct the driveway on Via Las Colinas (Driveway 2) as a full access driveway with stop control. 3. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/City of Temecula sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 4. Traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Congregate care facilities are a permitted use within Professional Office (PO) zones. No conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system is anticipated. A less than significant impact is expected. 16.c. No Impact: The proposed project will not have an impact on the air traffic patterns and will not result in a substantial safety risk. This site is not within the French Valley Airport influence area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 16.d.e.f. No Impact: The proposed project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. The proposed project provides for adequate ingress and egress from the site. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on- site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. The proposed project will meet parking requirements per Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Development Code. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated _ Impact Impact a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? _ c Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 17.a.b.e. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.c. Less than Significant Impact: The project may result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place along Rancho California Road and to an existing City of Temecula storm drain located both east and west of the project site. Construction of any storm drains will comply with the General Plan. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.d. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)for the City's General Plan states: "RCWD anticipates supplying water to 167,640 persons within its service area in 2020 (p. 5.14-3)." The FEIR further states: "EMWD anticipates supplying water to 756,699 persons within its service area in 2020, (p. 5.14-3)." This anticipated water supply includes a portion of Temecula. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.f.g. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Im.act Impact a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 18.a. Less than Significant Impact: This site is surrounded by development and does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in-fill development and it does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.b. Less than Significant Impact: The effects from this project are less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. All cumulative effects for the subject site, as well as the surrounding developments, were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The cumulative impacts related to the future development of this site are anticipated to have a less than significant impact. 18.c. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The residential project will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Comments 19.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study. Earlier documents developed by consultants can be found in the below Sources section. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department located at 41000 Main Street. 19.b. A previous initial study was conducted for the project site in relation to a different development (Rancho View Professional Center). This development consisted of two office buildings totaling 85,000 square feet. However, it was never constructed. All items discussed above, with the exception of air quality and traffic, were within the scope of the proposed congregate care facility. Separate air quality/green house gas and traffic studies were conducted specifically for the congregate care facility. 19.c. See attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook 4. MSHCP Compliance Report and Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment prepared by Principe and Associates (June 20, 2007) 5. Updated Burrowing Owl Assessment prepared by Principe and Associates (September 8, 2010) 6. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM TECH (February 2, 2007) 7. Paleontological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates (May 8, 2006) 8. Archaeological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Temecula Ridge Apartment Project prepared by Eilar Associates (May 8, 2006) 9. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon (February 12, 2007) 10. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Temecula Village Development prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (February 18, 2000) 11. Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 21, 2010. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Initial Study.docx ORIGINAL MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: A two phase Development Plan Application for a three story 97,685 square foot senior congregate care facility generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. The project features 99 units consisting of studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments as well as a courtyard Location: Generally located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road Applicant: Larry Markham 41635 Enterprise Circle North Temecula, CA 92590 Cultural Resources General Impact: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor and professional Pechanga Tribe monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. 2. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. 3. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM 2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist. 4. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the Treatment Agreement described in MM 2. 5. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 6. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. 7. If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/ cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 8. A paleontological assessment will be required prior to grading operations. 9. A qualified Paleontologist shall be on-site during grading activities. Specific Process: Place the above Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval on the project to reduce potential biological impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Milestone: Above referenced mitigation measures shall be placed on all applicable project plans. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department Transportation/Traffic General Impact: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Mitigation Measures: 10. Construct the driveway on Moraga Road (Drive way 1) as a Full access driveway with stop control. 11. Construct the driveway on Via Las Colinas (Driveway 2) as a full access driveway with stop control. 12. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/City of Temecula sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 13. Traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmental\Initial Study\CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc Specific Process: Place the above Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval on the project to reduce potential transportation/traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Milestone: Above referenced mitigation measures shall completed before any grading permit is issued. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department and Public Works Department G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0309 High Gate DP\Planning\Environmentalllnitial Study\CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc o Notice of Public Hearing 1989`..._... „ A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: PA14-0024 Applicant: Larry Markham Proposal: A Major Modification for the previously approved Highgate Senior Living facility to reduce the number of units from 94 to 84, minor site plan revisions, and a revision to the approved architecture at 42301 Moraga Road. Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review based on a previous Initial Study and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15162 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) Case Planner: Eric Jones, (951) 506-5115 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: June 4, 2014 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. /Project Site ° ` __ 73 C 125 250 500 Feet The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.